h/t TriplePundit – FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, has issued draft guidance which demands that states include an assessment of climate risk in their 5 year disaster plan, or risk losing federal funding.
According to the FEMA draft guidance;
“Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for:
…assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;
supporting states in fulfilling mitigation commitments, including FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants management performance, throughout the five-year plan approval period. FEMA seeks opportunities to build and maintain mitigation capabilities and advance hazard mitigation proactively during plan implementation, and not solely at plan update and review;
clarifying that “formally adopted by the state” means plan adoption by the highest elected official to reflect the importance of plan implementation as a means to demonstrate risk reduction as a statewide priority;
and
coordinating and integrating the mitigation planning process with the whole community, including agencies and stakeholders with mitigation capabilities that are responsible for economic development; land use and development; housing; infrastructure; natural and cultural resource management; and health and human services. Engaging agencies and stakeholders with data and authority early in the planning process facilitates both successful plan development and implementation.”
The section on hazard assessment contains the following injunction;
“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”
There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;
“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for certain FEMA assistance until such time as FEMA determines that the plan meets the requirements and restores plan approval status.”
With the threat of a lethal global Ebola pandemic looming, and an elevated risk of a repeat this year of last year’s brutal winter, if Great Lakes temperatures are any guide http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/ , it’s a comfort to know that Federal agencies have prioritised states devoting time and resources, to determining what they will do if the world warms a little.
Thanks to Eric Worrall for this story.
On the face of it, this seems to me to be little more than blackmail.
Werner, this is fun!
More evidence of declining global temperatures:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
Danny,
In one of your many previous comments you wrote: “… I’ve seen results with my own eyes of changing climate,…”
So as to better understand you, would you describe specifically what changes in the climate you have seen?
Hi Eyes,
Happy to oblige. I’ve been to Alaska and seen the receding glaciers as documented by the National Parks service at Mendenhall and Exit Glaciers, and too many to name in Glacier Bay.
I’ve seen areas in the north central parts of the country (Ohio, Kentucky, Southern Wisconsin, Michigan) where the growing seasons have lengthened. I’m not saying that this is a negative, but it is a change. Some of the farmers are loving it. I’ve seen areas in central Texas that the locals are relating that they’ve not seen the kind of drought that they’re currently experiencing and some have had property in their families for over 100 years. I’ve seen areas in Colorado with similar conditions. One large ex ranch, now wildlife refuge has history dating back longer than Colorado has been a state. I’ve seen extended periods of time in the same areas of Colorado with changes in snowfall. Montana has warmer cool temperatures for a fairly reasonable time to conclude that the growing season is changing there.
I repeat myself (as I feel I must as I’m always being put on the defensive) that these indications do not alarm me (yet) but until I achieve a level of knowledge and education that satisfies me I might become alarmed or might become comfortable. Please understand that I will not be pinned down at this point.
How long were you farming in the north central parts of the country (Ohio, Kentucky, Southern Wisconsin, Michigan) where the growing seasons have lengthened?
Man, I’m bad at communication. I’ve traveled in these areas, but have family that’s farmed in Ky for some 190 years. Now, of course, I don’t have data back that far, but my cousin owns the farm my uncle farmed going back to the 1920’s and my evidence comes from him in anecdotal form. He grows hay and for the past (I have to go back and ask him but from my recollection) about 20 years he’s gained a third cut that he’s shared as being unusual. The second cut is thin, but provides additional supply and therefore income. And that makes him happy.
I didn’t mean to imply that I personally farmed these areas, and apologize if that’s the impression I left. I thought I said “I’d seen”.
Danny Thomas: Good answers. Now let’s get to the meat.
When have glaciers started melting and when will they stop?
Which glaciers are advancing?
But the real question is, “What evidence is there that CO2 is responsible?”
Mario,
Where did I say CO2 was responsible?
I’ll go no further with you if you’re just being a substitute for Db in assuming that’s what I’m thinking. I’ve stated before, and will again that I do not find evidence that CO2 is leading to global warming/climate change.
Answer this question or I’m done.
Danny Thomas October 22, 2014 at 10:15 pm
Mario,
Where did I say CO2 was responsible?
I’ll go no further with you if you’re just being a substitute for Db in assuming that’s what I’m thinking. I’ve stated before, and will again that I do not find evidence that CO2 is leading to global warming/climate change.
Answer this question or I’m done.
+++++++++
I think I was very specific in what I said I think you think… and I provided a quote of yours, and then explained what I thought. It was about your statement ” I have zero problem with the FEMA request”.
There is implication. So, until I’m satisfied I’ll go no further.
I’ve answered you, so answer me. Where did I say CO2 was responsible? Do you think I think CO2 is responsible?
Mario,
Actually, we’re going to go further. Before I will proceed with you. I insist that you verify that in fact I have said that I’m not in fear of CO2, the increase in CO2, or the rate of increase in the increase of CO2 and that you believe me. Plus, you must acknowledge that DB has made baseless assumptions about me and my motives and you reject those assumptions regarding CO2.
Without this, we’re done!
Danny,
You wrote: “… I’ve seen extended periods of time in the same areas of Colorado with changes in snowfall…” How long were you living in these areas of Colorado and what were the changes in the snowfall that you saw?
Eyes,
I’m gonna ask the same of you that I did of Mario. I will proceed no further in answering your questions until Db, assumptions are that he’s placed on me are rejected regarding CO2.
I will proceed no further, until this is accomplished.
Thanks,
What has that got to do with the dialog that I am trying to have with you. Like yourself, I’m just trying to understand and you have said that in your great travels you have seen climate change.
Eyes,
It goes to my premise of being ganged up on and bullied. I’m plenty entertained by giving others the impression that I’m “sensitive” just makes ’em keep it up.
But it’s time for that request. Unless those with whom I’m “conversing” indicate they are willing to work with me, I can chose not to work with them. I’ve answered several of your questions. Is in not okay for me to ask mine?
I insist that you verify that in fact I have said that I’m not in fear of CO2, the increase in CO2, or the rate of increase in the increase of CO2 and that you believe me.
This will indicate if you’re reading what I’m writing or making assumptions.
It’s clear that Db is the “big boi” on this campus and if you’re bullied and kowtowed as are the others then we might as well just play the silly game that Db started and not bother with more as no one is/will believe me anyway. So there it is.
What the heck are you talking about?
eyesonu: I was thinking that too. I wrote up some questions and reasons we need to answer them so we can have an opinion. Because right now, money and treasure is being spent at huge cost because of the false belief that climate is worse with increased CO2. In fact, there is ONLY evidence to the contrary. That’s pretty amazing, I think.
Mario,
Correctomundo!
There is only evidence that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Danny Thomas is describing the climate Null Hypothesis, even though he doesn’t realize it. As we know, the Null Hypothesis states that current climate parameters are well within historical bounds. Prior parameters like temperatures, humidity, extreme weather events, etc., have all exceeded current parameters.
This means that the current climate is normal. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. It has all happened before, and to a greater degree — and during times when human CO2 emissions were non-existent.
So we know that the climate always changes; always has, always will. No surprise there, even though some folks seem surprised at the constant, natural variability.
But the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means human CO2 is a non-event. It has not caused any measurable climate changes.
As for glaciers, there are more than 160,000 on earth, and at any one time there are many thousands advancing, and many thousands retreating. But the alarmist crowd cherry-picks retreating glaciers, as if that is anything like the big picture. It isn’t, and none of the other cherry-picked examples are, either. They are nothing but confirmation bias.
Wake me when anyone posts any evidence that CO2 is harmful. Every alarmist claim regarding CO2 is wrong, and backward. All of them are wrong. Further, changes in CO2 always follow changes in global temperature. Thus, CO2 cannot be the cause of anything, because effect cannot precede cause.
The climate scare has run its course. It was a complete false alarm. If anyone wants a testable hypothesis to try and falsify, here is one such:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Falsify that, if anyone thinks they can.
Stop being a friggin jerk.
I said the same thing as you!
This:”Danny Thomas is describing the climate Null Hypothesis, even though he doesn’t realize it. As we know, the Null Hypothesis states that current climate parameters are well within historical bounds. Prior parameters like temperatures, humidity, extreme weather events, etc., have all exceeded current parameters.”
I just didn’t use the term Null Hypothesis.
You are so thick. My CAGW buddy is bad, but you are far, far worse. At least he’s credible, but you lie. You cannot admit you made a mistake.
Danny Thomas October 22, 2014 at 10:24 pm
Mario,
Actually, we’re going to go further. Before I will proceed with you. I insist that you verify that in fact I have said that I’m not in fear of CO2, the increase in CO2, or the rate of increase in the increase of CO2 and that you believe me. Plus, you must acknowledge that DB has made baseless assumptions about me and my motives and you reject those assumptions regarding CO2.
Without this, we’re done!
++++
Danny:
You have said more than once that you are not in fear of CO2. You have said you want to learn more here.
For me, I learn nothing when I am right, so I challenge people. Sometimes I find I am way off base, and then I take pause, and actually learn something, though it’s sometimes a painful way to learn.
I will not get in the middle of other people’s conversations with you. Personally, I like dbstealey’s comments on WUWT and have learned from him.
Anyway – I do not understand your last sentence, “Without this we’re done!” Are you upset with me?
Anyway – If you answer some of my questions, it will help me help you. I’ll offer some insight for you.
Mario
Danny me boi,
When you keep referring to “My CAGW buddy,” you sound just like the guy saying to a doctor at a cocktail party, “Hey doc, what are the symptoms of syphilis? I’m… uh… asking for my buddy. Yeah, that’s it. I’m asking for my [imaginary] pal.”
I have to laugh at your impotent taunts. I’m “a friggin jerk”, eh? You are amusing to the grownups here. As a newbie, you could learn a lot here from folks who have been immersed in this subject for the past twenty years [and in my case, for a 30-year metrology career before that].
Instead, you bluster. You are far from being up to speed — even farther than your imaginary pal.
If I made a mistake, it certainly won’t be my first. But I admit it when I make a mistake, and this was no mistake. So far, you cannot admit anything. You cannot admit that you are trolling with your vague opinions and your fake concerns. You never take a stand, where you don’t have an easy way out [“I never said that CO2 isn’t harmless.” &etc.] What do you say? Take a stand for a change.
What do you stand for, anyway? The position of most commentators here is that CO2 is harmless, and that the ‘carbon’ scare is trumped-up nonsense; a complete, falsified, proven false alarm, and not one more dime should be wasted on pointless “climate studies”. After 30+ years, it is past time to say, “Enough!!” The self-serving climate rent-seekers need to get their money-grubbing fingers out of the public’s pockets. But you defend their waste, fraud and abuse. Why?
So, what say you? If you agree, then why even comment? But if you don’t agree — then take a stand. Otherwise you come across as a limp wristed troll, arguing about… what, exactly? You never really say. You never take a stand.
If nothing else you are amusing, with your impotent bluster and your thin-skinned, juvenile whining. Grow a pair! Man up. Take a stand.
Or, continue on the way you are. But be prepared to do a lot more whining, because until you take a clear position, you will just get more of the same. Hey, you can always ask your imaginary friend what he thinks.
With that incredible mind reading capability that you have, you haven’t yet figured out who my “invisible” friend is?
I’m glad I’m entertaining your parents. You really oughta stand up and let them access the keyboard.
I’m more than happy to change the tone. If you’re really such an adult (as you imply, but don’t show evidence) then I look forward to seeing it.
I’ve given you “my stand”. If you’re not satisfied, I’m okay with that.
Question to you. Show me evidence of waste, fraud and abuse. Not your speculation, but evidence.
Get yer ear plugs buddy, ’cause the whining will continue. I give what I get. So, depending on what I get back, I’ll respond in kind!
You remember back in school that kid who stomped his feet trying to force others to do as he says and that one guy finally stood up to him? Remember? I will not be bullied. If you think that’s thinned skinned, oh, well.
Okay Danny and Db this is getting to be juvenile on both sides stop it or be snipped
Mr. Watts,
Thank you for stepping in.
Db. Please consider this as my open hand welcoming a hand shake. I look forward to continuation on an appropriate level.
Danny
Anyone else reminded of long ago school days? When a classmate would ceaselessly chatter about him or her self? Prof could barely get intro started and this person would begin with how “I” have so much to learn, “I’m” so naive, “me, me, me”. Soon it shifted to, “I” have an opinion, and any challenge meets with “MY opinion (after professing ignorance, mind you) just as valid as yours” and “I” won’t be bullied. Most had a bit of sense and would knock it off, but the rare bird would drive people to an exasperated “shut up and let us learn”, which somehow confirmed bullying and might lead to a meeting with some Dean. You felt relief when this person would give an ultimatum like, if you won’t answer this then the conversation is over (right after insisting “I” won’t be told what to do). Only to find the ultimatum to be more meaningless blather, on and on about “me” (maybe Lewinsky can tell us if such types are prone to invent an invisible “buddy”). Won’t keep quiet to listen and learn, only long enough to pick out a remark to respond to, so as to avoid the real question. As Danny has now framed it, the issue is FEMA’s “reasonable” request (reasonable TO HIM, just in case we lose sight of what this is about), which ignores this-FEMA has been collecting data and forcing states to pay for plans for many years, what is new about this one? He’ll profess ignorance of that, too.
[Snip. ~ mod.]
There is insistence that answer questions, but others won’t. They only dictate.
The lock step sound of the black boots is becoming deafening.
My invisible buddy. Parrot much?
Show me proof or even evidence about Fema and I’ll look at it. But this is more “blather” I believe is the term.
Lock step, parrot, lock step parrot.
That pounding of boots sound you hear is FEMA, coming for you and any state that denies CO2 causes climate change. No cause for concern, though, they will be reasonable in requesting that you stop whining while they walk all over you (N. Sinatra). And your last breath will demand we produce proof about FEMA.
Sputter, cough, hack! So were’s even one real life example, hack, cough, about FEMA? Only, gasp, wheeze, hear rhetoric.
Paul Courtney, Hello.
We are not related but it seems we have a common name.
This is going to make searching for replies even harder.
Still, pleased to meet you.
Thought this may be prudent for this thread. Here are the lyrics http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_atlanta_rhythm_section/imaginary_lover.html
Hopefully this is a quick link
eyesonu
October 22, 2014 at 10:43 pm
Danny,
You wrote: “… I’ve seen extended periods of time in the same areas of Colorado with changes in snowfall…” How long were you living in these areas of Colorado and what were the changes in the snowfall that you saw?
===================
Your responses to this most sincere comment were irrational from my point of view. But please let me ask again. I, like you, am only trying to understand and you have experienced first hand observations. please expand.
Not sure this will post as I’ve sent a fairly long comment but it’s showing as being in moderation. I had links in it, so not sure if that’s why. I reposted same minus the links but that’s also in moderation.
Guess I’m on a “list”. Once/if it goes thru I look forward to further.
Reposting. Hope it doesn’t come thru 3 times, but the original is in moderation.
Eye,
[Snip. ~mod.]
As a gesture of goodwill, I’ll respond to your question about Colorado.
First, I responded poorly when I said I’ve seen climate change as obviously I meant to say I’ve learned of weather related changes due to climate change. Hope that’s more appropriate.
I’ve spent the past two summer’s at Baca National Wildlife refuge. This used to be the Luis Maria Baca Ranch. The USGS has done aerial surveys that show that historically there were 9 watersheds that fed into the ranch, surrounding area, and what is now the Great Sand Dunes. I’ve not been able to find the images on the USGS site but as you’ve done this much longer than I maybe you can assist.
As I understand it, effectively only 7 of those water sheds now reach the ranch. And the water flows do not reach as deeply in to the ranch as they did in around the 1940’s. The ranch is approx. 92,500 acres, and was established before Colorado was a state.
Anecdotally, I’ve met a 92 year old man who’s father used to be a cowboy there. The son was too. They shared how the bordering peaks used to retain snow, but now less snow falls and doesn’t stay around as long. This was supported orally by another cowboy who worked there in the 70’s.
There are comparative maps in the refuge office from USGS (the ones I’ve not been able to find yet) that are documentative. If memory serves the maps there were from the 1940’s and then 2006.
The refuges uses creek water to flood fields as has been done for decades. They flood commonly 8-12,000 acres depending on water availability. The ranch did the flooding to generate hay. A side benefit was/is the creation of amazing habitats for birds (the purpose of the refuge). There are two associated refuges in the San Luis Valley (Alamosa NWR and Monte Vista NWR) that deal with the reduction in water also.
As part of the planning process for refuges across the country, they do CCP’s (Comprehensive Conservation Planning . Baca’s is in the evaluation process at this time and public commentary is accepted.
Part of the planning process includes planning for CC. I wonder if the results of the FEMA request might not be a great comparison. This is one reason I’m okay with the request from FEMA.
[Duplicates removed. .mod]
So let me sum this up. You have not seen climate change. You heard it from a cowboy who heard it from another cowboy who heard it from another cowboy?
Your climate change observations ( your words) come from some other various sources (uncles, cousins, some farmers in Texas, various cowboys, etc.).
Color me skeptic. Your observations (“… I’ve seen results with my own eyes of changing climate,…” as you stated in an earlier comment) may be imaginary.
I corrected my wording to say weather related to CC (with a statement full of hope that this was more appropriate) and referred to USGS. I’m trying to get that source, but no luck so far. I shared that I also had anecdotal evidence from the mouths of locals with collectively some 90+ years in the San Luis Valley in an attempt to just be I gave a summarization of where I learned what I learned. I’d sensed you were trying to set me up for something ans should have just ignored you. I will going forward. This is unnecessary.
I asked for you to use your experience to assist and you come back with this?
Can this not stop?
[Snip. Please do not paraphrase Anthony. His words speak for themselves.
~ mod.]
Anthony, I cannot see how this is on me. I apologize as the level to which this discourse has fallen is not at all why I sought out your site. My apology is directly to you. If you wish me to leave, I will respect that. Just ask. If I’m not wanted here I will go away.
[Reply: This site does not censor comments. Posts that violate site Policy may be snipped or deleted. The rest remain, for better or for worse — all subject to Anthony’s discretion. ~ mod.]
Can this not stop?
Sure. It takes two to tango. So just stop, and it will stop. Easy peasy. ☺
I have stopped the unnecessary banter. Are you suggesting I stop posting? Only asking for clarity.
No global warming. Cooling, but no warming:
http://www.science20.com/files/images/global.png
.
With the substantial rise in CO2, this is more evidence that anthropogenic CO2 simply does not have the global warming effect that is claimed.
I agree!
To the Mod. I’d like to suggest a topic of where one who is a non scientist is to go to seek out information, education, and guidance. Or, if there already such a topic here, I’ve not found it. Google searches only provide one side or the other, and the experience here is much the same as received elsewhere. The politics of the issue just take over. I guess that’s human nature.
People are people. Human emotions take over. From my perspective this battle was brought to me and I fell in to it. I’ll admit to juvenile behavior and was called on it. Criticism deserved, received and respected.
In hindsight, posters that suggested I should have just read for a while before chiming in appears to have provided good advise. But how is one to learn without being able to ask questions, and challenge what they see differently?
Pollyana thinking? Maybe. But figure it doesn’t hurt to ask.
In support of my thesis:http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Danny,
I have made a determination. You are a fruitcake. You have thread bombed this site and Anthony has been very lenient. That barbed wire fence you claim to be shitting on is causing a pain in your ass.
But rest assured, you will be remembered.
And I notice the fine detail in which you responded to my inquiry, once again!
Signed,
Whatever them green things are in a fruitcake (or is red the required color here?). As I was tying I realized how you could misconstrue a silly joke as some sort of political reference.
I asked if Mr. Watts wanted me to leave and have not received a response.
So, care to answer the question, or back to silly games?
[Reply: No one is asking you to leave. We don’t censor comments here. ~mod.]
Still here? Why are you reading me and not today’s post on John Coleman’s open letter? Why would the host send you away when you can learn from reading the articles? Avoid the comments and you won’t run across bullies like me and my snide remarks that your zillion comments added -0- to the thread. Now go and read, before I insult you another time (try to imagine that with a french accent).
Oui, Oui! Still here.
I’ve gotten so much outta the comments others have made up, uh, provided to assist me so I just can’t make myself leave.
I did read John Coleman’s letter. I’d say it comes from a man with a high level of credential and I respect his opinion. Hope that doesn’t initiate more name calling.
Why is it that, for example when I agreed with Db’s posted chart on Global Temp Anomaly’s in a respectful way and I respond to Eye in a respectful way you guys still have some need to berate me? I’m only trying to honor Anthony’s request and up the level of conversation. Then someone calls me a fruitcake and not one of you jumps on him? I don’t need your defense, but there are still unanswered requests for evidence (not suspicions) for why FEMA is not to be trusted? I just don’t get it!
May I please get a sound answer? Pretty please?
Possibly an error in spelling in the above comment.
Danny: A thought for you to think on. Granted the subtitle to this post is probably a little misleading. But please keep in mind in the past, agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration have used the threat of cutting off funding if states do not do ask they (FHwyA) ask. EPA does not have any funding to give out (per se) but they can make regulations that cost the people being regulated inordinate amounts of money to comply. When FEMA says that the states that don’t comply with their request may face sanctions; that nearly always means funding cuts or delays in funding reaching the states. I think this is why so many of us here think this is extortion/blackmail.
Grey,
Bless you! Thank you for something I can think on. And thank you for at least acknowledging that I read with a reasonably fine eye.
I understand and agree that the approach comes across as heavy handed. I think we all wish things didn’t have to be handled in this fashion, but lacking a legitimate reason for distrust of FEMA’s motives (and it’s not like I haven’t asked). I have no understanding of the reasons for folks here having that distrust. If it’s political, then just say so. If it’s actual, can evidence be provided?
Early on, before the shenanigan’s, I suggested that FEMA saying “please” would presumably not lead to states responding and asked for thoughts/opinion on that. But I’m held in such high regard, that was met with silence.
Earlier today I generated a post with some detail on USDA’s grant program from the USDA site. It laid out the occurrences such as drought (et al), that can lead to financial aid. Texas was reportedly made aware of a problem with radioactivity in the Hickory Aquifer via a white paper. Texas did nothing. It this case, I suggested that fed oversite might be appropriate. This is brought up as evidence that states (at least Texas) do no better and maybe do ever worse than FEMA (or other fed agencies). But I have no evidence on the concerns about FEMA. Just opinion. I don’t see that post, but maybe it’s in Mod.
I’d asked if the agency was important. In other words, had the fed request come from EPA, or any other agency than FEMA would the reaction and reasoning here be different. And, if states did a better job, the fed wouldn’t have to be so difficult. I’d truly appreciate your thoughts. EPA and FEMA came about for a good purpose, and maybe they’re morphed in to something much worse that I imagine. But (what the heck, maybe due to naivete`) I’ve asked for data/evidence but believe the gamesmanship got it the way.
I’d really like to move past the “juvenile” behavior, but there are still those here that want to continue. This is me hitting the “reset” button.
My desire for learning, resources, and suggestions still stands. Thanks for listening.
Danny: As someone pointed out up thread, FEMA is the insurer of last resort. They are to supply funds to help victims of disaster recover, and to manage that aid in the most effective way possible. Part of that is the assumption that whatever state they providing aid for, said state has a plan and procedures in place to either move people out of harms way or if that is not possible, then to provide them means to get back on their feet Or procedures to mitigate hazards which could lead to disasters. Since we really have no idea what future climate will do it seems to me that it is pointless to try to predict what things a changing climate will do.We know how to plan for and deal with most natural disasters and I suspect that any future “disasters” will be similar to what we are already experiencing today.
Well said, Greymouser. Also – your post to me (dbstealey) where you discuss the advancing/retreating glaciers etc… and ask for proof.
I am not engaging with Danny Thomas in terms of where he believes or not in CO2 caused damage. I will take him at his word that he wants to know. I am engaging in Danny’s prime/stated desire to further his understanding of climate science. So I asked Danny some questions, and he sort of wanted me to prove my allegiance to him. I don’t understand how I ended up in the hot seat. But I did ask some questions so I could help him seek answers – rather than just believing smart people’s opinions.
Back to the thread topic. This thread is about one thing. Trying to glean insight into what FEMA is really trying to do here. It is obvious to most that they are implying the climate change really means global warming, but they cannot say that because the globe stopped warming. To be more specific, they are using the presumptive close (as they say in sales) that global warming has caused climate to become more extreme… hence climate change. So, obviously more money will be needed in the Federal coffers to fund what everyone believes (CO2 induced climate disasters). The belief is endorsed based on the disaster plans states were forced to submit in order to get a piece of the pie.
This whole thing is certainly extremely coercive!
Mario,
I wish to apologize to you for my reaction. As I felt (appropriately or not) that folks were coming at me from all sides I overreacted.
May I ask on what you base your perception of Fema (experience, anecdotal, one event, politics, whatever) and would it matter if the request from another agency? Only trying to gain an understanding of why the negative impression of FEMA exists on this thread and your input would be appreciated. Asking because it’s hard to get anyone to say much more than “I don’t like/trust FEMA” vs. FEMA has this track record.
Danny: I understand. Yes – you are being the whipping post. You seem to like it 🙂
No seriously, I think I explained myself. It has nothing to do with FEMA. It has to do what they are asking states to do. I spelled it out here:”
“Back to the thread topic. This thread is about one thing. Trying to glean insight into what FEMA is really trying to do here. It is obvious to most that they are implying the climate change really means global warming, but they cannot say that because the globe stopped warming. To be more specific, they are using the presumptive close (as they say in sales) that global warming has caused climate to become more extreme… hence climate change. So, obviously more money will be needed in the Federal coffers to fund what everyone believes (CO2 induced climate disasters). The belief is endorsed based on the disaster plans states were forced to submit in order to get a piece of the pie. This whole thing is certainly extremely coercive!”
I want to have answers to the questions I asked so I can see where you need more information.
I often speak in front of college students and college professors about automated remote welding of spent nuclear fuel canisters using and motion and machine control. Anyway – I get a good response from the liberals and conservative minded people in the audience. I ask questions and help them seek truth. I say several times, “Don’t go around saying you believe something because Mario told you it was true.” Go be critical thinkers – seek only what is true – not what is correct or popular. Because it the end, when people obfuscate the truth, what do you get?
Would that be not learning or confusion? LOL. And I guess I do like the banter to a point but it built to a level of distrust hence my reaction. Thanks for your understanding.
I’ll go back to your other questions and respond as best I can with what I have. (Others may not care for me upping my post count 😉
So, if a federal agency declared their intent to be to prepare for global warming, then that would confirm your stand against the request? But if there was some way to confirm the motive (pollyanna, I know) then you might be okay with it? Or is it just something you would oppose no matter as a waste of valuable energy and money that could be (possibly) better used elsewhere?
Believe that I answered what I’m able to of the previous questions so I’m only lacking response to these:
“Danny Thomas: Good answers. Now let’s get to the meat.
When have glaciers started melting and when will they stop?
Which glaciers are advancing?
But the real question is, “What evidence is there that CO2 is responsible?
From my understanding the first question is not a single answer. My understanding of CC is it “shows up” locally (regionally). Glaciers in Alaska started to melt around the early 1800’s (Exit Glacier). When will they stop? I have no answer. The may not, or they may return to extending depending on climate change.
Glacier bay began receding a bit earlier (around 1750) but same answer applies to when (if) they’ll stop.
I also get that you’re leading me to the Little Ice age. And, I understand that climate changes in cycles and has over the ages.
Advancing glaciers are a bit tougher to find, unless we include Antarctica. Much more than that I’ve had little luck finding reputable sources so if you have suggestions I’d be happy to look more in to them.
Here’ the question that bothered me most last evening. What evidence is there that CO2 is responsible? Due to the other folks and their disbelief that I’m not a believer (at this point due to lacking convincing evidence) that CO2 is responsible! And so you’re aware, the reason I’m waffling here is there are so many folks on the other side of this discussion that are “pounding the drums” that CO2 is contributing and due to my lack of scientific background I wonder if I’m just missing something.
I have this concept in my brain that weather is evidentiary of climate. Weather tells the story and based on the weather, climatic zones are defined (in addition to vegetation). And weather and climate are somewhat like a set of gears. What happens here, affects there.
Danny Thomas commented on FEMA edict to U.S. states: ‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding’.
in response to Mario Lento:
Danny: I understand. Yes – you are being the whipping post. You seem to like it 🙂 No seriously, I think I explained myself. It has nothing to do with FEMA. It has to do what they are asking states to do. I spelled it out here:” “Back to the thread topic. This thread is […]
Believe that I answered what I’m able to of the previous questions so I’m only lacking response to these:
“Danny Thomas: Good answers. Now let’s get to the meat.
When have glaciers started melting and when will they stop?
Which glaciers are advancing?
But the real question is, “What evidence is there that CO2 is responsible?
From my understanding the first question is not a single answer. My understanding of CC is it “shows up” locally (regionally). Glaciers in Alaska started to melt around the early 1800’s (Exit Glacier). When will they stop? I have no answer. The may not, or they may return to extending depending on climate change.
Glacier bay began receding a bit earlier (around 1750) but same answer applies to when (if) they’ll stop.
I also get that you’re leading me to the Little Ice age. And, I understand that climate changes in cycles and has over the ages.
Advancing glaciers are a bit tougher to find, unless we include Antarctica. Much more than that I’ve had little luck finding reputable sources so if you have suggestions I’d be happy to look more in to them.
Here’ the question that bothered me most last evening. What evidence is there that CO2 is responsible? Due to the other folks and their disbelief that I’m not a believer (at this point due to lacking convincing evidence) that CO2 is responsible! And so you’re aware, the reason I’m waffling here is there are so many folks on the other side of this discussion that are “pounding the drums” that CO2 is contributing and due to my lack of scientific background I wonder if I’m just missing something.
I have this concept in my brain that weather is evidentiary of climate. Weather tells the story and based on the weather, climatic zones are defined (in addition to vegetation). And weather and climate are somewhat like a set of gears. What happens here, affects there.
+++++++++++
The US used to have glaciers throughout most if the country (for the better part of 90K years). They were over a mile high over Yosemite for example. They started going away about 10K years ago at the beginning of this present interglacial. We are nearing the end of this interglacial period. We could be warm for another 200 or 1500 years – who knows?
In shorter cycles, we had less than 2 decades of warming (less than 1C) and we’re close to 2 decades of a cessation of that warming and cooling seems to have begun (over the last 15 years). You can see any satellite data to verify this. Satellites are not so much subject to the urban heat island effect as land records are.
The only proof that CO2 caused a few decades of warming was in the short correlation which ended with the cessation of warming. Correlation, however, is not causation. The correlation was all they had. The models and claims presumed the temperature increase would continue and accelerate. Well, they stopped correlating and rapidly began diverging as CO2 increased at the worst case scenario and the temperature correlation that lasted less than 2 decades is over. So the models and the correlation are no longer there. They claim the heat is hiding where they cannot measure it – but it must be there they say.
This is not hard to see for yourself. You don’t need anyone to tell you how to see that temperatures have diverged from the models.
This is where I would start. Start looking at the data! You don’t have to be a scientists to do that.
It does not matter what anyone says, you can see for yourself. Don’t believe me, go seek your answers.
I thank you for your, uh, patience. Since I’m not in a formal (IE classroom) setting I didn’t know where to looked but hoped I’d find folks that cared enough to share. And I did find a few here. Sometimes it helps to have enough prodding to get enough information to know what questions to ask. I’m not embarrassed to say I’m a big dummy. But I am willing to learn.
I probably should leave well enough alone, but that’s not my nature. There are a lot of other folks here that could also learn from you.
So you know, you’re messing with my thesis that people don’t care about others. Some of us still do.
DB, Eyes, and RA. There is a message in this for you!
Have a great day Mario. I will continue to learn and ask. Much respect.
To Danny Thomas:
You wrote: “So, if a federal agency declared their intent to be to prepare for global warming, then that would confirm your stand against the request? But if there was some way to confirm the motive (pollyanna, I know) then you might be okay with it? Or is it just something you would oppose no matter as a waste of valuable energy and money that could be (possibly) better used elsewhere?”
++++
Let me put it this way. If the request was based on some evidence, that climate was getting worse, then I would be all for it. The point is, this money is being spent on something that is NOT and has not happened. And – the results of the AGW policies clearly make our live’s collectively less prosperous. Once you seek the truth, it is not difficult to know this is politics. It has nothing to do with who said it. It’s what was said.
With wisdom, we can “read between the lines”
So – next, if you will answer my questions, I can continue. OTHERWISE it’s over between us. (did that sound like you a few emails ago?)
I does, and I deserved that. Please understand the source of my distrust and my misdirected response.
Danny Thomas commented on FEMA edict to U.S. states: ‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding’.
in response to Mario Lento:
“I does, and I deserved that. Please understand the source of my distrust and my misdirected response.”
+++++++
I was just messing with you. I could not resist. But thank you for acknowledgement. It was not a slam 🙂
And no disrespect taken.
Plus I get to up my post count!
Danny Thomas commented on FEMA edict to U.S. states: ‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding’.
in response to Mario Lento:
I thank you for your, uh, patience. Since I’m not in a formal (IE classroom) setting I didn’t know where to looked but hoped I’d find folks that cared enough to share. And I did find a few here. Sometimes it helps to have enough prodding to get enough information to know what questions to ask. I’m not embarrassed to say I’m a big dummy. But I am willing to learn.
I probably should leave well enough alone, but that’s not my nature. There are a lot of other folks here that could also learn from you.
So you know, you’re messing with my thesis that people don’t care about others. Some of us still do.
DB, Eyes, and RA. There is a message in this for you!
Have a great day Mario. I will continue to learn and ask. Much respect.
+++++++++++
Danny:
Notice I do not get in between personal issues. I will stick with baby steps and can proceed from there.
First note that the IPCC started their BS near the early part of the satellite records. So let’s see what the past 35+ years of reliable temperature data show.
Wood for trees has everything, but look at Roy Spencer’s website for the entire UAH Satellite record. He worked for NASA and still provides the UAH Satellite Record for them. He’s a PhD, Climate Scientist and his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
One thing to note. The IPCC had their first report out in 1990. There was some recovery from the 1970’s cooling. So the started complaining about the fraction of a degree C warming AFTER the cooling of the 1970’s.
The satellite record starts in 1979. Notice there is a sudden shift in temperatures starting with the super 1998 El Nino. I can explain that too. Temperatures were flat between 1998 and stayed flat after that.
Got it! Thanks again. I’ve bookmarked this article as I’ve got a lot of work to do. As others will remember me, I will remember you! 🙂
Plus, I know they’ll miss me till the next thread if they’re not afraid to admit it.
Still upping my post count!
Danny Thomas October 23, 2014 at 6:40 pm
Got it! Thanks again. I’ve bookmarked this article as I’ve got a lot of work to do. As others will remember me, I will remember you! 🙂
Plus, I know they’ll miss me till the next thread if they’re not afraid to admit it.
Still upping my post count!
++++++++++
It’s not an article. Just the temperature series. Then ask questions.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I’m meant this Watts article. Saving for prosperity, after all I’m infamous! Seriously, there’s food for thought here.
I also have saved the link you provided.
I must also work on improving my communication skills!
Grey,
Understood. As a point of discussion. Do insurers not provide “inspections of facilities”, “review of contingency plans”, “review of relocation plans” and the like? I’m superimposing those with the FEMA request in my mind.
As stated, the assumption is states have plans in place for emergencies, so is part of the concern kind of like “big brother” looking over states shoulders so this is considered a “states rights” infringement?
If said emergency involves more than one state would fed involvement not be expected and requested?
Now, I get that there are two issues. One, can we plan for changes that arise as a result of CC? Two, does the Fed have a place to be involved?
I’m not meaning to challenge, just conversing. I can see a valid point to consider federal involvement from an overall standpoint as states are pieces of our nation. I can see a valid concern that FEMA is maybe not very well suited for the task. So would there be a different reception to the request had it come from a different agency, or is just no fed involvement is acceptable? Then, is it strictly a “states rights” issue?
I agree that we don’t know exactly where changing climate will lead. Nor, if/when it will stop the trend. But to my knowledge, insurers use trends frequently. So, for example, if we see a trend towards a region overlapping multiple states and those states have a different approach to the management and let’s include a national forest as common then is some sort of centralized (even if not FEMA) federal umbrella that would make sense to be a go between? I also get that Climate change is different than weather change. Am I mistaken in considering consistent and persistent trends in weather to be proxy for CC? Or is there a nugget of understanding forming here?
I’m not sure that I get your point about the “disasters” we’re experiencing today. Drought, forest fires, etc. but we can’t do anything about “events” anyhow other than for example modifying our approach to fire suppression vs. allowing some to burn to reduce further fuel build up. Help me here?
Danny, now that you have provided 29% of all the comments on this thread (352 thus far), are you happy with the idea that you have been the topic of the conversation?
Could you tell us more about the climate change you have seen with your own eyes? Was it all caused by CO2?
Now I wish to ask again as in a previous comment:
You wrote: “… I’ve seen extended periods of time in the same areas of Colorado with changes in snowfall…” How long were you living in these areas of Colorado and what were the changes in the snowfall that you saw?
Here’s my last post to Mario:
“I thank you for your, uh, patience. Since I’m not in a formal (IE classroom) setting I didn’t know where to looked but hoped I’d find folks that cared enough to share. And I did find a few here. Sometimes it helps to have enough prodding to get enough information to know what questions to ask. I’m not embarrassed to say I’m a big dummy. But I am willing to learn.
I probably should leave well enough alone, but that’s not my nature. There are a lot of other folks here that could also learn from you.
So you know, you’re messing with my thesis that people don’t care about others. Some of us still do.
DB, Eyes, and RA. There is a message in this for you!
Have a great day Mario. I will continue to learn and ask. Much respect.”
Eyes, when you read, comprehend and apologize to me we can talk. Till then, go pis_ up a rope!
Have a great day! (Sure hope that gets me to 30%)
eyesonu says:
Could you tell us more about the climate change you have seen with your own eyes? Was it all caused by CO2?
None of it was caused by CO2. ~ Billy Ockham
Anyone is free to try and falsify that. If they can.
Still waiting for that measurement quantifying the putative amount of global warming resulting from human CO2 emissions…
Brilliant use of the razor principle.
Db: Give it a rest. Fer cryin’ out loud!!!!!!!
Danny, I’m looking for the message.
You wrote: “… I’ve seen extended periods of time in the same areas of Colorado with changes in snowfall…”
How long were you living in these areas of Colorado and what were the changes in the snowfall that you saw?
Eyes: He’s already said that he worded that sentence wrong. Give it a rest. will ya. You could probably find out the same thing if you looked at snowfall records. Almost all of that data is publicly available.