also known as man made climate influence I can believe in. Problem is there is no way to tax it or use it for monetary redistribution so the political AGW crowd will ignore it. Here are a couple of articles fpr discussion oor just ignore them as you see fit http://earthsky.org/earth/cities-affect-temperatures-1000-miles-away and http://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...stream-uk-met-office-calls-emergency-meeting/
Sandy was just a run-of-the-mill Category 1 hurricane that happened to hit a densely populated area. Is this yet another call for more taxes and regulations on the American people?
can't tax or redistribute wealth because of UHI is which is why you will never see Uncle Al preaching about it. Only cure for UHI is to go back to a rural lifestyle, no cars no industry etc. In other words adapt or die
Still with the crank conspiracy theories. They're all you've got. Meanwhile, we directly measure the outward IR flux squeezing down in the CO2 bands. We measure the total heat imbalance of the earth. We measure the local heat flux differences, the changes in backradiation. By multiple methods, we now directly see greenhouse-gas-caused global warming in action, none of it having anything to do with any model. That would be why there are only a few political cultists left who still try to deny it's happening -- it requires a certain level of cult devotion to ignore all the evidence. Mainstream AGW science is non-political and distributed among all ideologies around the world, while denialism is now mostly restricted to the far-right-fringe in the USA. Denialism itself isn't the cult, it's one of the mandated cult beliefs of the far-right-fringe political cult.
yawn...and another post which is just a rant which does nothing to add to the discussion or even addresses the topic....boring
And then we use ll the information to make up a model which can't predict temperature. May I suggest "we" use what we know to make a good model which actually works, and stop preparing for consequences spit out of bad ones? Or is that just too pragmatic of an attitude?
May I suggest you start getting info from somewhere besides Watts, McIntyre and Spencer? You won't be able to address the topic pragmatically until you understand what misinformation you've been fed. Garbage in, garbage out, and you're only getting garbage in.
while on the subject of garbage may I suggest you actually add something to the conversation for a change other than ad homs and attacking the source.
