New moderation required

As much as I despise the need to moderate, it seems some individuals do not understand the meaning of being “banned” from a blog.  Now, as a result of this individual’s behaviour, stricter moderation will be in effect.  I apologize to all of you who have followed the rules and may now have to wait for your comments to appear.  I will try to get your comments up as soon as possible.  If your comment seems stuck in moderation, email me and let me know.

Thank you.

New blog

There is a new blog for kids, “Climate4Kids” at http://climate4kids.blogspot.com.  It’s just getting started and we could use contributions if people are interested in writing on climate and the weather for children.  The blog is an upbeat look at the world, designed to help kids feel good about their world.  All contributions will be reviewed before acceptance.  If you want to contribute, or have questions, you can email me theaccidentalconservationist@vcn.com.  If you have suggestions for improving or adding to the page, we welcome those, too.  (All comments are moderated on the blog, so you may want to post here where I’m less into moderating comments.)

An interesting question came up–with the legalization of marijuana in two states, what will the effect on electricity usage be?  A couple of years back, this was in the Times http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/marijuana-growing-gobbles-electricity-study-finds/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.   Did anyone consider this before legalizing it?  Where were the protests from those who want energy conservation?  There are arguments that growing marijuana in national forests is bad for the environment.  Perhaps there should have been an environmental impact study?  We have do those for everything else.

Exploit the dead–the ends justify the means

It had to happen. All crisis and human life lost must be blamed on humans causing climate change. And here it is: Mother Jones
One Reason It May Be Harder to Find Flight 370: We Messed Up the Currents.
It’s not enough that humans are soooo powerful they messed up the atmosphere, but they messed up the oceans too. Let’s see–tgdaily had this:
A new study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet’s climate.
Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/91136-report-deep-ocean-current-may-slow-due-to-climate-change#sheKk39GBik3pe54.99
MAY be slowing. Not is, not will, not we are sure about this. Not anything but MAY BE.

Actually, ocean current exerts a great deal of influence on climate itself. I checked out aip.org on ocean and it’s part in global warming, but ran across the statement “What was much more certain was that the oceans were rapidly warming and growing more acidic” at which point I stopped. My new rule is if the writer is so scientifically illiterate that they do not know that a ph of 8.1 is BASIC and not acid, I will have to check everything they write due to their obvious lack of scientific knowledge. Does it matter they have a PhD in physics? Actually, how do you get a PhD when you’re too scientifically illiterate to know the difference between an acid and a base? This is just making me think “peer-review” and “degrees” are meaningless. Anyone with any real knowledge of science knows 8.1 is base. A base cannot become more “acidic” if it is not acidic to start with.  It is BASE until it drops below 7.  It is so amazing to me that people who claim to be brilliant can be so very, very lacking in scientific knowledge. In my class, people with PhD’s could not correctly identify the base/alkali nature of the ocean. It’s so incredibly wrong, wrong, wrong.  And it makes me question everything they say because if they don’t understand something this simple, how can they be trusted to understand something as complex as climate?

This constant lack of correct terminology and lying about chemical properties and who knows what else may in part explain why Mother Jones is fully willing to sensationalize a downed plane and use the dead as a banner for claiming climate change is the reason we couldn’t find the plane. It’s the most obnoxious, arrogant, and evil behaviour out there. Global warming is its own worst enemy, damning humans and caring nothing about lives unless they can be exploited.

March on March

WtD has a big deal on the March on March, where 30,000 ill-mannered people (note to literalists:  all 30,000 marchers may or may not be ill-mannered)  gathered to make a spectacle of themselves.  He has also elevated himself to “citizen journalist”, which I believe means “I couldn’t get a real journalist job so I made my own”.  This was my favorite sign:

 

------aaprotest-20140316155617580049-620x414

I wonder if Australian protesters are paid to protest the same way people are in America?

A Hundred Year storm? Not exactly…..

We are inundated by statements about 100 year floods, blizzards, etc. Examples of 100 year events:

March 5, 2014 Christchurch, NZ flood

June 7, 2012 Colorado Springs, Co flood/storm

Dec 16, 2013 Jerusalem blizzard

July 9, 2011 Phoenix, Az dust storm

Where I live, in 2010 and 2011 water ran over a dam’s spillway about 40 miles from where I live. In 2010, the news called it a “once-in-a-lifetime” event. The following year, when it happened again, people were saying “What? I thought it was a once in a lifetime thing.” Those of us who had lived here for many years also realized that in 1983 or 1984, the water went over the spillway then, though not as spectacularly as in 2010 and 2011. So what is the deal with “once in a lifetime” and “100 year storms”?

Calling weather events once in a 100 year events is quite misleading. The proper statement is the probability of a storm (flood, drought, etc) of such magnitude has a 1% chance of occurring. This probability is per event—like rolling a die. Each number has a one in six chance of showing on a roll and the outcome of one roll does not effect the other rolls.

The terminology “100 year storm” gives a false impression of what is going on. For example, floods in the Midwest USA were 500 year floods and the ones in 1993 were 100 year floods in the same area. The floods of 2007 and 2008 each had a probability of .2%. It’s quite common to have these events two years in a row and then none for another decade or more. There are categories for most rain and snow in 8 hours, 12 hours, 24 and 48 hours.

What does it mean when there are several of these unusual floods or rains in set period? It’s time to recalculate the probability of the events occurring—rework the frequency analysis. The numbers are not rules and changes in frequency should not be ascribed any special significance.

There are several factors that influence the severity of floods, droughts and wildfires that are not part of the weather patterns. Where people live, how much irrigation is used for lawns and farms, how much fuel there is for fires all contribute to the severity of a weather event.  

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Democrat pajama party for global warming

The democrats in the US Senate staged an “all-nighter” concerning global warming.  Many asked the usual question:

If 97 out of 100 doctors told you you had a disease, would you believe the 97 doctors or go with the 3%?

That’s not the right question.  This is:

If 97 out of 100 doctors told you you had a disease and the only cure was massive taxation, redistribution of wealth and all of the developing nations signing treaties agreeing you need cured and they would pay into the cure, would you believe the 97 doctors?

Questions

I have been working on the energy balance of the earth and this week the class is on paleoclimate.  At this point, I can’t really write much up–virtually everything so far is what I have already read on my own.  Hopefully, the paleoclimate will be enlightening.  In the meantime, I have questions.  These are sincere, honest questions.  I want to understand.  If any one has an answer that is clear and informative, I would appreciate answers.  (If, on the other hand, the best you have is “It’s obvious”, “You don’t understand science” etc, you will not be allowed to comment and any comments of that nature will be deleted.  Comments that “no one knows” are not going to be helpful either.  That’s where I’m sitting at now–I can’t find the answers.  So show me the math.  Explain the processes.)

1.  When was the earth’s energy “in balance”?  Everything so far says it never was.  So I am guessing that it is statistically so far out now that it is perceived as a problem.  I then run into the problem of using proxies for what appear to be extremely precise temperature measurements when in reality there does not seem to be support for that practice.  In the past, proxies were an approximation of the past, not precise representation.  Yet now, they seem to be “precise”.   Out of balance seems the norm.

2.  Why is “average” the proper statistic for the temperature of the earth?  Average really is not useful over a range of -134 to +134 over millions and millions of square miles.  Why is it used?

3.  How do we know what the “optimal” average global temperature is?  We only know what we have seen and extrapolated from proxies.  If the oceans rose, people would move inland (they would not be refugees–sorry.)  How do we know that the average temperature should not fluctuate or increase or decrease.?  It’s done so all along.  Again, I hear the statistically significant argument, but I don’t see the math presented to support this.

Enough for now.  Some of you may find this annoying, but if you want me to support the global warming position, I need answers.