Slashdot Mirror
A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow
Ponca City, We love you writes "NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."
The East Coast gets a bit of a blizzard (I live in DC but am from Minnesota). People start saying, "Global warming?! HA!"
...
Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans.
Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.
Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting (via NASA and U of TX).
Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change. One day the facts will pile up
My work here is dung.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.
UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers
How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?
One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?
Sure. If we keep emitting and the climate doesn't change, then it's falsified. Kind of like if how the theory that 4 cheeseburgers and a pack of cigarettes every day will kill -you- specifically can be falsified by -you- specifically eating 4 cheeseburgers and smoking a pack of cigarettes each day and not dying. Try it, let us know, the rest of us are foolishly following the religion of "Carcinogens and cholesterol will kill us specifically."
Well, maybe for 2009 to not be the hottest year in recorded history, or 2000-2009 to be the hottest decade in recorded history, for one.
Maybe not for a clear upward trend in average global temperature over the last 100 years, for another.
Stuff that was predicted well before it actually happened is not evidence to the contrary. If your restricted mental model of how climate works doesn't allow you to comprehend the mechanism that allows global warming to lead to more precipitation, then I'm not sure anyone here can help you. Weather != climate. Luckily the people actually working on the problem are way beyond that first-year course issue. It's unfortunate that there are so many people like yourself with voting powers getting in their way though.
Evolution is pretty easily falsified, of course a lot of the things which could have done so didn't.
Universal common descent could have been shown to be false when DNA was discovered and sequenced. Of course it didn't instead it matched common descent perfectly.
Finding a species that doesn't use DNA, would be a pretty big hit to evolution, at least the universal descent part.
Finding that the Earth is "young" would kill evolution dead.
The famous rabbit in the pre-Cambrian.
Well it takes more than repeating easily debunked platitudes and specious arguments. Here's Jones' original quote...
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
Sounds a bit more measured and reasonable than your biased histrionics. Yes?
Happy people make bad consumers.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
If a ball falls down it is because of gravity.
If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.
If comet flies into the solar system it is because of gravity.
If the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is because of gravity.
If the tide rises it is because of gravity.
If the tide recedes it is because of gravity.
See how easy it is to gloss over the details and make something perfectly normal seem contradictory?
That's the kind of thing people have made up their mind and are only interested in promulgating their point of view do - not someone who is asking genuine questions.
When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years, it doesn't mean anything. In fact, to date only the Moonies at the Wash. Times and Fox News consider his statement worthy of repeating. (He said it to the BBC, btw, not known as a bastion of Deniers.)
Except, that's not what he said:
BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
PJ - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
See now how that's nothing like the denial you spun it as? Or maybe you really didn't spin it, maybe you didn't even bother to go to first sources and just took the word of other spinmeisters - you know the ones who follow the mantra "if it bleeds, it leads!" Sucks not being able to apply critical thinking and google to do your own fact checking.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
And all the recorded historical data proves these to be facts, right?
Yes.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
Sorry, I mis-remembered: 2009 is the second warmest year on-record. 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade.
For the last time, climate is not weather.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me
Ok, I won't:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
Actually we're about halfway through the interglacial period which begain ~10,000 years ago. The planet is actually quite cold for most of the time during these glacial periods except for a 15-20,000 year gap every 130,000 years (interglacial periods) and has been for ~5 million years. Most of Earth's history has indeed been warmer but there was also much higher CO2 levels in the air. Further, the poles don't really melt away completely unless the climate warms 5+ degrees C for prolonged periods of time. We've got ice cores going back the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods (600-800,000 years) which would be pretty hard to do if the poles had melted :)
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
2009 was the hottest year on record? Huh. News to me, I have heard otherwise. Not locally or nationally, but globally.
Here you go:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
I don't know about you unfortunately, but I expect to be able to have chemists tell me more about chemistry than a behavioural psychologist can - not everything in science is equal. An economist for instance may consider themselves a scientist. A petition is meaningless here - what would be meaningful is an argument convincing enough that climate scientists agree with it.
People can say they have found a cure for AIDS, won the Falklands War by advocating biological warfare, won a Nobel Prize, been elected to the British House of Lords or all kinds of things but unless experts in those areas agree with them their opinion is meaningless. You have been conned by a very audacious trick of professional confidence tricksters - that of pretending that others are pulling a trick themselves. It is a high paying profession now to fly around the world pretending that scientists are freezing their arses of in Antarctica to fabricate data when instead they could be fabricating at home where it is warm.
Believe the climate scientists, not the PR firms paid to tell you otherwise, and not people like Monckton and Plimer that say what sells instead of what is found.
Here's another letter:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
And they even have a section of signatories and their credentials:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
And just because 31,000 or 140 scientists are a 'small percentage' of the scientific community, that doesn't mean the rest of those who didn't sign disagree with those who did sign.
I'm not one to say these signature mean AGW is wrong... All I'm saying is that its not a uncontested belief.
Oh, and before I go, take a look at the IPCC, the 'the leading body for the assessment of climate change' (http://www.ipcc.ch). They are working groups of 'experts' who push the belief in AGW. How many of them were qualified? Take a look: http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/
Inertia that was originally provided by a force overcoming gravity, which converted kinetic energy into potential energy. The bouncing back up is due to elasticity. It slowing and coming back down is due to gravity.
Learn about Photography Basics.
A small tip - calling someone an idiot from the comfort and security of your keyboard does little to advance your argument.
What made you think I wanted a rational debate? If I wanted that, I would have replied to someone who actually made sense.
And to save you some trouble - please don't bother me with all that peer review literature vs grey literature stuff.
How splendid. A pre-emptive strike that makes it impossible to actually debate anything. How does it feel to talk about nothing?
An issue as far reaching as AGW requires broader audience treatment.
The many eyeballs argument. And, as they found out in open source software, the many eyeballs argument only works if the eyeballs actually understand what they're looking at. An issue is not helped when willfully ignorant people start talking.
You know, you had a chance to actually demonstrate that you're taking the high road by providing some sort of evidence for your talking points. Unfortunately for you, I already know why you didn't: the IPCC reports never made the claims and data analysis that you say they did.
There's nothing wrong with points of view. There is a problem when people are actively lying to score points. And if you picked up your specific points from Monckton, well, then he was lying. And you ought to look for better sources. Or do you just blindly trust what they say?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.
2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.
3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?