Failed Weather Predictions? Heh


They don’t call Conservatives ‘Right’ for nothing 🙂


This entry was posted in climate change. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Failed Weather Predictions? Heh

  1. John M. Berger says:

    “the ~35-year global cooling period that occurred from ~1940 to 1975”
    It’s interesting that the period, during WWII and major conflicts thereafter, using-up abnormal amounts of combustibles, saw a “cooling period”; isn’t it.


  2. Kid says:

    That’s beautiful. That link will be making the rounds.


  3. John M. Berger says:

    Here is an interesting article on the subject.


  4. Kid says:

    Great one JMB. I’ll add that to my educational comment posts. lol


  5. Bob says:

    I frequently read posts on Watts Up With That, but I had missed this one. Thanks for the link, Z.

    John: I was looking at CO2 Science yesterday considering posting Facebook link to the same page you used. I didn’t do it because Facebook folks, as a rule, don’t read a whole lot and there is a whole lot of good information on that page.


  6. bocopro says:

    Always amazes me how little attention is directed to the impact of carbon-based lifeform decomp, which releases the organism’s carbon back into the biosphere as CO, CO2, CH4, and other compounds, not to mention major forest fires, volcanoes, and the mid-Atlantic rift.

    Trying to get reliable and supportable data to do my own research proved ultra-frustrating as sources disagree with each other depending upon which side of the issue they agree with. Those intent on proving anthropogenic activity as the major factor pooh-pooh the contributions of fires, bogs, sargassos, and geothermal vents.

    I came up with an SWAG average figure for North American wildfire CO2 injection into the atmosphere at around 1 (that’s one) percent of our annual emissions. Then I added to that my completely unscientific averages for volcanic CO2 emissions, around 1/30th of global total, interpolating world fossil-fuel emissions from my US figures.

    When my dizzy spell passed and a sense of reason returned, I guesstimated that considering CO2 only, human fossil-fuel consumption probably accounts for maybe 5 to 10% of total, tops. MANY other sources, including animals, natural decomp, fires, and volcanoes add MUCH more CO2 than do human fossil-fuel activities.

    The question in all this is how responsive the natural sinks, the soil and the seas, are in absorbing the extra that we DO produce. The planet’s natural carbon cycle is WAY beyond our capacity to control, even accurately monitor. I finally just abandoned the project when it became clear that not only did I not know enough to perform it but that necessary data in doing so would generally be suspicious.

    What I eventually came up with, holding an eclair in one hand and a cup of dangerous coffee in the other (and I had several sources which agreed with me but which I’ve long since deleted), is that if ALL human use of carbon fuels stopped immediately, the impact on average temperatures 50 years from now would be less than .2 degrees celsius. That’s POINT 2.

    My final conclusion is that there’s this big, hot, shiny thing that appears in the sky every day that determines the weather AND the climate, and there’s not a damned thing we can do about it unless we find a way to block or redirect that energy source.

    The planet is still alive geophysically, and unless you’ve ridden a train from coast to coast or flown in a DC-3 across the Pacific, you very likely have absolutely NO concept of how enormous it is and how presumptuous we are to think we can tame it or train it with our puny dams and engines and plows and carbon offset taxes.

    Incidentally, where greenhouse gases are concerned, the most powerful one by far is water vapor. Put all the known gases into a pie chart and CO2 won’t even show up.

    I’m not a denier because I agree that climate change does exist. It’s ALWAYS existed, and it’s bigger than mankind. It’s just that I don’t believe that throttling the US economy so that India and China can burn coal is in our best interests.


  7. Mal says:

    I remember back in the ’40’s & ’50’s they figured the National Weather Service cost 75 cents per year for every man, woman and child, and that we got our money’s worth in jokes and entertainment!


  8. Bob says:

    bocopro +1


  9. John M. Berger says:



  10. Baysider says:

    Love your tagline!

    So who talks about how chemical “big ag” farming damage soils? Damage that causes them to release tons of carbon and their ability to hold water and feed plants as well. This is why I’ve put mycorrhizal in my garden when I plant. It also has the happy-to-the-alarmists effect of preventing soil from releasing so much carbon. Neither me nor they like it, but for entirely different reasons.

    Great link. So much of what my father in law used to call chin music.


  11. Kid says:

    bocopro. That’s my understanding and my belief.
    I don’t believe climate science is a real thing. I don’t believe mankind will put a dent in the changing climate of the Earth and even if they could, too many polluters (developing nations) could care less.
    This was all about sucking money out of America to keep socialist countries alive another few years.

    It would be far more economical the Embrace The Change.


  12. Mustang says:

    I read the article linked and added to that the offerings by JMB. Glad I did. Thanks all. Now, if only we had a media that wasn’t stuck on ideology.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s