It could happen this summer

[RobertEarl]

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

We see how the temperature can change 30 degrees from one day to another; from zero to 30 in the space of 24 hours. What happens if we see the same sort of change this summer?

Could it go from a 70 degree high to 100 degrees in one day's time?

Or maybe from 80 to 110?

Records are falling all across the world, and the science says that with more global warming, extremes are ever more likely.

ETA: I am talking about departures from normal. And in the space of 24 hours. It is quite normal for such swings in the winter. Summer, not.

[zappaman]

1. Like it's never happened before?

How about in 1943, when the temperature climbed 49 degrees on a matter of minutes?

Or a record high and record low in the same day like on 1911?

Or a drop of 44 degrees in one hour in 1919?

http://www.weather.com/sports-recreation/ski/news/5-extreme-temperature-drops-20130118#/1



You really need to catch up....

[FSogol]

2. How fast did the temps drop during the derecho that hit the Shenandoah Valley a few years back?

[zappaman]

3. I think the technical term is "a buttload"...

[AngryAmish]

76. You are so stupid.

It is called an asston.

[zappaman]

80. Shame on me.

[RobertEarl]

6. Temperature drops are common

Caused by clouds rain and cold air waves.

Temperature rises in the heat extremes are not so common, but may very well become usual, given global warming.

[CreekDog]

78. Wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind

No wonder you don't have links or data or evidence.

You're just posting stream of conscious(less)ness from your head and from nowhere else.

[CreekDog]

72. RobertEarl's anti environmental posts about birds in the Northwest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002593659#post2

[RobertEarl]

75. Oh gawd. creek dogs after me!!! OMG!!!

Oh noes!!

[zappaman]

79. Well, I guess E & Es loss is GDs gain!

[CreekDog]

88. less is more

as unscientific as that sounds, it is true.

[uppityperson]

86. bwahahaha! well, it is warmer than usual and it is yrs after Fukushima....

That is wild, thank you.

[FSogol]

92. LOL, Are they melting like the Starfish? Will our thermometers melt too?

[RobertEarl]

93. See my journal

If folks want to read about sea stars dieing in the Pacific, see my journal.

I am so glad to know my message about sea stars has had such a huge impact. Here again we see proof that it is on so many minds as shown by your reply. Thanks, sogol.

[FSogol]

94. Yes, comedy bits remain on our minds longer than pseudoscience bits.

Sorry, but I think you are misjudging the laughing with/ laughing at ratio.

[RobertEarl]

95. Sorry

I don't laugh about the deaths of innocent creatures.

But you just go on and have your fun while ignoring the environment and the poisons. Like most everyone else does.

[CreekDog]

96. there are plenty of scientific predictions about climate change and its effects

why do you spend so much time here making stuff up when there are a ton of well thought out studies, papers and other things to talk about?

why make it up?

are you here to learn or to teach on climate change?

[FSogol]

98. Innocent creatures? You still don't get who I am laughing at?

Oh well, file under: When life gives you lemons....

[RobertEarl]

99. Yeah

The sea stars are innocents. Just like all the other sea life that is dying in the Pacific.

ENEnews.com has a good compilation of mainstream reports detailing the deaths.

Of course if you deny that radiation kills life, then that explains your ill mannered posts, eh?

[FSogol]

113. Ill-mannered is an opinion. Bad science is bad science. n/t

[RobertEarl]

116. You have no science

Just an ill-mannered and unfounded position which is based upon emotions and bad manners.

The sea star science is this:

They are dieing like never before.

Fukushima radiation is found where they live.

Radiation kills living things.

[FSogol]

119. Explain how their wasting disease happened before Fukushima?

Actually don't bother.

[RobertEarl]

123. Gladly

You won't listen tho. I have posted it many times before and you have refused to listen. But here goes again:

The nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific ocean introduced manmade radiation to the Pacific since the 1940's. Then Chernobyl exploded in 1986 releasing radiation around the world and into the Pacific.

But the greatest release ever came from Fukushima and now we are witnessing the greatest die-off ever. 1 + 1 = 2.

[uppityperson]

125. Why are the numbers of people diagnosed with autism increasing?

[FSogol]

132. Starfish. When there were more starfish, there were less man-made autistic people.

I saw it on ENENews!

[FSogol]

131. You are laughably naive and I'm sorry DU is giving you a platform for your silliness.

Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't believe you are still going on about "manmade radiation."

ENE and their devotees should be regulated to the CT forum with the vinegar and chemtrails crowd.

Protip: Look up "volume"

[RobertEarl]

138. Enenews.com

Is a great resource.

The denial of manmade radiation is right up there with denial of AGW.

Simply put, manmade radiation is not natural. Neither is AGW.

[uppityperson]

100. no one is laughing at their deaths but at the logic failures in claiming they were due to

something that happened years later as typically cause happens before effect and the sea stars dying from a virus happened for many years before Fukushima

[RobertEarl]

101. radiation has been there for 50 years

Never as much as now. See, that's science. You can deny it, but there it is. So, your statement is FALSE!!

[uppityperson]

103. yet the virus causing sea star wasting was known before Fukushima. Neat, eh?

See, that's science!

[RobertEarl]

105. never so deadly

until the massive amounts of manmade radiation came over from Fukushima there was never a dieoff like we see now.

and now lots of other creatures are dying. what's your excuse for that?

[uppityperson]

108. You are wrong, , they were. What "lots of other creatures" are you talking about?

Kakapos? Iguanas? Elk?

[RobertEarl]

110. others

sea lions, orcas, mussels, oysters, sea urchins, birds of all kinds are all going into what some biologists are claiming to be near extinction events.

Enewnews.com has links to mainstream media detailing all that.

Fucking sad as hell situation.

[uppityperson]

104. And radiation has been here since the Earth formed That's science!

[RobertEarl]

106. not manmade radiation.

[FBaggins]

112. There is no such thing as "manmade radiation"

Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)

As you've been told many times.

There are radioactive isotopes that primarily result from mankind's activity, but that's irrelevant because the radioactive vs. stable versions of an element are chemically identical. The only difference between "natural" hydrogen and "manmade" radioactive hydrogen (tritium) is that it's radioactive. The ~6 keV Beta particle that it emits... and that Beta particle is no different from other electrons with similar energy levels. When it hits one of your cells... the cell can't tell that it came from a "manmade" source.

Your pseudo-homeopathy nonsense that "manmade radiation" is somehow different is only made more laughably ridiculous by your constant pronouncements that it's "the science" saying so.

Maybe you'll read it if I say it three times:

Once again... an electron with a certain energy level is an electron with a certain energy level. It has exactly the same effect on human tissue regardless of whether the isotope that it originated from was "natural" or "manmade".

Once again... an electron with a certain energy level is an electron with a certain energy level. It has exactly the same effect on human tissue regardless of whether the isotope that it originated from was "natural" or "manmade".

Once again... an electron with a certain energy level is an electron with a certain energy level. It has exactly the same effect on human tissue regardless of whether the isotope that it originated from was "natural" or "manmade".

You can put "the science" in a thousand posts, but it won't change the fact that actual science is laughing at you.

[FSogol]

120. LOL, manmade radiation killed all the herds of Pacific Sea-Elk!

[uppityperson]

114. Thanks for journalling the thread where science says virus and increased water temps cause sea star

die off. It saves me having to search for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014946544
Study links virus to sea star wasting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=946732
small increases in temperature could drive mass mortalities of Pisaster due to wasting disease

[RobertEarl]

115. Not the cause

Reports specifically say the virus is not the cause, only that the virus was a common link.

Radiation science states that doses cause immune system damage, which, in this case could lead to the sea stars being more susceptible to the virus which was found many years ago.

Previous die-offs, while not as severe as today's massive, unprecedented die-off, were never linked to any one cause. Today, the science says that with the unprecedented amount of manmade radiation present in the waters the sea stars live in, their immune systems are being attacked to a degree never before encountered and is killing them.

[uppityperson]

118. Again, thanks for linking to threads with scientific articles rather than saying "do your own resear

research on my claims". I greatly appreciate it. Bookmarked that one now.

[RobertEarl]

121. The last time I OP'd the subject

Hosts shut it down. So you should go complain to the hosts?

Being as folks like you are clueless and seeking more info it is a real travesty that my threads were locked. But then facts do scare the crap out of many and then there are the pro-nuke shills that lie their asses off to protect the deadly purveyors of manmade nuclear radiation upon the natural world. Radiation which is killing sea life all along the Pacific coasts. It is a crime which goes on and on and will for the foreseeable future. Radiation kills.

[uppityperson]

122. Why should I go complain to hosts? I am merely thanking you for linking in your journal to the threa

thread with scientific studies talking about the true reason and timelines of sea star wasting rather than just "I made the claim, you do the research". Thanks so much, I appreciate having that info at hand to be able to repost when needed.

[RobertEarl]

124. Virus is not the true reason

Have you not learned anything?

This is why I tell you to go do your own research, because you have selective reading just like the hosts. They locked my thread with the same lack of learning as you exhibit.

[uppityperson]

126. You tell me to research, I did and find virus and warmer waters are what scientists consider the

reason. Like those ones in the thread from your journal.

You don't want to give me other research, just tell me to do so, then tell me that the scientific studies I find are wrong and I should research?



Hosts lock threads for not meeting the SOP of the forum/group they are posted in.

[RobertEarl]

127. Your claim:

"...find virus and warmer waters are what scientists consider the reason.."

Too bad you have NO link to back up your claim. In fact, that is merely your speculation.

[uppityperson]

128. These 2, which I found from something in your journal. A fast search gives me more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=946732
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=946544

Fast googling gives me these

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/scientists-solve-mystery-of-west-coast-starfish-deaths/

Scientists solve mystery of West Coast starfish plague

After months of research, scientists have identified the pathogen at the heart of the wasting disease that’s been killing starfish by the millions along the Pacific shores of North America, according to research published Monday.
They said it’s a virus that’s different from all other known viruses infecting marine organisms. They’ve dubbed it “sea star associated densovirus.”...

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sea-star-wasting-syndrome-virus-found-20141117-story.html#page=1

Scientists find likely culprit behind mysterious sea star deaths

Now researchers believe they know what’s behind the disease that has decimated sea star populations as far north as southern Alaska and as far south as Baja California. Through a combination of microbiology and old-fashioned detective work, they deduced that the likely culprit is a virus similar to one found in cockroaches and sea urchins....

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/11/new-virus-causes-devastating-sea-star-wasting-disease

New virus causes devastating sea star wasting disease

ByAmanda Garris

Since 2013, millions of sea stars native to the Pacific coast of North America from Baja California to southern Alaska have succumbed to a mysterious wasting disease in which their limbs pull away from their bodies and their organs exude through their skin; a disease researchers say could trigger an unprecedented ecological upheaval under the waves.

Now, a researcher in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has identified the deadly culprit as the Sea Star Associated Densovirus (SSaDV), a type of parvovirus commonly found in invertebrates. In a study published Nov. 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Ian Hewson, associate professor of microbiology and lead author of the study, and colleagues present a genomic analysis of the newly discovered virus prevalent in symptomatic sea stars....

Too bad you have no links to back your claim and nothing beyond "do your own research, well none of THOSE say what I claim so you need to research more to find what I claim".

[RobertEarl]

130. You said reason

All those links say likely.

Now when coupled with the fact that the virus has been around forever but never so deadly as it is since manmade radiation, it is a simple matter of addition.

Virus + manmade radiation in an unprecedented amount = dead.

[CreekDog]

133. Ok, and none of them says your theory is likely or even plausible

by your own standard, you should be the biggest critic of your own statements.

[uppityperson]

134. You continue to make claims without any backing "never so deadly as it is since manmade radiation"

Now you get to reply with....
1. insult
2. tell me to research
3. tell me the research I found isn't what you meant
4. another insult

Rather than showing any proof of what you claim.

Why are the number of people diagnosed with autism so much higher than in the past?

Correlation does not equal causation.

OK, now for your reply, #1-4....

[RobertEarl]

135. Start your own thread on sea stars?

With your speculations and false claims.

[uppityperson]

137. Aw dang, I forgot "deflect". You did pretty good on meeting my predicted #1-4 though

No need for me to start a thread when you have it linked in your journal. You are very nice to do that.

[RobertEarl]

139. You win!!??

Radiation is good for you!! Eat it up!!! Sea stars are not effected by radiation no matter what science says!!! You can live in radiation 24/7 and never have to worry, it won't hurt you!!!

[uppityperson]

140. Yup, #1-4.

never give any link to reputable source, just insult and deflect.

YATB

[RobertEarl]

141. Eat it up!!

There is no such thing as manmade radiation. Its been here forever and it's good for you. In fact they are selling it in health food stores. This idea that nuclear power plants have to spend billion$ to contain the nuclear waste is just a liberal conspiracy meant to make everyone go back to living in caves.

Nuclear waste is good for you and never hurt anything. Damned environmentalist who have made nuclear power spend all that money have ruined our economy and cost jobs.

Nuclear waste is good for you. Learned that right here on DU. Wow. You'se guys are so smart.

[uppityperson]

142. Wow, you sure do swing wildly from 1 extreme to the other, don't you?

And still no link to prove what you claim. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

[RobertEarl]

143. Just following your lead

You have shown me the truth. Heck, you have links. Links I tell you, LINKS!

There is no link that sea stars are susceptible to nuclear radiation from Fukushima. Therefore I am wrong. WRONG!!

Damn the science which says otherwise. Its all a liberal conspiracy that makes nuclear power plants control the waste. The waste is good for you and everything. It's all natural!!

[uppityperson]

144. I asked for links, you refused and told me to find them. I did. You still have the chance to provide

links to prove what you claim, that "science which says otherwise". Until you do, indeed, indeed it is just speculation. I am glad you are understanding that now.

[RobertEarl]

145. Of course

I am so educated now. I used to think that this so called manmade radiation is bad for life. But now I see that there is NO proof that radiation is bad, because if there was any such a link you would show it to me. You are today's hero of DU!! I bow to your links and your vast knowledge and superior wisdom which proves sea stars are not effected by radiation.

You have beaten me down and I plead forgiveness and mercy.

[uppityperson]

146. You can atone by vacuuming my house for me. No pleading needed, just vacuuming.

Question, is this you?
Doomsday Preppers: Prepper Profile: Robert Earl

[RobertEarl]

149. No. Not me.

I thought it was you?

If I come over an vacuum your house will you feed me some Hanford radiation? I don't get enough of that sweet stuff, I live so far away.

You have shown me a new world where radiation is great and wonderful and now I just can't get enough. Thank you!!

[uppityperson]

150. Sorry, upwind of Hanford. We do have melted sea star pasta though.

And bananas.

[RobertEarl]

153. Next

They will be powering electric plants with bananas.

And we will have so much fun dissing those stupid sea stars and making fun of their demise. I am with you now. Lets all make fun of the death and destruction on DU because when we do we all look so fucking cool. And that has never been my goal until now. We can even dry them out and wear them like halos to prove how fucking cool we are.

[longship]

169. Straw man argument, typical of pseudoscience. nt

[RobertEarl]

7. So, we can list you, zap, as a denier, again?

First you deny that LA has dirty brown polluted skies, and now you infer that climate change is nothing new? Yep.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026181175#post13

[zappaman]

8. No, Bob.

Just one of many who is on to your anti-science game.
You know, the reason you were banned from the E & E group?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026181175#post14

[RobertEarl]

9. So you are a denier?

I am afraid that it is you who is anti-science and that is obvious by your posts that you deny LA's polluted skies and now deny anthropocentric caused climate change.

[zappaman]

11. No, Bob.

Still trying to make environmentalists look bad?


No recs....try harder.

[RobertEarl]

13. Beautiful blue skies of LA, says z

That is some shameful denial. And now you are become an anti-environmentalist?

Denial gets you nowhere. Where are you?

[zappaman]

15. Yes, today they are beautiful and blue with puffy white clouds!

Climb out of your spiderhole and come visit, Bob!

[RobertEarl]

21. As usual with you

You can't carry on a conversation without a snide remark.

LA's skies are among the most polluted in the US, and it is because of the deniers and the haters of environmentalists that it is so. Take a bow.

[uppityperson]

28. you complain of snide remarks after they post a picture of blue sky after you snidely

call them denier several times?

[RobertEarl]

33. Denial is crazy, isn't it?

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

One picture of a blue sky does not mean LA does not have the worst air quality in the US. Only deniers and anti-science people would ever make such a claim, eh? But there it is!

[uppityperson]

36. it proves the sky isn't brown, which was the claim. There was nothing about

worst air quality but brownness of the sky. Saying a sky is blue does not mean denying it is polluted. That is poor logic, right there.

[CreekDog]

81. IOKIYARE

[zappaman]

40. Come to LA and I will buy you awesome sushi

Fresh from the Pacific!

[pinboy3niner]

44. You're out of starfish, eh?

AHA!!!

[RobertEarl]

50. Thank you pinboy

You have just affirmed my greatest hope that my writings about the sea stars would make a wide impression on DU. You, showing that sea stars are on your mind because of me, is solid proof that my outreach has been effective and made a lasting impression.

See my journal for the report on the sea stars..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. I'm in the SFV

I'm from Orlando. L A is like FL with less humidity and more liberal politics.

[zappaman]

77. Yeah, but

All the great stories like "Naked woman throws dead hamster at man while masturbating" come out of Florida!

[pinboy3niner]

87. Yeah, we only have stories like "Man stabbed with meat thermometer at movie theater"

Which happened at my local movie theater in Lancaster.

[snooper2]

17. you crack most of DU up and we thank you for it!

and I was also going to say tas..afdm.adf







HOLY SHIT CHEMTRAILS HITTING MY WINDOWS! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK

[CreekDog]

64. do you blame climate change on burning of fossil fuels or nuclear power?

because when we talk about climate change denial, we are also talking about whether one denies the accepted causes of climate change.

and you've spent a long time on DU attempting to blame climate change and environmental problems on conspiracies, which conveniently, shifts the blame away from LARGE POLLUTERS!

to think that people could not understand why you'd blame environmental problems not on what science says causes them, but on something else completely --why?

i'm not sure, but i know that if people believed you, they would not try to regulate coal and natural gas power plants, nor large industrial facilities, etc.

[RobertEarl]

68. Both

Both the coal industry and nuke power are LARGE POLLUTERS, and in many cases have the same corporate offices, and they have conspired to make light of their environmental impacts.

They both need to convert to solar and wind power. Yesterday.

[longship]

158. Sorry, Robert. I am going to go all pedant on you again.

Nuclear power has nothing to do with climate change, except for reducing carbon output. Now, you are correct that the spent fuel is the most exquisitely poisonous substance on earth. But the carbon footprint of an operating nuke plant is nonexistent. If nuke power were safer, and if we had a good plan for the waste, and if they were made economical to build, they would be a very good choice to reduce carbon output.

Now, I agree that the "ifs" are the problem. The devil is in the details.

Unfortunately, before wind and solar can have a chance there has to be a good way to store the energy for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun does not shine. Right now, we don't have that. Also, smart grid would help. Don't have that either. There are top people working on it. But the problems are difficult and most regrettably funding is low.

But nuke power is very carbon neutral in that it releases none and uses none, so little to no effect on climate change (let alone sea star wasting syndrome). Sorry.

[RobertEarl]

159. Talk about made up BS

You have a way of making a longship out of a short raft.

First, the mining, construction and footprint of nuke plants is a co2 plus. Then there is the heat emissions from the wasted heat which enters the biosphere. And we won't even get into the radiation that is emitted even tho we know such emissions damage the atmosphere.

Then there is the fact that due to nuke's and coal's politics, they have garnered billions in subsidies that could have gone into wind and solar research and development.

It will be that wind and solar that end up keeping the cooling pumps at closed up nuke plants running - for maybe centuries - to keep old spent fuel pools from blowing up like they did at Fukushima. Right now fossil fuels are doing the job at Fukushima. So stick your carbon neutral BS where the sun don't shine. K?

[longship]

161. I deliberately have been polite with you. You don't seem to be willing or able to do the same.

Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I find you very impolite and arrogant in your rudeness.. I was attempting a different tact with you, apparently to no avail. No wonder so many here ridicule you, which is all that such behavior deserves.

I guess some people just cannot have a reasonable discussion.

Sign me, Disgusted.

Bye.

[RobertEarl]

162. nukes are not reasonable

And your schtick is tiresome.

You never face facts. Just ask the Japanese about nukes and how safe and clean nukes are.

I will be more than happy if you never post nuke crap in reply to me again.

[longship]

164. You are an insulting boor, Robert.

The only thing I have left for you is to ridicule you.

How about those nuclear sea stars, Robert?

Apparently you are wrong about them, just as everybody informed you how ridiculous your claims were.

But apparently everybody was correct and you were wrong.

Densovirus associated with sea-star wasting disease and mass mortality

Significance:

Sea stars inhabiting the Northeast Pacific Coast have recently experienced an extensive outbreak of wasting disease, leading to their degradation and disappearance from many coastal areas. In this paper, we present evidence that the cause of the disease is transmissible from disease-affected animals to apparently healthy individuals, that the disease-causing agent is a virus-sized microorganism, and that the best candidate viral taxon, the sea star-associated densovirus (SSaDV), is in greater abundance in diseased than in healthy sea stars.

Here's the abstract:

Populations of at least 20 asteroid species on the Northeast Pacific Coast have recently experienced an extensive outbreak of sea-star (asteroid) wasting disease (SSWD). The disease leads to behavioral changes, lesions, loss of turgor, limb autotomy, and death characterized by rapid degradation (“melting”). Here, we present evidence from experimental challenge studies and field observations that link the mass mortalities to a densovirus (Parvoviridae). Virus-sized material (i.e., <0.2 ?m) from symptomatic tissues that was inoculated into asymptomatic asteroids consistently resulted in SSWD signs whereas animals receiving heat-killed (i.e., control) virus-sized inoculum remained asymptomatic. Viral metagenomic investigations revealed the sea star-associated densovirus (SSaDV) as the most likely candidate virus associated with tissues from symptomatic asteroids. Quantification of SSaDV during transmission trials indicated that progression of SSWD paralleled increased SSaDV load. In field surveys, SSaDV loads were more abundant in symptomatic than in asymptomatic asteroids. SSaDV could be detected in plankton, sediments and in nonasteroid echinoderms, providing a possible mechanism for viral spread. SSaDV was detected in museum specimens of asteroids from 1942, suggesting that it has been present on the North American Pacific Coast for at least 72 y. SSaDV is therefore the most promising candidate disease agent responsible for asteroid mass mortality.

Text of publication is available at link above.

Your science is shoddy and deserves only derision and ridicule.

I am done with you now.

[RobertEarl]

165. good bye sea stars

"""SSaDV is therefore the most promising candidate disease agent responsible for asteroid mass mortality.""""

Most promising candidate.

Most promising candidate. Which was found 72 years ago and which now has suddenly been killing sea stars like never before. 72 years.

Gee, what happened? Well, there is now more radiation in their habitat than ever before. Radiation which is known to decrease immune systems. Sea stars have damaged immune systems and now the virus is killing them?

[longship]

166. That's called moving the goal posts, Robert.

Yet another sign of pseudoscience.

[RobertEarl]

167. It's called reading

And then looking at what has changed in 72 years.

Something has changed to make it so a virus that was found 72 years ago has now suddenly began wiping out sea stars. Gee, what's changed?

Sea stars have had similar, smaller such events over the years, and so has there been increased amounts of radiation in their habitat. Nuclear weapon testing, and Chernobyl, have each contributed radiation over the years.

most likely candidate

[longship]

168. One hypothesis is climate change.

There are all sorts of environmental changes which are much more likely. After all, sea star wasting goes back decades before Fukushima (which you've been informed of dozens of times to no avail -- another sign of pseudoscience). Outbreaks have been periodic, but increasingly more prevalent. This kind of falsifies your claim.

Just like the OP of this thread, you presume causation from correlation. That's why so few take you seriously.

I don't suppose you have a citation to a reputable scientific paper to back up your claim of a causal link between Fukushima and sea star wasting syndrome. Huh?

That is what it will take for me to be unconvinced that your claim is utter bollocks.

[RobertEarl]

170. Oh hell, you are so right

There is no proof whatsoever that radiation does anything to anything.

It's all a liberal conspiracy to make nuke plants lose money by making them control nuke wastes and emissions. The shit is actually edible and makes great face creams. Friggin lefty hippies who worry about radiation have caused the powerful nuke industry to spend billions on containing the waste and now they are to blame for Fukushima!! Who knew the hippies were so strong they made government create the NRC just to regulate the nuke industry?

I want some nuke waste to play with, but the NRC won't let me have any: bastids.

[longship]

171. Another idiotic straw man argument from you, Robert.

Either cite a scientific paper showing a causal relationship between Fukushima radioactivity (or Christ, any radioactivity) and sea star wasting syndrome or shut the fuck up about it.

Quit trying to deflect the fact that you have zero substantive support for your claim.

[RobertEarl]

172. No you're right

Radiation is good for sea stars. It causes no problems. There is no evidence that increased doses of radiation does anything. It's all good and nuke power is clean and safe and... and.... too cheap to meter.

Radiation: It's what's for dinner.!!

[uppityperson]

173. You seem to be one of those dichotomous thinkers. Something is either all good or all bad

No shades of grey combined with the inability to understand the difference between causation and correlation.

[longship]

174. Piling on those straw men, Robert.

I await a citation for your claim.

Crickets.

[bigwillq]

4. Of course it can. It has. And it will again. (nt)

[hobbit709]

5. I've seen it drop from mid 90's and clear blue sky to mid 60's and black in 15 minutes here.

[F4lconF16]

52. Ha, read that as "mid 60s and back"

Was gonna say, that seemed a little extreme.

[RobertEarl]

54. Thuderstorms!

Have you ever seen it go the other way? From a normal 80 to 110?

We may just see that.

[CreekDog]

70. why may we see that?

what have you read that suggests this possibility in the near future?

show us a link.

[hobbit709]

90. Not that uncommon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_burst

[CreekDog]

10. 30 degree changes are not that uncommon

a 30 degree difference from one day to the next doesn't set records in most places.

(yes, I accept the scientific consensus on both climate change and the human contribution to it, and that includes the expectation that extremes will be more common, not less than currently).

that said, I disagree with the OP's posts on this topic because they attempt to divert from scientific explanations of this and focus on nuclear energy explanations.

the problem with the above being that it creates confusion about the causes of climate change and therefore creates confusion over the ways to address it. and i think that's intentional.

[zappaman]

12. Yes, but...

When the Fukushima radiation is done time traveling and melting starfish, it will move to changing temperatures by a wide degree.

[RobertEarl]

14. Not uncommon?

Then why do such changes often get labeled as record breaking?
ETA: To be clear, such swings are usual during the winter, but not in the summer normals.


Are you a denier also?

[dumbcat]

19. I'm a denier

I would deny ever having heard anything you've ever said.

[CreekDog]

20. what's an example of a record breaking change?

let's have an example of what you're referring to.

[RobertEarl]

22. See? That's denial right there

Climate science is full of such records of temperature records being set and you are so deep in denial you can't see such? You have to ask me to show you?

[uppityperson]

25. asking you to clarify and show proof of what you are claiming is "denial"?

[RobertEarl]

26. You don't pay well enough

I refuse to try and educate deniers of AGW.

But, if you go to weatherunderground.com they do accept the ignorant and try to educate.

[uppityperson]

29. why would you think I should pay you for giving links or proof to your claims?

That is simple courtesy, the person making the claim shows proof, gives links. That is if they want to be taken seriously. Wanting to be paid for giving links or proof is rather bizarre.

[RobertEarl]

35. I told you

You want proof? Go read the established weather sites. I am done trying to educate deniers.

The question was a question right out of the denier's hand book. Therefore it was dismissed.

[uppityperson]

37. Asking what you mean, for clarification and proof is "denial"???? omg

Inigo Montoya said it well. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[CreekDog]

46. and you left the thread promptly after being asked for an example of what you said in the OP

and promptly after calling me a climate change denier (which I'm not -I would not be allowed to be an Environment/Energy host if I were)

[RobertEarl]

47. I took a nice walk

What was your question?

Was it: Is there proof of extremes in weather events due to AGW?

[CreekDog]

49. You're saying you can't find the question I asked you in this very thread

a couple of hours ago?

one that you read and responded to, but DID NOT ANSWER.

but you're unable to remember it and unable to read the question (again) because you took a walk?

CreekDog (43,220 posts)

Response to RobertEarl (Reply #14) Tue Feb 24, 2015, 01:54 PM

20. what's an example of a record breaking change?

let's have an example of what you're referring to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026273227#post20

[RobertEarl]

51. Really?

Doubling down, are you?

You claim to not be a denier, but you even asking about proof of record breaking change shows you to not know about the changes on extreme weather due to AGW. Such questions as yours are right out of the denier's hand books.

All you have to do is look at the record breaking extreme changes in weather the last few weeks across the US, for your answer.

[CreekDog]

55. No, for the 100th time, I'm not asking you to prove that climate change is real to me

Because I accept what science says about climate change and what science says about the human contribution to it.

What I don't accept is whatever nonsense you're saying about Climate Change, primarily because it often contradicts climate change science or is at least a red herring in any science-based, climate change discussion.

So, for the 100th time, I'm asking you to give a statistical example of the particular change you're referring to as record breaking.

[RobertEarl]

57. weatherunderground.com

Seek there and you shall find, grasshopper.

[CreekDog]

58. and what do I look for?

what record breaking condition am I looking for and where?

okay, i'll make it easier:

YOU TELL US where on Weather Underground that you found examples of the condition you're referring to.

Just send us the link to the page and data that spurred your OP here on the topic.

Certainly you didn't just pull your idea out of your head without even a scintilla of data to back it up?

[RobertEarl]

59. Eh?

Seek for the extreme record breaking changes in temperatures.

[CreekDog]

61. you said greater than 30 degrees, where is a 30 degree change a record?

and when?

[CreekDog]

27. No, it's not denial, I asked you for an example of record breaking change

of 30 degrees from one day to the next.

it's not denying climate change to ask you that.

and i'm not denying climate change because i talk about it on DU regularly.

[CreekDog]

89. the 30 degree changes usually don't get labeled as record breaking

if after the change occurs, it's warmer or colder than normal and sets a record for hot or cold, that's what typically breaks the record...

a 30 degree change in 24 hours is not going to break records for diurnal changes for the most part.

at most, the resulting temperature might break a record for being especially cold or hot.

[Gormy Cuss]

102. It's flat out normal for the temp to swing 30 degrees on a summer day here.

(SF East Bay.) In fact, I've experienced 40 degree shifts on summer days, although that's unusual. Hell, even in winter 30 degree swings aren't unusual.

[RobertEarl]

107. 24 hours

It is rare that the heat of the day in summer rises from an average high by 30 degrees in 24 hours.

[Gormy Cuss]

111. Yep, that too. 75 one day, over 100 the next. n/t

[CreekDog]

136. and what science do you have that says that this will happen as early as this summer?

or happen to an extent that is record breaking in terms of one day being so much hotter than the next?

and where did you get the 30-degree threshold? did you make it up?

[Agschmid]

16. Oh boy...

[HappyMe]

18. lol!

My thoughts exactly.

[uppityperson]

23. omg, what if it goes from 100 to 130?!?!?

Bonus question, do you know the difference between climate and weather?

Yes, daily temperatures do vary by 30 degrees. What seems more bothersome to me is the entire west coast being hotter than normal while eat coast is colder than normal.

[AverageJoe90]

67. Here in North Texas, it's 33 degrees.....in late February.

And we may get a few inches of snow tonight.....when it's normally about 60 out. And spring is going to be here in a week.

[SidDithers]

24. It could happen tonight...

We see how during the day there's lots of light to see by. You can drive, walk, even read a book outside.

But could all of that light just disappear over a period of less than a couple hours? Could it?

It could happen tonight.

Darkness.

Sid

[uppityperson]

30. why isn't the sun out at night when it's so hard to see clearly?

If the sun were out at night, I bet it would be warmer too.

[zappaman]

42. Well, when there is a full moon, it is putting out lots of light.

We should be harnessing moon power!

[pinboy3niner]

38. I feel like I'm having a flashback to the Hippy Dippy Weatherman, lol

[zappaman]

41. Tide goes in, tide goes out.

You can't explain it!

[Logical]

31. ANY post you make needs to be examined really really closely. And assumed to be an exaggeration. nt

[elleng]

32. Dramatic temperature changes occur often,

in certain places.

Living in Denver for a year, after growing up in New York and studying in the midwest, acquainted me with that fact. Humid in the east, relatively small daily summertime changes; lack of humidity in mountain west, dramatic daily summertime changes.

[Fumesucker]

34. I love the Four Yorkshiremen

[SidDithers]

39. The updated version is pretty funny too...

Sid

[Orrex]

176. Sid Dithers was responsible for Burger King's "Where's Herb" debacle in 1985.

[FBaggins]

43. Congratulations!

That's the first time I've seen you use "the science" in a statement that actually matched up with what science actually says!

A banner day!

"Science" does, in fact, say we should expect more extreme weather due to climate change.


Unfortunately... as so often happens... the rest of your post is your own supposition/imagination, rather than actual facts.

It's unusual to see that rapid a temperature rise... but not exactly unheard of.

The fastest increase that I'm aware of was 70+ years ago and represented almost 50 degrees in two minutes.

[surrealAmerican]

45. I don't know where you live, but ...

... here in Chicago, this kind of 30-degree swing is not so very unusual. It happens in the winter and summer, and, far more frequently, in spring and fall.

[RobertEarl]

48. Of course it does....

During the winter.

It was fifty for the high here yesterday. Close to normal. Today it was more like 30. There have been days when the swing in 24 hours was a solid thirty degrees negative departure from normal.

My question and supposition is: what if we get a 30 degree rise in temps above normal during the summer? I don't ever recall such a summer time swing. Winter, yes. Summer, no. I feel it will be deadly if it does happen and I feel it just might, given the extreme swings we are seeing.

[surrealAmerican]

53. It does happen in the summer.

One day, it will be 60; the next, 90.

The joke here is, "if you don't like the weather, wait a day."

Without an ocean to moderate the temperature, this is not that strange. Farther away from the Great Lakes, it's even less unusual.

[RobertEarl]

56. Which was normal?

The 60, or the 90?

My experience is that the normal was 90 and cold air from the arctic blew in. Well, we may not see such arctic airs in the future, being as the ice there is melting, and heat trapping co2 is increasing..

[CreekDog]

82. what are "arctic airs"?

I have never found the people of the Arctic to be haughty. Not even a little bit.

[zappaman]

84. Well......

[surrealAmerican]

91. They're both normal ...

... although neither is average. The average would be somewhere in between.

It's more pronounced in spring and fall, when it is rarely the average temperature, but fluctuates from below to above and back, sometimes on a daily basis.

[CreekDog]

60. Average Temperature:

Tucson, Arizona (Tucson International Airport)
1981-2010 Normal
June
Average Max: 100.4F
Average Min: 69.4F

Difference (we call that "diurnal range&quot : 31.0F

Is 31.0 greater than 30.0? Yes.

Is it record breaking? No, it's "normal". Is the OP wrong? Yes it is, to the extent that there was a coherent thought behind it, that thought is wrong.

[RobertEarl]

63. It wasn't very clear

Especially if one did not read well and missed the "in 24 hours".

Meaning that at 5 o'clock one day it is 100 and the next day at five o'clock it would be 130.

If that happens there will be trouble. Yes, grasshopper?

[CreekDog]

65. When is this going to happen?

this summer? is that a prediction?

and what is this prediction based on? some idea that popped into your head without any scientific basis or without the examination of any weather data?

[SheilaT]

62. Rapid temperature changes happen

more often than you might think.

Back in the late 80's, 1988, I think, in Boulder CO it went from about 70 degrees to minus 20 in under 24 hours. We were forewarned, but it was still pretty amazing.

[RobertEarl]

71. Yep... in winter

Now, with AGW, what may happen is there are similar extremes in the summer. From 70 one day to 100 the next. And happen more and more often.

[AverageJoe90]

66. Wouldn't bet on it.

Such a thing happening, at least regularly, in summertime(wild temperature swings of 30 degrees or more in the space of ~24 hours) is actually extremely unlikely, mainly due to the lack of instability that you would see in the spring or fall months, amongst other factors.

The science does indeed say that extremes are becoming more likely, I'll give you that much. But I highly doubt this will become the "norm", as you seem to have claimed elsewhere on this thread.

[RobertEarl]

73. Lets hope not

But given the way things are going, it could happen.

The right conditions, such as a high pressure dome like has been hanging over California most of the winter, being set in the middle of the US for days on end, with a hot Pacific like we have and no cooling from the arctic being the ocean there has warmed, and a load of co2 and particulates to the extreme, and we have a world record dust bowl.

[AverageJoe90]

83. Yes, but that's different from the scenario you *originally* postulated in the OP. nt

[CreekDog]

74. changes of 30 degrees in 24 hours are not extremely unlikely, they are commonplace in summer

i see we have the full spectrum of wrong, right here in this thread.

[AngryAmish]

85. As much as I don't won't to wade into this shitheadedness, winter Temps swing 30 degs all the time

In Chicago.

And leave it alone. Don't answer.

[NuclearDem]

97. Oh this is fun no?

[JCMach1]

109. I remember a summer in the 90's in OK... went from 114F to 68

the next day in July

[GoddessOfGuinness]

129. Mass hysteria...Dogs and cats living together...

Real wrath of God stuff.

[randys1]

152. Blueberry syrup on pancakes

[LanternWaste]

147. 30 degree temperature difference is often called "Tuesdays" during a Texas August.

30 degree temperature difference within 24 hours is often called "Tuesdays" during a Texas August.

[Octafish]

148. Mean people suck.

No matter the temperature.

[RobertEarl]

154. GMI

It's everywhere. Radiation is good for you. It better be, because it's everywhere these days. If not, we are in deep trouble.

[Octafish]

157. Experts

Former Japanese PM Naoto Kan: 'Fukushima radically changed my perspective'

How has the Fukushima disaster changed Japan? Former PM Naoto Kan talks to DW about the influence of the nuclear industry lobby while criticizing the current government for its push to restart the idled nuclear reactors.

Deutsche Welle
Feb. 25, 2015

DW: Four years on, what lessons should Japan learn from this disaster and have any of them been realized?

Naoto Kan: Unfortunately, I have the impression that neither the Japanese public nor the experts have learned the right lessons from the disaster. If the accident had been a bit more severe, we would have had to evacuate people within a radius of 250 kilometers for a long period of time. It would have also affected the Tokyo area, and thus an estimated 50 million people. Such colossal damage usually occurs only after a crushing defeat in war.

How has the Fukushima crisis changed your view of nuclear energy and the risks involved, especially in such an earthquake-prone country?

Before the disaster, I believed that no serious nuclear accident could take place in Japan as our technology was very advanced and we just had to handle it with care. But despite our state-of-art technology, Fukushima witnessed a nuclear meltdown, and more than 200,000 people had to be evacuated.

If the extent of the accident had been slightly larger, then Japan would have been thrown into chaos for 20 to 30 years. The accident radically changed my perspective. I now consider nuclear energy to be the most dangerous form of energy, and the risks associated with it are too great for us to continue generating atomic power.

I have been trying to spread this view as much as possible both at home and abroad. Given that Japan finds itself in an earthquake-prone zone, the risks are much higher here than in other countries. If high tension power lines collapse, it could cut power supply to nuclear reactors. Similarly, it would be difficult to find a suitable location for nuclear waste storage and disposal in the country.

CONTINUED...

http://www.dw.de/former-japanese-pm-naoto-kan-fukushima-radically-changed-my-perspective/a-18275921

[RobertEarl]

160. Like I told our dear Sid

Go ask the Japanese people what they think about how safe and clean nuclear power really isn't.

He never replied!!

[CreekDog]

163. they do?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2776292

[randys1]

151. All I know is I want to be there when climate change causes human suffering to deniers

it may be the ONLY justice, the only karma us folk are gonna get.

We wont get any with the one percent, they have stolen our money and our country and we are WAY past doing anything about it

[John1956PA]

155. On Feb. 24 in my area of Western PA, the temp. rose from -15° at 8:00 AM to 20° at 12:00 noon.

That was a 35° rise in just four hours.

Even after the rise in temperature, it still felt colder than 20° because of the mild wind passing over the accumulated snow.

[RobertEarl]

156. Methane could help?

hatrack (37,220 posts)

Four Corners Methane Cloud Size Of Delaware; NASA 1st Thought It Was Instrumental Error
When NASA researchers first saw data indicating a massive cloud of methane floating over the American Southwest, they found it so incredible that they dismissed it as an instrument error. But as they continued analyzing data from the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography instrument from 2002 to 2012, the “atmospheric hot spot” kept appearing.

The team at NASA was finally able to take a closer look, and have now concluded that there is in fact a 2,500-square-mile cloud of methane—roughly the size of Delaware—floating over the Four Corners region, where the borders of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah all intersect.

A report published by the NASA researchers in the journal Geophysical Research Letters concludes that “the source is likely from established gas, coal, and coalbed methane mining and processing.” Indeed, the hot spot happens to be above New Mexico's San Juan Basin, the most productive coalbed methane basin in North America.

Methane is 20-times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and has been the focus of an increasing amount of attention, especially in regards to methane leaks from fracking for oil and natural gas. Pockets of natural gas, which is 95-98% methane, are often found along with oil and simply burned off in a very visible process called “flaring.” But scientists are starting to realize that far more methane is being released by the fracking boom than previously thought.

EDIT

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/17/nasa-confirms-2500-square-mile-cloud-methane-floating-over-american-southwest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112776546

[Orrex]

175. EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS THREAD IS OBSESSED WITH ROBERTEARL

Just ask him.

Then he'll insult you, and then he'll threaten to sue you, all the while insisting that you don't understand science.



Kooky.

[RobinA]

177. Well, Here In

the extreme climate of Philadelphia, it's not that uncommon now. It's even more common in the west, where the humidity doesn't tend to buffer the nighttime temp in the summer.

I would venture to say that on any given 100 degree day here the temp as risen 30 degrees, or pretty close to it.

[titaniumsalute]

178. Man I grew up in Ohio

I have experienced 50 degree swings in temps before. One July 4th during the day it was near 100 degrees. Powerful storms came through and it ended up like 55 that night.