Early winter weather puts U.S. safe-haven corn planting in doubt

Stew in your juices.

 

and I haven't insulted you those are just my observations...what I know of you from past conversations does not compute with you're claiming...you don't strike me as a dumb but yet you appear to be selectively blank when it's convenient

I've presented this to you on another occasion regarding your doubting of climate change and the effects of warming on the jet stream and here you are once again raising those same questions...apparently you never looked into the effects of warming on the jet stream or deliberately ignored what you learned

so yes I need to assume you're either
-an ideologue and nothing presented will make a difference because your opposition is politically motivated and not based in science/logic
-a trollwho just seeks an argument just for the sake of arguing
-or you don't have all the educational credentials you claim...how can someone has claimed to have completed climate study not understand the effect of the jet stream on weather? I spent my time in Uni majoring in anthropology/archeology and even I can comprehend the effects of warming on the jet stream on winter storms and summer droughts

 

Yes, I understand that there are direct correlations between the jet stream and solar energy input variations. Like I said, basic principle of convection.
It therefore stands to reason, that as the energy WITHIN the atmosphere increases it directly correlates to changes in atmospheric currents.

This results in changes in the precipitation cycles and regional temperature fluctuations, ergo more frequent and intense storms to name some of the effects. Rising sea levels ain't no joke either.

 

i don't even vote...the entire political process is corrupt and 99% of politicians who take part in it are self serving liars and pension chasers

edit: maybe I'm being harsh, 90% of politicians are lying pension chasers!

 

in the past he's revealed he doesn't know the difference between weather and climate, and that from someone who claims to have studied climate

 

And these arse hats want to make rules over climate. Why do you side with them?

 

You are discussing me, a fellow poster and you are flat lying about me. Do it again and suffer being reported.

You know what, you have yet to explain the difference in weather and climate. To any of us.

 

My god, you are merely trying to sound smart.

Become familiar with the Coriolis effect. Become familiar with the way hurricanes can't cross the equator, not ever. Become familiar with the prevailing wind patterns on the globe. Become familiar with the flow of winds north of the equator to the north polar region and from the equator south to the south polar regions. Some of you treat weather and climate as a local phenomena.

 

if not them who??? what system do we have in place to steer environmental policy? tell us your plan to get personal and corporate entities to change their behaviour? beg? ask them nicely?

policy must be driven by scientific fact not political ideology or personal opinion of the unqualified...
climate change is no longer in doubt, ideologues and flat earth crowd need to accept that move out of the way, we live in a science driven world now.

 

i haven't told any lies, I've merely offered an opinion based on observation

yeah I have defined weather and climate you didn't see it or chose to ignore it...you the one who claimed to have studied climate that should be a piece of cake for you to explain...

 

You identified your personal problems. You studied anthropology and archaeology and should have studied climate science. You make claims about me that are completely untrue.

Let me give you a short lesson on jet streams. They range from 20,000 ft to 50,000 feet and disrupt the air streaming from our West to our East. Just the unpredictability of those events should tell you how complex climate actually is. These nutty predictions of doom are not needed.

Climate scientists who studied this for decades would tell you that.

 

You have flat lied about me. I have cautioned you other times to knock it off.

You have the lousy habit of showing up where you should speak to topics but you choose to talk about other posters.

 

First I do not live my life to run other people's lives. I am a republican partly for that reason. Why the hell would I need to appoint others to rule corporations? My plan to get them to change is desire. If enough desire, corporations supply. I for instance hate the tiny vehicles we today call the automobile. I do not want to drive those shoe sized cars. I would love you to join me and get corporations to return to the cars sizes of 1975.

I understand more about your field than you understand about climate.

Do you truly believe Dr. Richard Lindzen, a global specialist in global climate would tell us to knock off these scare tactics if he thought earth was in dire danger? We have prominent scientists telling us, nay lecturing us, stop acting like scared babies. This climate has always changed.

Hell, I have many times given you examples of climate changes. I believe climate changes. I have no doubt at all climate changes. What do you think the climate in this continent was like when dinosaurs roamed the area of Montana? Do you have clue one that where states below montana are there was a huge area of the Pacific Ocean? Do you believe the oceans affect climate? Do you even understand that the Sahara desert once was not as it is that it was more tropical and had animals such as Crocodiles there?

Why don't you know about the Arctic region being tropical at one point?

Why don't you know that at Antarctica the extremely heavy snowfalls have added ice there? That does what? It ends up shoving glaciers into West Antarctica so we see huge chunks of ice break off and become icebergs. That then are excuses for what ? Global warming? But why did the ice flow to the sea? More snow and ice is why.

 

You defined it? You said that in post 35. Name the post where you defined it?

Factually in past posts I have defined both.

 

and you ask that same million how much more are they willing to pay for their energy needs that would be required to reduce that pollution

 

Alright, so you're the type of poster who, when he has nothing to say, will just answer something that doesn't make sense and will make himself believe: "I'm so clever! I had the last word."

Try again : Climate change and global warming aren't the same thing. Maybe after 5 tries you'll be able to answer something that makes sense.

 

Selection bias. You Don't believe in climate change, therefore instead of looking at what all science has to say, you look at what scientists who think the same as you have to say (the minority) and ignore the rest (the majority). The way of gathering your information isn't scientific, Else you would know that Lindzen has been debunked many times. Here's a link… but you Don't care about that. Am I right? You'll just ignore all the answers in the link. It's only about selection bias with you. Am I right?

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

 

I believe they already have.

 

I am well acquainted with the basics, thank you.

And some of you conflate the physics of our planet rotating around its axis while revolving around our sun with the science of flow dynamics as applied to our atmosphere. It naturally places certain physical constraints on those dynamics, but it doesn't approximate the effects of increased energy input into the atmosphere itself.

This above is inarguable fact.

The argument is to what extent is human civilization effecting the rate of that change. That's it. nobody is arguing even then deniers that climate hasn't changed in the past and there is no reason to believe it won't in the future. We have the records.

 

There is no discernible manmade fingerprint in sea level rise. It has risen and fallen to varying degrees throughout the Holocene and was once higher than now during the Holocene optimum.

The predictions of doom are most often based on the extremely unlikely RCP8.5 model scenario.

 

Stop to examine this planet. What do you see?

I will tell you what I see. i see a huge Pacific Ocean but that is merely a name. I see other oceans too. I see a planet that has uneven distributions of both oceans and land. I see how each has an impact on both weather plus longer range, the climate. Can I explain all of this. We have accredited scientists who do this for a living that still do not understand it all. For Democrats to yell at me and tell me they understand it, when scientists still do not, baffles me. And they come posting angry too. Why get angry? Why be so damned assertive. Science is not assertive. Science wants to promote understanding, not be an excuse to vent rage at other posters.

While you examine human impact, why not examine ocean impact. What do you know of mountain air waves? What do you know of the phenomena of tornadoes and why they tend to hit only parts of the USA. Why doesn't San Francisco ever suffer hurricanes? Ever heard of a hurricane in Alaska or Canada? What physical attributes causes that? When has the last hurricane hit Germany? Anyway, prior to blaming man, look at what nature provides to us all.

Then on oceans, why are some temperate? Why is the Pacific a cold ocean yet by Hawaii It is warm there? See any chance that impacts on climate?

 

What blows my mind is that in none of my scientific courses was man made climate change mentioned. Democrats promise us, and they are correct, the impact of Carbon Dioxide was known prior to 1900. I went to school that included science courses until around 1958. Later my college turned to business and taxes and real estate and more. But none of those courses unto the mid 1970s spoke to man caused climate change.

Were they all stupid?

Were all of my science teachers lazy or stupid? Why in none of my courses did this come up? Didn't they want the students educated? This is a new phenomena. I trace it to Al Gore the politician. Democrats jumped on his bandwagon almost instantly. They took what he said at face value. But did Al Gore walk the walk or just talk the talk? Gore continues to use energy to blow the socks off of the adherents to his teaching. The man defrauded his people. His energy consumption would plummet were he honest. But he increased using energy. And not just any energy, he was blowing through making carbon dioxide like he manufactured more of it. He did not back off from using systems producing enormous amounts of Carbon Dioxide. But he became the GOD of climate to Democrats. Figure that one out.

 

Arrhenius who is often quoted also claimed rising CO2 would be beneficial and he was not wrong. We have been in a CO2 deficit during this 2.5 million year old ice age. Plants die around 150 ppm.

 

Other than you've juxtaposed one word for the other in the national debate

 

That is pure bullshit. I do believe in climate change. How damned often must I declare it for you to get it. I have wore out some keys on my keyboard saying I not only believe climate changes, I have offered many many examples where it changed.

You want to claim Dr. Lindzen, the top of all Climate scientists on this planet has been debunked? Not by scientists. Sure politicians love to pick on the man. But this man is ranked number 1 on Earth about global climate.

Tell me this then. I started in high school in 1952 with formal science courses. We had to take General Science in my freshman year since I was in College prep courses. Why did my teacher, Don Oakes, later to become the school principal, just ignore climate change? Then in my Physics course there, Mr. Nelson taught us and that man must be stupid, he too ignored climate change.

Carbon dioxide is not some recent discovery. It was well known in the 1800s. Why the hell in college Chemistry did my teacher forget to explain how that trace gas modifies climate? The man might have been incompetent per you Democrats. My college physics teacher also must have been incompetent.

When you go to high school and college and none of the teachers teach this, somebody is very incompetent.

Another view is they were not told. And the news never mentioned it. Fact is, nobody much thought of a beneficial trace gas as harmful.