Climate Change report - another potential call to action

[Eclipse]

Here ya go, multiple datasets, 17 years and counting of  (essentially) no warming

That's the point.

A 17 year data set of steady is too short doesn't negate 100 years of increase.

[JeffDG]

Here ya go, multiple datasets, 17 years and counting of  (essentially) no warming

That's the point.

A 17 year data set of steady is too short doesn't negate 100 years of increase.

OK, how many years do you want?

A while ago, the Warmists said "You'll never have more than 15 years without warming."  Then 15 years came and went, and they just ignored it.

The "actual" temperatures are now below the 95% error bars on over 95% of model predictions, yet politicians are called to act on those model's predictions, regardless of the fact that they don't match reality.

[RRLE]

From the National Geographic News Feb 28, 2007 Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.

[Eclipse]

OK, how many years do you want?

Well, in terms of the conversations, the datasets need to be close, if not equal.  As USAFAUX2004 indicates
too short a term is anecdotal at best, but could also be legitimate exceptions.

[JeffDG]

OK, how many years do you want?

Well, in terms of the conversations, the datasets need to be close, if not equal.  As USAFAUX2004 indicates
too short a term is anecdotal at best, but could also be legitimate exceptions.

OK, so for the majority of our best data-set, the satelite measurements, there has been no detectable warming.

There has also been extensive examination of the USHCN dataset, given that many of the measurement stations were poorly cited, such as at the exhaust of A/C units, or having parking lots built around them with nice black asphalt.

And actual temperatures are below 95 of 97 model predictions, 90 of them beyond the 95% confidence predictions of those models.  The models have been, if not invalidated, at least placed into considerable doubt, yet, the Warmists ask that we spend literally trillions because of their suspect predictions.

[Eclipse]

A while ago, the Warmists said "You'll never have more than 15 years without warming.

From the National Geographic News Feb 28, 2007 Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.

Again, mostly irrelvent as it looks to cause and/or mitigation, and when you start using terms like "warmists" you're
showing more inclination towards the political conversation on blame then the relevent-to-CAP conversation on response.

CAP is not, in any way, involved in cause-discovery, nor the mitigation of the supposed climate change.
Our only role, and it could be an important / major one, is in ground-level (so to speak) wrench-turning
of the response to immediate needs regarding the safety of people and property.

I would even accept, for the most part, arguments that say the issues we are experiencing today
are anomalies, not the planet-changing Armageddon some suppose.

But even in that context, there are plenty of facts to support the increased need for response resources,
as well as the vector of more people in harm's way in the immediate future.

There are more people then ever before in the United States.

Those people are dependent on the infrastructure that has grown up around them,
to the point of significant hardship during even short-term disruption, and that same infrastructure
is both aging and fragile, which means it takes less "bad" to affect more people, and it can escalate
quickly if not contained immediately.

There is more urban sprawl and suburbanization in and around major cities then ever before,
build-ups and over flood plains, and nearer to waterways then ever before, which then calls
into play the infrastructure issues.

These populations are dependent on the stability of the area they exist in - even minor, short-term
shifts in climate, or relatively "minor" disasters can cause hardship out of proportion to
the actual disaster because of "where" people are now.

Due to a number of factors, not the least of which the economy, the government is shrinking,
and taking resources with it, and the general public has less personal resources to call on
in times of emergency then ever before.  Local municipalities and county EMAs are running
at staffing and resources levels below those seen for decades, and in some cases below
even minimums to execute their mandates.

None of these above is going to change in a positive way any time soon, nor likely ever,
certainly not the population and suburbanization issues, and if the climate remains 100%
static for the next century, the population and infrastructure issues will continue to increase.

Now, let's look at CAP's response and involvement in the last decade - we have been
involved in more and larger-scale activities nearly every year since the mid-2001s,
and that's not including some increased role in HLS since 911.

Without exception, >ALL< of those major engagements Katrina, Challenger, Fossett,
Sandy, plus the myriad smaller-scale DR efforts, have been performed on a last-minute, shoe-string,
with participants run into the ground doing multiple jobs and somehow never learning anything
from the last "big one".

None of the above is disputable.  And there's plenty of fact-based information to flesh
out the points I've made above.

It doesn't matter >why< things are getting weird, the "why" isn't CAP's problem.

There is no downside to CAP with an increase in training,  preparation, and especially recruiting
using this report, or at least the generalized issues, as a call to action.

In fact, it's actually a mandate of our mission and charter.

In regards to DR, we are >always< a military auxiliary, and >always< an instrumentality of the federal
government through 1AF.  The current Presidential administration has indicated that
the negative effects of climate change are upon us, and that action is needed immediately,
so whether we agree with the conclusion or not, the mandate is before us regardless.

And considering the program's indisputable shrinkage over the last decade,
we need to start working on our capabilities just to maintain the illusion of status quo,
let alone any increase in the need for our services.

In the aftermath of 911, we saw a significant increase in membership on a wave of patriotism.
Wasted and gone - to the tune of 5-7000 hard-number members, or nearly 10% attrition.

Again after Katrina, national calls to service with front-page evidence of the need for response resources.
Wasted and gone.

Challenger?  Check.

Sandy?  Heard much lately?

When circumstance presents opportunity, you can either make things happen, or make excuses.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Jeff-

Your model is not comparable to Eclipse's.

You had only 2000-2014??

Eclipse's model had far, far more. If we look at Eclipse's, his data for the years you include, shows the same info.

Run your model again starting the same year that Eclipse did.

As of now, you are trying to get us to compare apples and bananas.

[Eclipse]

Heh -



Not that >I'd< ever do such a thing...

[WarEagle01]

"Another denier.

I have not heard or read any article stating that "seals are dying because their holes are freezing." If you have first knowledge of any scientist traveling in a limo etc. post it. Meanwhile the evidence keeps piling up. More calamities, higher tides, and smaller glaciers and ice tops. Remember? CAP takes photos of the ground. So do other agencies."

My suggestion is if you're going to argue politics then do it civilly. The use of the "denier" term comes from a series of articles by the AGW advocacy community starting around 2007 which argued that skepticism of human-caused climate change was akin to Holocaust denial. That's ridiculous, of course. It trivializes a horrific event and is intended to stifle debate.

Personally, I believe that humans have caused some of the increased warming since the National Weather Service began collecting temperature data in the late 19th century. I think that's obvious and even the most ardent skeptics would almost have to concur if they understood the physics. However, how significant could it be when the overall temperature increase up until around 1997 was only around a third of a degree Fahrenheit? Of course, since 1997 there's been no statistically significant warming, contra about 95% of the climate models. Also, for those throwing out all the "facts" about climate change: even the UN's International Panel on Climate Change admits in its latest report that there is a low probability of a relationship between significant weather events, including hurricanes and droughts and human activity (And BTW, for the commenter who mentioned "increased tides" and "melting glaciers," those things are just not happening. Nor are polar bears drowning because of melting ice flows. Just zero evidence of those things). In fact, last year we had a record low number of hurricanes. In short, I think this White House document is chock full of holes and is simply meant to shore-up the current administration's political agenda. I think people on both sides of the debate understand that, so I don't think it will have any impact on real-world policy or funding where CAP is concerned.

[Pulsar]

  my prediction of the future...

200 years from now the town I live in will no longer exist. It will be a federal owned district (somewhat similar to state game lands). There will only be trees and grass, as we are trying to preserve our earth. Alongside reaching mars, we will become even more alarmed at the pollution and afraid of oncoming global warming. Businesses will be destroyed to prevent the excess CO^2 emissions. But thankfully, on mars, we will find a life changing chemical that increases the freezing point of salt water to a high temperature. We will collect the chemical and dump tons into the waters of our poles. The glaciers will be restored and the ice sheet will be bigger than it has been in 500 years. However, accidentally, the US will put too much in...Making the sea level drop drastically. No more Virginia Beach vacations...the sea will be so low it is a cliff...

[Eclipse]

But thankfully, on mars, we will find a life changing chemical that increases the freezing point of salt water to a high temperature.

Hopefully Quaid can get the machine started...

[LSThiker]

I should have clicked on this a long time ago.  A science debate and I missed it.  Either way, FoxNews has finally stated climate change is true:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/21/daily-shows-jon-stewart-highlights-fox-news-climate-change-alarm/