think of a cell being attacked by a virus, or going cancerous. you'd, obviously, want the *entire* immune system to react to that, instantly, wouldn't you? otherwise it could well be far too late by the time the virus spreads to more than one cell.
I'm not an expert, but I doubt you want the entire immune system jumping into full panic mode for a single virus. The side effects from such a response would probably kill you.
Also, from personal experience I can tell that even dealing with a common cold takes more than a week, and that plenty of cells are infected.
the climate of the earth has been in constant flux for millions of years, and somehow, now, the global warming apologists are convinced that we're suddenly causing it, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels, then the climate would become static.
Correct. The climate of the earth has been in constant flux. But unlike changes in the weather, you can't just simply throw your arms up in the air, and claim we're just having a "warm century". There must be a cause. And if that cause isn't the increased amount of CO2, then please tell us what it is.
but you're using the most narrowly defined meaning of weather you possibly can
I'm using "weather" to mean the daily chaotic events that go on in our atmosphere. I'm using "climate" as the average weather of a period that's long enough that most of the chaotic noise of the weather is removed. That takes about 15-30 years, depending on the circumstances, and what exactly you're looking at. Looking over even longer periods, we'll see "climate change".
The purpose of these distinctions is to aid in usefulness. A change in climate must have a underlying cause that we should be able to identify. A change in weather is just chance. Longer term events, such as glaciation cycles are interesting too, but we know their cause (orbital cycles). We also know that our current climate change isn't caused by those orbital cycles, because they follow a certain pattern.
No, I'm saying that the theory of evolution is being called upon to explain increasingly complex layers of life's intricacies that are more simply explained by the existence of a creator.
That's only true if you completely ignore the complexities of the creator itself.
We did break temperature records in 2014. Cold temperature records. Records that were over a century old. Yet, somehow, according to the warming apologists, 2014 was still the hottest year on record.
Local low temperature records on a single day do not contradict a global maximum for the entire year.
But then, we've got that 1/4 of the country in the north east around the Great Lakes that's at least 13 degrees colder than average. That will hugely skew the country's average for the month down, making Feb 2015 significantly colder than average.
You seem to be very preoccupied with the weather in the US, which represents less than 2% of the entire world.
Here's an anomaly graph of the entire world, for the month of January 2015 (February isn't available yet):
There's not a perfect balance, but the local, day to day fluctuations we call weather are mostly a result of the same heat being distributed in different ways. Total heat on earth isn't going to be dramatically different between yesterday and tomorrow.
the sun is entering into a new solar minimum, meaning there is less warm air all around.
The amplitude of the solar cycle is about 0.1% of the total solar output. That's not a significant contribution.
Weather related patterns are patterns that form as a result of the chaotic nature of weather. And these chaotic patterns are not responsible for ice ages.
a high El Nino/La Nina year cannot affect the average temperature of the earth to any significant extent.
True, but it can affect the surface temperature, which is only a small portion of the earth. The bulk of the heat resides in the ocean water.
Was the south pole on fire? Because unless it was, the southern hemisphere certainly wasn't warm enough to counteract the 6-10 degrees C cooler than average that the northern hemisphere saw.
The northern hemisphere was significantly warmer than average. Here's a map of the global temperature anomaly for 2014:
The reaction to seeing a tiger in the bushes is a mix of chemical and electrical. Electrical signals in the nerves are pretty fast. Release of stress hormones takes a little longer. Of course, at the microscopic level, pretty interesting stuff happens, with plenty of details that we don't fully understand yet. Nothing that involves unknown energy though. It's pretty much all the same electromagnetic force throughout.
Yes, the gut reaction is call it pseudo science and get a good laugh out of it
No, the gut reaction would be to test the effect by placing a transmitter next to somebody's head, see that nothing happens, and then get a good laugh out of it.
There's no pause. There's just short time fluctuations around the trend. And you are completely right, this is nothing new.
Why can't you people admit you have no fucking clue what's happening?
The people who don't have a fucking clue are the ones that are screaming that there's a pause when the global temperatures don't break new records every single year.
Clearly, the GP comment "But, but, but computer models are always right and we can NOT investigate further....science is settled." refers to computer models of El-Nino, because that's the topic of this article.
The ones that say we should be boiling the oceans by now
The models for prediction El-Nino and other ocean currents aren't very good at this time. This is well known. But unless there's a permanent change to the oceans, we know that the currents fluctuate around a mean, and that their effects is superimposed on the global climate, which is noticeable on decadal time scales.
Mostly, they effect the climate by redistributing the heat in different ways, including transporting some heat to deeper ocean layers where it's hidden from surface temperature sensors, and transporting it back at other times.
As far as significance for the longer term global warming trend, there's isn't much. Over a period of a few decades, the fluctuations in ocean current start to average out.
Of course, there are longer term patterns, but these aren't weather patterns. Glaciation cycles are caused by orbital patterns. On even longer time scales you have things like continental drift, and gradually increasing solar output. These patterns are interesting, and it's good to know they exist when you want to compare climates over similar time spans, but they aren't really relevant for the discussion about climate change.
If you want to call it a planet, nobody's stopping you. Myself, I think it's wrong to call one fruit an "orange" after its color, but call another fruit "banana", which has nothing to do with the color. So, therefore I always refer to it as a "yellow". The word "banana" is an invention of morons.
Slashdot Mirror
think of a cell being attacked by a virus, or going cancerous. you'd, obviously, want the *entire* immune system to react to that, instantly, wouldn't you? otherwise it could well be far too late by the time the virus spreads to more than one cell.
I'm not an expert, but I doubt you want the entire immune system jumping into full panic mode for a single virus. The side effects from such a response would probably kill you.
Also, from personal experience I can tell that even dealing with a common cold takes more than a week, and that plenty of cells are infected.
the climate of the earth has been in constant flux for millions of years, and somehow, now, the global warming apologists are convinced that we're suddenly causing it, and if we stopped burning fossil fuels, then the climate would become static.
Correct. The climate of the earth has been in constant flux. But unlike changes in the weather, you can't just simply throw your arms up in the air, and claim we're just having a "warm century". There must be a cause. And if that cause isn't the increased amount of CO2, then please tell us what it is.
but you're using the most narrowly defined meaning of weather you possibly can
I'm using "weather" to mean the daily chaotic events that go on in our atmosphere. I'm using "climate" as the average weather of a period that's long enough that most of the chaotic noise of the weather is removed. That takes about 15-30 years, depending on the circumstances, and what exactly you're looking at. Looking over even longer periods, we'll see "climate change".
The purpose of these distinctions is to aid in usefulness. A change in climate must have a underlying cause that we should be able to identify. A change in weather is just chance. Longer term events, such as glaciation cycles are interesting too, but we know their cause (orbital cycles). We also know that our current climate change isn't caused by those orbital cycles, because they follow a certain pattern.
Looking at the black running mean on this graph:
https://protonsforbreakfast.fi...
I see about 1W swing on 1366W average, which is 0.07%
news reports state the UK's summer was one of the coldest in decades, 5-6 degrees C colder than normal [weather.com]
Read more carefully. Where you say "summer", they're talking about a "spell" around the 19th of August.
Guess what. If you look at the August data, you can see that Ireland/UK are colder than average.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-...
But if you look at the entire summer (Jun-Aug), you get a different picture:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-...
I stand by my assertion that something is seriously wrong with how we measure average global temperatures.
No, the only thing that is seriously wrong is how you read local weather reports, and extrapolate those both in time and area.
No, I'm saying that the theory of evolution is being called upon to explain increasingly complex layers of life's intricacies that are more simply explained by the existence of a creator.
That's only true if you completely ignore the complexities of the creator itself.
We did break temperature records in 2014. Cold temperature records. Records that were over a century old. Yet, somehow, according to the warming apologists, 2014 was still the hottest year on record.
Local low temperature records on a single day do not contradict a global maximum for the entire year.
But then, we've got that 1/4 of the country in the north east around the Great Lakes that's at least 13 degrees colder than average. That will hugely skew the country's average for the month down, making Feb 2015 significantly colder than average.
You seem to be very preoccupied with the weather in the US, which represents less than 2% of the entire world.
Here's an anomaly graph of the entire world, for the month of January 2015 (February isn't available yet):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-...
The number on the top right (0.74) represents the average temperature anomaly for the world in deg C.
There isn't an equal balance of warm and cold air
There's not a perfect balance, but the local, day to day fluctuations we call weather are mostly a result of the same heat being distributed in different ways. Total heat on earth isn't going to be dramatically different between yesterday and tomorrow.
the sun is entering into a new solar minimum, meaning there is less warm air all around.
The amplitude of the solar cycle is about 0.1% of the total solar output. That's not a significant contribution.
Weather related patterns are patterns that form as a result of the chaotic nature of weather. And these chaotic patterns are not responsible for ice ages.
If cold air is getting pushed out of the Arctic, what kind of air do you think goes back in to replace it ?
a high El Nino/La Nina year cannot affect the average temperature of the earth to any significant extent.
True, but it can affect the surface temperature, which is only a small portion of the earth. The bulk of the heat resides in the ocean water.
Was the south pole on fire? Because unless it was, the southern hemisphere certainly wasn't warm enough to counteract the 6-10 degrees C cooler than average that the northern hemisphere saw.
The northern hemisphere was significantly warmer than average. Here's a map of the global temperature anomaly for 2014:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-...
The reaction to seeing a tiger in the bushes is a mix of chemical and electrical. Electrical signals in the nerves are pretty fast. Release of stress hormones takes a little longer. Of course, at the microscopic level, pretty interesting stuff happens, with plenty of details that we don't fully understand yet. Nothing that involves unknown energy though. It's pretty much all the same electromagnetic force throughout.
Yes, the gut reaction is call it pseudo science and get a good laugh out of it
No, the gut reaction would be to test the effect by placing a transmitter next to somebody's head, see that nothing happens, and then get a good laugh out of it.
That's not blue, that's white and gold.
And then you come along and spoil it by posting such a deep and insightful comment.
The heat is in the ocean...is that Pause Excuse
There's no pause. There's just short time fluctuations around the trend. And you are completely right, this is nothing new.
Why can't you people admit you have no fucking clue what's happening?
The people who don't have a fucking clue are the ones that are screaming that there's a pause when the global temperatures don't break new records every single year.
Clearly, the GP comment "But, but, but computer models are always right and we can NOT investigate further....science is settled." refers to computer models of El-Nino, because that's the topic of this article.
The ones that say we should be boiling the oceans by now
No one says that.
And have them get stuck in a cave where we don't have radio contact ?
Please show the quote where Al Gore claims that computer models of El-Nino are always right, and how he is making millions off of that assertion.
The models for prediction El-Nino and other ocean currents aren't very good at this time. This is well known. But unless there's a permanent change to the oceans, we know that the currents fluctuate around a mean, and that their effects is superimposed on the global climate, which is noticeable on decadal time scales.
Mostly, they effect the climate by redistributing the heat in different ways, including transporting some heat to deeper ocean layers where it's hidden from surface temperature sensors, and transporting it back at other times.
As far as significance for the longer term global warming trend, there's isn't much. Over a period of a few decades, the fluctuations in ocean current start to average out.
I used donuts. After all, just like Crystal Gale was singing: "donuts make my brown eyes blue..."
Of course, there are longer term patterns, but these aren't weather patterns. Glaciation cycles are caused by orbital patterns. On even longer time scales you have things like continental drift, and gradually increasing solar output. These patterns are interesting, and it's good to know they exist when you want to compare climates over similar time spans, but they aren't really relevant for the discussion about climate change.
If you want to call it a planet, nobody's stopping you. Myself, I think it's wrong to call one fruit an "orange" after its color, but call another fruit "banana", which has nothing to do with the color. So, therefore I always refer to it as a "yellow". The word "banana" is an invention of morons.
Most US readers are well aware of what a centimeter is
But they can't use Google to find the diameter of a foreign coin ?