20% higher rainfall predicted in 2013 than 2012.

[quote=”Scott”]Well it better start soon and it’s worth noting that last year’s rainfall was much lower than normal, right Tom? So even a 20% increase won’t bring it up to the usual rainfall…
I’ll try and get more data on that …
Scott
[/quote]

The National Academy of Sciences summarizes models that predict a 10-20% reduction in precipitation throughout Central America in upcoming decades (p.23 in the Spanish version).
Spanish & English versions available at:

[url=http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/]Nas-Sites.org[/url]

(…and hopefully I will be spared the ridiculous and paranoid mantra, that climate change is a vast international conspiracy among 10s of thousands of scientists to get more research grant money)

[quote=”pharg”][quote=”Scott”]Well it better start soon and it’s worth noting that last year’s rainfall was much lower than normal, right Tom? So even a 20% increase won’t bring it up to the usual rainfall…
I’ll try and get more data on that …
Scott
[/quote]

The National Academy of Sciences summarizes models that predict a 10-20% reduction in precipitation throughout Central America in upcoming decades (p.23 in the Spanish version).
Spanish & English versions available at:

[url=http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/]Nas-Sites.org[/url]

(…and hopefully I will be spared the ridiculous and paranoid mantra, that climate change is a vast international conspiracy among 10s of thousands of scientists to get more research grant money)
[/quote]

Thanks Pharg. I guess the real question is, what does this mean to Costa Rica?

[quote=”sprite”]

You won’t hear any conspiracy theories from me regarding climate change….unless the sun is out out get us. There are theories on both sides of the fence regarding climate. [/quote]

Well, the sun IS out to get us, but not because of ill will or intent. Intense solar ultraviolet light is screened out by our ozone layer [even though some (UV-B and UV-A) gets through.UV rapidly causes mutations in DNA. Before there was ozone, there was little life on earth. Not to mention lots of deadly particles and other cosmic wavelengths deflected by earth’s magnetic field (aurora borealis anyone?)
Ans as far as theories go, seldom has a word been so misused. A theory is a concept that is substantially or completely supported by known facts (theory of gravity for example). There is a ‘hypothesis’ that global climate change is not really happening, but with little factual support it is hardly a theory.
PEH
[once again, my 40 years of teaching peeps through habitually]

[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”jmcbuilder”]
I find it ironic that because someone does not wish to lay all facts on the table, you find them simplistic.
[/quote]
Why wouldn’t someone want to “lay all the facts on the table” as you put it? Isn’t having all the facts available necessary for others to come to a logical conclusion about the issue? If there are facts about this that you (apparently) possess and are unwilling to share, how do you expect to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong?

The liberal view that conservative’s don’t believe in climate change is factually wrong and a dishonest charge. The question has always been how much does man contribute to climate change and how the data was collected. Good science should be able to support itself. Turning everything in to politics is boring.

[quote=”jmcbuilder”]
You act as if you are of a certain mentality that you and you alone have greater insight. Give me a break. In reality I find your explanation simplistic.
[/quote]
Not at all. I claim no greater insight about this or any subject. And I am hardly alone in believing what the vast majority of experts on this subject have concluded. That is what we have experts for – to inform the rest of us as to the facts on an issue.

I find it sad that those who deny climate change exists reject facts because they conflict with their opinions. If you have an opinion about something and the overwhelming body of evidence about the issue don’t support the opinion, it is a mark of a closed mind to insist that it is the facts that are wrong and not the opinion.

If someone believes that climate change means “it is getting hotter everywhere” and that any spell of cold weather disproves the theory that man-induced climate change is happening – that is a simplistic and erroneous view. What aspect of that do you disagree with?

Your earlier post where you seemed to think that less rainfall is in conflict with predictions about more intense weather is simplistic. It is possible to have both. Do you disagree with that? If so, why? Does it involve some of those secret facts that you can’t share with us?

To those who are actually [b]willing[/b] to learn more about how climate change will affect weather patterns and in particular, rainfall totals, see this link: http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/220901/nasa-global-rainfall-climate-change%5B/quote%5D

It would be foolish to deny climate change. Any seventh grader should understand that. At some point you become a bore with volumes obvious data.

My question is, how does the climate change affect Costa Rica? Does less rain mean fewer mosquito’s and healthier people? Prolonged bouts of less rain , do people forget and build in more dangerous places? What happens to ranchers and farmers? Roads? etc.

The liberal view that conservatives don’t believe in climate change is factually wrong and a dishonest charge. The question has always been how much man contributes to climate change and where the data comes from. Good science should be able to support itself. turning everything into politics is boring.

Here is my take on the subject:
1. Either Sweikert925 really has a lot of books (see his photo) or his picture was taken at the library! Plus he has links to web sites that he feels support his position.
2. jmcbuilber also has a lot of links to web sites that he feels support his position.
3. I don’t think these two guys like each other and it is obvious that they will never convince the other to change their mind.
4. We had a very nice, refreshing rain last night along the central Nicoya Pacific coast.
5. Today is a bright blue sunny day.
6. Why don’t you two guys take this off of the forum and communicate directly (use PM, exchange emails, Skype each other, etc.)?

[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”costaricabill”]
Either Sweikert925 really has a lot of books (see his photo) or his picture was taken at the library!
[/quote]
For the record, that picture was taken in my home office. I honestly can’t remember when I visited a library, it must have been sometime in the last millenium. Another testament to the power of the internet – any and all information can be found there.
[/quote]

But you have to remember that not EVERY source on the internet is true. Hence you have to carefully filter, confirm, and vet your sources. For just about EVERY position one can take there are “sources” on the internet that will support or dispute your argument!

[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Often the “experts” are wrong. [/quote]

That’s a bit too sweeping a statement in my opinion. SOMETIMES SOME experts are wrong, but there are almost always others who disagree with them who turn out to be right. I can think of no cases though where all the experts were wrong about something, can you?[/quote]

I don’t mean to imply that there have been situations where EVERY available so called “expert” has been wrong. There’s ALWAYS (strong word with extra intentional use) going to be dissenters with a different opinion. But does one loose their “expert” status when they postulate incorrectly on an issue or do they continue get to be an “expert” impressing us with their theories and opinions until one pans out correctly and they redeem themselves?

Seems the “expert” (via the EPA and Christie Todd Whitman) told us the dust cloud blanketing lower Manhattan after 9/11 didn’t pose a health and safety hazard. Were they simply wrong or was their “expert” opinion based on something other than science? Or were they right and the health issues faced by rescuers, those who believed the “experts”, just an aberration?

I have a real problem with “experts”…. even those with rather impressive education credentials and accolades from those in their chosen fields. Many times their opinions are based on science or theory of other “experts”. As well as being based on a self theorized hypothesis they went out to prove or disprove. (You wouldn’t be much of a scientist or expert if every hypothesis you proposed came in being disproved through scientific testing now would you!)

Consider the US Supreme court for a moment. The supposed brightest legal minds the US has to offer. Not scientists…. but “experts” in their chosen field. How is it on most issues they review that there is often a dissenting opinion from one or more of the members?

Because the facts and information presented as well as the rules (science) are subject to the interpretation of individuals with different views and agendas wishing to shape the result into something they feel is correct.