Slashdot Mirror
This Was America's Warmest Winter On Record (slate.com)
hondo77 writes: On Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its official assessment of December, January, and February's temperatures across the United States, and the results are striking: Not a single state in the U.S. had a cooler than average winter. (NOAA treats Alaska and Hawaii separately, due to shorter weather data records there -- though both states were significantly warmer than normal this winter. Weather records for the contiguous United States go back to 1895.) NOAA blames the recent warm weather on a record-strength El Nino "and other climate patterns," most notably, global warming. As a whole, this winter in the lower 48 was about 4.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average: a sharp contrast to the previous back-to-back frigid polar vortex winters, especially in the Northeast.
Write your congress critter and tell him we want more mild winters.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I hope next year is the same.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
I Call Bullshit https://stevengoddard.wordpres... From NOAAs own records. !
I live in New York and this winter was great. It's hard to feel sorry for the rest of the world.
Couldn't resist. :-p
Even though gas was the cheapest ever, I used the least ever.
So it's a win for us consumers!
Screw the oil companies!
Gonna pack my bags for the beach!
And it's not a long drive anymore!
Global warming proven to be a lie!
As someone who has only lived in New England for a few years, coming from the southern US.... Asking long time (with family generations going back 100+ years....) native New Englanders 'about' this winter, their response was often: yea, this doesn't happen. Ever. We never 'not have snow' on the ground for the majority of 'Winter' and have weeks where it's in the 40's or up to 50.
The winter before last, and last winter, where it was record snowfall in Boston, and generally 'great' snowfall for the rest of New England, was cited by many 'native' New Englanders as the 'worst of what we get here'. I welcomed it, as it was great for the snowboarding...
So what does it say, that the swing can go from the 'worst' winter they see here one winter, to one of highly unusual, and warmer behavior the next? Even for the staunchest of 'warming trend' deniers, you have to admit there is a great divide going on here.
n/t
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Yep. Cherry picking data.
"This data from the last 40 years shows the earth warming like crazy! (Give us more grant money!)"
"So, what happens if we look at the same data set, but go back 90 years?"
"Errrr, ummm, ahhhh. You see, that old data doesn't matter. People back then didn't know how to properly take temperatures, so we've had to, errr, umm, correct that old data so it more closely reflects what the real temperatures were back then."
"ORLY? So you know what the real temperatures back then were better than the scientists and meteorologists who actually took the temps?.
"Damn right we do. (If we didn't know, you wouldn't give us grant money - and the UN wouldn't be behind a massive wealth-redistribution scheme to give money to the large number of poor countries that control the UN. Nevermind the fact we can also bash white, Western European culture!)"
"Christ on a crutch."
You know what? I have no idea if warming is caused by humans or not. And it really doesn't matter.
If there is a warming trend, human caused or not, we should be dealing with the evacuations and necessary work to deal with rising sea levels.
We're not going to be able to stop it. It's time to figure out who is going to be underwater in 5-10 years (if anyone) and get them out. If there is a problem with warming coming, that is the solution. The rest of it is just babble.
Now, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, feel free. I just don't want to be sent back to the 18th Century to stop something that's going to happen no matter what we do.
I am all in favor of less CO2 emissions and more efficiency. I just think it is a waste of time, at this point, to make that what we throw all our money at, because it isn't going to make a bit of difference in the short term.
...but no mention of the coolest springs. Every year, our spring is cooler and cooler here, like the season are shifting, not warming.
"Nuh-uh!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well, here in the Netherlands, the number of days there was frost at day-time this winter could be counted on a single hand. I may have had central heating on for maybe two weeks in days in total ('80s concrete apartment, 60 sq.m, bottom corner, reasonably isolated, double glass on one side, no indirect heat from neighbours because that apartment is empty) the past half year. It certainly has been the mildest winter in human recollection here. Positive: I'll probably get returned a shit-load of money on my energy bill advances this year. There has been no snow to mention this year. In the northern part there has been one frosty period of a week or so and some nice snow... but not in the center and bottom 2/3ds of our country.
Spring flowers are in full bloom, bees are collecting honey, trees are budding... at the end of February/start of March... it's all quite strange...
A few decades ago we would have been able to ice-skate on natural ice for several weeks or even months each year... Marathons and '11 cities' full day races on frozen canals and rivers. One year even the Rhine (the largest river in the northwestern part of the European continent) froze over. In the last couple of years the number of days of skate-able ice may have been a few weeks, at the most. And this year it was only a few hours. So there were national championships ice skating on natural ice this year... the one day it was possible to skate on a thoroughly nurtured 'natural' ice track somewhere in the north-eastern part of our country...
Read how the Earth was cooling off back in 1977 in the PEER-REVIEWED, PUBLISHED paper from, errrr, NOAA:
Global Temperature Variation, Surface - 100mb : an Update into 1977
Anyone who says there wasn't a global cooling scare back then is a fucking liar.
How to cure global warming denying in the US:
- God is clearly trying to tell us something here.
(As for the consequences don't ask me, I'm not a scientist.)
That paper deals only with temperatures between 1958 and 1977, specifically a brief dip in 1960-1965 (and caused primarily by the Mount Agung volcanic eruption). Holding that up as "contradicting" the 150 year trend of global warming is ludicrous, and a prime example of cherry-picking.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
We have records going back through geological time. Those will show evidence of a much warmer Earth. That alone is not what bothers me about this global warming scam, its what the government wants to do about it.
Pick a government of your choice and I can much more likely than not show you how that government is scamming it's citizens based on the threat of global warming. I say this because for most every government the solution that they see for global warming is more government. I say we need LESS government.
I've been reading about global warming and the proposed solutions for it for a very long time now. If we are to assume that global warming is happening, that global warming is bad, and that human activity is to blame then I see only one solution that will reverse this trend and not destroy the economy.
That answer is nuclear power. Any other solution is a scam, a means to redistribute dollars from my pocket to those of campaign donors through taxation and subsidy.
Electric cars, ethanol, windmills, solar panels, cap & trade, or whatever else the government has taxed and spent before is nothing compared to what a fleet of new nuclear reactors could do. I keep hearing politicians talk about an "all the above" strategy to combat human caused carbon in the air but they don't really mean that because none of them consider nuclear power as part of the "above" options. Any plan to reduce human caused carbon output that does not include nuclear power is not a serious plan. I guess that alone is what makes me think global warming is a scam, the powers that be don't seem all too concerned about actually solving the problem. If they were concerned then we would not see them flying in airplanes or living in big houses. If they only practiced what they preached then I could be convinced of the hazards that global warming might bring.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
And where is it measured? In the ovens or in the made up data from East Anglia University? Thermometers from 100 years ago?
Such old instruments would do just fine. But in case you don't have those:
Take a long, glass tube with constant cross-section and a reservoir at the bottom. Fill with a substance that's chemically stable and liquid at both freezing & boiling point of water. Even though out of fashion these days, mercury is a good choice. Pump space above the liquid vacuum, and seal hermetically.
Go to a point @ sea level, take a bucket of pure water, put your thermometer in it, and cool such that some ice floats in it, some water is also in there, and temperature is stable and evenly distributed. Mark the liquid level in your thermometer with "0".
Now bring the water in the bucket to a boil, again wait until temperature is evenly distributed, and mark the liquid level in your thermometer with "100". Afterwards, divide the space between markings "0" and "100" in 100 equal parts, and (if possible) sub-divide each part in .1, .2, ..., .9 markings. Using the 0-100 part as reference, extend a bit below "0" until you get to the part of your glass tube where cross-section isn't constant anymore.
Now find a place to do measurements: some standard height from the ground (1.5m?), shielded from the sun but allowing for -some- airflow, NOT in a place where nearby human structures or activity will f**k up the readings, thermometer mounted such that it'll reach equilibrium with surrounding air temperature, and can be read without influencing the reading.
Then take a notepad, and once (or more) each day, go up to the location. Note date, time, place of reading, and your best estimate at what the thermometer shows. If reading doesn't make sense, investigate why. From time to time, check or re-calibrate thermometer if necessary.
As you see, it takes effort and attention to detail to get good readings. I'm sure modern weather-people will have higher-accuracy instruments, automated setups, and a wealth of number-crunching equipment to make sense of the data. And US-based folks might want to add a Fahrenheit scale for the locals. But none of the above is rocket science, and even a century ago (or 2? or 3? or 5?) people knew how to do this, took notes, and sometimes preserved those records. So unless you can show their methods were flawed somehow, their readings are as valid as what you'd get today @ the same place. Even if that old data has to be taken with a grain of salt, it's still data points that could be meaningful. Or even accurate. Regardless how old a thermometer was used.
Here's a clue - every 20,000 years or so the earth gets cold due to orbital positioning but it's not likely to be something that anyone has to worry about for a few thousand years.
Using that to argue against climate change is an act of treating the reader as being ignorant and treating them with utter contempt.
That paper deals only with temperatures between 1958 and 1977, specifically a brief dip in 1960-1965 (and caused primarily by the Mount Agung volcanic eruption). Holding that up as "contradicting" the 150 year trend of global warming is ludicrous, and a prime example of cherry-picking.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
Brief dip?
Is that like the brief rise between 1980 and 2005 or so?
is in a period of "sleeping" don't look for patterns to change. I'm a ham radio operator, and a bunch of us get together once a week for lunch and we can't remember the bands being this dead in a long time. No sunspots to think of that have been releasing CME's means our Earth hasn't been hit with a lot of heavy X or M class flares to "juice" up the upper atmosphere that we use to bounce signals off of. The visible solar disk right now is only tracking 4 spots, none of which are that big (well, the spots are bigger than Jupiter, but in relation to the sun, they are tiny), and they have mostly been pretty stable. There have been times this winter that the visible solar disk has been absent of any sun spots. When the sun "cools down", less solar radiation directed to the earth, causes the winds, ocean etc to change. Once it heats back up, it will change again. I remember several times in the 60's and early 70's, one or two winters, you couldn't keep the snow off the streets, then you'd have a couple where my dad could play golf in the winter, each weekend. I also remember when the "man made global warming" scare started in the 90's, when the glaciers in the Nordic area started melting, someone discovered a abandoned silver mine. Left behind were traces of "civilization". They dated it back to around the 14th-15th century I think. Regardless, it shows that many hundreds of years ago, long before the industrial revolution, that some say was the start of man destroying the planet, it was WARMER then, than now in that region. That alone would totally dispel the myth that man is causing man made global warming (not renamed climate change). The Earth warms, the Earth cools, it's called a cycle. "Man made" climate change is some what of a "religion" to those that want to control mankind, thinking that if enough uneducated people will believe the myth of man made global warming from their "religious" leaders, they will be able to have their utopian control over the planet.
It would be interesting to know if a sorta equilibrium occurs where the warmer winters means less fuel was burned.
And about 1000 years ago it was about as warm as today - the medieval warm period.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In parts of the northern hemisphere perhaps, but elsewhere (and globally averaged), it was significantly cooler. Citation (see Fig 2 particularly).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Forget the entire "data has been manipulated" debate (cause that will never end). Look at it purely from a risk management perspective: There are 4 variables 1. If scientists are all WRONG and we DO NOTHING = We keep on going as we are now. 2. If scientists are all WRONG and we TAKE ACTION = We will have a cleaner environment (but we wont all die). 3. If scientists are all RIGHT and we DO NOTHING = We all slowly die out. 4. If scientists are all RIGHT and we TAKE ACTION = We slow and possibly reverse the effects. Considering 3/4 options will result in a benefit for all mankind, then that's a good outcome. If 1/4 of the variables is right, we are all dead - gone. That's a dam high risk to take based on a "If MIGHT be a hoax". We are crazy NOT to take action when the risk of all mankind being slowly killed is at stake.
Damn you and your facts! Dont you know that the science is settled?
Polar vortex was predicted... If you have some citations for where models were proven "very wrong" it would be good to see them.
If the warmers would just ask for money and quit trying to lie themselves into relevance I would send them $5 just to shut them up.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
scam being pulled by the same mega corps that pollute the atmosphere. what's better than more profit? more power and control
what was this thing about Global Warming?
Proven wrong by who? The economist who's never published a paper on economics, the bug eyed sudoko guy or the lay preacher?
Your "small fact" is so small that it does not seem to be there at all.
How can it be the warmest winter when it isn't over yet. In NY ( not NY city) it can snow into April. I am predicting another white Easter.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
The paper was not the "global cooling" scare.
Media, popularized "science" articles, etc. made it into a "scare." Went on for a year or so... long enough for film strips in grade schools to cover the subject.
That event is one of the reasons people have such a hard time believing the same type of distortion by "science" articles and media now. Regardless of the actual science being done now days.
Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...
I know I know... Polar bears... To which I can only respond with a mixture of yawns and skepticism that the polar bears really can't handle things being slightly warmer given that they have in the past, they do just fine in the summer when it is dramatically warmer, and no one has yet found any polar bears that have suffered from heat exhaustion in their native habitat. So I'm calling bullshit on that score.
As to AGW issues in general... all things considered, I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.
Here someone might say "but the equator will get hotter too!"... except according to GW theory it won't actually. The poles will heat up a bit but the equator shouldn't move much.
Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well. The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years. The rate of rise doesn't appear to have changed remarkably. And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around. I'm not seeing any of the AGW evangelists buying inland property and selling their beach houses. So I take all the doom and gloom out of such people as demonstrably insincere.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
NOAA publishes more shit data on junk science. News at 11.
Yes, Michael "Hockey Stick!" Mann.... Others say it was global. And if you dig, you'll also find the Little Ice Age was generally global as well.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Except for the small fact that so far their models have proven to be very very wrong.
A broad, vague statement that demands a citation before it can even be discussed.
Until they can show any form of prediction, iterative models are garbage.
The process of scientific investigation includes making predictions (right or wrong) and then learning from them. Wrong answers are not "garbage" -- they're a baseline that allows scientists to plot the course towards more correct ones. And iteration is the process that improves them. If you oppose iteration, then it's clear you have an anti-science agenda.
And no, iterative models cannot be wrong in the 5 year timeframe, but right in the longer term (except by sheer chance), because errors are cumulative.
*FACEPALM*
There are many models of many things that cannot make accurate short-term predictions, but become more accurate in the longer-term. Oh, look!
All pretty much scientific method 101 here kids.
I'm doubting you ever took any science courses beyond high school.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The Polar Vortex has been around since long before there were climate models, so saying any climate model "predicted" something that is already known (just because you hadn't heard the term doesn't mean it didn't exist) demonstrate the validity of the model is... bizarre.
And, besides, the polar vortex is weather, not climate.
"Good!"
Please tell us the damage from all this warming, and then I'll list the benefits.
Yes, Mann is one of the authors of that paper. Do you have better evidence, from better proxies, that contradicts it? The MWP event was indeed global in impact, but none of your links show that it was warmer than today, averaged globally.
Of your cited links, the first two are for the same paper, which notes glacial fluctations globally at that time, advancing and retreating, but does not address global average temperatures in any way.
The third link (second paper) actually says ocean temperatures have been cooling for 10,000 years, but reversed this trend 150 years ago. And specifically it says MWP ocean temperatures matched those ~60 years ago (i.e. cooler than today):
[Indo-Pacific temperatures] are within error of modern (~1950 CE) values between 900 and 1200 CE during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and are colder by 0.75 +/- 0.35C between 1550 and 1850 CE during the Little Ice Age (LIA), followed by nonmonotonic warming in the past 150 years
The final link is to a bunch of extrapolation and speculation, but the cited paper examines southern South America temperatures specifically, and while the paper finds some relatively warm temperatures there (compared to 1901–1995 averaged temperatures, not today's) it makes no claims about global temperatures, and certainly doesn't claim that they were higher than today. Like many "skeptical" sites the link confuses "current warm period" with "the last few years", yet you'll find nearly all papers define that baseline as the average of 20th century temperatures; around 0.5 degrees C cooler than today's temperatures.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Modded down. My word. The anti-science reality-distortion-field is strong in this thread.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
they didn't even flood the outdoor ice skating rinks this winter.. the weather was never cold enough, long enough... in WISCONSIN... and it was 70-some degrees (F) the first week of march.. which used to be a rather snowy month filled with several ski weekends with wonderful spring snows.
If people didn't ignore vast troves of valid data, then climate alarmism wouldn't even be a thing, and if climate alarmism wasn't a thing, then carbon taxes wouldn't be a thing.
It's in the best interests of the global elite to make sure that the clueless sleeping masses ignore these troves of valid data and keep being the sheep that we are.
Well if we are using blogs as reputable sources of facts then... http://www.skepticalscience.co...
So you your "science" is a guy in politics and your reference is a newspaper?
How about we at least try to get the discussion out of the sandpit and up to grade school level. Would that be too hard?
Based on data from the NSA. Also up: average zip codes, pedestrian speeds, and railroad cars.
Here is some data that many people don't know about. We *expect* to see natural warming as the planet climbs out of the Little Ice Age. This is corroborated by the fact that surface is warming faster than the lower tropical troposphere - which is *opposite* to the specific hypothesis of AGW.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
When the observations contradict the hypothesis the Scientific Method is extremely clear we must accept the Null Hypothesis for now, and discard or amend the AGW hypothesis until it matches observations.
It turns out that the Transient and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity values were computed too high by a factor of 4 to 7 because modelling of water vapor (the dominant 'Greenhouse gas') along with convection and other transport mechanisms is simply too complex for our computing power. So we guessed. Turns out the guess was not only wrong, it was very wrong.
Do we see warming? yes.
Is some of the warming due to humans? quite possibly.
Is there a natural component to the warming? yes.
Is the warming at a disastrous rate compared to warming in the last hundred centuries? no.
Is the current mean global temperature greater than recorded than 1855? yes
Is the current mean global temperature greater than determined by proxies in the last hundred centuries? no
Are polar bears going extinct? no, their population is increasing (yay!)
Is the Arctic summer ice cap disappearing? no, after a low in 2012 it is recovering
Is the Antarctic ice cap disappearing? no, some parts are melting but the overall ice volume is increasing
Can politicians affect the climate? no, thank goodness
Is the sea level rising? yes, but at the same rate for centuries
if you look at the actual data, not the sensationalist journalist reports, but the actual data, you will find that while we need to treat our planet better - there is no cause for panic, no cause to give the *unelected* United Nations more power to regulate every aspect of your life, and no reason for the UN to take money from you in the name of 'carbon pollution'.
Be Free people. Thanks to human ingenuity and innovation we can move to a brighter future instead of having to live with less and less (smaller houses, smaller cars, less water, less choice, less liberty, etc).
Here is some data that many people don't know about. We *expect* to see natural warming as the planet climbs out of the Little Ice Age. This is corroborated by the fact that surface is warming faster than the lower tropical troposphere - which is *opposite* to the specific hypothesis of AGW.
Could you state that specific hypothesis please?
It wasn't just that NOAA paper fuelling the cooling scare. You might recall that Dr. Stephen Schneider was one of the many scientists calling out the imminent ice age in the 1960's and early 1970's. Since then he declared that he was wrong, jumped on the global warming band wagon, and testified before congress for that team. Of course the revisionists live on his Wikipedia page and remove any mention of such things, but Discover magazine still has a (very brief) article up from 2006 where he discusses his change in point of view. http://discovermagazine.com/20...
I was thinking of taking the family down to Orlando during the summer. My kids are in school, so we can’t take them out during the winter. So is the summer going to be record hot down there, or will some other phenomenon make it a relatively mild summer? We may have to dress like desert dwellers, although the humidity in Florida defeats some desert garb.
That it's global. The clue is in the name.
Thanks for useing Farenhieght instead of that confuseing 'Metric" junk!
the earth is what, 5 billion years old, we've been keeping records since ~1800s. Doh.
nothing to see here - move along
I am all for the more studious and efficient use of our resources. I am all for preserving fossil fuels (which are the RELIABLE source of energy) for centuries to come by using them less where other sources of energy could effectively and reliably replace them. I am all for conservation.
I also happen to think that the conservation movement has been ruined by the climate change evangelists who have tarnished the reputation of the real conservationists with their lies, deceit, and complete lack of ethics and intellectual honesty.
That all having been said, it doesn't matter if the scientists are right or wrong. Our climate is going to oscillate with or without human influence. It has always oscillated in the past, and it will always oscillate into the future. And, the mid and endpoints of those oscillations will always be changing. The climate is driven by literally MILLIONS of input variables, both independent and dependent, and it is quite impossible to accurately model it even with the fastest supercomputers around. This is why all, every last one, of the computerized climate prediction models has been completely and undeniably WRONG, when when they have manipulated the input data to try to make the outcome what they've wanted.
As a species, the key to our survival up until now has been our ability to adapt to our changing environment. Humanity has always adapted in the past, but the second air conditioning was invented, humans stopped wanting to adapt to their environment, and became a species that demanded the environment change to suit them. We have to back away from this arrogance and go back to being willing and able to adapt to our surroundings. There is no choice in this matter.
The worst part about this whole thing is that if we'd spend 1/100th the money on education that we spent on pushing this ill-fated political agenda, we'd have a generation of children growing up knowing how to recycle, compost, demand efficient housing and cars, live more simply, consume less, and generally tread more lightly upon the environment. What we have instead ended up with is a generation of children who don't know how to do any of that, but who do know how to scream "SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!?!?!" at the top of their lungs to the elected officials who are certainly enjoying their new powers.
I live near Clemson University and they are all about sustainability and conservation. That is to say, the students are very good at marching with signs and demanding "change" from elected officials, but not a one of them knows jack shit about actual conservation. Out of curiosity I attended an open meeting of Students for Climate Action (or whatever it's called, there are 100 different groups) and asked them what conservation programs they were working on. Did they have a compost program? An efficient housing program? A recycling program? Community outreach? Nope. Not a single one. Their entire activity base is "lobbying government for change and marching with signs that have slogans written on them."
Talk about useless.
Now, let's take another University - Furman. Furman University has actual sustainability programs. They build composters. They have actually built sustainable student housing, with solar hot water, composting facilities, community gardens, and so on. I've never seen students marching at Furman. They are too busy actually taking upon themselves to live by example. Good for them.
If you are going to expect others to change their lifestyle to help the environment, you must first do it yourself. If you don't set an example to follow, nobody is going to follow you. It's that simple. Rule is not leadership.
It's just unfortunate that universities like Clemson are ruining the conservation movement that universities like Furman are trying so hard to sustain. But then, Clemson gets a lot of federal money to support programs about marching with signs where universities like Furman get very little.
I can't stand this anymore. Global warming, blah blah blah.
Do we impact our environment? Sure do! Should we take care of the Earth? Absolutely!
Do Solar Cycles impact climate change more than humans? DEFINITELY (thousands of times more)! Does natural ecosystem participants (algae, rot and decay, animals, etc.) impact climate more than humans? You bet they do!
We think we are SOOOO important. The Earth is a lot tougher than we are - it will be here long after we are gone. While I think its a good idea to take care of it, I do not think that we are the major players in climate change. Not even close.
Don't even worry about global warming. The real issue is the Ozone. We lose that, we are SCREWED!! Earth = Mars
That's why we have DDT.
the problem is in equating the presence of a fallacy in a statement with that statement being wrong.
that is in fact, another fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] fallacist's fallacy,[3] and bad reasons fallacy.[4]
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.[5]
fallacy is a caution light, not a stop light.
it indicates that a better argument should possibly be sought, and/or that the statement should be careful scrutinized.
one of the most common fallacy is the argument from authority (typically referring to an authority other than one's self). this is because experts carry great weight in discourse, as they should, and, especially in regards to science, few of us have the time and resources to personally re-verify every known principle. thus the reliance on experts. just because an "expert" says it doesn't make it false....but nor does it make it true.
we make these sorts of evaluations about expert testimony all the time.
amd there are three places where the statement can fall apart, and so three places where we make an evaluation:
A: The Person referring to an authority
B: The Authority being cited
C: The Statement being made
if the person making the statement is someone like a teacher or reporter referring to someone else as the authority, someone we tend to trust to bring us information, we tend to trust the information is accurate, and ignore the AFA.
if the person making the statement is referring to themselves as the authority it's poor form; but if they provide data, the statement can be verified true/false on that basis and the AFA ignored, as the information is then judged on its own merits. if they provide nothing else though, we're likely to ignore the information, pending being provided the data.
if the authority being referenced is an expert in the relevant field, we tend to trust the information, and again ignore the AFA.
if they are not, we tend not to.
if the statement is part of a consensus of thought (formed by repeated verification of results and peer review), we to trust it.
if the statement has not been verified, we tend not to (note that we shouldn't reject it yet, pending more review)
if the statement has been verified false, we tend to reject it outright.
thus if we can evaluate the information on its merits we can ignore the presence of an AFA as irrelevant.
if we can't evaluate on the merits, then the authority and the person referencing them becomes the focal point of the evaluation as we determine their relevance.
its not a perfect system, but then none of us are perfect logical creatures, and as stated, few of us can actually afford to recreate every scientific result.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The original claim was these things had to be personally observed to be acceptable. YOUR retcon into "Well, if it seems reasonable to me, then it's reasonable" doesn't work, since all you're doing is asserting your opinion trumps informed expertise.
how many times do you have to be told that:
a) the MWP it wasn't a global phenomenon...
b) most of the planet was cooler...
c) and therefore the global average of that period was cooler than now
before it sticks in that pea brain of yours?
and lets be honest and just cut this charade short:
you're next step will be to ask for data...
which will be provided...
which you will then reject out of hand because of some other crank easily disproven data that you will for some reason (ignorance? bias?) accept immediately while rejecting actual scientific proof out of hand.
that's how this game goes.
and it's why you're a troll.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
see? you proved me right already.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
We also know the Eemian was only temporarily a FEW degrees warmer, but if we don't stop, we'll blow right past it.
The NOAA historical data has been shown to have altered, this is different from the previous time it was altered. http://realclimatescience.com/...
NOAA knows about that, right?
Is this going to be one of those "Weather is not Climate, except when it's Warmer" things?
We had winter already? When was that?
"...most notably, global warming."
It is not global warming, it is climate change and we know it is largely natural. You would think they would have learned they cannot fool the whole scientific forever.
SKEETERS.
We've had a mild winter and a wet spring.
Deet it up or you're gonna git ZIKA or CHIKUNGUNYA .
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Can politicians affect the climate? no, thank goodness
I agree with most of your points, but I'm not sure about this one. Given the amount of both hot air and methane produced, I believe politicians ARE having a significant effect on the climate.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I posted the proxies. But since you don't like them, you ignore them. That's OK I guess... BTW, what's the tolerance on the two estimates, and how do they line up with today's temperatures?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Huh, I posted a link to studies that counter what you stated. You posted nothing. So... Yeah. I'll ignore you... PS: have you figured out how to compare numbers yet?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Brief in the first example is 5 years. In yours it is at least 25, although I don't understand why you think it stopped. Honestly its closer to 36. Which is 7 times the "brief" you are trying to equate it too.
Troll better.
As always consensus is man made global warming and as always we should do something. Do what? How? All this brain power and not a single link to any plan, much less a detailed plan to save the world.
The only plan is to get everyone to agree it is all our fault. After that I guess things will take care of themselves as everyone will simply stop using fossil fuels and the Earth will cool again. Simply turning off the fossil fuel spigot will create a combination of the worse parts of Mad Max and Water-world. Even the best plan will have the ghosts of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler giving a golf clap.
Is the Arctic summer ice cap disappearing? no, after a low in 2012 it is recovering
Is the Antarctic ice cap disappearing? no, some parts are melting but the overall ice volume is increasing
Both wrong. Why do you post such bollocks?
Can politicians affect the climate? no, thank goodness
Obviously they can, or do you think Germanys transition to carbon free energy production is initiated by the industry?
Is the sea level rising? yes, but at the same rate for centuries
If you mean with centuries the last two hundred years: right.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And about 1000 years ago it was about as warm as today - the medieval warm period.
And when you figure why that was so, you get a Nobel Prize, so hurry!
Ah, you wanted to say something else? Well the "conclusive sentence" of your message was missing.
I throw you a random fact as well: under the antarctic ice once where rain forests. Or well, the remans are still there. Your conclusion will likely not equal mine ^-^
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
First of all:
a) the MWP there where several MWPs, minimum 3, so about which are you talking?
Secondly
b) it wasn't a global phenomenon yes they where global phenomena, unfortunately it is a little bit difficult to correlate Indian and Chinese "folklore" with european monk reports
Thirdly
c) most of the planet was cooler? Cooler than what?
Your parent is an idiot, but making half assed claims don't help the argument.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Models are not science. Empirical data is science. Have fun making Type II errors with your model data. Some of us know better than to accept a hypothesis without empirical data to substantiate it. You can keep talking about your climate models and manipulating the raw data to fit your agenda... and I'll keep pointing to actual empirical evidence like the Vostok Ice Cores which tell us that it was warmer during the European Middle Ages than it is today despite there being no carbon pollution to speak of.
It would be foolish to claim that man-made warming does not exist just as it would be foolish to claim that it does. There is insufficient empirical data to prove or disprove the theory so the ONLY scientifically valid position is that we DO NOT KNOW.
The fact is that model driven science is junk science. These invalid methods are being pushed be grant-seeking academics who have no other source of funding. Further, there is nothing improper or unjust about questioning the academic independence of scientists who are dependent on politicians and 'environmental justice' groups for their funding stream... scientists who would likely be see their funding shifted to other programs if they did not consistent find the results their benefactors are expecting them to find.
dependence of these academics on the largesse of environmental justice groups and politicians calls into question their credibility... there is nothing invalid about questioning the bias of someone who would be unemployed if they were not able to find the results their employers want. Academic independence is important.
When the warm winter had an average temperature of 1650oF from all the volcanos, molten rocks and the thick atmosphere
"on record"
Your graph only shows Greenland temperatures, not global, so it's not useful for discussing global climate. It also cuts off most of the recent warming.
As for the Little Ice Age, a large factor in that cooling was the Spörer and Maunder Minimums in solar activity, which ended a couple hundred years ago. Solar output then climbed, and temperatures climbed with it - but then solar output peaked in the 1950s, and has been slowly dropping since then. Yet temperatures kept on climbing.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Well, there was a (brief) global cooling trend in the 60s, so it's hardly a surprise that scientists discussed it. But as your link says, when the trend changed their minds changed too. I'm guessing you have no citations of peer-reviewed papers ever predicting an "imminent ice age", though.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Your graph only shows Greenland temperatures, not global, so it's not useful for discussing global climate. It also cuts off most of the recent warming.
That's a fair enough comment. It turns out that if one looks at data from around the globe, such as stalactite growth rates one sees that the fluctuations in the Greenland ice core temperatures are matched. The data I presented is a nice set which illustrates what was observed globally (with some regional variability for sure). What else is clear is:
* NATURAL variability is quite significant
* We are climbing out of the Little Ice Age, and natural warming is to be expected
* Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' has been debunked for other reasons but this data reinforces the death of the Hockey Stick
* It has been much warmer in even the recent past and humanity not only survived, it THRIVED, it turns out that plants grow better when it is warm like Hawaii and not when it is cold like Greenland or Iceland
Yes, the most recent warming is cut off, but that warming is less than the natural warming seen in the past.
As for the Little Ice Age, a large factor in that cooling was the Spörer and Maunder Minimums in solar activity, which ended a couple hundred years ago. Solar output then climbed, and temperatures climbed with it - but then solar output peaked in the 1950s [gsu.edu], and has been slowly dropping since then. Yet temperatures kept on climbing.
It is great you accept the reality of the Little Ice Age - a lot of people invested in AGW theory do not. You do undertstand that solar luminosity varies a few Watts, right? not very significant compared to solar output. But solar magnetic activity varies hugely, and this is evidenced by sunspot activity. It turns out that there is a link between solar magnetic activity, the resulting heliospheric interaction with cosmic rays, and the effect of cosmic rays creating clouds in the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' and determinant of global climate this means that solar magnetic activity is a significant driver. Not the only driver, but a significant driver. See the work of Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Now what also has to be taken into account is not only the drivers, but the oceans which moderate the heat received from the Sun. The oceans have all sorts of multi-decadal oscillations and thermal reservoir effects which are not properly understood.
However, the specific prediction of the AGW theory (where human-emitted CO2 is the significant driver of climate) is that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. This is the 'fingerprint' of the AGW theory promoted by the UN's IPCC. The two satellite global surveys which look for this signature not only don't show TLT warming faster than the surface, which is enough to falsify the AGW hypothesis, but actually show the opposite is happening, the surface is warming faster than the TLT - which destroys the AGW hypothesis. That's ok, its just the Scientific Method in action and we'll come out with a new theory where solar magnetic activity is accounted for and a better attempt to model the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and its very complex behavior eg. convection effects, etc).
Meanwhile, there is zero justification for the UN gaining more power over your life and imposing 'carbon pollution' tax on you (what happened to "no taxation without [directly elected] representation" ?). There is no need to follow the Agenda 21 described by the UN's folks here:
http://green-agenda.com/
Which admits that they don't care about the science at all, it's just an excuse for global governance and involuntary (and thus, immoral) collectivist wealth-redistribution from all the citizens of the First World to the Third World.
Here is some data that many people don't know about. We *expect* to see natural warming as the planet climbs out of the Little Ice Age. This is corroborated by the fact that surface is warming faster than the lower tropical troposphere - which is *opposite* to the specific hypothesis of AGW.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... [amazonaws.com]
You present a graph for one spot, the GISP2 ice core at the summit of Greenland, that ends over 160 years ago in 1855 and think that means something globally today. I wonder how it would look if you added in the temperatures since 1855? Also the time scale is not even. The further back you get the more is compresses the graph horizontally which could be a bit misleading.
Is the Arctic summer ice cap disappearing? no, after a low in 2012 it is recovering
I looks like 2016 will set a new record for the lowest maximum ice extent unless there is a big freeze up in the next few weeks.
You present a graph for one spot, the GISP2 ice core at the summit of Greenland, that ends over 160 years ago in 1855 and think that means something globally today. I wonder how it would look if you added in the temperatures since 1855? Also the time scale is not even. The further back you get the more is compresses the graph horizontally which could be a bit misleading.
The GISP2 correlates with stalactite growth all over the World, such is in my own country in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, given the fact that the observed warming since the Little Ice Age is agreed to be around 1.5 degrees Centigrade so far, consider the size of the modern record on this graph. Furthermore, the specific claim of AGW proponents, via Michael Mann, is that there has been no natural warming for the last thousand years and possibly two thousand. This is clearly not true and Mann's analysis has been thoroughly and utterly debunked - so much so that the IPCC have discarded their analysis. This proves that natural variability is large and relatively swift. Humans are not required to explain the observed variability since the end of the Little Ice Age (in fact, the warming we see is the End of the Little Ice Age).
Now you must explain why the specific prediction of AGW theory, that the LTT will warm faster than the surface, is not only not observed but the counter is observed.
I looks like 2016 will set a new record for the lowest maximum ice extent unless there is a big freeze up in the next few weeks.
FALSE. The quantity of interest is the minimum in the Arctic summer ice cover and this does not occur in the boreal regions until September. Here is the data which shows your statement is silly and should be beneath any Slashdotter:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...
So show us some of that stalactite data too.
Wow, I don't have a clue how you could claim that AGW proponents and Michael Mann have said there is no natural warming for the last x amount of years. I've never read anything like that from him/them.
Yes, in the long run the quantity of most interest in the Arctic is the summer sea ice minimum but generally the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in February/March. 2016 is threatening to set a new record for the lowest maximum extent on record. Here's the report.
Nobody is denying that the records are being modified. The only contested issue is whether or not the modifications are correct or justified.
Here is a timely article explaining the fallacy of modifying scientific source data.
So show us some of that stalactite data too.
That will be my pleasure. But this is how it works: I have made a statement and presented some data. You dispute this statement and now you present your supporting data. Then I will gladly respond with the oodles of data from Oman (near equator) to New Zealand (mid-southern) to support the Greenland data (far northern) data. So now you simply need to provide the data you say proves that Greenland was regional only. It should be easy for you, right? opinions don't count, only data.
Wow, I don't have a clue how you could claim that AGW proponents and Michael Mann have said there is no natural warming for the last x amount of years. I've never read anything like that from him/them.
Have you never heard of Michael Mann's notorious "Hockey Stick". Surely you know that in IPCC reports from 2001 to 2007 it featured prominently, but then has been quietly removed because it has now been thoroughly debunked both on improper (to the point of fraudulent) analysis technique and improper sample selection. Here is the Hockey Stick from the IPCC reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport...
https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
Don't you think it is wonderful that the Internet never forgets? that every denial and false and disingenuous statement that climate Alarmists make is going to live on forever for all to see - like the claim you just make that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick doesn't exist (he used to caim that natural variability has been negligible for the last two millenia and all change must be anthropogenic in origin).
Yes, in the long run the quantity of most interest in the Arctic is the summer sea ice minimum but generally the Arctic sea ice hits its maximum extent in February/March. 2016 is threatening to set a new record for the lowest maximum extent on record. Here's the report. [nsidc.org]
Thank you for the reference. The reference I gave was from the Danes and is not corrupted like the NSIDC who are funded by NASA and NOAA who are now known to altering data to support their Lysenkoist agenda. The Danish data shows that the 2016 ice cover for this month is GREATER than 2015, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ice to become "teh lowest evah !" unless something unrelated to cold produces a large change (such as winds in the Barents sea driving ice northward which increases ice concentration but reduces surface cover). However, these are details, the point is abundantly clear - the Arctic summer ice has not disappeared as was predicted to happen by 2015 AGW theorists. AGW has not only failed another prediction, it has got it 180 degrees away from reality, again. Just as AGW failed in its prediction of LTT warming faster than the surface and got it 180 degrees wrong when the surface warmed naturally more than the LTT.
The internet is remembering what you post, riverat1 - this will be a very good thing in the future.
If you hate winter so much, why don't you go move to some place that doesn't have winter? You certainly could find a job in Florida, Texas, Arizona, or any of a number of other winter-free places, couldn't you? It might not be easy for you to recognize this obvious fact but there are people who actually like winter and like cold weather. What entitles you to take that away from them? Some people intentionally move to climates that have winter because they want to be there. You have not given any reason why you should be able to change their climate.
Just saying, why are we trying to make shitty weather out like a good thing? Most life on earth likes it warmer.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Has it really never occurred to you that some people have opinions different from your own? Honestly some people like cold weather and enjoy winter. If you hate winter, that's fine - go move to some place that doesn't have winter. Why are you entitled to take winter away from people who like it?
Similarly some people consider hot summers to be awful. How many people actually do anything when the weather is above 100F/37C? The majority of the people who live in hot places - if they have the choice - will spend the time indoors in AC when the temperatures are that high. What entitles you to force hot weather on people who don't like it? There are plenty of places on earth that are already hot, go move to one of them if you don't like temperate weather.
So now you simply need to provide the data you say proves that Greenland was regional only. It should be easy for you, right? opinions don't count, only data.
The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper.
Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.
If you zoom in on the Danish graph it appears that the peak for 2015 was about 2 weeks before the current peak for 2016. It looks like the 2015 peak could be slightly higher than the 2016 peak but it's impossible to tell without looking at the actual numbers. For all practical purposes it's a tie and will remain so unless there is significant freezing in the next few weeks.
Practically no one ever predicted Arctic summer sea ice would be gone by 2015. Certainly not the IPCC which puts it in the 2040s or later last I heard. In 2007 there was some speculation that if the rate of loss continued it could be gone by 2015 but if you asked actual cryologists about they would have laughed. So your claim that Arctic sea ice not being melted out by 2015 is a failed prediction of AGW is just a straw man.
Well since you've reduced it all to opinion... then I don't have to care anymore than I care what you like your coffee.
Done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your hatred of winter is based on your opinion of the weather. Your desire to tell other people what to think about winter is also based on your opinion of the weather. The actual fact of the matter is that the weather you hate so much is something that some people actually enjoy.
You are free to go live some place else if you don't like the weather where you live. You have not given any reason why you should have the power to choose the weather for other people, though - or more significantly to change the weather (by way of changing the climate) for large portions of the world.
Did you yourself chose to live where you live, or was that choice made by a previous generation?
Lolz... so you start off saying its all a matter of opinion, then you say my opinion is invalid for some reason. Lolzcats. If you bring this down to a matter of opinion, then all opinions are basically the same. I don't have to regard your opinion or even remotely care about it. And I'll take you as seriously with your criticism as you'd take someone else's when they told you what meat to put on your sandwich.
Don't argue opinion... its a foolish rhetorical ploy that has already fatally backfired. Pick something else.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Lolz... so you start off saying its all a matter of opinion, then you say my opinion is invalid for some reason.
No. Try again.
I stated that you are using your opinion to try to dictate how other people live. In fact you are trying to use your opinion to tell millions of people that their way of life is wrong. In so doing you are claiming that your opinion is somehow more valuable than theirs.
You have yet to provide any reason why you should be given the right to change how other people live. There are plenty of other places where you could go live if you hate winter so much. Yet you are trying to take winter away from everyone because you hate it, without regard for the fact that a great many people happen to really enjoy it.
You're free to hate winter as much as you want. What you are not free to do is to take winter away from people who like it. You have the option to leave where you live and go live some place that has no winter.
No, I'm saying that it is objectively better in most parts of the world to be warmer farther from the equator. We are tropically descended primates. Saying you're happier in fucking cold places is great but you're in a minority there.
We're human beings. You're not an ice fish. Saying it is opinion or something is nonsensical. Regardless, lets say its all opinion and I'm an ass for imposing something on you. Only here is your second problem... I'm not.
All I'm doing is not taking your complaint seriously. You want to impose yourself on ME. I am just minding my own business doing what I do. Here you're going to blame me for all the CO2 and all the warming etc. Never mind that it doesn't matter what I do or you do. The CO2 being released in China and India so dwarfs any reduction you could credibly make that it defeats the whole point.
Your entire campaign is meaningless because we have ONE atmosphere. Get over it. The world is the world. What is going to happen will happen. Move on.
I personally think it won't be a big deal. But if it were a big deal, I'd offer you geoengineering. Short of that, nothing you or I do will matter. At all.
So what do you choose? Nothing/useless actions or Geoengineering. Choose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The PAGES 2K study on "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two milennia" seems to be the most comprehensive round up of the science. Here is a PDF copy of the paper. [nerc.ac.uk]
Thanks for posting data. The PAGES 2k study is analyzed and the techniques and proxies are pretty well independently analyzed here
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://climateaudit.org/2013/0...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Now I'm going to take the data in your Pages 2k report and ask you some questions about it:
1) True or false: Antarctica was MUCH warmer from 0 to ~1300 AD than it is today?
2) True or false: Europe war much warmer from 0 to 150 AD, and 725-750 Ad than it is today?
3) True or false: Asia was as warm in 1300 -1325 as it is today, and 40% of the data ia missing (so could have been warm when Europe and Antarctica were) ?
4) True or false: North America was VERY MUCH warmer from 700 - 1200 AD than it is dot, and over 50% of the data is missing ?
5) True or false: Australasia is warmest today, but was nearly as warm from 1225 -1275 AD, has 50% missing data, and is based on the cherry-picked Gergis data ?
6) True or false: South America was as warm as it is today from 1250 - 1325 AD, and 40% of its data is missing ?
7) True or false: Antarctica was VERY MUCH warmer from 150 - 1050 AD and 1150 - 1225 AD and 1675 - 1700 than today, with 7% of its data missing?
8) True or false: Statistically it was globally as warm in 0 - 250 AD (Roman Warm Period) and 850 - 950 AD as it is today ?
9) True or false: based on the GISP2 data it was much warmer before between 8000BC - 0 AD than it is today?
10) True or false: there was global cooling around 1700 and 1800 (with some apparently latitude based lag) ?
11) True or false: the global cooling is likely to be due to volcanic and solar effects?
12) True or false: the end of global cooling in 1825 cannot be due to humans but is probably due to changes in volcanic and solar effects?
13) True or false: the modern warming we see started in North Latitudes started before humans could have any impacts?
14) True or false: after cooling we expect warming ?
15) True or false: there is regional climatic variation and this is all natural ?
16) True or false: there have been periods of global climate variation (both warming and cooling) in the past and this has been all natural ?
17) True or false: even Michael Mann admits that the nearly two decades of 'Pause' is real ?
18) True or false: people who think politicians can control the climate are insane ?
19) True or false: water vapor is the dominant 'greenhouse gas' that controls the climate ?
20) True or false: the TCS and ECS due to water vapor is observed to be slightly negative and thus the CAGW theory is impossible ?
21) True or false: humans will run out of easily recoverable fossil fuels well before CO2-induced heating becomes dangerous ?
Of course I know about the Hockey Stick graph (which has been confirmed by more than a dozen similar studies done since it first came out). What does that have to do with your claim that Mann and others are saying there is no natural warming for the last 1000 or 2000 years? The Hockey Stick graph clearly shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago and was gradually cooling until the recent sharp uptick in temperatures.
The Hockey Stick is completely debunked. Its statistical analysis is invalid and has been comprehensively shot down by McIntyre et al. As "A Disgrace to the Profession" points out, hundreds of climate scientists refute the Hockey Stick analyses due to the overwhelming evidence of higher temperatures in the past
Saying you're happier in fucking cold places is great but you're in a minority there.
That is a big sweeping assumption you are making there that you cannot possibly support, and you know that. If generations of people have lived in the same area they are certainly aware of the climate they are living in. There are many "fucking cold places" - as you say - that not only enjoy winter but actually base part of their economy on having winter.
I am just minding my own business doing what I do.
No, you are very plainly advocating for changing the climate that other people live in, and taking away their seasons. You are very plainly claiming yourself to know better than them what they want in terms of weather. Equally important you have not given any explanation for why on earth you should have the right to do that to other people. There are other climates that are not - as you said - "fucking cold places" so why don't you go find work in one of those places and live there? Why is your opinion so important that it justifies changing the way of life for so many other people?
Here you're going to blame me for all the CO2 and all the warming etc.
I have not seen anyone do that in this discussion, or anywhere else. You have, however, repeatedly expressed how much winter makes you mad. You have expressed repeatedly how much you want to not have winter. You have repeatedly expressed how you feel entitled to take winter away from others.
No, I am not advocating changing the climate. I'm just saying why I won't care if it does change.
I'm not advocating making the world warmer on purpose. I'll just be personally happier if it does and I think most people in colder parts of the world will as well. Regardless, what is going to happen is going to happen.
You might as well clean the sand out of your vag and move on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No, I am not advocating changing the climate.
Do you not remember what you wrote all the way back on last Tuesday?
Allow us to refresh your memory:
I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.
Which is rather plainly you advocating for changing the climate, based on your blind assumption that the rest of the world shares your hatred for winter.
You might want to try learning something about how the world works, and the fact that just because you like something doesn't mean that everyone else in the world does as well. As stated before, you are free to go move some place that does not have a winter - but if the climate changes and nobody has winter anywhere any more then the people who did like it are robbed of it (to say nothing for what will happen to people who previously lived in places that had no winter).
You can post stuff from ClimateAudit and WUWT all you want but I'm not going to read them. In the time I spent looking at them 8 or 10 years ago what they post is mostly bullshit.
Regarding your list of T/F questions, it's not clear at all that any of those places were warmer at any time in the last 2000 years than they are today (2015/2016). Even if it was it's not likely to remain so for very long given the ongoing warming. Regarding some of the specific ones.
9) All of the graphs I've seen from GISP2 cut off some time in the 1850s so it's impossible to tell if your statement is true.
10 & 11) There was global cooling from the 1300s to the 1800s, most likely due primarily to volcanic effects with some help from low solar output and albedo effects where after the volcanoes got it started the polar ice started to grow.
14) Why? If you take a long term view you can say the Earth has been cooling for over 10 million years or going back to the PETM over 50 million years or you could even go back nearly 100 million years ago. Speaking more recently over the past 8000 years there has been a cycle of glaciations and deglaciations of about 100,000 years. Since the Holocene Climatic Optimum 6,000-8,000 years ago the Earth has been gradually cooling as you would expect sliding toward the next glacial period.
15) There is regional climatic variation and nowadays it's a combination of natural and anthropogenic effects.
16) True if you count asteroids hitting Earth and gigantic volcanic eruptions like the Deccan Traps. How does that preclude the possibility of anthropogenic effects?
17) What the Fyfe/Mann et. al. paper said was this:
“In all three observational datasets the most recent 15-year trend (ending in 2014) is lower than both the latest 30-year and 50-year trends. This divergence occurs at a time of rapid increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs). A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; ”
That's not saying there's a pause but just a slowdown in warming.
19) On the contrary, the climate controls water vapor. Water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled primarily by temperature. The colder it is the less water vapor there is. That's why most of Antarctica would be classified as a desert on the basis of precipitation. It's impossible for water vapor to control climate although its presence will modify climate.
21) That depends on what you mean by "dangerous". I'm pretty sure it will cause major disruptions to modern civilization.
Your Hockey Schtick is getting old. Mann's original graph is practically irrelevant any more and proving it was fraudulent won't get you anything. You still have to deal with the more than a dozen studies since that show essentially the same thing as the original Hockey Stick Graph.
My point was that this year either set or statistically tied a record for the lowest winter time maximum Arctic sea ice in the satellite era. By itself that doesn't mean much. Only in the context of the long term trend does it carry some meaning.
Regarding your "failed" predictions the Guardian article had the word "could" in it which means it's not outside the realm of possibilities, not that it would happen. I don't think you can call the NY Times story a failed prediction yet because it mostly talked about the future. The NPR story quoted Anne Nolin as saying "Enjoy it now, because there's a whole lot less of it,". Nothing about the end of snow. Most of the story was about the safety of eating snow.
Oh, that's cute. You're comparing human emissions to yearly natural emissions while ignoring the other side of the equation, the natural sinks of CO2. The fact is the increase in CO2 from year to year is a bit less than half the the human emissions, the rest of it being absorbed by natural sinks like the oceans.
You can post stuff from ClimateAudit and WUWT all you want but I'm not going to read them. In the time I spent looking at them 8 or 10 years ago what they post is mostly bullshit.
Bingo! here you admit you have not been using the Scientific Method for a decade. You expect us to look at your evidence but you refuse to do the same at the DATA (not opinions) presented. This is an admission of defeat on your part - you will not look at any new data (although the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to look for contrary evidence constantly).
Regarding your list of T/F questions, it's not clear at all that any of those places were warmer at any time in the last 2000 years than they are today (2015/2016). Even if it was it's not likely to remain so for very long given the ongoing warming. Regarding some of the specific ones.
The questions come from the data of YOUR OWN CITATION. Of course you simply ignore the inconvenient truth. You have already admitted you don't care for the Scientific Method at all.
9) All of the graphs I've seen from GISP2 cut off some time in the 1850s so it's impossible to tell if your statement is true.
A failure of analysis here. The AGW claim is that the warming since 1850 is unprecedented, yet the GISP2 data clearly shows greater and more rapid rises in the past, multiple times even in the last 100 centuries. This AGW claim is thus falsified.
10 & 11) There was global cooling from the 1300s to the 1800s, most likely due primarily to volcanic effects with some help from low solar output and albedo effects where after the volcanoes got it started the polar ice started to grow.
So changes in magnetic activity resulting in heliospheric changes, which mediate cosmic ray intensity in the atmosphere, which changes cloud seeding rate, which changes the global climate since water vapor is the dominant Greenhouse gas. So if the solar (and volcanic) effects can cause cooling, and those effects end, then we should EXPECT to see warming after a cooling period like the Little Ice Age, right? EXACTLY what we do see. AGW is not necessary to explain what we see. Sure, humans will have some impact, but the effect seems small compared to solar (and volcanic) effects. Why can you not understand that the end of natural cooling means natural warming - which is consistent with the relative rates of warming between the surface/sea and Lower Tropical Troposphere (which are warming at rates consistent with natural effects and counter to that predicted if AGW were the cause).
14) Why? If you take a long term view you can say the Earth has been cooling for over 10 million years or going back to the PETM over 50 million years or you could even go back nearly 100 million years ago. Speaking more recently over the past 8000 years there has been a cycle of glaciations and deglaciations of about 100,000 years. Since the Holocene Climatic Optimum 6,000-8,000 years ago the Earth has been gradually cooling as you would expect sliding toward the next glacial period.
Sure, that's the First Order effect. What about Higher Order effects? do you think only one mechanism can be in play at once? again, this position is a result of a failure of your analysis.
15) There is regional climatic variation and nowadays it's a combination of natural and anthropogenic effects.
We agree on this. There are two questions that follow: what proportion is natural, and what is AGW? based on the answer to that, then is the rate and expected peak temperature a cause for concern. Looking at the observational evidence it is not - which means killing BILLIONS of poor people through energy poverty as well as empowering unelected, anti-democratic trans-national regimes to enforce the wealth redistribution scheme is scientifically unjustified (as well as being fundamentally immoral).
That's
Actually it isn't advocacy so much as an opinion that people would in general prefer condition 1 over condition 2.
Look... if you're going to be dishonest on top of being stupid and then on top of being an AC... that's three strikes.
Done and done and done. You struck out, Jr. Better luck next time.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You're trying to split hairs, even though you've plainly demonstrated that the two are the same to you. Seriously, if all those people hate the weather where they live, then why don't they move? You have the freedom to go live somewhere else if you don't like the weather where you live; you really need to consider that maybe people actually like the weather where they are. A lot of people actually like to have four seasons where one includes cold weather and snow. If you hate it, go live somewhere else - you claim to be entitled to the right to choose the weather for other people, why aren't you just choosing to go somewhere else for weather yourself?
No, you're trying to strawman and conflate. I'm not splitting anything. I'm just not letting you strawman me.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Clearly your understanding of strawman is not the same as that of any human being who currently lives on planet earth. You plainly stated that you want to change the climates that other people live in, simply because you hate cold weather. You plainly stated that you believe you know better than they do what kind of weather they actually want.
What you have particularly failed to do is provide any reason why you shouldn't just leave the place you currently live and go live someplace where the weather doesn't make you so mad as to want to destroy the lives that other people live. Why do you have that right? They could have left if they hated the weather where they live, but they chose to stay. Why are you choosing to stay? Pack your things and leave, there are plenty of places to live that don't have winter.
No, I plainly stated that most people wouldn't mind if it did change.
As to my understanding of what is and is not a strawman... sadly for you... my understanding is as accurate as it is keen. You lose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So changes in magnetic activity resulting in heliospheric changes, which mediate cosmic ray intensity in the atmosphere, which changes cloud seeding rate, which changes the global climate since water vapor is the dominant Greenhouse gas.
About 41,000 years ago there was a temporary reversal of the Earth's magnetic field (a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laschamp_event>the Laschamp event). During that period of about 440 years the Earth's magnetic field was greatly reduced and cosmic ray intensity increased far beyond any current intensity. Yet when compared to the climate records of the time there was no noticable effect on climate. I think it's likely that there are generally plenty of cloud seeding aerosols from sources other than cosmic rays and additional cosmic rays don't make that much difference.
Another failure in your analysis. CO2 is increasing rapidly yet the temperature second time derivative is negative? think about what that means ! it means that GHG CANNOT be the dominant climate drivers. They have an effect, but they are not in the driver's seat - which means even if humans followed the Green Agenda and went back to their pre-industrial agrarian nightmare (which anyone can do today of they choose to live in Africa - despite the fact that Africa is a massive source of CO2 emissions because the biosphere emits far more than humans) it would still not affect the climate in any meaningful way. Climate Realists will start believing alarmists when you have the courage of your convictions and start living the lifestyle you say is necessary - instead of the multi-mansion, jet-setting lifestyle of hypocrites like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and other 'vrtue signalling' hypocrites.
That's quite the straw man you built there. Very few people are advocating a return to a "pre-industrial agrarian nightmare", just a switch from fossil fuel based energy to renewable energy. I guess you don't think that's possible but as far as I can see it just takes time.
Water Vapor provides a feedback that counters the effects of CO2 ...
What is this water vapor feedback that counters the effects of CO2? Increased CO2 causes warming which increases water vapor in the atmosphere which in turn causes its own warming. I suppose you think more water vapor causes more clouds but I don't think that's automatically the case.
"Climategate" was an exercise in quote mining and much ado about nothing.
I don't claim that AGW started in 1950. It started when atmospheric levels of CO2 started rising. It was a relatively small effect before the industrialization that started around WWII and continued on into the 1950s.
For thousands of years before humans started emitting fossil carbon the level of CO2 in the atmosphere hovered around 280 ppm. There was no significant change in the level even during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. If those periods were so much warmer than now why didn't it cause CO2 to increase by the mechanism you propose?
Here's a thing - did you know the scope of the IPCC's mandate is to only analyze human impacts on climate, and all natural drivers are considered out-of-scope?
It's impossible as the IPCC scientists know to understand human impacts on climate without also understanding natural drivers of climate. Good luck holding on to your money when the effects of AGW really start kicking in as they are starting to do.
No, I plainly stated that most people wouldn't mind if it did change.
Thank you for confirming your failure, son. You are stating that your belief that you know the weather preferences of people better than they themselves know it. You are taking that grand assumption to an extreme by claiming that it gives you the right to permanently change the climate where they live, even though you have the freedom to choose to live somewhere else.
As has been said before, if you hate the weather where you live why don't you just pack up and move? You've been dodging that question for some time now.
False. I stated MY opinion, shit for brains. It is "MY" opinion that people will in general prefer warmer weather. That is... MY opinion of someone else's opinion. But that is still my opinion. It is YOUR opinion that someone might like to be cold... as few people move to cold places for the weather, I think you've got your head up your ass. That's another of "my" opinions... idiot. I have to point out what are my opinions with people like you apparently because you don't know what is and is not self evidently a statement of opinion... fuckwit.
Deep throat a loaded shotgun and have a nice oblivion. *cheers*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It is YOUR opinion that someone might like to be cold
Considering how many people in cold climates make their money off the weather, it is a stated fact that some people like cold weather. You haven't said what you would do to compensate these people whose livelihoods your plan to change the climate would take away.
as few people move to cold places for the weather
Regardless of the fact-free nature of that claim, you still have yet to explain why you don't just pack your things and go move some place that doesn't have winter. You are free to do that. Instead you claim to be entitled to change the climate of other people because you hate the weather where you live.
have to point out what are my opinions with people like you apparently because you don't know what is and is not self evidently a statement of opinion.
No, it is very clear that you have an inflated sense of self-worth. It is very clear that you believe you are entitled to make choices for others. It is very clear that you are very angry at being shown to be such a raging bigot.
shit for brains... you've got your head up your ass... idiot... fuckwit. Deep throat a loaded shotgun and have a nice oblivion.
Geez, dude -- take a deep breath. It's just a Slashdot discussion. It doesn't actually matter. There is no reason to be *that* emotionally invested in an irrelevant discussion with people you don't even know. If you're unhappy with how a discussion is going, just move on.
emotionally invested? does something about his writing cause you to think he's maybe a sandwich short of a picnic here?
we figure the kid writes pretty well for a teenager, and he has a high enough UID to support that notion. we guess his slashdot account was likely a punishment from his parents, who hoped it would help him learn how to deal with adults. that seems to have backfired.
You can't assume emotional investment from anything I said.
Poe's law... right? Why are all of you so bad at the internet? Seriously? Why are you so bad at knowing how anything works?
Here's the thing, you don't know me. You don't know the tone of voice I would express anything in... you don't know my emotional state or my emotional investment or actually anything besides what I said. Inferring... which is what you're doing... is really very very unreliable. And to make any firm opinion based on what is known to be unreliable is foolish... on your part... its foolish... dumb... not smart... ill informed... unwise.
Savvy, cupcake? You don't know what anyone "feels" here much less me.
What dumb positions like this always boil down to is some fool like yourself ultimately claiming to have psychic powers and/or a psychology degree... because nothing impresses me more than the most over rated subject you can possibly take at college... well besides laughable claims to super human powers.
Anywho, I'll let you continue to delude yourself by getting another fool to agree with you. Because if we know anything about the universe... the truth is a democracy. And that means that a plurality of idiots can be right about anything so long as they agree with each other... right guys?
So what evhs... :) --- My emotional state. Smiley face. :D - open mouthed taunt.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.