The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder Or More Extreme.

We will see how your grandchildren are effected by either AGW or no AGW. Personally, I will err on the side of AGW being a real issue.

You can put your faith in this guy if you wish.

Icarus

 

If you are worried then relax ,warming can easily be corrected by bioengineering .
If there is an ice age looming (as any idiot can predict by looking at the ice core records)then we are truly f#cked.

 

Mojo on Corbyn "Today he doesnt have any peers capable of reviewing him."

What an enviable position that would be! It suggests an excellent money-making opportunity for him, and Mojo as well. Icarus has pointed out that crop insurance is nothing new, but WeatherBill uses conventional climate modeling to set the policy rates. If those were the same everywhere, they would have no new product to sell, right? So here's the deal:

1. Corbyn identifies times and places where lunar/solar things will ruin crop production. You pay him to share that info.
2. Ask WeatherBill for policy quotes and buy the cheapest. I see no indication that WB asks one to prove that they are growing crops there and then, but it would be worthwhile to confirm that.
3. After the Cobyn-predicted event occurs, collect your cash from WB.
4. Do it again.

I apologize for not sending this message privately to mojo. Having not done so puts him under a bit of pressure to act promptly. No one here at PriusChat deserves as much as he does to profit from Corbyn's revolution. But ya gotta get on it, see? PC is open to web crawlers. My only excuse is that from my first WB post it should have been entirely obvious to anyone who reads subtly, and is not blinded by climate-change religion (as practiced by any side).

Imagine it: cashing major checks from (lefty) google-financed WB, and disproving at the same time concensus-based climate models. It has got to be a dream come true.

And yet, I won't do it. If anyone here adheres to the Corbyn system and yet chooses not to invest, I'd be awfully iterested to kow your reasons why not.

 

I predicted the the last 2 market crashes.
I called the exact bottom of the market and recommended a stock that went up 1000% in one year.
A lithium producer.
I predidicted that GhW Bush was controlling the oil market prior to his election,bought oil futures at $13 and sold at $20 a few weeks later.
Did the same thing 4 years later with the same result.
Ive rarely been wrong.

 

We have a winner!

Er, a past winner. Please by all means let us know your earnings after investing in Corbyn.

Make no mistake, I want you rich! Your foundation in the future may help many people inconvenienced by climate change, American policy, or what have you. I want your foundation to succeed.

 

AFAIK a ball player won't get paid if he doesn't follow the rules. In the business of grants you need to apply for them and show your research. I'm guessing he feels like he is making more money selling predictions than he would earn from the grants.

There is plenty of peer reviewed research on solar flares influence on both climate and weather.

For climate change even 10 years is short term. For weather 1 week is long term. Most of the peer reviewed studies on solar flares and weather make clear that the findings don't really have anything to do with AGW, and don't affect that data one way or the other.

Ok now I curious. How do you bio engineer a correction to GW? It is happening whether you believe in it or not. Even the doubters seem to point to a warming trend since the last ice age.

The futures market would be a better place to bet. WB is going to have a high risk premium to make money. Many of cobyn's predictions may include things that WB is doing. But if you look at the futures market it seems like a sound strategy. I'm curious if Mojo makes money on it.

 

Once again, another truly idiotic statement. Where/what/when/who have you ever seen large scale projects that didn't have unintended consequences? You think that humans are smart enough to outwit mother nature?

Jeeze, the schemes that I have seen are crazy, things like cloud seeding with SO2 to increase reflection on a massive scale. Who has the right internationally to actually do something on this scale? What are the potential liabilities and who is willing to cover those liabilities?

The notion that we can continue to shit in our nest, and some magic technology will come along to save us from our own mess is ridiculous!

So go ahead with your head in the sand, preparing to profit from this potential disaster. I thought you were smarter than than!

 

Come on Ick, think outside of the box. You engineer a human that can withstand withstand wild changes in the environment. That way we can crap in the sandbox and still play.

 

Sorry Mr. Parker,

There is no "outside the box". The earth is all we have. If we mess it up more than it's capacity to clean itself, there is no real alternative. Bottom line is, either you accept the notion that humans have an undue impact on the planet or you don't. If you accept that notion, then by extension you have to accept your part in that impact. All other solutions are only selfishly short sighted. If you don't care about the future and future generations, well so be it, but disavowing our own culpability only perpetuates the problem(s).

Icarus

 

Actually the point I was trying to make is that there is nothing that can be done to prevent an ice age.
Someone posted recently how 15 nukes would end global warming.
Or seeding the atmosphere.
An Ice Age will cause massive crop failures.
Fuel will be a scarcity when everyone thats not in the tropics ,will need heat.

 

OK,I was being glib about bioengineering.
I dont believe there will actually be any AGW catastrophe which will need to be corrected.

 

That uber man is us. We can withstand wild changes in climate. Unfortuanetly many have grown soft and live in their insulated boxes, and move only in their enclosed vehicles, eating large quantities and producing a great deal of waste (fraud and abuse too if you include the government).

Simply the act of feeding this large amount ofhpeople seems to have caused some major environmental disasters. If you look at the dust bowl we can directly blame farming practices, and now research has shown the drought was actual lengthened by the blowing dust.

Cutting CO2 to kyoto levels seems like whistling in the wind to me. If CO2 is going to cause more disasters, its going to cause them at thbose levels too. The good news is the next set of sun spots should be smaller and period longer. Both things are correlated with lower solar radiation, so perhaps we cool off here in NA a few years before the heat goes up again.

 

Very sorry to our learned posters here. I just don't see how we can confidently presume that solar forcing will go low (icey) in the next few years, decades or centuries. If'n you've noticed the latest stuff on solar function has said that we just don't understand it. I won't bet on that horse.

Meanwhile we know very well that a lot more CO2 will adversely effect earth energy balance. I say adversely because climate since the Younger-Dryas has been (a) the time when all ag/industrial civilizations have come and (b) atmos CO2, temperature and all the other things we like have been kinda calm since. If you presume that no large CO2 increase could possibly hurt the good stuff we have here now, please do it on some other planet and not here. Please don't tie almost 7 billions humans to your bets.

Whence comes your authority to do so, anyway? Lindzen/Spencer/Monckton? You want to bet the world on what they say? Pretty ballsy.

Here if I may is another path to consider. PRETEND that lots more CO2 could cause us to pay ridiculous amounts of money to correct problems therefrom. PRETEND that lots of readily transportable fossil fuels come from countries that the US doesn't really love, and (perhaps obviously) can't now control. PRETEND that in 50-ish years, much of the world's energy demand will come from other-than-fossil-fuel sources, and that somebody somewhere will become filthy stinking rich from developing that technology.

Having pretended all those things (and thank you very much for doing so), who do YOU want to become FS rich? China/Euro/Russia, or just maybe the USA? It might happen by investment in energy research eh? CH is investing in that and the US seems to be looking to save money in the short term. Other countries are not knocking our socks off in terms of renewable E investments. Or am I wrong?

I'd like the US to win this 'war'. Even if large increases in CO2 turn out to be magically benign, there are still a lot of people who would like to buy cheap&good energy and stop cooking over dung. What else might the US export to hold its position as country #1? Weapons? Movies? Fashiony clothes? Oh please, times three...

All of these concerns came from Lay and Enron? Gosh I really missed that memo. But please, don't send me the memo. Instad tell me why the path of the 20th century fossil fuel oligarchs is ONLY PATH we should be allowed to consider for the 21st century.

 

Just to clarify what I was saying on flares, there is a climate aspect. Reid showed that there was strong correlation between average number of sun spots in a half cycle (around 11 years, then it reverses polarity) and SST. This used over 100 years of data. We have only recently as of the late 1970s been measuring solar radiation. NOAA has predicted a low number of flares in this cycle and a long cycle, so this along with our satellite data should provide a good way to test the theory that sun spots are a good proxy for solar radiation. The theory is not long term, only for half cycles, so should not be able to give predictions for decades. So the theory does not predict higher or lower solar radiation in the long as it pertains to climate term. If the theory holds we may get a better handle on the contribution of one of the natural causes of global warming.

A more interesting topic having to do with weather prediction has to do with flares and the effect of radiation on the upper atmosphere. These correlations are more recent and the interactions are much or complicated with radiation intensifying or reducing in intensity certain weather patterns. These patterns can change weather far from the source as this link shows.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/effects.htm

 

tochatihu,

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. Yours is an argument I have tried to make a thousand times, often on deaf ears! It seems that people have developed a certain mind set,(due in no small measure to other PR) that alternatives are at once too expensive and not viable, despite all evidence to the contrary!

Keep up the good work.

Icarus

 

With all the exchange of info, I hope people refer to authoritative sources for information on energy and environment, you know, the EIA, EPA, etc... and equivalents from other countries. These are extremely large and complicated subjects and I sure as heck don't plan to base all my knowledge on public opinion.

 

Naomi Klein: Addicted to risk | Video on TED.com

A well stated case by Naomi Klein

 

Funny that she uses a banker as an example of hubris.
Goldman Sachs,Morgan Stanley and Enron are behind the push for a CO2 Cap and Trade system.

 

Just because Enron, Goldman, Morgan etc are/were behind "cap and trade" does not mean the underlying issue is false! (AGW!) Even a broken watch is right twice a day!

Get off your dogma and open your eyes man. Just because certain "business interests" figured out how to profit from AGW and it solutions does not mean the problem is non existent!

Icarus

 

Arent you the one who keeps saying "follow the money" referring to oil companies?