Slashdot Mirror
Hundreds of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City
mdsolar writes with an update on the People's Climate March. More than 400,000 people turned out for the People's Climate March in New York City on Sunday, just days before many of the world's leaders are expected to debate environmental action at the United Nations climate summit. Early reports from event organizers are hailing the turnout as the largest climate march in history, far bigger than the Forward on Climate rally held in Washington, D.C., last year. High-profile environmentalists including Bill McKibben, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Goodall and Vandana Shiva marched alongside policymakers such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former Vice President Al Gore were also there, and more than 550 buses carried in people from around the country.
I guess people couldn't afford to march during past droughts
550 buses not including air-travel for speeches that could have been gotten over the internet. How ironic.
How could I *NOT* accept it as established science?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I wonder how many on that 400.000 group, if offered a choice between ten thousand bucks or eliminating their entire personal carbon foot print, would chose the former.
I wonder how many would know how much it would cost to eliminate their entire personal carbon footprint.
Obviously, you don't understand how science works:
Record hot summer = Evidence of global warming
Record cold winter = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
Extreme weather events = Evidence of global warming
Lack of extreme weather events = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
Ice melting in Antarctica = Evidence of global warming
Record ice in arctic = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
IT'S SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It's climate change because some morons look out the window, see that it's cold today and decide that global warming must be fake.
While the global climate is warming, the effect locally at any given time may not be warming. It sometimes causes more extreme weather, including cold. Hence, climate change.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
YOU RACIS--oops, sorry, wrong forum...
I don't think you understand the difference between global warming and climate change.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
How dare you list all of that b-list trash, when the creator and original star of Mystery Science Theater was there!?! THAT'S a celebrity!
You'd also be complaining if they labeled it warming or cooling. It's fighting climate science by being a grammar nazi.
Just say "I don't care what happens to the world after I'm gone" if you don't, but stop playing word-games to justify your believes.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
March all ya want, business will go on, fuels burned, industry will churn. Only thing you can vote with here is your wallet. Marching does nothing, protesting does nothing, STOP BUYING THINGS YOU DON'T NEED IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CLIMATE.
Start by not buying the bus ticket next time to a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
kthxbye
"Global warming" quickly got replaced with "Global weirding". Not all places on the world heat up, but the extremes get a lot more extreme, so some parts have now droughts for years, other places get flooded, permafrost areas thaw, etc.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Why didn't they all hop on exercise bikes with alternators? That would have been around 24 megawatts of electricity.
I'm assuming you're referring to Oklahoma in the 1930's, right?
What, there have been "droughts for years" before now? How can that be???
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
>> former Vice President Al Gore were also there
How's the hurricane-o-meter look at the moment?
Hey, that's the bloke that invented the prism that could turn lead into gold, right? He ever get that back from Bruce Willis?
Something about this march has inspired a lot of ire across the internet, so before the negativity rolls in let me share my experience. I was hesitant to attend the march on Sunday, because I feel like protests like these are accomplishing less and less as time moves on. I was worried that people would feel they had 'done their duty' by showing up, and gone back to their day-to-day without changing anything. I've also constantly been cynical about the global warming movement, believing that we've done too much harm to reverse, that nothing we can do can slow the inexorable and extinction-level rise of global temperatures. After arguing about it with my girlfriend, I came to a few important conclusions. First, cynicism is laziness in disguise. The problem was too big, too scary, too complex, for me to tackle, but at this point is impossible to deny. How can I acknowledge the problem without allowing any responsibility to fall to myself? Cynicism and negativity (which I've seen comment board after comment board filled with regarding this subject). Another conclusion I came to was that our generation is going to be held accountable for any damage that climate change caused. We knew the danger, yet we allowed it to happen. I want to be able to tell the next generation, 'I tried.' I want to be able to show them pictures of the march and say, 'We were not filled with apathy, we fought, we tried.' Plenty of people who recognize the issue of climate change have been deriding the march based on the presence of socialists, 'dirty hippies,' punks, gays, etc. Yeah, there were some whackos there. I saw some people with signs about chem trails, 9/11 truthers, religious nuts. When you have 400,000 people in one place, you're not going to agree with all of them. But I also talked to doctors, scientists, politicians, students, teachers. And I work at a bank. Did we accomplish anything? Perhaps very little. But I could see the people there were galvanized by the event, their batteries were recharged, and they were full of hope. It generated discussion today. There are a lot of corporations throwing a lot of money around to prevent legislation regarding climate change. We can't challenge them on the money front, so numbers is one of the only tools we have left. If we can get enough people on our side, perhaps we can change the political climate (harr harr) through elections. I'd rather try, than sit at home and do nothing, and have to answer to future generations about my apathy.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, however, ...
Obviously, you don't understand how science works:
Record hot summer = Evidence of global warming
As part of a trend of record hot summers, for sure. Individually? Not unless the record heat is so extraordinary that it falls outside of what would be possible without global warming.
Record cold winter = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
A record cold winter would be evidence against global warming if it was part of trend, or it was so cold that it fell out of what should be possible with global warming. Having said that, globally this past winter had the 3rd warmest december, the 4th warmest January and the 21st warmest February, none of which exactly qualify as "record cold" on the global scale.
Extreme weather events = Evidence of global warming
Again it's the trends in extreme weather events more than the individual events that matter with certain exceptions where the events themselves fall out of what would be possible without global warming.
Lack of extreme weather events = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
Again, it the trends, not individual weather on any specific year that matters
Ice melting in Antarctica = Evidence of global warming
Record ice in arctic = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
I think you might have your north and south mixed up. We're near the record low for Arctic ice extent, and at record highs in Antarctic ice extent. Both of which are expected as part of global warming.
IT'S SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
It actually is, whether or not you resort to derision and mockery.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The climate change folks set the public expectation with the original wording of this discussion. There is a significant amount of the population who don't understand the issue any deeper than the two words "global warming." You can rant and rave about the idiodicy of people, but until you actually tackle the grammer nazi issue then you won't make it anywhere with policy changes.
Yikes! We ran into that by accident yesterday... The terminal point of the march was right by the north-most exit from the High Line park at 34th Street that just opened yesterday, too, which I wanted to check out.
It was insane! And we had to walk a few blocks opposite the direction of the march to get home... I thought we'd get trampled before we found a cross street (41st Street) that wasn't so jam packed we could get off the main route.
Being short, I didn't get many good photos from it as most of them are of peoples' backs that I couldn't see over.
Does anyone else see the irony in riding 500 buses to NYC from all over the country if they're really concerned about climate change?
hey look, it's a guy who doesnt undertsand science, and misquotes what people say in order to tell them theyre wrong.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If they really cared about the environment, maybe they should have stayed home or rode into town on bicycles instead of 550 diesel guzzling buses.
AM New York is reporting tens of thousands.
This was truly a victory for science and reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
No matter how much you bring, they drink it all.
Yes, and I'm sure you're next post will be that nobody on the face of the earth has ever EVAR claimed that:
1. Hurricane Katrina
2. "Superstorm"* Sandy
3. The smelt-made California Drought
4. 2011 Japanese Tsunami **
5. Back to back record years for agriculture in the midwest in 2013-2014 ***
were caused by global warming!!
* So named because it wasn't even strong enough to count as a real hurricane... while stronger storms have been known to hit NYC in the 19th and early 20th centuries!
** Yes, earthquakes are now caused by Global Warming. Get with the politcally correct program you denialist scum.
*** No wait, that's not post-apocalyptic bad sounding. Two consecutive years of weather patterns over an entire geographic region is just an insignificant random weather event...
Now, a not-particularly unusually strong hurricane that happens to hit a low-lying city that's in the middle of a region where you expect to see hurricanes over a 12 hour period... THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE YOU DENIALIST SCUM!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Lightning causes forest fires. Therefore I don't have to be careful with my campfire.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
There hasn't been warming for over a decade, but the warming/change advocates have ignored that because it confounded their model - until a bit ago, when they sized upon the ocean as a heatsink due to another study.
How many billions of dollars have been wasted chasing that chimera?
If they really cared about reducing their carbon footprint, they'd all kill themselves. As a westerner, they have a massive carbon footprint that they'll never erase. At least that way they'd be able to give back by fertilizing a tree or something. Of course, if they choose cremation that'll release even more carbon and waste, since they'll need an urn of some sort.
Obviously, you don't understand how science works:
Record hot summer = Evidence of global warming
That's a record hot after NOAA has adjusted the past temperatures downward.
There are records, and then there are records.
The terminology "climate change" goes back to at least the 1950's in the literature, "global warming" first appears in the 70's. There was no confusion until the early 2000's when this silly terminology argument was started by the brain fart of "public opinion guru" Frank Luntz, a GWB advisor who penned a memo advising the Bush administration to use the term "climate change" in preference to "global warming" because...I don't recall why...it "sounded less threatening"......or something equally inane and deceitful.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He didn't appreciate being questioned about his yachts and mansions.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
You forgot to add that in the beginning of the 20th century that we had unusually cold temps, and so if you look at the past 100 hundred years the mean temp balance has account for about zero...If you going to trumpet science stop cherry picking your results.
"F*ck the poor people who want to stay warm, or get to a job. They should die off anyway, the earth is overpopulated!"
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
They've moved on to something equally as profound.
Yawn
Again, it the trends, not individual weather on any specific year that matters
Except that after every single warm snap or hurricane the same people who were smugly reminding us that "weather is not climate" are busy pointing to the event as "evidence" of AGW, which it is not. Distributions are evidence, events are not, because the science shows that the AGW/no-AGW distributions substantially overlap in our current situation, particularly with regard to extreme weather events.
So only a person who does not understand science and statistics would ever suggest that any single event or small handful of events is worth mentioning as evidence either way. And yet Warmists are always out in force after any given extremum telling us it "proves" AGW.
Don't get me wrong: AGW is real, although there are some pretty well-proven techniques for reducing it (notably carbon taxes, which also have the benefit of reducing corporate and income taxes, so you'd have to be some anti-capitalist nut-job to oppose them). But anyone who ever opens their mouth to point at a single event as if it was somehow worth the bother of discussing is an anti-science wing-nut, and adds only heat, not light, to the discussion.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I wonder what you take, if you had nothing to choose from.
The science is settled. What remains is to rally people to action en masse - more like "putting bums on seats" than proving theorems.
The same day, people were also marching at 2808 other official events in 166 countries. (http://peoplesclimate.org/)
So there is quite a lot more than ~400'000 people.
In our march in Stockholm, Sweden we endured pouring rain, hail and thunder ...
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Here's the thing. Whether it's happening... whether it's human caused or not... LET'S STOP POLLUTION FOR IT'S OWN SAKE.
Let's not care if it does stop global warming, or if it has no effect. We should be pursuing environmental efforts for the good of the air, water, land, etc.
We need to be realistic about changes though. Any change may have a negative effect on poor people. For example, plastic bag bans. I'd rather see a tax than a ban. Even then, there are biobags that appear as plastic bags which I think are a better options. (Plastic bags are better than paper bags when it comes to those who have to walk in the rain to the bus stop, to home, wherever. Plus most paper bags don't have handles.)
until you actually tackle the grammer nazi issue then you won't make it anywhere with policy changes.
Achtung! It's "grammar Nazi", dummkopf.
Actually, I've yet to see that come from anyone that's actually in the field of climate science. Don't conflate internet commenters and assorted science writers with people that are actually studying the climate. Every time a big climate event happened, I saw a lot of hedging from climate scientists who were consistently pointing out that one event is impossible to extrapolate from.
If you'd care to provide an example of someone actually in research and not someone that you should probably be ignoring, I'd be interested to see it. (Really, I would--it would be a very unusual event.)
they actually dont care so much for the environment as the tech you use to download and that in this they can slide laws to slow progress on technology
technology however will be what saves us not the lack thereof.
They also tend to forget that while it's cold where they are, it's hot where other people are. The winter may have seemed extra cold in North America last year, but they've had to add extra colours to the heat maps in Australia in the last couple of years to indicate just how blisteringly hot its getting now.
Climate is global, folks. Your local weather is not representative of what people around the world are experiencing.
be awful funny if those busses ran on solar power .....
Of course not. Then they could be wrong and the con defunded.
On the contrary, Sandy was a category 2 hurricane when it made landfall on Cuba. Moreover, it still had hurricane-force winds when it made landfall in New Jersey; the only reason it wasn't called a "hurricane" was that it was post-tropical. In other words, it was as severe as a hurricane, but a different kind of storm.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
try UK met office julia slingo
She indicated the floods in the UK were attributable to AGW/climate change etc in interviews
But the met office had to back track quickly
400,000 people oppose climate change. Well, what changes is anyone willing to make to prevent climate change? Stop using electricity (coal and natural gas are bad, hydroelectric harms fish/streams/etc, wind power kills birds)? Stop using petroleum products (imagine the economic effects of that)? Live in much smaller houses? Stop having children? Stop all medical treatment designed to prolong or save lives? The primary problem is overpopulation. Reduce the world's population by about 95% and our climate change problem will go away.
It's not like, since 2010, that China, India, and the US are responsible for creating all the increased climate change gasses for Global Warming.
Oh.
Wait.
It is.
Just end the fossil fuels subsidies and tax exemptions and cheap land and sea leases and the entire system will fix itself. This is why Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism (and a Scot), warned against the anti-capitalist Mercantalists.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
hey look, a guy who doesnt understand grammar
By the same line of thought lets end subsidies for the study of global warming that falsify data, lie about warming trends, and manipulate statistics to support their stance. Add in that a lot of times corporations are just involved in "fundraising" for these groups. They have all sorts of ideas of what we need to cut back on, but when you ask what research they have done to support these ideas, the silence after the "Whhhhaaaat?" says it all
I can see this as the basis for an Onion article...
"400,000 people turn out for people's climate march, promptly kill themselves in bid to reduce impact of over population on climate"
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Yep, the 1% sees their assets at risk. So it gets news coverage. Try protesting against Citizen's United or the banking abuses, and it would take far more people than 400,000 to get any kind of coverage. As far as I am concerned, SCREW THEM. Let their mansions get washed out to sea. If they can't address the complete corruption of money in politics, I don't give a damn about climate change. Bring it on.
How about a whole union of them?
400K is large, but certainly doesn't set any records for a religious rally. The Pope routinely draws much bigger crowds.
By far the best thing these protesters could do for the planet is immolate themselves as they fall into the Atlantic ocean. While 0.4 million people is only a small fraction of the 7000 million on earth, it would be a decent start.
Apparently it's not the current environment they are worried about?
If it's all global, why does ice melting in the arctic count as evidence of GW, but ice *expanding* in Antarctica not count as counter-evidence?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Nearly every other month is the hottest month in recorded observation from satellites that measure ocean temps, i.e 2/3rds of the Earth's surface. In the mentime we've had some cold winters and resurgence of ice caps at both pole. Not easy to figure it all once.
Because ice is not expanding in Antarctica. It's flowing off the continent into the sea at faster and faster rates.
For example, see: http://www.iflscience.com/envi...
Arctic sea is different, is is a sea. The ice level there is completely proportional to the amount of water that freezes.
Science is changing every environmental measurement scale to make things seem more extreme? Look that up. Tornadoes and hurricanes now have factored in the amount of damage they do. So a F3 tornado on the old scale becomes a F5 because it hits a more heavily populated area. Same with earthquake scales. Now winter storms are receiving names even though I remember storms just as bad in my youth, now they are "extreme!!!" Tropical storms are now "SUPERSTORMS!!!". The kicker is we are less then a year past the IPCC models to be proven wrong and they still are hammering home that their prediction are still correct even though there was scientific proof that no significant warming to place in the last 15+ years. You can't tout science till it doesn't agree with your stance because it makes you a hypocrite and makes the people that ignore it seem like they are out for money and nothing else. I was like the CC community touting Gore as the messiah till his hypocritical action were pointed out, then it was "well he isn't really a scientist, and he doesn't stand for all CC believers". I akin it to fans of certain baseballers not wanting to admit the players they are big fans of did steroids to reach the level they did.
is that it's easy to get idiots to do nothing loudly.
has anyone an opinion how canada is showing in this matter? last time i looked we came dead last, behind the benighted states even, and as far as i know we are currently not co-operating at all. i've been watching for mention of canada in the "international" media (slashdot foremost of these) and so far have seen nothing, except we may have managed to kill off rob ford, at last. is anyone able to correct this impression?
I was outside yesterday. It was a nice day and I didn't seen any climate change protesters. In fact, I have seen any all year. I think that the whole "climate change protester" thing is just a myth, started up by some gubamint researchers tryin' to make sure their research gets funded next year.
That article is discussing decades-long trends. In other words, climate. Moron.
If it's all global, why does ice melting in the arctic count as evidence of GW, but ice *expanding* in Antarctica not count as counter-evidence?
Because a simple analysis like that is seldom adequate. Scientists who have looked at the increase in Antarctic sea ice have found several reasons that combine to cause the increase. First the circumpolar winds have grown stronger apparently because of the ozone hole over Antarctica. That pushes the existing sea ice around more opening polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. Second global warming causes the ice sitting on the continent to melt and also increased precipitation which causes the water on the surface to freshen making it easier to freeze. Finally the fresher water is less dense than the warmer saltier water under it so the ocean stratifies and the the warmer saltier water is prevented from rising to the surface reducing ice melt from it.
Sorry, the "trends" do not support your alarmism.
The trend in temperature is flat for the past 13-22 years depending on which temperature series you look at. And that does not account for the blatant "adjustments" to make to past appear cooler (GISS we are looking at you here !).
The best temperature measurement (USCRN -Google that ) with pristine rural sites, no adjustments, triple redundant aspirated platinum sensors, since inception 10 years ago, shows NO warming at all, confirming the temperature plateau.
There is NO trend to increasing tornadoes, heavy rains, hurricanes etc. Despite media manipulation of weather stories to create fear in a gullible public with poor or short memories.
The sun is an a quiet mode, in the past this has meant cooling, as well as the ocean decadal oscillations are going into their cool phases. This means the earth is probably cooling soon. And this is why the global warming alarmists are panicking trying to ram some draconian energy disaster upon the world before the cooling becomes apparent. And when it cools, we will need that energy.
Sea level is rising as it has for hundreds of thousands of years, and shows NO trend to accelerating.
Saying this year or that year is the hottest in the record says nothing about temperatures rising. It is like a 30 year old man saying that his height is the tallest for the past five years of his life. It does not mean that the temperature is rising or he is getting taller.
Antarctic ice is a record high extent, and this is NOT predicted by global warming models. Arctic ice is increasing the past couple of years, and is nearing the 2 sigma from the 30 year climate mean, which means we are approchign what would be normal arctic ice.
How many of the people marching in this protest have also marched in "No Nukes Shut 'Em Down" marches? How many agree with the anti-nukes? To power an industrial-technological civilization, the alternatives we have are (1) nuclear and (2) coal. There is no (3), no matter how much the arithmetic denialists claim that we can power our civilization on "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy.
What's the carbon footprint of 550 buses and 400,000 people crammed into one space?
I marched. I took the subway to get there, not a private jet. I know exactly what I was protesting. I didn't see any celebrities, just a lot of people.
I also left early, and had the eerie experience of walking two blocks to Broadway, where life was going on as normal. There was no indication that less than half a mile away there were hundreds of thousands of protestors. It was amazing.
You had me till you pointed to carbon taxes as a proven technique. Carbon tax is a money scam and the is easily proven.
Alas. This is honestly something that I see very rarely, but it's worth noting that
a) other climate scientists disagreed with her claim, because at the time it was untrue; and
b) it *happened* to be true in the end (in the sense that climate change DOES seem to be responsible for the weird path of the jet stream). But that doesn't let her off the hook for saying it before there was actually peer reviewed research on the matter to back her up.
Here's the thing. Whether it's happening... whether it's human caused or not... LET'S STOP POLLUTION FOR IT'S OWN SAKE.
I totally agree.
But all of the Alarmists don't care at all about pollution, they only care about CO2 - which is not pollution, and stopping that does pretty much nothing in terms of stopping real pollution.
When you all get back to caring about the environment and not making people at alternative energy companies (or carbon exchanges) rich please get back to us so we can start trying to protect the environment again.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
but the extremes get a lot more extreme
The opposite is true, we've had fewer very large storms, less destructive weather of all kinds across the globe.
Gaia is pissed off you are trying to make her dance like a monkey for your own agenda and is sitting ion her hands.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Actually, I've yet to see that come from anyone that's actually in the field of climate science."
Convenient Narrow Definition. I've yet to hear ANYONE that's actually in that field say anything.
Let me know when the AGW enthusiasts/scientists start correcting their spokesmen (like Al Gore, and various celebrities ) when they say stupid shit. I won't hold my breath.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Whether the climate is changing is settled, because it always changes. Whether human activity is a factor is settled, because it does. So far so good. Unfortunately, however, the effect of that activity on future climate is not at all settled, and that's unfortunate because it's the question that actually matters.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
The number #1 producer of CO2, and the #3 producer of CO2. Who always get exceptions, anyhow, because they won't abide by any "climate' treaty in the first place - which is why EVEN IF WE SPEND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOING EVERY DAMN FOOL THING THE GREENIES WANT US TO DO INCLUDING BEGGER OURSELVES AND OUR DESCENDANTS we will change the global temperature by no more than a few hundredths of a degree.
Well, they could spend a lot of effort on the billions of degrees gaffe, but like the 57 states slip-up, nobody outside of the right-wing fringe gives a shit about minor slip-ups like that.
Except Liberals making fun of Democrats. Or haven't you noticed? I wonder if you say the same thing every time someone makes fun of Sarah Palin? Nahhh
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes it is settled: nipccreport.org
directly ruled ~2 billion people, indirectly affected all people
> 100 million dead
75 years
4 generations
fashionable amongst intellectuals for generations
promoted by professors throughout the West
failures ignored or excused endlessly
tried in geographically small countries
tried in geographically large countries
tried in small groups
tried in vast, highly populous nations
never even came close to fulfilling its promises
I'd say Marxism is a much bigger scam than AGW.
(I like how someone modded you offtopic. Somebody doesn't like dissent.)
It was still offshore at that point. When it made landfall it was below hurricane strength. Wind gusts don't count.
~~
I guess I should have linked the New Jersey landfall update instead of the "Sandy becomes post-tropical" update. The landfall update claims sustained winds of 80 mph, which is well within the category 1 hurricane range.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Maybe they are too busy correcting people who are even more wrong?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century (it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop. Pray it is the former.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO. Pray it is the first one.
Dr Abdusamatov in 2006 said we are at the top of the temperature sine wave and it will be 200 years of cold weather. Pray he is wrong.
Why do I join with them and side with their predictions? While past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness it is a lot better record than the IPCC and their dozens of models of which none have been accurate. They are all based on CO2 controlling the climate and the other 3 are all cyclical natural cycles. I'll go with those who have a good track record at predicting future climate. Dr Libby is the most impressive as her prediction is 30+ years going and still accurate.
I think you might have your north and south mixed up. We're near the record low for Arctic ice extent, and at record highs in Antarctic ice extent. Both of which are expected as part of global warming.
Correction: *Parts* of the Antarctic ice sheet are increasing in thickness due to increased precipitation caused by warmer seas, but the overall extent of the ice sheets has decreased.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
It's the only meaningful definition, honestly.
Climate scientists are the ones actually doing the work. You have to listen to them. If I say something to you, I URGE you not to take my word for it until you've verified it against some actual science, or at least the work that I'm claiming to get it from.
Pundits and internet commentators are more often a source of noise than signal. I try to be honest and accurate with all of my claims, but at the end of the day, I can't think of a single reason why you'd trust me. Sometimes you develop a level of trust for a science writer and you can use that as a convenient short-hand for actually verifying the science yourself.
They're the ones working on the IPCC reports. Those reports are effectively what the scientists are saying, so they've said a lot, and they say it frequently. Some of those scientists also blog. If you haven't heard anything from them, it's because you haven't been looking. You can definitely see what they say if you want to.
Except that all the predictions of Global Warming (Climate Change) made at the beginning haven't even come close to actually coming true. No rise in temperature, no extreme weather, no increased hurricanes, tornadoes etc.
Science is about reproducibility, and for all the "Sky is falling" cries being made, and hockey stick manipulations to amplify their points, to drowning polar bears.... I've seen the "science" and it isn't science, except that the hypothesis' haven't been verified. The ONLY thing I'll agree to is that CO2 is increasing, and Ocean Acidification, neither of which equate to "global warming". There are good reasons for this (H2O vapor is also Greenhouse gas) that haven't been accounted for.
FYI, IPCC is using the same flawed data from the UEA scandal. Just because you change the alphabet letters doesn't mean the scandal has gone away.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.