Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Donald Trump thread

In fact if he had made such comments in the primaries in 2008 it would have killed his candidacy. As it should Trump's.

Jun 16, 2016 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Golf Charlie

They built Lake Powell upstream of Lake Mead to increase storage capacity. It hasn't worked.There is less water entering the Lake Mead system.

Is this due to global warming? I don't know. The 2015/2016 El Nino was expected to help them refill the reservoirs, but didnt.

If you were advising the water supplier what would you advise? When do you expect water supplies to return to 20th century levels? On what evidence?

Jun 16, 2016 at 8:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

But you outdo yourself claiming Trump isn't racist(...)
Jun 16, 2016 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered Commenter Raff

Raff - can you show me where I made such a "claim"? I don't think you can.

I said

There is no question that he wants to stop illegal immigration into the USA particularly from Mexico. Are there other things that he stands for that justify your describing him as 'racist'?
I made no "claim" whatever about Donald Trump. I did no more than ask a simple and direct question. It beats me how you manage to interpret my asking a question about how you justify your words as being the same thing as making a "claim" about Donald Trump's nature.

Jun 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

EM, is the greening of the Sahara due to Global Warming? Or the 1930s Oklahoma dustbowl? Or the 1976 UK Drought? Or the current hostilities in Syria?

It is difficult to claim anything is due to global warming, when there is no evidence of significant global warming without statistical tricks and data adjustment.

But it is easy to blame global warming, to cover up past and present mistakes, no matter how well intentioned at the time.

Jun 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin, very well, you don't claim that Trump is not a racist. I might say that you 'support' Trump, but I dare say you would dispute such a statement, so I'll just assume that you view him in a positive light. However, I think most reasonable and decent people would not view a racist in a positive light (and hence would not support a racist) whatever his other views. As I have no reason to think you are not a reasonable and decent person, I conclude that either (a) you do not view him in a positive light or that (b) you do not believe he is a racist, even though you do not claim that for him.

From what you have written about him so I gathered that (a) is untrue so it must be (b). So rephrasing what I write before:

...But you outdo yourself in believing against the evidence that Trump isn't a racist (amongst other things, racial, religious and perhaps sexual prejudice are his strong selling points to some). You are deep in denial over the nature of Trump.

Jun 17, 2016 at 1:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff 1:28, that is a load of disjointed presumptions and insinuations.

Did Lewandowsky help you write it?

Jun 17, 2016 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Raff - I get the impression that, for you, racism is a black or white affair (haha - an unintentional pun); either someone is racist or they are not.

Is that how you see things?

Jun 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, it is firmly implanted in Warmist brains by the likes of Lewandowsky, that anyone who disagrees with their doctrine is evil and has crossed to the Dark Side.

This is where Raff's simplistic analogies meet their first Waterloo. Partially sighted religious faith, plays such an important part of climate science dogma, and Global Warmist hatred of others.

Jun 17, 2016 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

No, racism is a spectrum, clearly. A balance between learned responses - rejection, acceptance and understanding of that which is different. This balance is in us all. Racism (and other such prejudice) becomes most dangerous when the unprincipled, like Trump, seek to use it for their own narrow advantage - often helped by apologists who seek to deny or downplay it.

Jun 17, 2016 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

golf Charlie

You were asking about recent Lake Mead water levels.

Jun 17, 2016 at 11:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man: you do seem to have trouble understanding that, if the consumption of water from a reservoir exceeds the water entering it, then the reservoir level will fall. If the consumption exceeds the input of the entire catchment for that reservoir, then it does not matter how many dams you install within the system – the levels will still fall. What is required is that reservoirs are built in other catchment areas; either that, or reduce the overall consumption. That was taught in GCE “O”-level geography. Given that individual water consumption has increased, as well as the number of people consuming, it would seem sensible to establish other reservoirs in other catchment areas.

Just what is the point of your argument with Golf Charlie?

Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent on Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47 AM
"That was taught in GCE “O”-level geography."

It used to be, but I expect it's now taught at A' level. :)

Jun 18, 2016 at 12:39 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

RC: that was why I wrote “…was taught…” I suspect such a concept might well be beyond the scope of “A”-levels, nowadays.

Jun 18, 2016 at 5:08 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent. It was my understanding that Lake Powell was constructed for two reasons other than to increase water storage capacity. Firstly to manage water inflow into Lake Mead - much of the flow during high runoff years went to "waste" because peak flows had to released without generating power. Second, peak inflows carried large amounts of sediment, which traversed the lake as sediment laden flows beneath the surface driven by gravity. This sediment, which would have gradually filled Lake Mead, is now largely retained within Lake Powell. Lake Mead is the more important reservoir because it supplies both water and hydroelectric power.

Water in the Colorado catchment area is almost entirely used up (human extraction and direct evaporative losses from the reservoirs). Hardly any water flows into the Gulf of California. There are no other catchments with rivers that can be dammed. Consequently, if water flows diminish and water demand increases, the only option is to reduce use, relegating its use to more essential purposes.

Eventually the Lake Mead water level may fall below that necessary to generate power from the Hoover Dam. With less necessity to release water for power generation, Lake Mead water levels could stabilize, but only if water demands from Arizona, Nevada, and California themselves stabilize.

I can't see the money tied up in Las Vegas, Nevada, giving up their demand for electricity. I wonder if there are plans for a nuclear power plant ready and waiting.

What is Lake Mead to do with D. Trump? Did he have waterfront property?

Jun 18, 2016 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall, Lake Mead's deficiencies have nothing to do with Donald Trump or global warming. EM notes a water shortage in California, wants to blame global warming, and pretend it will get worse if Trump is elected.

With this as another example of global warmist logic, is logical to assume that the same lack of logic pervades all of climate science, and that with a puff of logic, climate science may soon vanish from manifesto pledges and university campuses

Jun 18, 2016 at 8:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. When it comes to climate science we are on the same page but are reading different paragraphs. There is a legitimate science of the climate, how it might change in the future, how we adapt, and what are the economic and political consequences. What I object to is the way these legitimate areas of inquiry have been taken over by those that believe CO2 is an important driver, when it is demonstrably not, and who argue than human activities control the future climate. They sold this to politicians and we have gone down the tubes since. This does not mean we should not have climate scientists.

So every time you have a go at "climate scientists" and their failings I agree but always, in the back of my mind, I have a qualification.

Jun 18, 2016 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Radical Rodent

What argument?

We seem to agree on most of what has happened in the Colorado watershed.

Jun 18, 2016 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Alan Kendall

I think this is the connection between Donald Trump and Lake Mead.

Jun 18, 2016 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Alan Kendall, 97% of climate scientists are wrong and have created this mess. Therefore we should ignore them. As the other 3% of climate scientists are not demanding we bankrupt the world, can't we give them a go for the next 20 years and see if it makes any difference?

This is what Trump is proposing, and therefore in the contect of this thread, I support him. Obviously I don't have a vote.

If 97% of climate science experts want to blog about how unfair it is, rather than find evidence to back up all of their wild predictions, then that is their choice in a free world. Meanwhile climate experts in the USA are still trying to use the Judicial system to fabricate evidence against those who have asked for evidence, and still taxpayers are paying for it all.

The Sahara is greening up. Do climate scientists celebrate? How did the city of Petra rise in the Jordanian desert, only to be abandoned? As the Sahara continues to green, maybe Petra will again hear running water.

Jun 19, 2016 at 12:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. You and I both know that the figure of 97% is mythical, something like the hockeystick, used to beat the opposition with, something to give our supporters a smile about. Those climate scientists and hangers on we name (and try to shame) are beyond redemption, but there are hosts of others who work on small parts of the climate machine who do good work but are deluded about the CO2 control paradigm. There are even more who take the prediction of modellers and work upon the implications and the required responses. Many of them are doing good work but are using the wrong parameters. What I'm trying to say is that there is a spectrum of climate scientists (and otthers) ranging from the irretrievably bad all the way to the virtuous. To categorize them as all being the same is similar to racism - climate science racism.

But please keep to your annointed task, beat the ba*****ds with your fetish for 97% and hockey sticks, give them hell. But occasionally remember that I, and I hope some others here, sometimes mentally add a qualification when you go at it.

Jun 19, 2016 at 7:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

EM. Thanks for the link. It's not really about Lake Mead, which supplies only a small part of California. The State is much mote concerned with reduced inflow into the Owens Lake catchment system. Snows in the Sierra Nevada have been well below normal.

The link does demonstrate Trump's common ploy of seeking support of that part of the electorate that wants the impossible but is thwarted by authority who makes unpopular decisions based on expert advice. When Trump ignores such advice (much of it common sense) he is a nutter, but a very popular nutter. In this case a nutter that either lies or is someone who chooses to be uninformed before he speaks on something. The large volumes of water flowing into the sea do not exist. There is only the smallest polluted trickle of water entering the Gulf of California from the Colorado River. I have been to the Colorado delta (what a misnomer now) and seen it for myself.

Jun 19, 2016 at 8:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall 7:54, until climate scientists denounce Mann's Hockey Stick, how can they expect to be taken seriously?

That they have not denounced the 97% consensus, and forever exposed President Obama to ridicule is not Trump's fault.

5 day meteorological forecasts are so much better. 10 days would be much appreciated.

Just outside Reading is ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts) If they had stuck to medium range weather forecasts for the last 20+ years, we might have something useful by now. Instead we have forecasts of what might happen in 10 years, and perfect hindcasting that any adverse weather event is due to global warming.

If it hadn't been for false warnings about faked consequences generated from badly programmed computer models, many lives could have been saved. But the money was diverted from more honest endeavours, and uses of scientist time.

Jun 19, 2016 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. I can agree with all that you write (4.53pm) yet maintain my view that there is a spectrum within climate science. Do you disagree?

I'm also fairly sure that there has been a cross fertilization between computer modellers of climate science and longer range weather forecasting to the improvement of the latter.

Finally, the excellent BBC programme on weather prediction (that is until they seguewayed into climate) suggested that longer range weather forecasting may become increasingly more difficult (and implied that, because weather is a chaotic system, beyond a certain limit it may never be possible). So reallocation of funding, as you suggested, may not have paid any dividends.

One aspect of the BBC programme I didn't understand. I was of the impression that a technique used by the Met Office to good effect was in matching today's weather charts with those of the past to find the closest match. The programme never mentioned this or, if it did, I must have dozed off at that point.

Jun 19, 2016 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Who is blaming Trump for California's water problems? No one here. What some here are charging Trump with is making stupid uninformed statements about the subject - claiming there is no drought when all the evidence indicates this has occurred and continues, and that water is being deliberately wasted by being allowed to flow into the sea, when it isn't. Trump isn't stupid, so why has he made such statements? Is it out of ignorance (unlikely) or is it deliberate - to distance himself from unpopular but necessary decisions by authorities? Thereby increasing his support from the dissatisfied.

Jun 19, 2016 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall

a technique used by the Met Office to good effect was in matching today's weather charts with those of the past to find the closest match.

IIRC this was used in the days before satellite data, when the best guide to what will happen is what happened last time.

Jun 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man