Slashdot Mirror
Polar Vortex Sends Life-Threatening Freeze To US
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reuters reports that the Midwestern United States is shivering through the region's lowest temperatures in twenty years as forecasters warn that life-threatening cold is heading eastward as a polar vortex of freezing Arctic weather sweeps across the United States. 'The coldest temperatures in almost two decades will spread into the northern and central U.S. today behind an arctic cold front,' says the National Weather Service. 'Combined with gusty winds, these temperatures will result in life-threatening wind chill values as low as 60 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit/minus 51 degrees Celsius).' The coldest temperature reported in the lower 48 states on Sunday was minus 40 F (-40 C) in the towns of Babbitt and Embarrass, Minnesota. Meteorologists warn that the wind-chill factor could make it feel twice as cold, causing frostbite to exposed parts of the body within minutes. Eleven people have already died in weather-related incidents in the past week, including a 71-year-old woman with Alzheimer's who wandered from her home in upstate New York and was found frozen to death only 100m away. Polar vortexes occur seasonally at the North Pole, and their formation resembles that of hurricanes in more tropical regions: fast-moving winds build up around a calm center. Unlike a hurricane, these are frigid polar winds, circling the Arctic at more than 100 miles per hour. The spinning winds typically trap this cold air in the Arctic. But the problem comes when the polar vortex weakens or splits apart, essentially flinging these cold wind patterns out of the Arctic and into our backyards. 'All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak,' says meteorologist Ryan Maue. 'If you're under 40, you've not seen this stuff before.'"
OMG! We're all going to die!
As a resident of Michigan, I can concur that this is the worst weather I have ever seen in my life. I am under 40, but I seem to remember getting hit by something similar back in the mid 90s. I am one of 10 people in the I.T. department at work that made it in today. Considering we have a staff of around 150 people, that's a lot of folks stuck in their homes.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
Crap... It was that stupid "The Day After Tomorrow" movie.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Does whoever wrote this think that a decade is 20 years? Or am I slow this AM?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Gah! That's only creates a bigger ozone hole which gets you more radiation and skin cancer. If you want more global warming, eat more beans and fart a lot. :P
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What the hell does "twice as cold" even mean? If it's intended to mean "double the negative distance from zero", then it's unit-dependent. The same with "half the temperature". Just give an actual temperature, instead of using vagary in an attempt to impress people with how cold it's doing to be.
This is a REAL Chicago winter... you kids have all gotten soft in the last 30 years. We used to have these all the time when I was a kid. I remember in about 1980, it had been this cold for sever days in a row so I had sever cabin fever (a condition resulting in the need to GET OUT OF THE HOUSE)... so I walked 1.2 miles in -40 temperatures to get to Montgomery Wards. (I just checked the distance using google maps) That's -40 REAL degrees (trivia: -40F == -40C), or -80F with the "Wind Chill".... I was very glad my dad came to pick me up and take me home, so I didn't need to make the return trip on foot.
Two pairs of jeans (the thick kind we used to have back then) were barely enough to keep my legs warm during that walk.
We've had these before, we'll have them again... shove off with the invented names like "Polar Vortex"... it's just WINTER. /rant
PS: Maybe it's cabin fever getting to me? ;-)
Not that long ago (meaning.. 5 to 10 years) it was quite common in my area of northern new england to have a week or more of -30 at night -10 day. We've all been spoiled a bit the past few years by only a handful of days like that. What is unsual about this year is that we had a few of those days in mid/late December instead of the more typical Feb.
Also, while those -30, -40 etc numbers sound terrible, if you dress properly its not that bad and further, they usually happen betwen 4am and 7am and quickly moderate.
But how will our metric friends know what the temperature is if we report -40F? How will they ever tell?!
Someone, please, think of the pedants!
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
People who aren't into sensationalism call this an Alberta clipper. It happens every year.
And people in Alberta call it "Late Autumn", and just wait for the next Chinook.
When I woke up this morning to go to work I checked the weather and this is what I saw: -14 F, -38 F Windchill in Chicago and -11 F, -39F Windchill at the South Pole. I don't think I've ever seen temps that low before. The good news is that like the temps, traffic into work was way down.
If this weather report is news to you, you really do live in the basement.
Or even outside the USA. It's a possibility you know.
Get your SuperSoaker ready and snow your friends!
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Though they both cause extremely cold weather, a polar vortex and an Alberta clipper are very different meteorological events.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
In the UK we have only had frost in the morning two or three times this winter. It's much warmer than usual.
Hopefully you acted in time.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm fine with the idea that climate and weather are different things. But where are all of you to point this out when idiots get on TV and try to claim that the latest big hurricane was "exacerbated by global warming"? You can't have it both ways.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Years from now someone will look at this event from lightyears away, and from their telescopes on their planet with a planet wide climate control system, they will see this system and observe a small planet orbiting a star much like their own, with a lot of activity in the radio spectrum being emitted. However, they will dismiss this planet as having intelligent life as the weather patterns are too sporadic to be those from a planet which harbors a civilization; for those who have not yet controlled their planet are simply animals and nothing more.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Not where I live in Alberta. Anything North of Calgary doesn't get Chinooks all the often and we are stuck in the deep freeze. We just don't whine about it like the Easterners. Yesterday morning it was -34c with a wind chill of -45c. We decided it would be better to walk to the grocery store instead of driving as the car was just to frozen over. This morning we remembered to plug it in and it's no where near as cold, only -24c not sure of the wind chill. Still walked to work though.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
TL;DR: Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena.
Winter is Coming...
40 below, yeah. But is that Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Nobody's fingers ever fell off from hailing a cab. It just doesn't happen. And if you're hailing a cab, you're probably in an urban heat island where the temperature is a good 5-10F above the rural areas where the true cold is felt.
Your concern is misplaced and probably should be directed more towards our furry four-legged friends. There are a lot of people that leave them outside without a second thought in this type of weather. They can handle chilly weather but when your leave them out in ball-busting cold a wet nose is a hindrance and not an asset.
sf bay area has been 'tee shirts and shorts' weather the past week or so. during the daytime, only, though, but still...
a month ago, it was bitter cold. now, its getting closer to spring time (and I'm hearing a lot more birds singing; they seem to think its time to return; which is about 1 month too soon; you usually see the trees start to bloom around valentines day, in the bay area).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Another Michigander (Michiganian?) here. Only one guy decided to brave his way into the office this morning. The rest of us were smart enough to fire up our remote terminal connections over our company VPN and work from home.
I live in Michigan too. Wasn't that bad unless you are driving something like a Prius (aka a sled). Most of us don't have jobs that can be done from home. I run a manufacturing plant and it's pretty hard to make parts over a VPN connection.
I was all set to at least attempt the trip in, but the 4 foot snow pile at the end of my driveway said otherwise.
So you don't own a shovel? [/teasing] I plowed my driveway 3 times yesterday and again this morning. The roads near me were reasonably clear considering. Was a little later than usual but staying home wasn't really necessary.
Where is global warming when you need it?
Outside.
This ridiculous storm naming habit needs to stop! It's winter, sometimes it's cold and snowy, sometimes it's REALLY cold and snowy. I guess the next storm will be called "Winter Storm Anus Ripper" eh?
In Edmonton, where I come from, we would get one chinook a year.
Although most people just called it summer.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
ugh. your angry ignorance is overwhelming. global warming is happening, meaning the MEAN (ie, average) global temperatures are rising. what this causes is (among other things) temperature and climate swings in any particular region are likely to become much more severe. (noticed any patterns lately of 'rare' storms happening frequently?)
PART of the reason for calling it climate change (aside from the fact that the issue is bigger than just things getting warmer) is to change the semantics so dolts like you wouldn't look out the window and say 'gee zeke, aint no warmer here! all is good y'all! pop me another brewskie! here come's honey boo boo! " apparently, it didn't work as you so clearly display. someone intent on keeping their head buried up their ass will fight tooth and nail to do so.
In 1996, in Minnesota, I remember quite well waking up to -45F. Further North, it got down to -60F. The governor cancelled school, and all of us kids went outside to play anyway.
If it's only getting down to -40 in the coldest cities in the continental US, there are people who can't legally drink who have seen worse. Nice sensationalism though.
In southeast PA, we already had temps lower a few days ago (4 F) than the ones claimed for us during this "perfect frost" (8 F).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
This is all media drama. Real story here is how most people do not want to layer-up for weather like this. They will chance it wearing jeans, no hat (don't want to mess the 'do) and dressing just warm enough to make it to their car. This works great until car leaves you stranded because injectors gel'd up, or whatever. In this weather, walking a couple miles in the wind wearing only blue jeans, no hat/socks/mitts will easily f- you up. If you need to dress lightly, at least throw some appropriate gear in the trunk in case you *do* need to be out in it. Even new cars can have trouble in extreme cold.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
This is weather not climate....so when the reverse happens, and the global warming alarmists sound their cry. Just tell them to stuff it.
One of the articles (the last one linked to) says, "Brutal conditions are expected in Detroit, which has had only five days in living memory when temperatures stayed below freezing all day." I find that hard to believe. I live quite a bit further south than Detroit, and we probably have at least two or three days a year where that is the case. Looking at the forecast for Detroit, I suspect it is a conversion problem. If someone in America says, "There have been only five days in living memory that the temp in Detroit has not gotten above zero", someone outside of the U.S. might read that and think zero Celcius, which is freezing, and not -18 Celcius, which is what is meant.
Proverbs 21:19
Its Climate Change. CLIMATE CHANGE. Don't you read the latest PR handouts?
Have gnu, will travel.
Show us where we can correct those idiots - Global waming is such a stupid word to use, because people who wants to argue with you will focus on that single word.
Doesn't matter if you had a billion scientists saying something different, there is a single word that the other person can attach to and argue against, which means you will have lost.
Global climate change is a much better wording - you can even add a small star "due to global temperature average climbing".
Yeah, like *I FUCKING SAID*, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that climate and weather are two different things. I just want some consistency. You can't just pick and choose weather events and say "This weather event counts as evidence, but this one doesn't." Nor can you construct a hypothesis that is so convoluted as to be supported by ALL EVIDENCE, and which is impossible to disprove. That's not science, it's religion.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Why is this sensationalist crap here? Is Dice trying to convert /. to CNN?
News flash: It's going to be hot in the summertime, cold in the winter. Weather records are set every year.
Climate != Weather
Totally, right?
Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming. It's in the papers here as soon as the temperature goes over 90F. Warming, warming, warming, we're all gonna die.
Well, since Climate != Weather, why can't I say that the hot dry summers are proof of global cooling? After all, it's perfectly reputable, apparently, to say that -40F winter wind chill is proof of warming!
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it:
Some of us already know what we should be doing. We should be building topsoil, planting trees, building alternative energy supplies, cleaning the air, cleaning the water, greening the deserts; in short, taking the simple steps to making Earth a little better.
(Adding something like 1" of topsoil to America's farm land would sequester more CO2 than man has ever emitted, IIRC, and we could actually do that simultaneously with growing bio-fuels...!)
AGW (whether true or false) is just something for people to argue about while governments and corporations make the biggest power grab in the history of power grabs. Divide and conquer at work.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Preach on my brotha! Those fools who fail to see the divine truth in global warming will pay dealy for their insolence!
Freeze you earth killers, freeze to death in the name of global warming and maurice strong!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Rubbish.
The Day after Tomorrow was released in 2004.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
I love it when idiots pick a single point of data and call it a trend.
You could also try:
"This glorified network cable costs 10 grand! Network cables are getting insanely expensive!"
or
"That airplane crashed! Air travel is getting more dangerous by the minute!"
or
"I used to buy only laptops, but now I build my own desktops. The desktop market is on the rise!"
This comment comes up every single time there is anything vaguely related to weather. The drooling idiot is usually quite open minded with valid questions about the direction of change - warmer, colder, more extreme, is it natural, how much impact do humans have, and so on. (Sure, there is the odd troll too) Just in the past year it seems anyone that would question these predictions quickly gets tagged as a denier. I really don't get it.
Try cueing the geologists and solar scientists. We're IN an Ice Age, and have been for the last ~2.58 million years. We're currently in between continental glaciations, and the next is due Real Soon Now. . . in geological terms (which is anytime from right now until 10,000 AD or so. . .)
And you might want to talk to solar scientists, as we're in a solar minimum, and they are extensively correlated with lower global temperatures. Hint: google "Solar Minimum", "Maunder Minimum", and "Dalton Minimum".
I'll also note that the warming trend that reportedly ended in 1998, still did not reach the average temperatures of the Medieval Optimum Period. . .
Actually it DOES NOT. When the evidence was corrected, it showed the medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer.
But remember, it's all how you pick and choose your data, except for one fact. History. When we know places like Greenland/Iceland were historically freer of ice, etc. Then we KNOW that in the past it was in fact warmer.
CFCs (let's not forget they've been banned, by the way) are also greenhouse gases, so they're doubly bad for the environment.
We're hitting temperatures not seen since the 1990's. And that's it. And last summer wasn't particularly hot. Where are the dramatic weather extremes we've been told would occur?
Yeah, like *I FUCKING SAID*, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that climate and weather are two different things. I just want some consistency. You can't just pick and choose weather events and say "This weather event counts as evidence, but this one doesn't." Nor can you construct a hypothesis that is so convoluted as to be supported by ALL EVIDENCE, and which is impossible to disprove. That's not science, it's religion.
Global warming means there is more energy around. Energy which can move cold air to areas where it doesn't belong. The extra energy provided by global warming is right now moving huge amounts of freezing air from the polar region where it belongs, to the USA where it doesn't belong.
Prius are heavier for their size and weight distribution thanks to the batteries and the transaxle (generator/motor). This added weight makes the Prius far better in the snow than the average front wheel drive vehicle.
Just an FYI...
My Prius was the best non-4x4/AWD vehicle i've driven in the snow. But no, nothing is quite as nice as 4x4
Kelvin.
So we're all well and truly fucked.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
We also know that, historically, Antarctica was north of Australia. So just saying that Greenland was once clear of ice is picking and choosing facts just as much as only looking at any other limited dataset. The truth is that it's a very complex system with a shit-ton of variables involved on a daily basis. Once you start looking at historical trends, you need to consider everything from solar cycles to plate tectonics.
Is in Rio de Janeiro, were the heat is setting off sprinklers.
Looking at a chart for this part of the Midwest, there have been plenty of days this cold, if not significantly colder. The real problem here is crappy reporting, short memories, an ignorance of historical data, and general sensationalism. The big laugher is in last sentence of the last linked article: "Brutal conditions are expected in Detroit, which has had only five days in living memory when temperatures stayed below freezing all day." Really? No one knows the difference between 0 degree F and freezing? Between this kind of sloppy reporting and naming winter storms, the public interest in meteorology is going to taper off even further, once we all get through this and it gets back into the 40s by the end of the week. When weather news then becomes marginalized, people pay even less attention to the realities of climate change and other issues...maybe that's the point, I don't know.
The NOAA lists -27F as the lowest recorded temperature in Chicago.
They also have a list of days with a temperature below -16F and 1980 wasn't listed.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=chi_temperature_records
So when you play roulette and you see three odd numbers in a row, I guess that's empirical evidence that probability theory is wrong?
Global Warming alarmists who don't know what they're talking about to deride folks who do, for pointing to a weather event....just like Global Warming alarmists do EVERY SINGLE hurricane, drought, flood, tornado and earthquake.
Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, but denying those same incidents as proof against global warming.
I suspect that is selection bias on your part. While the media do love to play up the "global warming" angle after every calamity, in every interview with an actual climate scientist that I've seen, the scientists seem pretty eager to distance themselves from that sort of speculation. If they have their dander up, they might point to theories which predict that the frequency and intensity of storms will increase, but that's about as far as I've seen them go.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
the second it hits the East Coast, everyone loses their shit and the weather services start screaming about wind chill
I wasn't aware that Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois were on the East Coast.
Actually, C and F converge right at -40. That convergence is the cause of the whooshing sound you heard when replying to the previous poster.
If you click on that "If you're under 40..." link, you're taken to an article on the South African Times web site, headed by a really gnarly picture of a circular weather system. Trouble is, that's *Saturn's* north pole, not Earth's! And there's no mention of Saturn in the article - it's presented as if it's a satellite image of recent weather on Terra.
I have emailed the Times with a bit of a snottogram...
But where are all of you to point this out when idiots get on TV and try to claim that the latest big hurricane was "exacerbated by global warming"?
I obviously can't speak for every Slashdotter who thinks that the scientific consensus is probably correct, but I know it pisses me off when they do that.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Nither, it was Kelvin.
So cold that not only did atomic motion stop, it reversed.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's right here. More energy in the system, more chaotic weather. It doesn't just mean it gets "warmer everywhere all the time".
Well, considering the jet stream usually runs further north without large southward lobes in it, and considering it is the temperature differential between the arctic and southern climes that creates a strong jet stream, a warming trend in the arctic weakens the jet stream and allows these polar vortexes to move south. So yes, this is actually a result of global warming. Global warming doesn't actually say that the planet will turn into a boiling hot place. It simply says that global average temperatures are rising. The effect of that is to put increasing amounts of energy (in the form of water vapor) in to the atmosphere. This means more intense storms more frequently. That includes winter storms. It pushes weather out to the extremes on both sides. Deeper freezes, hotter summers, less temperate weather.
Someone PLEASE mod this up. :D
All I can say is : Cool!
Whether you believe in GW science or not, trying to explain individual weather events using climate science is utterly ridiculous.
First one, then the other.
rewriting history since 2109
The AC is making a serious error here and it almost seems as if though he imagines the US to be the entire world even weather-wise.
Meanwhile, here in Europe we have weather so unusually warm that it's almost unnatural. I live in Sweden and this time of year I can usually do such things as skate, ski cross country and engage other snow-requiring activities. However, today it's been six degrees Celsius and I'm seriously considering taking a short drive with the top down tomorrow provided that it's sunny.
This is of course kind of anecdotal but actual data (http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/2.1353/showImg.php?par=tmpAvv) demonstrates the same thing. About five degrees warmer than the normal temperatures and probably much warmer during the warmest part of the day.
Prius are heavier for their size and weight distribution thanks to the batteries and the transaxle (generator/motor). This added weight makes the Prius far better in the snow than the average front wheel drive vehicle.
A current generation Prius weighs almost exactly the same as a current generation VW Golf. Both are around 1325 kilograms. I've driven one myself in the winter weather where I live and it was pretty pathetic in the snow - although to be fair not vastly worse than a lot of other small hatchbacks with all season tires. The low rolling resistance tires were not very good - they are skinny which is actually helpful in snow but the tread and rubber compound does you no favors in icy/wet conditions. We had several Priuses at a test track I used to work at a few years ago so we got to know them pretty well. Let's just say their winter performance wasn't exactly confidence inspiring. My sister owned one for about 3-4 years and her opinion is similar to mine though she live further south where bad weather was less common. With a set of winter tires it ought to handle reasonably well compared with similar hatchbacks though no where near as well as my Xterra. :-)
The normal tires that come with a Prius are absolutely terrible in the snow. Put a couple of winter tires on it, and it does just fine, though. I wouldn't say it does better than the Subaru (which you see all over the place here), but it's good enough.
The only frustrating part is the traction control that can't be turned off combined with very high torque at low speeds. A little bit of ice under one wheel and it can be very hard to get the car to move at all.
Looked at a map recently? Getting to 0'F in Nevada is pretty significant, for most of the state. Kentucky's the same latitude, and I've seen Kentucky shut down for 1" of snow -- they just don't have the necessary equipment to clear the snow/ice from the roads, because they usually don't get it.
Similarly, -40'C is business as usual for the January freeze in this part of Canada (and northern parts of the US). I wore a 2nd scarf last week as I went about my usual business. In parts of the States, however, -40'C is apocalyptic.
Just like a religion, you can claim all you want and dispense with all dissent with a wave of a hand. The sad part is, we have had worse weather patterns before and we will have varied and unpredictable weather patterns in the future.
Guess what, it has always been this way. The idea you can suddenly declare THIS is more relevant than THAT or whatnot is just silly. Yet every exceptional weather issue suddenly is proof positive of your belief. Whats next, finding pictures of Al Gore on bread?
Do you realize how silly you come off with your "IN FACT" declaration. Its not fact, its theory and the one thing about weather we all know is, we cannot tell you whats going to happen one month to the next. If we could then someone should have known this was coming way off but guess what they did not.
I would love to see the model which shows no hurricanes smacking the US, record low tornado activity, followed with one week of exceptional cold. There won't be one, but it certainly won't stop the fanatics from declaring it.
Hell, over a hundred years ago we had sixty foot drifts in New York, can you imagine the insanity that would cause today?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Oh I get it, Global warming is the energy that moves the weather. So if it gets hotter or colder this summer it is global warming. If it is warmer or colder this winter it is global warming. If there are more or fewer tornado's or stronger / weaker hurricanes. It is all global warming.
So all weather events are proof of global warming no matter what way they go. Great logic!
Because the US is the whole world, eh?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just sayin...
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
So when you play roulette and you see three odd numbers in a row, I guess that's empirical evidence that probability theory is wrong?
Naw, there's a slightly less than 1:8 probability of that (00 is technically even, I think). Do it 32 times in a row, though, and it's bout 130K less than a 1:4,294,967,296 probability, at which point I'm going to claim it's a rigged table (rigged source data set).
sf bay area has been 'tee shirts and shorts' weather the past week or so.
"Winter" in the SF Bay Area is that time of year you wear socks.
Doesn't matter if you had a billion scientists saying something different, there is a single word that the other person can attach to and argue against, which means you will have lost.
Especially if most of those scientists that are doing the talking about it aren't actually climatologists, they're just the handy "scientist guy on retainer at the station" type people?
I'm fine with the idea that climate and weather are different things. But where are all of you to point this out when idiots get on TV and try to claim that the latest big hurricane was "exacerbated by global warming"? You can't have it both ways.
Which is why I do not watch the Weather Channel or the national news in a very long time.
Worse, when Sandy hit New Jersey nobody believed them! Keep spewing crap like OMG IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD ... over and over and over and no one is going to believe you. Even if the governor says evacuate.
Can't we do something about this? Even slashdotters are falling for the hype.
FYI I survived a polar vortex in 1989 when the last one hit and I was a kid. Man it was the longest wait for the bus I ever had! -10 with howling winds and even the gulf coast got hit with single digit temperatures which killed palm trees. The gulf coast this time around is in the low 20s which can frost bite them and kill some citris plants is nothing and +10 degrees warmer than the one in 1989! If anything it shows the world is warming up.
http://saveie6.com/
I'm not saying Global Warming doesn't exist, it does! However given this cold spell, I fail to see how the earth is warming up.
Weather != Climate. Weather is what we are experiencing right this minute. Climate is the average of weather over time. You can have a colder than usual few days and still have the average temperature higher than before. Measure the temperature every day for a year and you have climate. Compare each year with the ones before it to see if there is a trend in the temperature. All the evidence seems to indicate that average temperatures are climbing. Saying this winter storm is evidence against climate change is basically an admission that A) you don't understand what climate is and B) you don't grasp statistics.
Additionally we are talking about global changes in climate. The fact that the Midwest US is currently colder than average is just one tiny, almost insignificant, data point in the global average temperature.
You can see "global cooling" from your window? How high is your floor?
Just kidding of course. As someone else pointed out, global warming and climate change don't mean exactly the same thing. But I guess you're right that some folks have started to use the latter where they used to prefer the former, simply because certain other people react on every story which has "ice" or "snow" or "cold" in the title with a reflexive "see, AGW is a socialist conspiracy".
For the record:
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.[6] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally[7][8].
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Back in 88. Helluva show.
Best Slashdot Co
He is a troll and the let the moderators do their job and ignore him.
When I first saw this headline I smirked and wondered what would the trolls be say? Obviously the title itself is just flamebaitish enough.
These are comments I expect in CNN or msnbc.com by trolls. Not on Slashdot where we mod them down and ignore them.
http://saveie6.com/
It's a description.
Best Slashdot Co
Yes, I have missed them. Please do enlighten me! Maybe I'm a bit odd, but my threshold for "climate scientist" is quite high. I feel like you need to be involved in the construction and testing of climate models in order to call yourself a climate scientist. At the very least, you need to be in the data collection end of things.
Also, while I wish people pushing for reduced carbon emission well and hope they succeed, I don't think that they will. I think the efforts are wasted - people will probably use most of the world's fossil fuels as long as they are the cheapest way to get energy. Perhaps technology will save us, but barring that we should probably be putting money into mitigation efforts. There should be some centralized effort to cope with the effects of global warming: Do we continue to rebuild low-lying areas? Do we build sea walls? Do we pump cooling material into the atmosphere? And so on.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Don't get all hot under the collar. You'll melt the ice caps faster.
"Breakin' rocks in the hot sun,
I fought the warm and warm won...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I'm fine with the idea that climate and weather are different things.... You can't have it both ways.
Firstly, I'm not a climate expert (though I did study some climate physics) so I'm not going to come into the debate about whether a particular hurricane was influenced by global warming, however in this case there are two underlying statements here
These two statements are in no way contradictory. Think about a marble at the bottom of a bowl. Now you start moving the bowl back and forward a bit. Sometimes the marble moves slowly, sometimes it moves quickly. If you add more energy to the system by moving the bowl more, it will still sometimes move fast (hot weather) and sometimes slowly (cold weather). The average will just be faster.
At the same time, for a given level of energy input there is a maximum height the marble can reach (limited by friction which sets the rate of loss of energy of the marble). It very rarely reaches that level, but it often get close. If you shake the bowl more strongly that maximum level will be higher. In the same way, the biggest storms you get with global warming will be bigger than it would be possible to get without global warming. This means that there will be some exceptional events where it really is possible to talk about global warming having a direct effect.
Global waming is such a stupid word to use, because people who wants to argue with you will focus on that single word.
They can argue all they want but if the average temperatures are actually rising around the world then calling it Global Warming is 100% correct.
Global climate change is a much better wording - you can even add a small star "due to global temperature average climbing".
If the phenomenon being discussed is the fact that average global temperatures are rising over time then Global Warming is the correct terminology. Why would you not use the correct terminology. Yes it is climate change but calling it climate change when we are discussion global temperature increases is A) less clear about exactly what is happening globally and B) less useful for getting people to act since climate change isn't as scary a term to most people.
It was a joke, it's -30 out right now with the wind chill, I was just making a quick hit at global warming because -30 is colder then today last year, thats all.
It was a joke, it's -30 out right now with the wind chill, at least where I live, I was just making a quick hit at global warming because -30 is colder then today last year, thats all. No one of any serious intelligence would make a statement like that.
Suck it up, princesses.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Here you go, try a little data.
WALSTIB!
What displaced all that cold air in the arctic when the arctic air came down here? I.e. don't just think about "warming" in isolation - also think about "global". Summarizing climate sciences in one or even two words probably means that you are probably leaving out some details.
What's good for the goose is good for the Michigander!
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
I have the good fortune to live on Lake Michigan in Chicago, where there are beautiful mists rising off the lake as the waves smash into the ice piles extending off the shore, splashing on them, adding layer on layer of ice. Truly a fascinating sight.
This is the kind of winter I recall as a kid, blizzard of '78 being one vivid example. Snow piled up to the roof of our garage! It got so heavy that come Spring the snow melted to reveal the yard fences all bent out of shape. But the past several winters have been so mild, barely freezing at all the past two, that today there's almost a sense of a return to normalcy.
In "get off my lawn" mode, all this weather reporting drama is just silly -- when I was younger winter was like this on a regular basis. We were heartier for it too. I had grizzly chest hairs by age six.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
"at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models."
Patently False. They aren't rising as fast as the worse case scenarios the media likes to report. They are rising within model predictions.
"Nor have they risen to temperatures that exceed recent human history past"
irrelevant. Then rise in the past was do to different reasons. WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2.
" Dismissed global warming that transpired on other celestrial bodies in our solar system during the same time."OK, you are just waving your ignorance arounbd.
A) If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law. Other body warming is NOT happenign on all bodies, and where it does happen there is no correlation to it happening on few other bodies.
B) IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly. The rising trend does NOT correlate with the Suns activity.
" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, "
um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's.
That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
"We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well."
As expect by climate change models, dumb ass. The term climate change is older the global warming, BTW.
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun.
2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something
3) CO2* absorbs IR energy
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
So tell me: What's happening to the extra absorbed energy id it is impacting the climate?
There is a reason you echo chamber only cherry picks 'facts' and never talks about the actual science.
*This applies to other gases as well, but CO2 is the biggest one we emit at this time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't think the Polar Bears, Moose, Wolves and Reindeer care for the weather report.
I've heard both. I agree that Michigander sounds like a goose, but that was what I was told we were called for the longest time so it kind of stuck. I'm not sure I like Michiganian either though, maybe Michiganite?
I'm leaning more towards something with your car.
Last week, when we had -30'C with wind chill in -40'C range for a week, my car was a rough start after 3 days in the driveway, but it still started and ran just fine. Just let it idle long enough to warm up (my car has a "cold engine" idiot light, wait for it to go off), and you'll be fine.
The *big* mistake people make with their cars when it gets really cold is using their car for short hops without giving it time to warm up. That's bad for engine durability, and the more immediate problem it causes is that it drains the battery. It takes more energy to start a car in the winter, and that means it needs to be running for longer in order to recharge. Waiting for the car to warm up before driving off will help with that, but you'll still probably have a problem by the end of the season if all you're doing is a 5 minute jaunt to the grocery store and back.
According to that map, there seems to be a rather large American population in Cuba, too...
Didn't realize gitmo had gotten that big....
Wow, it's -15F in WI this morning. Last week it as -9F, so the fuck what? Oh look, we're all still alive. Everyone needs to grow some balls, stop calling it life threatening, and put on a coat.
"If you're under 40, you've not seen this stuff before.'" except in 1996 so no. Oh, and it was very similar about 4 days ago too.
Also, it's more commonly called "vortices" not "vortexes."
Just to learn that there's a place called Embarrass, Minnesota.
"But the real cold was expected last night, when a "polar vortex" of freezing, dense air that has collected at the North Pole was due to reach the mainland, reinforcing already frigid conditions."
So Canada is an ocean now? It came directly across Canada.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It was a joke. Try taking it a little more lightly
It was also approximately the same temperature and wind speed the day after 5 days ago in my area. They must mean 40 metric years or space years or ant years or something.
It's amazing how many people didn't realize that was a joke.
Doubting AGW != denying all climate change - climate does change over time, it's just the science behind AGW is very much up for debate in favor of, or in opposition of, it doesn't matter. Skepticism != outright denial, skepticism of one aspect of something != outright denial of it or something similar to it.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I like a moisture-wicking layer, then one or more insulating layers, then a windproof layer.
Big ugly felt pack boots are nice in cold weather.
Mitts rather than gloves so your fingers can share heat.
A scarf or neckwarmer to breath through and cover as much skin as possible.
In really cold weather ski goggles are handy so your eyelashes don't freeze shut.
Incorrect. You're statment have been shown to be wrong. Your bias is forcing you to clinging to a narrative that has been proven to be false. Please learn and apply critical thinking skills.
"medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer."
In one section of the globe, not the global temperature.
"Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures"
Bold by me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
"Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Trolling's no fun when the trolls go after each other. Give it a rest, you two.
I guess you need to ramp up your exaggeration of ignorance! I know far too many people that are saying exactly what you joked, but they are dead serious. Very sad!
Repeat After Me: No single weather event can be said to be proof or refutation of Global Climate Change.
All Global Climate Change says is that as the *average* global temperature increases the traditional weather patterns we have become accustomed to will change in unpredictable ways. Some areas may see colder winters, others warmer. Some areas will see increased rain, others will become deserts. In fact some places may have hotter, drier summers yet colder wetter winters. The problems come from the fact that we've put farms and cities in certain locations with the expectation that the weather would be stable over the long term.
You can't say any one hurricane is proof of global climate change any more than you can say any one cold winter refutes global climate change.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Obviously, you don't get it. Global warming means that the average global temperature is rising. But consider, if the temperatures remain exactly the same over land, and the temperatures over the poles rise, then that is enough to bring up the average global temperature.
And for the purposes of this discussion, it is a law of physics that the coolest parts of an object will warm up most quickly.
So the proof of global warming is that the average global temperature is rising. A measurable and verifiable fact.
And that is having consequences on our weather. That is a separate issue, which does not constitute proof or evidence of any kind. It is a consequence.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Nobody's fingers ever fell off from hailing a cab. It just doesn't happen. And if you're hailing a cab, you're probably in an urban heat island where the temperature is a good 5-10F above the rural areas where the true cold is felt.
Your concern is misplaced and probably should be directed more towards our furry four-legged friends. There are a lot of people that leave them outside without a second thought in this type of weather. They can handle chilly weather but when your leave them out in ball-busting cold a wet nose is a hindrance and not an asset.
I agree with everything you've said...
However, Chicago, for example, is supposed to hit -60F tonight *in the city*. Yes, that's INSIDE the heat island, which is supposed to be blasted away by the high winds. For anyone unused to these temperatures, dressing incorrectly WILL result in frostbite in short order. You don't leave skin exposed other than your face, and that should be covered by a proper hood. Poly/plastic clothing will crack and shatter at those temperatures.
It's all about being outside of the norm as far as safety goes -- get a good dump of snow in central California, and it's a disaster -- because drivers don't know what to do and the roads aren't engineered for it. Ohio's getting temperatures significantly below 0 with snow, and this again is significantly different from regular weather patterns -- so people's regular habits won't keep them safe and warm.
If you come from somewhere colder, old habits just kick in and you're fine (for the most part). But if you come from somewhere warmer, you really don't know what to do, and the media don't make it any better, providing all sorts of horror stories and conflicting advice. Best bet is to stay home and stay safe, in this situation.
That is sad, global warming is happening, it's a fact.
Also known as the "It's cold in this one location at this one time so how can the entire Earth be warmer" argument against global warming. Easy to disprove. First off, climate isn't the same as weather. Secondly, let's say the temperature in your location went down by 20 degrees, but the temperature in a few other places (say, Pretoria, South Africa, Paris, France, and Hong Kong) have gone up by 10 degrees each. The average temperature across these four locations would be +2.5 degrees - or warmer on average. Even though you are shivering now, it doesn't mean that everyone is or that everyone will always be shivering. It just means that the temperatures dropped in one location for one period of time.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And Viking settlements from the 100AD range show they grew crops similar to much further south... Crops that its still not WARM enough for where you live.
The problem is not whether climate will change, it is the changes in available natural resources that go with it. When that Roman warm period ended about 400AD it pushed the north men south, and set the Vikings to sea because farming slowly became unproductive.
The North America has little history of 500+ years ago. So how are things going to change for PEOPLE... In much of the Midwest we've been dealing with multiple years of drought... And even these mega storms aren't dropping ENOUGH snow to fix it. On the other hand, the droughts cause flooding and mudslides when the rains do come because HUMANS have changed the landscape over 200 years.
One way or another these changes will effect PEOPLE, and sitting in Arizona hiding behind your AC is only going to last so long before RESOURCES have to be reallocated for another 50-100 years DIFFERENTLY than they are now.
This is where Capitalism conflicts with running a nation properly. National economists are about making the COUNTRY operate efficiently.... Capitalists are about taking those identified weaknesses and PROFITING from making them WORSE.... Which is why they hate the push for addressing climate change/global warming because that means we're addressing DEMAND before a profitable crisis occurs.
...this happened then, as well. It was in the Toronto Star; august or the fall, I think.
The two vortexes over the arctic (one over Baffin Island, one over Siberia) were joined by a third one.
Owsley wrorte an essay on this that became the movie _The Day After Tommorow_ (If you know The Bear you know where to find this)
Need Mercedes parts ?
It was a joke, it clearly didn't come off that way, a few people have reacted to it.
So, they have defective sprinklers. No sprinkler should be going off at 50C.
Just another day in Paradise
We should be [...], greening the deserts; in short, taking the simple steps to making Earth a little better.
Greening the deserts is not a risk free proposition.
You could easily shift local or global weather patterns, depending on how much greening you do and where you do it.
Anyways, if you want to see results, you can watch the Chinese try (and so far fail because of poor choices) in their attempts to green the Gobi desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yawn, It all feels the same to me below 0F.
-Madison, WI (-18F during commute)
Yes, I am over 40 but it's January in Minnesota. It's not that unusual.
It was -21 when I hopped on my bike to ride to work this morning. It's been about 4 years since it's been this cold but it's hardly historic.
Global warming doesn't mean it will get any warmer where you are...it could get colder instead.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Especially when that ONE point is actually 16 years of no increased warming....
Michiganese?
There are two classes "UPers" and "Trolls". Only Michigan HAS UPers and trolls.
Sigh. Take a look at this graph and read the article.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You can't have it both ways
Look, every extreme weather event is caused by global warming. So are the moderate ones, so shut up and pay me a carbon tax while I repress the alternatives.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I am not sure about the GP, but I can point to a study where the issue is not selection basis.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
It is not that we know that the studies are wrong; it is that we know models are incomplete. Climate change is a young science so there are holes and gaps. One answer might be that the oceans have more ability to absorb CO2 then the models predict and we are reaching a new equilibrium point. Or maybe this is just a pause for something really nasty to pop up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
Or the land masses were in different places. Or ocean currents were different. Say, because the Isthmus of Panama was open, you know, like up until about 3 million years ago when the current series of glaciation periods started.
Comparing anything in geological history to the current period is far more complex than "it was warmer".
I've been campaigning for Michigoon for decades, but nobody seems to like that one. Can't imagine why.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
(Adding something like 1" of topsoil to America's farm land would sequester more CO2 than man has ever emitted, IIRC, and we could actually do that simultaneously with growing bio-fuels...!)
AGW (whether true or false) is just something for people to argue about while governments and corporations make the biggest power grab in the history of power grabs. Divide and conquer at work.
Hang on, buddy!
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Where I live in Finland, when we get around to -40, like we did few years back for some 3 months, I just drag my sorry ass to the office as usual and wonder why would any sane person ever move to, or want to live in, such an area. Luckily you Canadians thought of us and sent the holy Elop to save us from working in the cold. Cheers.
We're hitting temperatures not seen since the 1990's. And that's it. And last summer wasn't particularly hot. Where are the dramatic weather extremes we've been told would occur?
Here
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
No. Global warming is the observation that the mean temperature of the earth has increased over the past several decades, as shown in this graph. Only warming is proof of warming. We can also see effects of this warming, such as the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice melting.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The selection bias I was referring to was his observation that climate scientists seem to blame global warming for every calamitous weather event. I hear it brought up every... single... time... by idiot reporters, but I don't think I've ever heard a climate scientist make this claim.
I'm certain that the models are not complete. In the 90s I was quite skeptical of them, as they weren't doing a good job fitting new data coming in, and they varied from predicting cooling to predicting very unlikely amounts of heating. In other words, the error bars were too large and the fit too poor. Different models had different predictions. Over the years, however, the models all seemed to begin to converge. I have since come around to believe that the models probably have the long term trend right, and they probably have the root cause correct. That said, they obviously are trying to model something that is insanely complex, and there will obviously be factors that they miss.
I'm glad to see anthropomorphic climate change skeptics building models. In the past they were just pointing at charts and discussing convenient correlations. Climate is too complicated to simply point to correlations. The more talent we have working on models, the better.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I would like to thank our American cousins for taking one for the team. In Europe we now have wonderful spring weather because you guys took all the winter cold.
Thanks so much!
It was Michiganian originally (occasionally, Michiganite, but only by Wisconsinites). Then, in the 1850's Senator Abraham Lincoln got mad at one of Michigan's senators, who happened to be quite fat. Lincoln insulted him on the Senate floor by calling him the "Michigander" (which was, in part, a pun on the phrase, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," in addition to calling him fat.) For whatever reason, the name expanded to mean, "person from Michigan," and it stuck.
They generated this whole vortex thing using HAARP in an effort to get Snowden over in Russia. Hey, 'off by one hemisphere' is good enough for government work!
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
The AC is making a serious error here and it almost seems as if though he imagines the US to be the entire world even weather-wise.
Or perhaps those of us evil enough to be born outside the USA made a serious error in thinking that we exist?
Arctic vortex is an annual thing around here. Or at least it would be if we existed.
The Prius is not a heavy car by any stretch of the imagination. At roughly 2900lbs it's right in line with the vast majority of small cars and, in fact, is lighter than many. I also don't think it's weight distribution is particular unusual as it's very much in-line with what you'd find on most front-engined FWD cars.
One advantage it does have is that because of the need for low rolling resistance, it rides on narrower tires than you'd find on most cars. Narrow tires, typically, but not always, offer better snow performance. Things like traction control and tread pattern also have a significant impact.
I'm going to assume you're not riding around on winter tires because otherwise this whole discussion would become moot. Winter tires improve snow traction with any car. Otherwise, it may well be that Toyota has selected all seasons for the Prius that happen to be particularly good on snow.
If someone is addicted to oil, it doesn't matter what word you use, same as if they're addicted to cocaine or gambling. They're deliberately ignoring the science, not disagreeing with it.
What part of the word "global" do you not understand?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Oh I get it, Global warming is the energy that moves the weather. So if it gets hotter or colder this summer it is global warming. If it is warmer or colder this winter it is global warming. If there are more or fewer tornado's or stronger / weaker hurricanes. It is all global warming.
So all weather events are proof of global warming no matter what way they go. Great logic!
No, you don't get it. At all.
For the climate to remain within "norms", it must be at equilibrium. The amount of energy coming into the system must approximately equal the energy leaving the system. If more energy leaves than it receives, then the planet cools. If more energy is retained than leaves, the planet warms up.
In the case of GW, we have altered our planet over the past 100 years or so in a way that causes the planet to retain more heat. The system is no longer in equilibrium. We have a pretty good idea of what the general CLIMATE effects of this are and will be.
But you're talking about weather events. Climate looks at trends, not specific events. Without a huge amount of research, you can't point to any specific WEATHER event and say it was or wasn't caused by GW. The presence of GW only affects the increased or decreased likelihood of said events, not whether or not they occur.
~X~
The people they sent in to rescue the people they sent in to rescue people they sent in to rescue people they sent in to rescue the people trapped in the ice could use some of that melting ice right about now. Jus' sayin'
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually it DOES NOT. When the evidence was corrected, it showed the medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer.
But remember, it's all how you pick and choose your data, except for one fact. History. When we know places like Greenland/Iceland were historically freer of ice, etc. Then we KNOW that in the past it was in fact warmer.
Not if you use debunked arguments and bad data to back up your claims.
The Medieval and Roman warm periods were regional anomalies. Many papers discuss this. Greenland was also not "freer of ice" than it is now. Many papers discuss this as well. There is no global evidence that the planet has been warmer than it is now within modern human history, or likely within the past few million years or so. In fact, the planet was in a cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum until recently (global temps now exceed that). And there are yet more papers discussing this too.
~X~
I like global warming, I hate the cold.
'Shitting in our airsupply' though..far less liked. They'd probably get a more primal reaction out of people that route, than by showing kids at a pool in May, or the argument of some snow in Mexico, and saying 'change'. You could demonstrate using a sealed aquarium; fill it with a grey 'gas' and then have little factory models spewing red gas into it, turning it eventually all pink. Off them a can of fresh air (a la chinese businessman) and a can of car exhaust, ask which they prefer.
'If you're under 40, you've not seen this stuff before.'
I'm 43, and I've seen it. I was on top of Mt. Lincoln in -50 degree wind chill in late November more than a decade ago. There was a tiny gap between my facemask and my ski googles, and I got 2nd-3rd degree frostbite on a small part of the skin on my cheekbone in less than an hour. I still have some nerve damage there.
The danger to someone who isn't prepared is very real.
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
In the Midwest US, I'd worry more about the Aquifers being drained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
A few degrees will seem like nothing compared to not having water to grow crops.
Focusing on only one part of one problem (CO2 - AGW) is a bad thing.
It's all from global weirding.
I live on the gulf coast of Central Florida, it was 73 when I woke up, it's currently 51. It's expected to get down to 36 tonight.
The weather is fucking crazy.
The ice they are stuck in is old ice that was able to escape because the ice around it melted. The melting is why more of the ice on land is breaking off and flowing into the sea. Read the article I linked to above.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
No. The warming is due to the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which traps the sun's heat. The amount of energy trapped in the fossil fuels is not nearly enough to account for the warming we've observed.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I'm not a climate change-er or a denier, but--to base your opinions on the weather in *one hemisphere* is bad logic. Of course it's cold in the northern hemisphere--it's winter. What's happening south of the equator?
I should add, the record low in my city is 35, and it's normally in the 50's-60's this time of year.
Your argument is with the IPCC
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Unfortunately, retconning BS as a "joke" when caught with the shovel in your hand is now such a familiar tactic that it has become impossible to distinguish irony from chicanery from ignorant-parotting-of-chicanery-or-irony.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
One way or another these changes will effect PEOPLE, and sitting in Arizona hiding behind your AC is only going to last so long before RESOURCES have to be reallocated for another 50-100 years DIFFERENTLY than they are now.
Or, as Zippy would put it:
Boys, you have ALL been selected to LEAVE th' PLANET in 15 minutes!!
Have you read my blog lately?
"at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models." Patently False. They aren't rising as fast as the worse case scenarios the media likes to report. They are rising within model predictions.
Actually, he is more right than you are. Let's compare, shall we? Plot the trend from 1990 - 2050, and compare with observations.The IPCC even revised their 2013 report from the 2nd quarter, downgrading their predictions from 0.13-0.33 per decade to 0.10-0.23 per decade. That's near the BOTTOM of the model's predictions, so it seems even the IPCC isn't buying that the models are accurate.
They claimed in AR5 that the observations were within the model predictions from AR4, but their OWN GRAPHIC tells a different story.
B) IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly. The rising trend does NOT correlate with the Suns activity.
Actually, that's not accurate. True, it does not correlate with the sun's total solar irradiance but the models ignore anything else, such as spectral variability. There have been plenty of correlations made with solar activity, earth's orbit, Milankovitch cycles and cosmic rays. You might want to review a few of these papers on solar influence of climate change.
" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, " um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.
Well you can claim that if you want to, but in fact it's a compromised media and activist climatologists. Like the ones that made a trip to Antarctica as a marketing exercise and alarm people about the disappearing ice (it didn't work out for them), like James Hansen, like Michael Oppenheimer, like John Harte.
" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, " um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.
"No True Scotsman", then?
"We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well." As expect by climate change models, dumb ass. The term climate change is older the global warming, BTW.
Yes, as everything and nothing is all evidence of climate change. There are so many predictions, EVERY event is confirmation and NO event can shed dispersion upon it. Does that really sound like science to you?
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
Pure conjecture. The FACT is that the correlation between increasing CO2 followed by increased warming is not very good.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I moved to Houston a year later. It got down to 7F there and killed palm trees after that 1989 freeze and snow fell as far south as Tampa.
So this is nothing and central Florida is not tropical. Only the very southern Florida keys are.
http://saveie6.com/
Global warming means there is more energy around. Energy which can move cold air to areas where it doesn't belong. The extra energy provided by global warming is right now moving huge amounts of freezing air from the polar region where it belongs, to the USA where it doesn't belong.
The cold weather we're getting now is a bit more on par with what I remember as a child growing up in Michigan.
Climate != Weather
Totally, right?
Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming.
Absolutely right. And it's wrong when people do that too. Even if this was an especially warm winter it wouldn't mean AGW is real.
What makes AGW real is the global average temperature increasing over long-term trends (30 years). These short-term localized data-points are just noise.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
It's people like you who don't understand that the global warming means the globe warming *on average* that lead to the use of the term "climate change"...which you then see as a cop-out.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What's missing is the word "average." Local temperatures don't matter if the global average is increasing.
You don't pass a class if you get one "A" and the rest are "F's" Your *average* needs to be above a "C."
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Unfortunately you're right, only because for some reason North American has developed an attitude where ignorance of fact is okay, it's really sad that we allow it as a society. The only way I can see to really prevent this kind of horrible spreed of ignorance is drastic measures, such as revoking citizenship to people who want to argue either A) Evolution or B) Climate Change, sadly this will never happen.
When you can't spot a joke that obvious, you should probably start taking yourself a little less seriously. Jus' sayin'
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Take a look at the temperature record for the last 1000 years and you can see that the earth is warmer now than at any other time in the previous 1000 years and warming rapidly.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It's a valid point--but mostly due to where you get your data from.
Part of the difference between this and what's going on the west is the trend. It's one thing to have a hotter than average summer. That's weather. When you have 3 or 4 or 6 or 10 summers that are hotter than average, then you have reason to say that the climate is changing.
You're right that the press and those who have a vested interest are all willing to jump on whatever weather anomaly is happening to say, "See? Climate Change! Global Warming!" These are the people you ignore--they're idiots.
For example, "Superstorm Sandy" was a very wet hurricane. It's winds weren't particularly strong but the amount of rain was tremendous--more so than most hurricanes. I'm sure the press fished around for a quote from someone saying that, yes, you would expect to see wetter hurricanes due to the increases in temperature. This suddenly turned into hurricane Sandy being proof of global warming!
Nope. Hurricane Sandy was a wetter than usual hurricane. If we have 3 or 4 of them, that might be evidence. But you know the press--they need a story now, not in 10 years.
Central Florida is considered subtropics though, and this isn't feeling much like subtropics weather to me. It's now down to 48. 1.5F/Hour it looks like is the current rate, but it was going much quicker earlier.
"Ordinary" (orange-bulb) fire sprinklers are designed to trigger at 57C, and are rated for a maximum sustained ceiling temperature of just 38C. In buildings that are expected to get hotter than that, you're supposed to use red-bulb sprinklers, which trigger at 74C and are better able to deal with high sustained ceiling temperatures. It doesn't seem too unreasonable that someone in Rio was not thinking conservatively enough and installed the wrong kind of sprinkler heads.
The last 9 years in a row have been the hottest on record, the other year over 13,000 cities around the world set record highs. Compared to estimated historic values, we are warming up about 20x faster than any other warm up in the past 1,500 years, and we are at a current high. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Turns out once you include the deep ocean, the ocean is warming about 10x faster than our atmosphere. It will be interesting to see what happens once the ocean's average temp starts to approach that of our atmosphere.
We're not sure if we're the cause of current global warming, but warming it is. Is reducing waste such a bad thing that you'll say it's not worth it? What if you're wrong, then your mentality has doomed us, if we're wrong, meh, no harm done.
The problem is that there are people who don't want to believe in the warming and take these jokes very seriously and repeat them seriously. It creates loads of misinformation that we then need to correct.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Global warming increases the std deviation and the mean. So yes, extreme cold and extreme hot are both signs of global warming as it is the signs of a system with more energy and it's trying to get rid of it, but can't.
No, really, that's not your mission in life (or does the AGW church have actual missionaries now, pledged to spread the Good Word in Fern Parts for a year?). The wise man knows wisdom when he hears it, and there's no persuading the fool.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As a former resident of the state, I would like to register my vote for Michigawegian.
Pure conjecture.
Really? Then it's just our imagination that the levels of CO2 have been rising faster over the last 200 years than at any other time in the last 110,000 years? Or are you saying that the dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 at the same time as humanity has started generating massive amounts of the stuff is just coincidental?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming. It's in the papers here as soon as the temperature goes over 90F.
Perhaps the problem lies in your comprehension of what is said. I have never once heard a scientist offering weather phenomena as PROOF of global warming - as if the fact that the climate is warming required further proof. I have heard it said that these weather events are to be expected as a consequence of warming and that we can expect more as the warming progresses. this is perfectly valid - weather extremes will become more extreme and more frequent as the climate warms.
Warming, warming, warming, we're all gonna die.
Again, this would appear to be a problem with your comprehension. You are going to die, that is true, and you don't need a scientist to tell you that. You probably won't be killed by climate change, although many people will be, especially because of secondary effects (economic difficulties, disease, food and water supply issues, etc). If you interpret a message that says that extreme weather events will be more frequent due to climate change as a direct threat to your life, then most likely you are exaggerating that message in your own head due to some personal tendency toward anxiety, or lack of perspective on your own part.
Why not?
- higher temperature -> more energy in the system (higher pressure gradients, strong winds etc).
- changing temperature -> upsetting the steady state of the system (ditto).
... f we're wrong, meh, no harm done."
If and and only if we do none of the radical proposals such as seeding oceans, economic restructure, extreme population control, etc. Those are not harmless at all.
You young whippersnappers don't know cold.
Why, I remember back when I was young and my dad would send me outside for a pail of air. Now THAT was cold!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87raPj9m0A
That is true... however, we could work at it for quite a while just to catch up the last few decades of desertification, let alone centuries. For example, did you know Lebanon was once forested? You'd never guess looking at it today.
Also, given that *generally* more vegetation brings better rainfall patterns, we're usually looking at a *positive* shift in weather.
Some folks who know more than I do have suggested that warming (assuming that's the trend) brings more evaporation, more rain, thus re-vegetation and greening deserts -- which then converts more CO2 to oxygen and soil carbon... a somewhat self-regulating cycle, if you will.
There is no carbon sink like biomass and topsoil, so IF -- IF -- CO2 is gonna kill us all, we'd be wise to increase the biomass and topsoil. Not that it's a bad idea anyway, but this would require we stop worrying about ManBearPig, and actually do something resembling work -- something my conservative farmer friends already do, but no doubt scares the "progressives" a bit.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
but comic sans isn't an option
rewriting history since 2109
I've seen that cartoon before... love it!
It would be great if we could just focus on the sustainability, the renewable energy, the clean air & water.
Those are *tangible* things that we can explain to everyone, and everyone can take simple steps to work on. I can do this, you can do this... even the developing world can play this game. **
Instead we have this "climate change" bogeyman that no one understands, and for which there are thus far no solutions proposed beyond regulation and taxation -- i.e. more power and wealth for the wealthy and powerful.
** Buy less crap you don't need. Plant food, not lawns. Plant trees to shade your house in summer. Keep your car tires properly inflated, it saves gas. Turn lights off. Turn off the TV and talk with your neighbors. Get solar if you can afford it. Ride a bike instead of driving, one day a month. Eat local. Buy a chest freezer and buy your meat a whole cow at a time -- saves lots of styrofoam trays and plastic wrap and trips to the store. Etc etc etc. Saving the planet saves you money too. It's common sense, but I'm sure we'd all hate to see government force us to do this stuff.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Futurama?
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
You are right.
Clearly we are all gonna die.
Who are these "national economists" angels with our best interests in mind?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
A key indicator of a religion is its lack of falsifiability.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I make absolutely no apologies for the inconsistency of TV personalities.
But the general idea with a changing climate affecting storm systems has to do with the ability for air to hold water:
* Warm air holds more moisture.
* A warmer atmosphere is moister generally.
* Storm systems feed off the latent heat of water vapor (which is released by precipitation).
* Extra heat in the ocean & atmosphere nourishes storms.
* Also, if the air holds more moisture, more precipitation can form.
* Finally, higher sea levels cause higher storm surges.
The theory with most consensus regarding the current 'polar vortex cold front' is: a decreasing temperature difference between the equator and polar regions weakens the polar jet stream, which allows the vortex to "wander" farther south than it previously would have. The vortex isn't always circular and right now, the midwest is actually colder than Alaska.
So while the cold front isn't directly related to stronger storm systems, atmospheric scientists reasonably hypothesize they are both influenced by our changing climate.
Disclaimer: I'm currently an instrumentation technician for an atmospheric research group at a large public university. I don't publish but I do collect and reduce data.
Howdy howdy howdy
you don't just shake it when you're done. you have to SNAPOFF the piss after it freezes in mid-air. I tried to explain to the officer it was for a coupledrug tests later in the day, and i had several lined up. nah, they won't have to nuke it.just drop off the sample in the cup. or ziplock bags, for those that know the drill.now don't get all artistic withyour output; they might think you do this for a living.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I was just as underwhelmed as you when I heard "coldest temperatures since... 1995!"
That said, last summer was particularly hot:
* Historical Heat Wave Expanding Across the West (June 2013)
* Death Valley Heat Breaks All-Time US June Record
* Heat Wave July 2013
* What’s Behind the Heat Wave
And in December, we did see dramatic weather extremes:
* The temperature in New York's Central Park topped out at 71 degrees on Sunday, breaking a 1998 record of 63 degrees ... "We are thinking it was a tornado,"
* The temperature had reached 65 degrees in Central Park on Saturday, breaking a 2011 record of 62 degrees.
* Temperatures in Philadelphia reached a record 68 degrees on Sunday.
* In Washington D.C., the temperature was hovering "about 40 degrees warmer than normal,"
* New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were pummeled by an ice storm
* In Nelson County, Kentucky, three drowning victims were pulled from a submerged vehicle
* A tornado touched down in the city of Redfield, Arkansas
* Widespread damage from the storm system was also reported near Dermott, Arkansas
Tornadoes in December?
Peak tornado season in the southern states is March through May; in the northern states, it is late spring through early summer.
Just two weeks later, it's a cold snap: Chicago already broke it's record low -- more to follow.
Howdy howdy howdy
OK point taken. I fell foul of Poe's law, I guess :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
is not whether climate will change, it is the changes in available natural resources that go with it. When that Roman warm period ended about 400AD it pushed the north men south, and set the Vikings to sea because farming slowly became unproductive.
Xhamster Xhamster Xhamster
Climate change has been happening since the formation of the planet. It's not new or unusual...despite what Al Gore's bank account is trying to tell you.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
I haven't actually looked it up myself, but just a couple days ago I saw a stat that we've had fewer* major hurricanes over the past 30 years, compared with before, yet supposedly we're getting more?? I guess we -can- have it both ways...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The fact that GW is cast in terms of "believe in" even by its proponents should be our first clue.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well if you love it so much why don't you marry it?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
And I'm wondering what kind of trees they planted.
Something like saltcedar makes a helluva desert windblock, and will survive all manner of malicious abuse from both man and climate.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Really??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
He's saying that the global average temperature has gone up and down in the past, without industrial levels of CO2 production, so that the correlation between temperature change and CO2 emissions is low.
And it is a valid point, so far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. Bayesian statistics are more informative than mere frequentist correlations.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Oh, it's the modern religion, have no doubt. Doesn't mean they're wrong about everything though - the answers in life are never so easy.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Pure conjecture.
Really? Then it's just our imagination that the levels of CO2 have been rising faster over the last 200 years than at any other time in the last 110,000 years? Or are you saying that the dramatic rise of atmospheric CO2 at the same time as humanity has started generating massive amounts of the stuff is just coincidental?
Your claim that "We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles." is pure conjecture. You have absolutely no evidence, nor the ability to conduct experiments, that would provide any support or refutation to this claim. About the closest you can get is to study periods immediately following a super-massive volcanic eruption, but since the ash and other factors from that have such a significant cooling effect, it's almost impossible to isolate the effects of the CO2 emitted over time.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Quite possible, especially with a religious view, to be perfectly accurate in your observations, yet completely wrong in your conclusions...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
January 19,1994 saw temps of around -21 F here in My city in Pa. I say around, because I measured -23 F at my house.
February 4, 1996 was -3 F
January 18, 1997 was -2 F
February 5, 2007 was likewise -2 F
January 17, 2009 was -4 F
January 24, 2011 was - 5 F
So while indeed cold this morning, it is well within expectations for winter weather. Tomorrow will be mid 20's, by Friday mid 30's, and Mid 40s and rain over the weekend.
You would almost think it was winter or something.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So CO2 levels aren't rising? Really? That's a rather amazing claim.
Humans put out massive amounts of CO2, mostly by burning fossil fuel. We're the single largest source for the gas on the planet, far surpassing the volcanoes. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising because our output outstrips the natural processing of the gas into the crust, to the point where if we all died off and stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow it would be most of a century before our excess was finally processed out. The natural processes are pretty well known, they know how much limestone, peat, deepwater sediments, etc. are produced every year, and how much CO2 should be trapped by them.
The only reason why atmospheric CO2 levels aren't rising even faster is because the ocean is absorbing massive amounts of it and changing PH sufficiently to kill aquatic species in many areas. Dead coral, clams and diatoms can't process CO2 into calcium carbonate, so now we're producing a feedback loop in those places too.
Since you seem to think I'm completely out in left field, why do **YOU** think that atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels are rising? Is it just coincidence that the rate of rise corresponds to the rate of our output?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Since you are still arguing for calling it global warming, you will have lost all arguments. Warming has a very specific meaning for Joe Average, remember he is not as smart as you (in this area), so when you go off in pedantic mode, you have lost.
If global warming is a religion then it's an awesome religion because it has actual physical evidence to back it up.
The heat produced by burning fossil fuels is miniscule, only a rounding error, compared to the energy coming in from the Sun. The part of the Sun's incoming energy that is not reflected is absorbed by the surface (land and oceans) and sooner or later re-emitted as infrared energy. It is that re-emitted IR energy that greenhouse gases are trapping that causes the warming.
yes
Complete strawman argument. The GP never stated that CO2 is not rising. The GP stated that there is insufficient reliable data to support or refute the claim that humans are outputting more CO2 than can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
The GP never claimed anything even remotely close to your strawman that CO2 levels are not currently rising.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
We are shivering here too... every time we open the fridge to take the beer out.
Well, I'm sorry for you guys, but I am wishing for a few more days of warm weather here, I plan to run a 30K trail in a few weeks and I want the weather to stay as lovely as it is now...so sorry that you guys in the US are freezing your balls off.
Sorry that you have to endure "global cooling" over there.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
If the natural pre-industrial systems could absorb the excess CO2 that we were putting out then the levels wouldn't be rising. Ergo, if natural systems are keeping up CO2 levels are not rising.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Um, Antartcica was NOT north of Australia in recent human history. FYI
Our Prius (2002 1st gen), we mostly went with Michelin Hydroedge (now discontinued). Great tires. A little loss of MPG as they are not the recommended Low Rolling Resistance (LRR).
We recently got new tires on our minivan, which was atrocious in the snow (or rain). It is like night and day to be honest. Now, I went down a road easier while watching a couple of cars, including a JEEP Cherokee, spin out of control.
So tires DO play a huge role.
You DON'T NEED to use LRR tires on a Prius. You'll take 1-2 mpg hit on performance. But we used Michelin Hydroedge. Great tires, shame they discontinued them.
Isn't the prius battery pack located towards the rear of the car, and the car is front wheel drive? I have a hard time seeing a prius driving better in the snow than other front wheel drive cars with their engines in the front (weight).
I'm mainly skeptical because here in Portland, I see a lot of stuck Prius cars each winter.
"Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred."[12]
"Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler"
See, I dismiss this as a flawed method. You see, there were in the IPCCs own data numerous adjustments that they made, at human discretion, as to how to correlate such date to each other. Most of it was done in a biased fashion.
The most reliable IMHO is human record.
Relying on mollusk growth patterns over thousands of years has a significant failing. It doesn't account for other secondary factors that could have affected growth. Simply put, it could of been warmer, but a glacier dam releasing a crapload of fresh water may have imped growth.
"Adhikari and Kumon (2001), whilst investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan, finding a warm period from AD 900 to 1200 that corresponded to the Medieval Warm Period"
Okay, so you've got North America, South America, Europe, China, Japan, New Zealand....that seems pretty darn global to me.
And most of the evidence points to the MWP as being warmer than the 90WP
I was talking about within human history. The medieval warm period was a few hundred years ago, not millions of years ago.
The scientific documentation and research confirms the that from around 1000-1200 pretty much EVERYWHERE experienced warming. Americas, Europe, China, Japan, Antarctica, etc.
And historical records match that. Which are far far more valuable than adjusted hypothesized measurements of oyster growth. Relying on mollusk growth patterns over thousands of years has a significant failing. It doesn't account for other secondary factors that could have affected growth. Simply put, it could of been warmer, but a glacier dam releasing a crapload of fresh water may have imped growth.
And even the IPCC admitting to how much guesswork (and bias) went into their trying to correlate data from different measurements be it ice core samples, tree rings, etc.
When you start touting absolutes, and expressing the world is doomed, and we need a global tax, and carbon credits, and we have to, have to, have to, do this....
And your models are wrong. And your models are based on your studies. You and your studies are both wrong.
I simply touted what the global warming alarmists have been exclaiming.
Whether reporter or scientist, if they are exclaiming such - they are wrong. If not, then no big deal.
But remember, we've been told there is a consensus and agreement of all the scientists in the world on this. So,well, that means they're saying it. Maybe they're not, and another is speaking for them. If so, they need to open their mouths and express that is not correct
The News is just as careless with all science reporting.
Why the special hate for climate change reporting? As always, if you want the truth, get it from the scientists. Or at least respected science oriented magazines.
Um, I never said anything about "recent". In fact, that was my entire point. FYI
"patently false"
Not false, even admitted too...and no, these were not the worst case scenarios being touted. Those were far far worse.
"irrelevant"
Not irrelevant, if it was globally warmer in human history past, that is EXTREMELY relevant. And pretty much all the data when looked at honestly says the MWP was in fact globally warmer than the 90WP.
"WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2."
Based on a limited understanding, a theoretical application in computer models (several hundred). Not any of which can come close to accounting for the last near two decades.
Which says, your models, theories and predications are WRONG
"If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law."
Well, we noted it on a number of celestial bodies in the solar system. Sadly, we do not have an active presence on EVERY one. But I recall a 2 year period where it was noted on at least four if I recall.
"IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly."
We think that we know, but we know so little. Hell, we could find that there are entirely visible solar flares, or maybe even emissions of particles we weren't really familiar with, and that these could have an affect.
heck, right now there are some questioning the gravitational forces of earth on other objects not behaving right and whether dark matter is involved.
There is so much we don't know and understand. We learn from observation. So when we observed evidence of Mars, Pluto, and I think it was a moon on Jupiter seeming to show signs of increased warming. Well...that should make us pause and consider. Not immediately and religious leap to attack it as if someone had proposed an alternative interpretation to your religious dogma.
"um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study"
Actually, it's usually the media reporting something a scientist stated.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's.
That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
I never watch Fox nor read their news. But thank you for retorting to ad hominems and personal criticisms.
Guess I touched your religios heresies a bit to deeply. ;-)
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun. [Lots of energy comes from the sun. Do you know every form and it's affects?]
2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something
3) CO2* absorbs IR energy [So do many other gasses. Water vapor too.]
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles. [Right, like not even close to major volcanic events....]
Actually, I talk about the actual science a lot. And the fact that exclaiming "climate change" is not science. Climate always changes. It's change has exceeded norms witnessed in human past. And the pointing to all the variance of events, and claiming that a 17 year cooling cycle is also proof of climate change. Well how the hell is that a testable hypothesis.
And if we're talking real science, you guys put forth a hypothesis. And all the tests came back FAIL. That means a real scientist would admit they were wrong. They haven't fully understood the issue. And well, stop with the alarmism.
Thing I hate Global Warming Alarmist for the most??????
The fact thanks to you, that's all anyone talks about regarding environmentalism. You DESTROYED the environmentalist movement. Now, very little is focused or spent on habitat destruction, toxins, over-fertilization from waste water, the fact you can't drop a net while crossing the ocean without it filling with trash, etc, etc.
Nope,...it's just CO2. And most of your science was bunk. So ya, damn straight I'm pissed at you religious fanatics.
3 Curunir_wolf
And no, I'm not a true Scotsman. I am Clan Mackintosh through adoption. ;-)
Honestly, what would be truly scary and of the utmost concern. Is if climate change stopped. If for 10 years we had a perfect pattern, with no variance globally, the exact same number of storms, same temperature patterns, etc, etc. That would be SCARY!!!
Cause well, the climate is supposed to change and fluctuate....
But great response... Thank you
"Turns out once you include the deep ocean, the ocean is warming about 10x faster than our atmosphere. It will be interesting to see what happens once the ocean's average temp starts to approach that of our atmosphere."
Okay, let's pause for a moment, and review your own theory here.
Global Warming, it occurs in the atmosphere, as CO2 traps solar energy. That means the effects of the warming will first be felt and most strongly felt at the surface level.
Now, you're pointing to the fact that the deep ocean is warming up 10x faster than your atmosphere. This is like me taking a blowtorch to a frozen pond and expressing that the water at the bottom of the pond is getting warmer from my blowtorch at a rate 10x faster than the surface.
Do you see the problem with your logic. Even if we remove the ice, and just say an aquarium full of water with a lightbulb on top. Regardless of currents, circulation cycles, etc. The surface area near the bulb that is receiving the energy will warm up fastest. If you are getting 10x the warming rate at the bottom of the tank. You must consider whether an factor outside your experiment is contributing an unknown influence. I will wager that you will discover that the aquarium was a reptile tank that had a heating pad on the bottom.
In otherwords, a 10x faster rate of warming in the deep ocean concerns me that we may be in for some major geological activity. And there is likely something dumping far more heat to the submerged terra surface than we are aware of. And perhaps we should stop researching CO2 and spend some money understanding this concern. For perhaps we are about to suffer a Yosemite super-volcano eruption that could destroy all life on earth.
"9 years in a row have been the hottest on record"
And do note, that 4 of those have not been. And if we went through a little warming period, of course you would expect that most of those years would be the hot ones of record.
"we are warming up about 20x faster than any other warm up in the past 1,500 years"
There is some debate to that. And furthermore, 1,500 years in climate history is nothing. I often hear the comment weather vs climate, but you have to realize that in the history of earth's climate. 1,500 years is nearly still in the "weather" category.
"Is reducing waste such a bad thing that you'll say it's not worth it?"
Wow, love this....why is it so rare that global warming alarmists even mention such. No, I am all for reducing pollution, I compost, I try to grow my own food, used to drive a Prius (it died). And I am far more concerned with habitat destruction, over-fertilization, toxifying our soil, etc than I am CO2.
"What if you're wrong, then your mentality has doomed us, if we're wrong, meh, no harm done."
No, cause I still advocate for us to get off of oil, move to sustainable energy. And unlike 90% of the global warming alarmists I meet. I actually compost, and garden.
If scientists knew how to correct the ignorant media in an effective way, they'd be a happy lot indeed.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It gets below absolute zero on Star Trek TNG on occasion. Lots of vortexes too. Vortexi?
Has there ever been an increase in atmospheric CO2 without human intervention? Yes? Then what information do you have which shows that human activity is the cause or even the primary cause of the measured, short-term rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
Yet again, lots of assumptions, stacked on other assumptions, building a house of cards which could obviously collapse at the slightest of breezes.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Well, the Dekkan Traps are currently frozen, there isn't any other large-scale source of carbon dioxide currently active, volcanoes (the number two source of CO2) don't even come close to the annual human output. The concentrations of the gas has been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when we started the wholesale burning of fossil fuels, and has risen at almost the same rate of increase of our usage of those fuels. The discrepancy between the rise in concentration of atmospheric CO2 and our use of fossil fuels is almost completely compensated for by the increase in oceanic concentrations.
Oh, and for direct proof, the isotopic concentrations in the additional carbon dioxide match that of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Global warming causes hard winter! Film at 11! Yes, it's time for that abortion "The Day After Tomorrow"!
I mean, seriously, have you fucking idiots not heard yourselves??
Excessive warming contributes to desertification. I've seen the news, Niagara Falls is fucking FROZEN! For only the second time in THIRTY FIVE YEARS!
Computer models based on biased data is SO trumped by the actual physical *evidence* it's not fucking funny anymore.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Weather, Politics, Government, Socialism. You only need go back one generation, let alone two or three, to see mistakes repeated, history rewritten to suit the currant trends and we do it over and over. If you are over 40, you look at the forecasts and say, so what. This is nothing new, yet weather stations, government, and people are crying catastrophe is upon us. Dress for the weather, Prep your car and home for winter as we did 40 years ago. The calm, moderate weather we've experienced for not just the last 40 years, it includes that terrible weather as far back as a century, or a bit more is not normal. Even the "Global warming” scientists warned that with the warming trend, we'd see much wider swings in temperature with records being set for hot and cold temps. We were warned, yet the deniers point to a year or two of frigid weather as proof that AGW doesn't exist, while the proponents point to the hot spells as proof it does exist. Both ignore the opposite extremes elsewhere on the globe. If we haven't seen something for 10 years, it must be abnormal. Look at history! It's why they teach it. It's why modern history is being rewritten. It's our recent weather that's not normal, Socialism was proven not to work, The first colony in America was based on communism and half the colony starved until they went to capitalism. We Liberated Millions in WWII, yet history is now ignoring the good that was done. They dwell on the hundreds of thousands killed with the atomic weapons, Not the many times that killed with the fire bombings og Dresden and Tokyo, not the millions saved (civilian and military) because we didn't have invade Japan. We have gone to extremes with political correctness allowing Islamic Sharia law in locals and teaching that it's extremists, not moderates causing the terrorism, yet they teach convert or die and to them the moderates are in the same category as us. The belief that the Israelis were not slaughtered by the millions in the Holocaust is being spread. I had a cousin that was there. It did happen. It's not just the weather that is misrepresented, It's any history that doesn't fit our modern ideals. Like The Muslims teaching/indoctrinating the very young with repetition, when our generations are raise to think the current situation, or beliefs are normal, it only takes a generation to forget reality be it weather, religion, or politics.