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."
What does not constitute proof of global warming to these madmen?
an ill wind that blows no good
Religion from the scientists.
NASA got caught faking data 2 or 3 years ago by theregister. The Brit experts then get caught admitting they fake data last year.
Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data. The data currently published cannot be trusted. None of it. Chuck it all, and prove it with fresh uncontaminated numbers, if you can find them. Then I'll believe it. Maybe.
I hate sigs, and refuse to have one.
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.
And all the recorded historical data proves these to be facts, right?
...[delete]
Oh damn... Now where did I put that data...
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
The folks who signed this petition can't really say they know what they are talking about.
That's quite a brazen accusation to make about "9000 PhD's" you've probably never met.
What? Only nine thousand PhDs??? Wow, this must be humbug!
Beside, claiming only PhDs know what they are talking about is a bit ... elitists, to put it nicely.
that the AGW true believers aren't intentionally preventing contrary opinions from being put into peer reviewed journals.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy. If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe. When the authority is preventing contrary opinions from being considered they are no longer an authority.
The hockey stick is a lie. It's been exposed. I find it hilarious that "Global Warming" believers were first whining about the term "Climate Change" being used and now they've fully embraced it. They will embrace whatever term is most socially acceptable. Nobody doubts that the climate changes. We have days, we have seasons. Why would things not shift on a larger time scale as well?
People ignorantly dump their time, effort and money into cults all the time while the people at the top get rich. The idiots at the bottom don't prove the lies at the top.
Work Safe Porn
that doesn't prove jackshit though. your still missing the link that shows CO2 somehow suddenly became the driving force of our climate. i refuse to give into the omg the evil CO2 nonsense without something more solid then "because our grant money depands on it"
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
IPCC's prediction of global temperature increase in past 10 years. (Actual numbers fell substantially below even their lower bound prediction)
How does it feel to be an idiot and talk about something you know nothing about? Oh, right - ignorance is bliss. I won't bother asking you for a citation where a single model said "1999 will have an average temperature that is exactly 0.05 degrees celsius higher than 1998", because no such paper exists. I would just like to ask you how you feel about making crap up and providing a study in cognitive dissonance?
IPCC's recent claim that it is 'worse than we thought' and that climate change is accelerating which was based on change of trend from least squares line fitting using carefully selected moving end points.
Sigh. Another completely unsupported assertion that is bordering on willful lying. Really? Is it that difficult to come up with reasonable criticisms, that the only thing you have left is imagining straw men?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And the Oregon Petition strikes again! It hasn't passed peer review--and skimming the thing suggests why. It's like multivariate analysis never even entered the picture. For the more obvious factual errors, I suggest:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf
Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change
The OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.
You have ignored the question and replied with various carefully selected bits of evidence from different isolated locales that do support your notions of global warming or climate change.
You've missed his point: there are serious people coming up with disconfirming cases. Those Greek hydrologists, for example, who found that of the local long-term temperature records they compared to model results, there was most an anti-correlation between the model predictions and the data.
It is easy to hand-wave and dismiss the odd thing here and there. It happens all the time in science. But with regard to GW/CC and AGW in particular, there are a LOT of odd things, and the current flat trend in "global temperature" is one of them.
Scientists are more interested in where and how their models are WRONG, and I'm not hearing a lot of that from the GW/CC folks. I'm hearing a lot of what the OP pointed out: the carefully crafted political use of every climate event whatsoever to attempt to bolster their position that we need to kill everyone and invade Poland before it's too late. Or something like that--I may have the details of their proposed solutions wrong, but they sound dire enough to warrant a really high degree of certainty, and a complete lack of faith.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
People who study a lot and who often use their imaginations (like artists) are often the easiest to hypnotize (and the most susceptible to psychotic illness). One reason is that they get conditioned to focus tightly one one thing to the exclusion of others. Concentration and exclusion are fundamental to a hypnotic state. Another reason people who study a lot can be suggestible is that they are more prone to authority (look for approval from teachers , profs etc). Any good hypnotist knows their greatest asset is an authoritarian manner. Of course people can be intelligent in healthy ways but the people who fall into their intellectualism to the exclusion of other aspects of their psyche are lopsided ( a reason they are often neurotic).
Many people have absorbed warming theories uncritically because some authority (an academic or artist etc) told them it was "settled science" when it wasn't. Experts also offered up congested articles that were scientism more than science, and like art consumers who get bamboozled into accepting dung on a museum floor as art people went along with studies as long as they sounded scientific.
AGW is a perfect illustration of the naked emperor syndrome. Lots and lots of people have insisted the emperor was not naked when in fact he was. We live in an age of junk science where money/fame has more influence on individuals than a desire to know the truth.
It's not just "more ice" and "less ice" or "more hurricanes" and "fewer hurricanes." The questions is where the local climate is changing, and whether it is changing in according to large scale models.
So, you mean to tell me that a model predicted record breaking snow in 49/50 states, and NO SNOW in Vancouver in the same year? And these same models not only predicted more and less ice in Antarctica, but where there would be more and where there would be less ice in Antarctica? And this same model predicted a near record number of hurricane's in hitting N. America in 2005 and no hurricanes hitting N. America in 2006?
Must be one hell of a model. Do you have a link as to where I can download this model. Why are we not using this model for everything. Seems like we found the ONE model that works. (BTW, of all the different models only one model can work. If two models get different results, at least one of them is wrong! And in order for a model to be correct, it has to be correct 100% of the time (provided that data is accurate). So, you are saying that all this was predicted by ONE model, correct?)
And as for hurricanes, we heard all year that the 2005 rough hurricane season was due to global warming and that it would only increase. The same models predicted that 2006 would be the worst in history. It wasn't. So what did we hear? "The lack of hurricane's in 2006 was due to Global Warming."
You can't make this stuff up!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
UH,NO. Cutting CO2 emissions is enormously costly. CO2 is a trace gas of which human action contributes about 3% the balance of which comes from natural sources. Further the ice core evidence that AGW supporters cite is outdated by finer analysis that show the increase in CO2 levels actually happened AFTER periods of warming.
CO2 is essential to plant life. It is neither advantageous nor is it advisable to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Because the human caused contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so low (3%) there is scant evidence for any increase of CO2 levels in the air. Plant life does an excellent job of reducing CO2 in the air and any increase simply spurs plant growth slightly which is usually desirable. Natural sources of CO2 account for 97% of all CO2 that is emitted into the Air yet we see very little evidence to indicate any AGW at all. The hypothesis that there would be positive feedback of any increase in CO2 has absolutely no basis in fact and there is zero evidence that this has happened here or elsewhere. If it does happen where is the evidence that it has happened in the past? There should be wild swings detectable in the ice cores and tree rings etc... but the evidence is missing or data has outright been falsified.
The AGW hypothesis is just that. An hypothesis without any observed data to support it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis quite the same as the existence of God is a hypothesis. It depends on faith in the absence of verifiable data.
So my answer to AGW faithful is PROVE IT with verifiable data. SO far they refuse to do so and instead cook what data they have in order to prove their hypothesis. A valid theory however is used in an attempt to explain observed data. This is the scientific method. The tail does not wag the dog.
Edwin
The specifics-- whether it will cause more hurricaines or snow, more precipitation or less, these things are being hotly contested, just like with any young scientific theory.
That's a startling new admission. You're saying warmer might be better than colder. The "specifics" of whether a warmer climate might cause harmful or beneficial weather for people -- "these things are being hotly contested". Well good. It's about time we heard a little open-mindedness about that.
This isn't "innocent until proven guilty," folks.
Maybe not. But the people who want to rule over everyone's life don't get the benefit of the doubt. The people who want to tell everyone they have to be poorer -- to lead a less fulfilling life -- those people don't get to hand-wave when someone asks them for their data. The environmental elite don't get to fly around on private jets and then stonewall and appeal to authority to justify forcing the rest of us to take the bus.
If the warmers were for freedom and technological progress and prosperity for everyone, then we might look the other way when a number or two ends up being fabricated. But then you don't need to lie in order to leave people alone to live their lives, do you?
Winters like this (and the last) are more like the winters 30 years ago - we usually had snow from mid October through late March, with much more snow than now ...
Back then, climate models predicted that a human-made climate change was causing a new ice age ...
When we had no "real" winter for several years, global warming was causing the non-existent winter.
Now, global warming is causing "extreme" winters (which still have quite a way to go until they're back to what winter was in the 70s) because there is more moisture in the air. Yet, droughts don't suffer the same fate of too much moisture in the air ... WTF?
D@mn, scientists have learned a lot from politicians, namely that people's memory hardly ever extends beyond 1-2 years back (if that far).
1. It snowed 3 inches in South Alabama this weekend less than 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.
2. Temperature has more to do with the SUN -- our source of HEAT.
3. Volcano eruptions go up, temperatures go down. Volcano eruptions don't happen, temperatures go up.
4. Scientists are refusing to release their raw data on climate change.
5. "Global Warming" is a buzzword to get funding from the NSF.
6. If you have to use the word "believe" in a scientific discussion, you shouldn't be talking about it.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, go look it up. Do some research on your own.
-- The TekWiz
No, it sounds like he has said there is no warming trend in the past 14 or 15 years. "Almost significant" means "not significant."
Yes, it sounds like "no warming trend" to you because you must have been asleep in intro stat. Non-significance cannot be used to argue that there is no effect. The sample size is small, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A DECADE AND A HALF. You need to look at larger trends, as he points out.
Think about it this way. If we did a significance test on a large sample of women and men to see if their mean heights differed, we'd get a significant effect. Men are taller than women. But then, you come along and say, "Hey, when you break the sample into smaller groups of 2 men and 2 women each, NONE of the results are significant! There is no height difference between men and women!" Yeah, well, that's just because you don't understand significance tests.
What's particularly ironic here is that you suggest that there is may be no evidence that convinces AGW supporters that AGW is not happening, when you seem to be quite willing to accept garbage statistical arguments as "evidence" against AGW. Wow.