If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jon

[Oxrock]

If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?

 

 

And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?

 

Email 4195

 

Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.

…

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

 

Maybe he needs a backup plan:

 

 

MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong

 

In any case,

if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong

. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin.

I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.

Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

 

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

 

Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]

 

Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these

 

 

There back-up position appears to be blaming earthquakes and tsunamis on AGW.

 

Oh, and remember that the "increase in tropical cyclone activity" is also because of AGW, except:

 

 

U.S. Hurricanes: worse than we thought…100 years ago

 

 

With the 2011 hurricane season drawing to a close in about a month, and with hurricane season this year being mostly uneventful in terms of landfall, I find this very interesting.

 

This historical reanalysis by NOAA shows U.S. hurricane landfalls were much more frequent in the past. For example, did you know that the busiest U.S. hurricane season ever was in 1886? Bill McKibben, Joe Romm and other “severe weather is climate” posers won’t like this because it blows the whole “CO2 is causing more hurricanes” argument right out of the water.

 

NOAA Revisits Historic Hurricanes

 

 

 

 

Happy End Of Hurricane Season 2011!

[Koko78]

I still want to know why most of the continental US and Europe wasn't underwater 4 or 5 hundred years ago when the average global temperature was several degrees higher than it is now, and why suddenly now going back to those temperatures is going to cause global weather catastrophes and eliminate the polar ice caps.

[Oxrock]

Well, it's official. With the closing of this hurricane season we have experienced the longest known period of no major hurricane making landfall in the United States. In fact, the record will continue right through the winter and spring to next hurricane season making this new record nearly impossible to beat at more than 2,500 days plus.

 

Longest Period On Record Without A Major Hurricane In The US

 

 

On December 4, 2011 it will have been 2,232 days since Hurricane Wilmamade landfall along the Gulf coast as a category 3 storm back in 2005. That number of days will break the existing record of days between major US hurricane landfalls, which previously was between 8 Sept 1900 (the great Galveston Hurricane) and 19 Oct 1906. Since there won't be any intense hurricanes before next summer, the record will be shattered, with the days between intense hurricane landfalls likely to exceed 2,500 days.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

Edited December 1, 2011 by Oxrock

[OCinBuffalo]

Where oh where is Frenkle?

 

FRENKLE! Front and center!

 

Care to explain why we are all a-holes, don't care about the environment and are all terrible people...for refusing to believe in man-made global warming just because these tools say so?

 

=======================================================================

 

Look at the FOIA Grepper email:

 

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so. Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done.

Who the F are these guys, f'ing amateur chefs? in junior high chemistry?

"yeah! let's throw some sulfates into it and see what that does! It won't matter if we do it over the ocean!"

 

We CANNOT make long term, global, trillion $ public policy and economic decisions based on nothing more than these guys f'ing about in the after school science club.

 

I am not a bad person for demanding that we get some engineers involved in this process, immediately. The scientists clearly aren't up to the task on their own. Looks like the problems here are the same problems with the Obama Administration: no adult supervision. At least if we get some engineers involved, we have a chance, however faint, of eventually getting a straight answer on this issue.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done.

Translation-I smell a grant to continue my worthless research on.

[Chef Jim]

Well, it's official. With the closing of this hurricane season we have experienced the longest known period of no major hurricane making landfall in the United States. In fact, the record will continue right through the winter and spring to next hurricane season making this new record nearly impossible to beat at more than 2,500 days plus.

 

Longest Period On Record Without A Major Hurricane In The US

 

 

 

 

So hurricane Irene was not considered a major hurricane?

[KD in CA]

So hurricane Irene was not considered a major hurricane?

 

 

IIRC, Irene was not a hurricane by the time it reached New York, which I believe was the first place it made landfall.

[DC Tom]

So hurricane Irene was not considered a major hurricane?

 

Technically a "major hurricane" is Category 3 and better. I think Irene was Category 2 when it made landfall.

 

Yeah, it's a nit-picky point. It's also the exact nit-picky point the studies use to determine how severe hurricane seasons are.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

IIRC, Irene was not a hurricane by the time it reached New York, which I believe was the first place it made landfall.

 

 

Incorrect. It made landfall in NC, VA, MD, DE, NJ and PA as a hurricane I believe.

[Chef Jim]

Technically a "major hurricane" is Category 3 and better. I think Irene was Category 2 when it made landfall.

 

Yeah, it's a nit-picky point. It's also the exact nit-picky point the studies use to determine how severe hurricane seasons are.

 

Well tell that to the people in Vermont.

 

And because it was not a major hurricane when it made landfall it shouldn't be ignored. Even with that though I do believe the past years since Katrina have be relatively light with regard to hurricans.

[erynthered]

Well tell that to the people in Vermont.

 

And because it was not a major hurricane when it made landfall it shouldn't be ignored. Even with that though I do believe the past years since Katrina have be relatively light with regard to hurricans.

 

 

19 named storms this year, with I believe the only one doing the major damage was the one that shot up the east coast.

 

Missed me again ( knocks on wood)

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Weren't all the coastal cities supposed to be underwater or under attack by refugee polar bears or something?

[Oxrock]

So hurricane Irene was not considered a major hurricane?

 

Nope. It made landfall as a Category 1.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Oxrock

[erynthered]

Nope.

 

 

Maybe not, but still one of the most costly in US history.

You tell the people that it effected that it wasnt a bad one.

Edited December 1, 2011 by erynthered

[KD in CA]

Weren't all the coastal cities supposed to be underwater or under attack by refugee polar bears or something?

 

 

Just look at the effect of all that melting ice in Nome.

[OCinBuffalo]

Weren't all the coastal cities supposed to be underwater or under attack by refugee polar bears or something?

This is what's so GD frustrating about these people.

 

If they would stop with the character assassination, and the lame, blatantly obvious infusion of leftists political constructs into what they demand we take seriously, we might be able to make heads or tails of this issue.

 

The problem is: we can't tell where the politics stops and the actual science starts. We also can't tell if they are simply bucking for more research $$$ or have actually defined a problem.

 

That's why I want engineers. Now. Engineers would start with how to fix the warming. The problem solving process of how to fix the problem, would in and of itself, define whether the problem actually exists.

 

The problem is: we have skipped the engineering phase of this, and gone from pure science directly to retail sales...and of course a, now failed, commodity trading market.

[DC Tom]

Well tell that to the people in Vermont.

 

And because it was not a major hurricane when it made landfall it shouldn't be ignored.

 

If you're talking about objectively tracking over time the number of major hurricanes to hit the continental US to measure the effects of global warming, it absolutely should be ignored.

[Chef Jim]

If you're talking about objectively tracking over time the number of major hurricanes to hit the continental US to measure the effects of global warming, it absolutely should be ignored.

 

Well there is that