Global Weirding: Is Crazy Weather Something New?

December 18, 2016

Katharine Hayhoe is everyone’s favorite climate expert. Here new series “Global Weirding is good messaging.

I have some recent videos of my own that deal with issues of extreme weather.

10 Responses to “Global Weirding: Is Crazy Weather Something New?”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    Article in today’s WashPost about a new report from the American Meteorological Society linking climate change to extreme weather. It’s nice to see Amber and other meteorologists starting to wake up, but here in the DC area we almost NEVER hear climate change mentioned when extreme weather events are being reported. We get endless loops of sensational pics of cars floating down the main street of Ellicott City MD and the morons going “OMIGOD”, but the connection is not being made between the increasing frequency of crazy weather and climate change.

    The one weather guy said it—something like “It’s not politically popular to connect crazy weather with climate change”—-that’s 100% true in the Washington DC area, and until the meteorologists get some balls, the public will remain ignorant—-it’s the local weatherman (or hot blonde weather chick) that people hear from every day, not James (who?) Hansen and Michael (who?) Mann.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      Imagine a large boat out at sea where there is natural variability in the magnitude of the waves. The boat tosses and dips up and down in high waves or rests calmly in calm waters, but was designed to withstand that variability based on it’s rated passenger capacity. So far so good.
      Now we start adding passengers one at a time without too much effect, but the rate of added people is beginning to cause the boat to become more unstable during the roughest of seas, but still it isn’t critical, but some are beginning to notice the difference.
      The more that the boat is loaded up the more worried the ones who are paying attention start to worry that they have gone too far, and suggest that the boat might capsize during the worse wave conditions, but the people making money off more and more passengers being added say that yeah, there may be a point where it becomes dangerous, but that last person added can’t explain why a recent swell breached the deck level and swept a couple people into the ocean. That was just a freak occurrence because waves have always been know to vary.
      Now you don’t have to be a genius to see that continuing to load up that vessel will eventually cause a disaster for everyone on board, but if most everyone on board benefits to some degree (profit sharing for example) by future new passengers, then it is in their short term interest to ignore and deny the problem. And the people who look at the impending logical result of exceeding the limit of safety, are to be labeled as ‘alarmists’, because they are calling for an end to this path to a certain tipping point of doom.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Excellent analogy. The problem is that it’s just that, a story that makes a great point but WILL NOT convince very many that action needs to be taken until the “boat” starts to list badly and dumps a significant number of the passengers over the side.

        The ones in the water will be screaming for help, any “alarmists” on board will be pouting and saying “we told you so”, and the deniers and profiteers will be pushing overboard everyone they can so that they can be the “last man standing” and wring the last $$$ of profit out of the “voyage to nowhere”. Only the ones in the water will really accept that overloading the boat was a problem, and the ones still on board will say “TS, I’m just glad I’m still on board”. BAU!

        The “certain tipping point of doom” is approaching—-that’s what tipping points do, and we are making a bad bet if we think we can wait until it happens, have everyone magically fall in line, and then work together to “fix” it. There might have been a small chance if HRC had won, but Trump’s election is going to set us back decades.

        • skeptictmac57 Says:

          Yep, that pretty well sums it up. I grow more cynical about this each day, despite my inner self wanting to fight the good fight. They are beating the fight out of me with their indifference to humanity, and there are good (but apathetic) people everywhere that have not woken up to this yet, but will have the shock of their lives coming.
          All I can say (poutingly) is “I tried to warn and educate you”. At some point, it is on them that they did not listen or take us seriously.
          Oh, and I’ll also remind them again now, that elections have consequences, and Trump voters (GOP in general) have set the course of history down a calamitous path. Own it!

          • Are we not looking at a boat seemingly being ‘more unstable’ during the roughest of seas chiefly as a result of overly paranoid people unfamiliar with how boats are designed to handle such seas, who themselves look for any excuse available to push an unrelated topic, namely forced population reduction?

            Meanwhile, is it also not plausible that your despair is based on unsupportable discrimination over how people like me and passionate speakers like Patrick Moore and E. Calvin Beisner supposedly are “indifferent to humanity?” I submit that environmentalists’ own indifference to humanity is illustrated by their zeal to push worthless solar-powered dinky little stoves on impoverished 3rd-world populations instead of advocating for affordable CO2-emitting electric power, along with their push for more expensive ‘alternative source’ electrical power which by its very nature is a regressive cost to the poorest populations. And is it not indifference to humanity when the whole AGW issue is pushed under the false guise of ‘settled science’ that’s only opposed by ‘bribed crooks’, and further exemplified by people who use rage-filled hateful narratives to shoo away critics rather than try to invite the critics to change their minds as a result of sincere fact-filled debate?

            My own care for humanity is on display when I come into hostile territory here and say (again, confidently, and without the need for profanity or pointless name-calling) “I tried to warn and educate you on the necessity for you all to consider an exit strategy so that future generations won’t view you as a well-intentioned but misdirected population who missed massive opportunities to do actual good for humanity because you were hoodwinked by a few influential environmentalists profiting from the donations you freely gave them.” Elections do have consequences, and one of those in this case may very well be the shock of discovering how you all were led to believe without question in a collective set of unsupportable talking points that steered you in the wrong direction as the result of a core clique of influential people preying upon your own pre-held set of discriminatory beliefs. The ultimate shock, therefore, will be the total collapse of the ideology of man-caused global warming, smitten by reason, facts, and critical objective-rather-than-emotional thinking.

            Enjoyable year-end holiday wishes to you all (covering all bases there), and you can indeed have a Happy New Year after all, if you’d just look in the mirror and ask yourselves why you chose despair derived from anti-science talking points instead of good news from non-political pro-science assessments based on real-world observations. You are under no obligation to own the wasteful course of history you were sent on by Al Gore and proponents of the IPCC.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            In addition to not being equipped to deal with the science of climate change and AGW, Russell’s deficient and delusional thought processes are apparently unable to deal with analogies and metaphors either. Did he REALLY think we were talking about “forced population reduction” here? Did he not understand that it was the footprint of the passengers rather than their numbers that was creating the problem?

            The rest of his rant is so disturbed and disturbing that it’s not even worth responding to, other than to say it appears to be rather “canned”—-taken from the latest edition of the denier whore’s manual, perhaps? Same old, same old.

            (Note also that he is still turning the world upside down and backwards with BS like saying that those who believe in climate change rely on “anti-science talking points instead of good news from non-political pro-science assessments based on real-world observations”. Lying propaganda like that is IMO enough to ban him from Crock—-it’s one thing to try to gull the uneducated by twisting the truth, it’s something else to outright lie so blatantly and disrespectfully.

          • redskylite Says:

            “worthless solar-powered dinky little stoves on impoverished 3rd-world populations instead of advocating for affordable CO2-emitting electric power, along with their push for more expensive ‘alternative source’ electrical power which by its very nature is a regressive cost to the poorest populations.”

            What arrogant bigoted nonsense spouted by R.C. Of course people no longer want to be a slaves to OPEC/Non-Opec plots on oil prices, milked by the ultimate cash cow. People have been hoping, talking about alternatives for years, starting at least in the 60’s if not earlier, believing that oil companies were suppressing alternative patents.

            Now the lid is off, all alternatives are on the table and being worked on. Face it. Fossils are on the decline. That bugs you doesn’t it.

  2. redskylite Says:

    Great bright & short informative videos on global weirding, and as our lifespans are quite short we do need to be bombarded and reminded with such information frequently. Alas watching the news with images of crumbling buildings and floating cars swept away in unusual floods and torrents is not impact enough. Trouble is all is soon forgotten in the normalcy of watching the Kardashians. Great points in the blog-sphere (by D-O-G and Skep57) and true that T.V meteorologists rarely if ever make any kind of link. (Not my Job).

    As per the attached reminder from Real Climate.. Meteorologists and Climatologists are our friends, only when the disciplines clash with unethical business practice and political ideology do the unscrupulous manipulators try to convince us otherwise. How dumb do they think we are?

    The purpose of the meteorology and climatology was to protect lives and properties.

  3. I am a fairly firm believer in AGW. But one area where I am in strong agreement with most skeptics is I am concerned about HOW we will solve the crisis once it really ramps up.

    My concern is the wrong voices will turn to “radical” solutions that include forced birth control, abortion, democide & etc. Things that most of us consider unthinkable and immoral.

    I think a moral way forward can be found to combat the issue of AGW. There is no reason to impose regressive technologies on people or to ban the reasonable, responsible development and management of natural resources.

    There must be a way forward that is win-win.

    Unfortunately, I worry that the more time we debate whether or not the planet is warming, and whether or not humans are responsible, the more time we remain divided and the less time we will have to insist on a moral path forward.

    I do not see much point in saving the planet while the people for whom it was created die because evil concocts the “solution.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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

%d bloggers like this: