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.
I Call Bullshit https://stevengoddard.wordpres... From NOAAs own records. !
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Global warming proven to be a lie!
n/t
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Or the previous decade.
.
.
.
Here's the rankings of warmest from the decade
2015 - 1st
2014 - 2nd
2013 - 4th
2012 - 8th
2011 - 11th
2010 -3rd
All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Question: "How much snow did you shovel over the last decade?"
Answer: "Too much!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
We had 30" of snow in 24 hours this winter. That's all the snow we received.
Why? Because we had temperatures in the 40s and 50s through all of December, including hitting 71 on the 24th. We've had 40s through large portions of January and February and February had 50s at the end of the month. Today our temperature was almost 70, tomorrow it will be above 70 and winter isn't yet over.
See how the game works?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
In all fairness, the story isn't really about global warming, either. It's about the weather in the United States. In recent summers, the US has been abnormally cool while the rest of the world has been hot. Overall, the Earth has been very warm, but the weather in the United States doesn't necessarily indicate as such. By the way, mid-latitude weather may not be the best indicator of global warming, especially during the winter.
The Arctic Oscillation has two phases, the positive phase being a strong polar vortex that traps the cold air in the Arctic, while the negative phase weakens the polar vortex and allows more cold air outbreaks in the mid-latitudes. The Arctic Oscillation is very much related to sudden stratospheric warming, which is often a precursor to the onset of mid-latitude cold air outbreaks. It makes sense that the stratosphere would have a role in weakening the polar vortex, which is actually a semi-permanent large-scale feature near the tropopause. In the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation, the polar regions can be quite cold while the mid-latitude regions are warm.
Global warming means global warming, not regional warming. And there are reasons why the weather in the United States might be decoupled from other parts of the Earth. Even with global warming, a few regions of the Earth might actually cool. For example, if global warming slows the North Atlantic Drift current, the British Isles may cool because of global warming. My point is that scientists have to be precise in what they say, otherwise climate deniers (and trolls, in the case of the OP) will distort their message and attack them.
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.
"Nuh-uh!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
You should be aware that even in global warming scenarios where the planet on average is several degrees warmer it'll still get cold enough for snow to fall out of the sky in most places where snow has historically been common. What you'll have a slight tendency to have less snow in many places due to temperature that's offset by a lot more water going into the atmosphere. Many places may see lots more snow.
In many high temperate regions you'll also see more frequent cold snaps. Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere. Since we're talking about a giant rotating ball of fluid which is exchanging heat with the surface and space what you get is much more complicated stuff happening.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You'll think that when New York streets look more like Venice. It's nice for sure, but the biggest effect is not going to be "nice weather"... people always think weather is nice when it's average. The real issue will be bigger more violent storms, and rising ocean flooding of coastal areas where humans like to build. The rich will rise with the tide and the poor will drown.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
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...
Here in Phoenix we hit 90 degrees on Feb. 17th this year, which is the earliest 90-degree day on record (since 1895, at least). The average for that day is 71, so we're a bit above average. Last weekend things cooled off a little bit (i.e. approached the average) but the forecast shows that we're back into the high 80s approaching 90 again this week. Last year the first 90-degree day didn't happen until March 16, so we're about a month early. All of our reptiles and bugs are waking up early this year.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Speaking as someone who's live in New England for almost 60 years now, for most of my life there was one regular pattern you could count on each winter: bitter, very dry cold would settle in in late December, followed by a slight rise in temperature in early February that would bring the first real snow of the season. The snow would get heavier and wetter as winter drew to a close.
You need two things for snow: sub-freezing temperatures AND water in the air. The 5F - 20F temperatures we had in January were plenty cold enough for snow, but the air was bone dry. The January skies were a deep, startling blue, often without a single wisp of cloud to be seen. The lack of water was also a contributor to the cold. Days with snow are almost always warmer because the clouds trap heat that would radiate into space. It's desert nights out west where the temperatures plunge fifty degrees after sundown.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
That's the old way of looking at it. Now it's:
1. If there is less snow this year, it proves warming.
2. If there is more snow this year, it proves warming.
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.
Yes. It's about using solid physics to develop a model, experimenting with inputs and comparing models with real data until the models improve.
Funny how people will believe economists making a guesses with the help of MS Excel instead of people using applied physics and multiple server farms.
That's just Alaska, not the entire world.
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.
It would be interesting to know if a sorta equilibrium occurs where the warmer winters means less fuel was burned.
Run by people dependent on funding from the current politicos.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You mean to tell me I should believe the people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
Yeah, I know right? Like I told this math idiot the other day, probability theory is BS! You expect me to believe you can tell me the average of a million rolls of a die when you can't even predict what number will come up on the next 3 rolls? Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
It's obvious isn't it? The air is getting warnee because we are measuring it. We didn't have all this global warming before we started measuring it in mass and make the results available.
On the other hand, you did bring up a point. If roads, houses (cities), and air conditioning are bringing the temp up, why all the fuss over a gas that was relatively harmless in the quantity we are concerned with before the measuring conspiracy? Is it somehow intended to limit the roads, houses, and air conditioning?
Let's face it - Phoenix will be uninhabitable in 10 years, 25 tops... Unless you like year-round 100+ temps spiking to 130 in the summer.
That is all.
Yeah, I know right? Like I told this math idiot the other day, probability theory is BS! You expect me to believe you can tell me the average of a million rolls of a die when you can't even predict what number will come up on the next 3 rolls? Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
Mother Nature uses a loaded die for climate. I do not think we have really figured out how it's rigged yet. But the people who think they do have it figured out are making Chicken Little asses of themselves, throwing their weight around and slapping their hands all over Science making chaos, ripples and rudeness where there had once been a calm pool of open peer review, emerging theories and mutual respect. A process which valued 'attempts to falsify' and replication as much as citation and grant-seeding.
I long for the days of Nostradamus and Crystal worship. You could spot those people a mile away and keep clear.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
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"?
You can also have more snow in places because the warmer weather means lakes don't freeze over. Since they don't freeze over, there's more evaporation which turns into more lake effect snow.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
A real pity they have proved right, with the last 12 years containing ALL the hottest 10 years on record including the ice core records.
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.
Similar results here in upstate NY. By now we should have gotten 49.2 inches of snow. Instead, we've gotten 10.3 inches. It's 54F out right now (at nearly 9PM) and it should get to 70 tomorrow. Christmas day here was warmer than it was on July 4th. I didn't need to use ice melt, my roof rake, or more than one shovel all winter. I'm not really complaining about the lack of snow, but my youngest son (age 9) definitely has been.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
That's absolutely absurd.
I'm not trying to deny AGW at all. It's serious, and needs to be addressed. No doubt about it.
But to imply that the last 15 years have all been the 15 hottest on record is ridiculous. As though we never had a single warm year in the 1990s or earlier, or a single cold year in the last 15 (the phrase Polar Vortex comes to mind.)
This is exactly the kind if alarmist bullshit that deniers can clamp on to. This screams bad science.
Don't fall into that trap. Don't present obviously skewed data when the real data will show a clear enough pattern.
This signature is false.
The Polar Vortex was a local phenomenon, and while the Lower 48 was freezing its nuts off, Alaska was 18 degrees C warmer than usual.
You're confusing local weather events with the global temperature record. I wouldn't go yelling about bad science if I were you...
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
So you're saying their success so far predicting what the climate would do is evidence that they're wrong?
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
In the Eastern USA, ther eis a region known as "The Snow Belt". Interestingly enough, it is to the south of my location, and does indeed tend to have warmer weather than we do here. But they usually get a lot more snow. How is this possible? Warm water laden air tries to work it's way up north, form the Gulf of Mexico. It usually gets met by a cold front, and although the Snow Belt is warmer than my location, it is still cold enough to turn into snow. Some times a lot of snow.
Now with a general warming trend, the snow belt might be moving northward, which probably caused the "big" snowstorm that hit eastern PA, New Jersey and New York this year. However, west of the affected area, the winter has been freaky anomalous. I've only had my snowblower out once this winter, and we only had one cold spell, but did not get below zero the entire winter. But we've had a lot of rain, the creeks and rivers are quite high. The wife and I had a nice barbecue on the patio in 70 some degree temps today, and I have the weird situation of having my motorcycle out of the garage sitting beside the snowblower.
This anomaly is not proof of global warming, but the past couple decades are.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Question: "How much snow did you shovel over the last decade?"
Answer: "Too much!"
For some people, any at all is too much.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's the old way of looking at it. Now it's:
1. If there is less snow this year, it proves warming.
2. If there is more snow this year, it proves warming.
Well, it depends on where you are at. Have you taken into account shifting weather patterns where warm moisture laden air ttravelling northward runs into arctic air at a higher latitude than normal?
Think Gulf of Mexico air travelling northward through the Appalachian Mountains and east coast.
It is very possible for my area - which is north of the US snow belt, to get more snow as the belt shifts northward. It will be warmer, but any temperature in the low 30's or near 0 degrees depending on your measurement system - to get dumped on by virtue of that damp air making it further north that it used to go before colliding with the Arctic air.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
what was this thing about Global Warming?
Up here in Utah we had the same warming at the same time period it was 60degrees on the week of the 17th. The flowers have already started to come up and the birds are returning. More than 2 months ahead of schedule (normally wouldn't occur till mid April to may). I'm a little over 40 and I cannot remember, nor can my 80 year old parents any time in their lifetimes or mine when this has happened. And it's not a freak occurrence, though this is the earliest it's been, just two years ago this was in the 2nd week of march, still months ahead of the normal time frame.
It seems that every year it's happening a little bit sooner and the freak occurrence isn't the warming being sooner but a winter that runs a normal length. At least in the desert southwest this scares the daylights out of me because this area won't be habitable if rainfall/snowfall patterns change. We could end up with water riots and the exact same thing could happen in Phoenix but worse because a good chunk of Phoenix's water comes from the Colorado which draws it's water from snow melt in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. Not to mention the Arizona rivers that could dry up as well.
Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere.
Someone who understands the basic bottom of the barrel truth.
Expressed another way, Human activity has added about 1.6 watts per square meter since 1750. Hey, that doen't sound like much does it? Until we figure out that is 800 TeraWatts.
I don't know about the deniers, but I can envision 800 TeraWatts. And my reaction is Holy Crap!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You're confusing a pattern of global warning with a gospel of annual record breaks.
There SHOULD be some "weather" happening. At least one year this century should have some cold weather. At least one year in the previous century should have some warm weather.
But there isn't. The numbers are adhering perfectly with the alarmist rhetoric, instead of following a natural pattern of peaks and valleys slowly increasing over time.
This signature is false.
Let's face it - Phoenix is uninhabitable now. I don't know how people can live there. Of course my idea of a perfect day is 70 and cloudy I don't want to live in a lot of places.
I am look forward to the Suns coming grand minimum causing cool summers and cloudy days where I live.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
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.
Why do you assume when someone says they live in NY they mean NY city. Maybe he lives in the Catskills where he hasn't seen any snow this winter while NY city got some. Only a fool builds his house on the sand. Anyone who builds in a flood plain should expect to get washed away.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
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.
Not even all the lower 48. The west coast had an absurdly warm winter. I joke that the east stole our winter (I'm from Washington, the one on the west coast in case that's unclear). We had a day in February hit 70F (about 21C), about 10F (5C) above what would normally be considered a warm day for February in the Seattle area last year. The ski season basically didn't exist, especially on this side of the Cascades; base snow depths that should have been in the upper double digits were in the single digits. This year's winter has actually been significantly colder than last year's, here, although it's still way above the historical average.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate".
And, more to the point, the amount of snow in a given location is not the same as the temperature in that location.
Amount of snow is related to how much water vapor is in the air.
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.
You mean to tell me I should believe the people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
Another one. (*sigh*)
A few things:
(1) Weather != Climate.
(2) The "people" who "predict" weather are not the same "people" who "predict" climate change.
(3) Both kinds of "people" are actually pretty good at what they do. Can you do better? No, all you can do is snark.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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!
You mean to tell me I should believe the people
You mean to tell us that what you do or don't *believe* should be a matter of concern for us for some reason?
The only real takeaway from this is that Climate change and the controversy surrounding it will exist so long as there's money to be made from it.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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.
Well it's confirmation bias isn't it? Every year that it gets hotter confirms this bias scientists have to see higher temperatures as "warming."
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
Only a decade? So the 18 year warming hiatus (which may or may not extend even further into the future as the current El Nino comes to a close and a La Nina probably takes over) while CO2 climbed to historic (modern history, not prehistoric) heights IS enough to demonstrate the non-validity of AGW for you? Good to know.
But to imply that the last 15 years have all been the 15 hottest on record is ridiculous. As though we never had a single warm year in the 1990s or earlier, or a single cold year in the last 15 (the phrase Polar Vortex comes to mind.)
You are correct that it is ridiculous to suggest the top years are all from the past 15 years. According to the NOAA, the actual years in order are:
2015, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 1998, 2009, 2012, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2002, 2004, 2011, (tie: 2001 & 2008)
As you can see, the original poster forgot about 1998 (which tied with 2009 at 6th place), thus blowing his entire argument out of the water. So out of the 16 years listed (since #15 was a tie with #16), there was one year that is not from the previous 15 years. Actually, now that I think about it perhaps it isn't quite as alarmist as you might think.
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.
But to imply that the last 15 years have all been the 15 hottest on record is ridiculous.
Well unless you have data that says otherwise I'll stick with the NOAA data than your gut feel. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...
As though we never had a single warm year in the 1990s or earlier, or a single cold year in the last 15
This is the part where you'll need to produce real data, otherwise you sound like you're just making stuff up.
This is exactly the kind if alarmist bullshit that deniers can clamp on to. This screams bad science.
You know science isn't based on what feels right? If that's what the data says, then that's what it says.
Don't fall into that trap. Don't present obviously skewed data when the real data will show a clear enough pattern.
I'm not presenting anything, I'll leave that to the experts. And the experts says this is so.
Not even all the lower 48.
Also worth noting that the "Global" in Global Warming means more than just the US. Where I live, after a decade of hottest years on record, last year we never had a winter, and this month is the hottest March since records began. It is also predicted we'll skip winter again this year too.
So even if where you live feels the same as usual, I assure that's not the case elsewhere. This shit is real and noticable, and it won't be long before it has a real economic impact.
As you can see, the original poster forgot about 1998 (which tied with 2009 at 6th place), thus blowing his entire argument out of the water.
Um, can you count? When you have a tie, you can have more than 15 things in a top 15 list (as the NOAA data shows). "All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record." is still true, even if you don't know how that works.
This. Seriously underrated.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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).
Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well.
In other news, thermal expansion isn't a thing. Who know eh? I'm glad that I came on to slashdot to learn that well established science is wrong.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Did you say this?
"In other news science is wrong"
Or did you say this?
"In other news Slashdot is wrong"
Or maybe you said this?
"I'm glad science is wrong"
Anyone can play this game, you talentless... zero ethics... shill.
Taking people out of context doesn't make you look smart. It just makes you look dishonest. If you want to take issue with what I said, then do that. But take issue with what I said in context rather than fucking stupid strawmen. That's honestly half of why your comment is so annoying... its just so fucking stupid. Any moron that actually read my post would see that your citation is illegitimate.
Be a better person next time. Either learn to be a competent sophist shithead... or maybe just maybe have some fucking standards and don't build your arguments on a foundation of deceit.
Your choice. But your last post read like one of those pathetic robberies where the robber gets over powered by the store owner's unarmed wife. Just pitiful.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
t El Nino comes to a close and a La Nina probably takes over ... after a "normal period" ... an La Nina emerges. And vice versa.
El Nino and La Nina are not "alternating events".
First of all between them is a "normal period".
Secondly, you can have plenty of El Ninos in a row until finally
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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?
Taking people out of context doesn't make you look smart.
It was fine in context. There's two choices:
1. You think the earth is warming (for whatever reason). That will lead to the sea rising because of thermal expansion of the ocean, but you are "dubious" about that. IOW you're an idiot.
2. You think the earth isn't warnin. IOW you're an idiot.
Things are not looking too good for you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
... you really can't be this stupid.
Let me offer option 3. Immediately after your misleading citation, I said this:
"The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years."
So... I obviously know the oceans have been rising due to changes in climate... idiot.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
the earth is what, 5 billion years old, we've been keeping records since ~1800s. Doh.
nothing to see here - move along
Every time you mention the "hiatus" you are letting everyone know you aren't abreast of the actual scientific findings. The "hiatus" was a pause in the increase in warming, and has since been accounted for.
Did you have to work hard at being this ridiculously confused? It's breathtaking to observe.
1. Polar bears need cycles of weather to survive. You might as well say people don't need oxygen because they aren't always breathing. It shows you either fundamentally don't understand this, or that you are quite happy to distort the truth to make a point. It has nothing to do with heat exhaustion, but changes to their hunting grounds which renders life far less easy, which decreases the population. Call bullshit if you want, but you are only calling bullshit on your stunted understanding of the situation.
2. You seem to have no problem with land becoming unsuitable for farming, decreasing nutritional yield of crops, feedback cycles increasing the rise in temperature, instability of fish stocks, higher storm surges which threaten the hubs of civilization (the major cities responsible for the global economy, which frequently lie on the coast), the spread of pests & disease through the newly-comfortable climes, and so on.
You'd be able to solve your ignorance rather quickly, but it seems you'd rather spend that time on Slashdot showing everyone just how proud you are of not understanding this thing you are so loudly condemning.
Translation: "I don't understand science. I don't want to understand science. I assume all scientists are corrupt, because they are saying things I don't like to hear, even though their methods have increased my life expectancy massively, and provided me this computer which I use to loudly proclaim how wrong they are."
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
Who knew AC's had opposable thumbs?
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
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.
"where" would be a nice piece of information to provide so we could actually look at actual trends for your location and turn your anecdote into a verifiable piece of data.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Where are you getting your data from? If it's not from the UAH satellite temperature record, it's not accurate.
see? you proved me right already.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The NOAA historical data has been shown to have altered, this is different from the previous time it was altered. http://realclimatescience.com/...
Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...
Scientists, meteorologists, and anyone who cares to look at historical averages...
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.
It's the inability to catch an eat food in the winter which threatens polar bear populations. A lack of Arctic sea ice makes it more difficult for them to hunt and feed in winter. The populations closest to humans are the most likely to adapt to global warming because they are less reliant on sea ice.
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.
In the long run, maybe, if we don't heat things up too far and too fast. We could run into severe problems if we exceed the maximum optimum temperature for the vegetation we currently have (which is around 4 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature). There a significant risk that in the business as usual scenario we may exceed that value, and reach up to almost double that level of warming. Without a massive infusion of new, genetically engineered crops, we'd be facing severely degraded crop yields in most of the world's primary agricultural lands. Either way, that would likely lead to large increases in the cost of food.
Considering that one the primary driving forces of instability in the "Arab spring" is the cost of food, we could expect to see a lot more political instability in a warming world.
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.
That's pretty much correct, except the equator will still warm a slower rate than the temperate regions and the poles will warm at a faster rate than the temperature regions.
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.
Actually, I think you're wrong here. The NOAA, for instances, says that ocean levels were pretty stable until the start of the 20th century.
And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around.
The sea level rise doesn't happen quickly, but the effects will mostly be seen during natural disasters when previously safe areas are flooded for the first time, and between natural disasters when additional taxes must be levied to protect people from the sea rise by building barriers to protect low lying areas, and finally when those protection are catastrophically breached.
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.
How would you know? It's only news if they buy something that seems hypocritical (or can be spun that way by Rupert Murdoch's media holdings).
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We had winter already? When was that?
This is kind of always what bugs me - because global warming isn't actually "global". You even stated it - even if the global average goes up, large regions could indeed have lower average temperatures over an extended period of time.
My question has always been - is the global average an actual meaningful metric, or do we really need to look at something a little more fine-grained? The globe is a big place, so simply averaging over the entire thing is losing a lot of information.
I'm also curious as to the nature of the increase in average. For instance, I would wager that there are effects that are important that don't change the average: For instance, last summer where I live the average temp (simple [high+low]/2) was about the same as the year before, but the overnight temperatures were much hotter - that is, instead of being 60F night 95F day, they were 70F night 85F day.
So in a similar vein, I'd say the effects of climate going from say 60 low -> 90 high to 60 low -> 95 high would be different than 60 -> 90 to 62.5 -> 92.5, even though both are a 2.5 deg increase in average.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
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!
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.
You get snow when cold dry air meets warm moist air and makes snow. Warm moist air in Eastern US comes up from the Caribbean and the cold air comes down from Canada - they meet near DC and travel north bathing DC and New York to Boston in white. Global warming means there is more ENERGY in the system meaning that MORE warm moist air can be driven FURTHER north and more cold air comes FURTHER south. So LOTS of snow more often is an indicator or more energy in the system and is an indirect indicator of global warming. More direct evidence of global warming is sea level rise and temperature (warmer water expands).
In the European Alps it is when warm moist Atlantic air meets frigid dry air from Russia and dumps snow in the Alps. More energy means that more extreme events happen more often.
Snow is not a good indicator of temperature.
It's not that. I understand Science, you cannot trust the entertainment industry to be honest about the science.
And if you're getting your science from the entertainment industry I have bad news for you.
Movies, TV shows, News programs, Talk radio, All the entertainment industry.
Neil Degrasse, Bill Nye, Also are paid entertainers.
Get it?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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.
Two wrongs don't make one right, but two lefts do.
You mean to tell me I should believe the [same] people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
I added "same" for you. As you implied you think that
a) climatologs and
b) meteorologs
are the same people. Which they are not. The two topics have only a few basics in common.
The state of your metrology must be pretty disastrous if you can not predict weather for 10 days. Sure, after 7 days it might be grossly wrong, however there is usually a reason that could not calculated beforehand. In general weather predictions are really good in our days. You must have spent the last 30 years in a cave. I'm surprised you have internet access there.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The difference between predicting the weather and the climate is that predicting weather is an initial values problem. Given the current conditions how do we expect them to evolve over some period of time? Weather prediction pretty much breaks down by 10 days out.
Climate prediction on the other hand is a boundary values problem. Given the current situation and expected future inputs what is the expected boundaries that weather will vary within? Climate models don't predict the expected weather at some point in the future, just the boundaries it will fall within.
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.
"on record"
not trolling.
not offtopic.
fuck off mods.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Of course even UAH has set new records this past month.
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"?
Where are you getting your data from? If it's not from the UAH satellite temperature record, it's not accurate.
If you say so....
Huh?
David Attenborough and Brian May are paid by the entertainment industry. You would automatically discount their achievements because of this?
Just because you can sell out stadiums and appear on the telly talking about space doesn't mean you can't also be a astrophysicist who does serious work and try to honestly explain science to the general public.
I was in a play once, by your logic I can't code perl.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Simple probability my good man. Knowing nothing else about the GP, nearly half the state lives in New York City... so if I had to pick one city to lampoon, my best shot at getting GP's city, it would be to guess New York City.
By the way... why do YOU assume that it was necessary for my comment to be related to GPs actual city? Do you not think that his life will be impacted if New York City were to flood? Stop being so pedantic and try to relax a little. :)
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
my mod stalker is on a roll today.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
Okay, so apex predators can't survive a small temperature shift... give me an example. The polar bear example has been debunked heavily so I would caution you not to cite that one unless you want to insta lose that point.
As to temperature sensitive food chains lower down the system, give an example please. And keep in mind we've had temperature shifts like this in the past many time and we're still here.
As to economics, I am familiar with DYNAMIC systems that respond in real time to changing conditions. Are you? More adaptive species rely on diversified supply chains. Less diversified species rely on fewer or even singular supply chains. Extinctions happen. They have always happened and they will always happen. We all make bets on the future... every living thing. And sometimes we're wrong.
Humanity is highly diversified. And the more successful societies are more diversified than others. Basically all life on earth would have to die for humanity to die. So I'm not worried about the humans.
As to other species, you're going to have to be specific for me to care about the issue specifically. For example, if you cited mosquitoes are dying off... I would be happy about that. I don't like them as a species. They cause millions of humans to die with some frequency and spread harmful diseases. So I don't like them. Is there another species you'd like to cite that I'll feel more compassion towards? And keep in mind, that as a human being I will think of multiple solutions to a given problem. For example, you will push the notion that AGW is the problem and that the only solution will be to reduce CO2 emissions. To that, I will point out that the CO2 emissions are not actually what is killing anything but rather the theory that temperature changes that result from them cause the problem. To that end, I will look at other means of changing global temperature as being a more direct solution. This will bring on line geoengineering options. What is more, if the species I want to save is something that can be more easily saved through habitat conservation etc, then I'll do that instead. There is a lot of conflation on causes in environmental discussions. Species that are being threatened by habitat destruction are being conflated with species that are being threatened by temperature changes. That is logically invalid. You have to keep these variables separated and analyze them procedurally.
As to life as we know it... those are really big claims you're making that have not been substantiated by anyone. You're basically repeating highly dubious alarmist propaganda and it is not scientifically substantiated. You will fail if you use that as your thesis unless you're just here and now revealing scientific data that no one has ever seen before.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The global average temperature is basically a measure of the energy contained on Earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. If the average temperature goes up, there is more energy in our environment. How this affects you specifically is very complicated and based on many factors (butterflies in china, etc). But on the whole, records show that for several thousand years the total energy has been relatively stable compared to the past 50.
So we have a balanced system that we just dumped a bunch of energy into. That energy can do all sorts of things like melt ice, increase frequency and power of storms (hurricanes are powered by warm oceans), shift prevailing weather patterns making some places drier or wetter. So 60 - 62.5 may not make much of a difference at all where you live but -1.5 to 0.5 in Greenland can melt a shitload of ice.
And I can return the favor... I'm not worried because I'm not intimidated.
Did you have something specific you wanted to roll out or... is this another null comment by an AC?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period.
http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...
You can see from that and this:
http://academics.eckerd.edu/in...
That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time.
The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years.
And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases.
So... my point is sustained.
As to taxes having to go to build sea walls... Or people relocate. Its happened before and will happen again. Presuming that a city that has stood on a given shore for a thousand years will always stand there is presumptuous. If that city wants to spend its own money to secure it from whatever that is its own business and problem. However, it is not the responsibility of people in cities that are not threatened by long term climate change to make unsustainable cities affordable.
Either sustain your city or abandon it. A great many places are unsustainable. How many times does Florida have to be bailed out because they build stupidly on parts of land you shouldn't build on?
First off, don't build right next to the fucking ocean in storm zones. In South America they are much better about this in that they put parks near the ocean so when the storm comes it messes with trees or something and doesn't destroy buildings.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations. That means you either have to build seawalls or put your structures on stilts or something. Whatever you do... don't build the same way as someone might in a non-storm zone and then complain when the obvious happens.
Third, do not subsidize flood and hurricane insurance. This encourages people to build and live in places they cannot afford to live because they are asking other people to assume the liability when their property is destroyed. If you can't handle the liability it means you're either building in a place where you cannot afford to build or you're building in a manner that will not survive a storm. Either way... you're basically abusing the generosity of the rest of the country to subsidize an unaffordable life style.
As to how I would know what they're doing... Bullshit. Lets put up Leonardo DiCaprio's homes... he's been going on and on and on about climate change.
This is his house ap
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... why do YOU assume that it was necessary for my comment to be related to GPs actual city? Do you not think that his life will be impacted if New York City were to flood...
Since the OPs post was
I live in New York and this winter was great. It's hard to feel sorry for the rest of the world.
I just assumed they lived in NY since that is where they said they lived.
I have a lot of fun with people here and other places that think that all of NY state is a concrete jungle, when in fact over 50% of the land is forest.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
As to your non-answer of "scientists"... actually if you look at historical averages there was a trend line going UP before the modern era. So... not so much if you look at a full trend. Subtract the rise in temperature from the previous trend in temp increases and you're talking about an extremely tiny change if anything.
Sorry, no. The long term trend line over the past 2000 years is generally down until you hit the recent warming. You might be talking about the "little ice age" but the recovery from that ended before the recent warming.
As to polar bears, their numbers are up. And the whole polar bear citation was ultimately based on non-polar bear experts taking photos of "a" dead polar bear and spinning up AGW theories on "a" dead polar bear. Do you have anything on the polar bears that says they're dying out? Because I'd love to see that. Literally anything. Hit me with your best shot. I'm going to show the debunk information on whatever you cite. Just FYI. I want to show you that your information on the issue is in error. Present me your information so I can destroy it, please.
Some of the observed populations are increasing and some are decreasing. The populations that are increasing are recovery from hunting during the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, the populations that would be worst hit by warming are also the ones we have the least information about, because they are the furthest north. The primary conservation concerns for polar bears are habitat loss and reduce access to their primary prey due to climate change.
As to it getting too hot for plants to grow... jungles are a lot hotter than most places and plants are pretty happy there... obviously. What are you basing this "too hot for agriculture" on? Obviously if the air fucking boils or something that will sterilize the planet but I don't think anyone outside the UFO theorists is suggesting that is happening.
Actually, I was thinking of crops in particular. The majority of the world's food supply comes from a handful of species adapted to our current temperature ranges, increase the temperature too much and their yields decline. For example, warmer temperatures are cause grain seeds to mature faster but at a smaller size reducing the yields of those crops and that's before we consider other climate change factors like increased flooding or increased droughts.
As to the oceans being stable prior to the modern period. http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Chang...
Yes, the oceans rose after the land glaciers melted at the end of the last glacial period.
You can see from that and this: http://academics.eckerd.edu/in... That they haven't actually been stable. They've been going up pretty consistently for a long time. The last 25,000 year one shows that we're in a plateau but that we've been going up in that for thousands of years. And in the other graph you can see that sea level increases have been roughly consistent since the early 1800s which predates most of the CO2 releases. So... my point is sustained.
The second link says:
That's almost exactly what I quoted from the NOAA, so no, you were wrong.
Second, build with an appreciation for the fact that a storm will come and when it does that will mean the water is going to hit a given depth at given elevations.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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 a bear is intimidated by a squirrel in your "logic"?
because the bear is not intimidated by the squirrel... but if the squirrel attacks the bear... the bear will react.
This in your mind is intention to act and thus "worry"... ... I don't know how to say this nicely... so I'll just say it... you're not smart enough to match wits with me... you're not smart enough to really insult me. It sort hits me the way the insult from a 4 year old would hit a grown man. It isn't meaningful.
I'm not saying this to be mean or hurt your feelings. I'm just letting you know... you are out of your depth when it comes to me at least. Go troll someone else. You're not going to get anywhere with me.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to trend lines, I showed you two well respected papers that contradicted that statement. Take it back or I take your credibility. Choose.
As to the populations that are hurt being the ones we have no information on... then you don't have anything to back up your theory. Next issue.
As to everything we have requiring a very specific temperature range... we grow wheat from canada to the southern US. The temperature ranges between those places is significant. What is more, Rice and potatoes grow comfortably in widely varied climates... I can't speak to every crop. However, the important ones come in various strains. Some of those strains are viable in most climates on earth.
And given that we've blended ice fish DNA with wheat to provide the antifreeze properties of that species with wheat... I think we can safely conclude that if our survival were at stake, we could modify our food supply to function in any climate that other life on earth found viable.
You are not talking about monkeys, bub. You're talking to the Human Race. We've walked on the surface of the Moon. We've cracked the atom. We are recoding the language of life. I am not intimidated by this challenge. It is not a threat to my species.
As to your comment about the NOAA.... look at the graph again... is it going up or is it flat? Look at it.
As to me failing to understand that rising seas mean that what is required to survive storm surges in threatened areas changes... no... I understand that I think that should have been self evident in my statements. Attempting to find fault where there is none isn't going to help you.
Try to be right rather than trying to win. I am not a sophist... I am a stoic. I do not care who wins or loses... I would love to lose if that meant I learned something. But there are very few stoics that engage in these discussions. Its mostly sophists whining, lying, and wasting people's time with their pathetic attempts to win arguments rather than actually have a fucking clue. This is just a friendly suggestion. Do not try to win. Try to be right. And in being right... you will win. But if you ignore that element and just try to be right... you're going to fail.
As to me being upset... you insulted me and then when I rebut you say "you mad bro?"... if I am sounding upset it is because you're acting like a degenerate.
As to answering me with only facts... no, you responded with sad predigested propaganda about polar bears. You're pathetic.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
Feeding on them doesn't mean the same thing as "depending" on them. And even in the case that some do, I am prepared to see what happens.
Here you're going to make a lot of chicken little arguments about how if any species drops everything dies or something equally retarded. If this were the case then the world would have already gone into full ecological collapse because species at all levels of the food chain die all the time. We've killed more than a few of them ourselves and the systems are generally more than robust enough to handle it.
As to your "kid" comments after backing up nothing and saying that OH NOES IF THE MOSQUITOES DIE WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! AAAAAHHHH AAAAHHHH AAHHHH AAHHH...
Try again. This time with less stupid.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Polar bears numbers are up. So... your cycle theory isn't being born out by data. You might as well say that humans need dragons to survive and because all the dragons live in caves, that we must protect the caves to protect humanity least the dragons die. You have lots of hypothesis... the polar bear thing is something that if you looked into at all you'd not cite it again. It was credulous fool bait... and you clearly bit and still haven't done any research.
2. As to land becoming unsuitable, I actually just doubt your assessments of the future. I don't think you have a crystal ball. I don't think you have properly appreciated how anything actually works.
People like you were saying we'd run out of oil in 1918... and they were saying the same fucking thing every 10~20 years from then to now.
Most of these doom and gloom predictions especially when there is lots of money and power to be made by pushing it tend to turn out to be bullshit.
I don't buy that we're going NET lose farming land. If anything, I see us gaining it. Keep in mind, we have a lot of land in the far north... the world heats up... land that previously was not viable becomes viable. Might we lose land somewhere else? MAYBE. I frankly doubt that as well. Doubt we're in for any major changes in hundreds of years if not longer. And when those happen... so what... it won't happen all at once and we'll have new lands opening up at the same time in greater abundance. So whatever.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
As to trend lines, I showed you two well respected papers that contradicted that statement. Take it back or I take your credibility. Choose.
The problem, is of course, that you did no such thing. One of the papers you referenced was irrelevant and the other agreed with me. I even quoted from second paper to show where it explicitly disagrees with what you've written and agreed with my correction of your error.
Everything else you've written just screams "Crazy person here". So, good luck with that.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
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.
Look at the graphs. They speak for themselves.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
There are lots of insects that fill the same niche. So I reject your simplistic notion of ecology. The system isn't unstable. You're talking about a table with a thousand legs. Taking one out isn't going to make the table fall over. And mosquitoes are fucking awful for humans.
Here you're going to give me some warped 1st world pretentious crap about how we can't change anything even though in the first world we've changed everything.
We don't have large predators on our streets. We have killed off the mosquitoes in our territory and near our population centers. And we've done lots of other things to our ecology in our territory. But if anyone else does it... they're bad people. Because hypocrisy.
I reject your crap and will instead extend to the people of the world the freedom to do what we have and would do in their place. If you want to be a raging hypocrite, that is your own business. I personally have too much regard for my own credibility to make that much of a fool of myself.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually yes, the species collectively accounts for more deaths than any other species on earth. Saying that we shouldn't regard the mosquitoes as a problem because only the females of the species spread diseases is like saying a country invading and murdering your people shouldn't be treated as enemies because the majority of the population remains in their home country. By this logic, the French shouldn't have seen the invading Nazis as enemies because after all most of the Nazis were still in Germany.
You said something profoundly stupid and should feel stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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. 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.
Don't argue with people that are right. It annoys people that know more than you.
http://www.who.int/features/fa...
As to there being different breeds and strains of the species... I've been to an entomology museum. Have you? Anyone that knows anything about insects know that they're a zillion different species that are identical except for their genitals which means they don't interbreed. However, when you've seen 10,000 species of green beetles that all eat the same thing and live in similar environments... nonsense.
Do you want me to show you how meaningless your statement is?... check this out:
https://www.gardensafari.nl/en...
And really its besides the point because I'm obviously referring to the flying insects that drink human blood and spread bloodborn diseases in the process.
You want to plead the indispensability of this? Where do you live? In a city? The least natural environment possible? Genius.
As to making statements out of thin air, you read your own statement and see where I got that... or keep pretending it came out of nowhere and admit effectively that you're too dishonest to maintain this discussion. - Choose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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
A goal post shift? How stupid are you? I cite a hostile species to humans in the context of eliminating that species. And you counter that humans kill more humans than mosquitoes. I don't doubt it. However, I can't kill all the humans to save human lives. I can kill mosquitoes to save human lives.
Concede the point. It is mine. You give it to me now or you're just being childish. If you want to tip the chess board over and run away crying that is your own business. But I'll just rack that up as a win and move on.
You can concede the point and we can continue the game or throw a fit. Choose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.