From Tom Nelson’s blog….
Is manmade global warming responsible for the surge in severe heat events we’re seeing in recent years around the globe?
The world’s climate scientists have a clear answer:
Yes. It is.
“It’s about as solid as science ever gets,” climatologist James Hansen tells ABC News.
Now, these are some incredulous assertions. First, it assumes we’ve definitively determined that any warming we’ve seen is man caused. We haven’t really established that it has warmed, but, that’s for a different post. And, we haven’t established any sort of surge in severe heat events around the globe. In fact, with a nod to the NoTricksZone, we see Swiss meteorologist Mario Slongo stating there hasn’t been any confirmation of increased extreme weather events…..
The NZZ asks: “Have extreme weather conditions generally increased?” Slongo answers (my emphasis):
Yes, the tendency for weather patterns that favor storms has increased, even if this cannot be confirmed statistically. But many other factors impact our weather. For example, the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pressure fluctuation between the Azore’s High and Iceland Low. This pressure difference is continuously changing and will soon bring dry and soon very
But, here’s the part I find so fascinating. We’ve all noted the revisions and reworking of our global temp numbers. We also note the limitations of thermometers and satellites. They simply are inadequate to measure the globe’s total temps. But, just for a minute, let’s pretend these people showed that they could. What I want to know, is where is this supposed man made global warming? Even by their own numbers, indeed even by Hansen’s own continuously altered numbers the globe hasn’t warmed in several years.
Source and data found here. I offset the trend line for easy comparison.
This claim of extreme weather and heat waves being caused by man made global warming is falsified. But, that’s mainly because even by their own idiotic data there has been no man made global warming. If there was an increase in extreme weather events, (there’s not) and it was global temp related (I don’t think it is), and if their numbers are correct, (they are highly questionable), then the extreme weather events can’t be increasing due to global temps because the global temps have not increased.
How stupid is this? Hansen falsifies himself. These people have all slipped into delusional fantasy. They have imaginary increases of extreme weather events which no one can see, and they blame it on the increase of man made global warming which no one has measured. And the press just keeps digging their hole in which they’ll be buried.
Mr Hansen falsified his scientific credibility…when he turned of the air conditioners….and destroyed ALL credibility when he accepted Soros monies $720,000.00 to “politicize science”.
Lol, yes, and now he argues against himself.
Does anyone think ABC will disclose that James Hansen is paid to be an activist?
I doubt that will make any LeftStreamMedia news.
Never!
From their perspective, they see nothing wrong with it… Nothing to report.
In other words, it’s his opinion. It amazes me that scientists make such contradictory statements in public. I would be embarrassed to make such a statement but, then again, nothing embarrass these guys.
It’s hilarious. It’s nothing but pure imagination these people operating under. And not one member of the complicit press is saying “wait a minute, isn’t 2012 cool than most of the recent years? How can this be attributed to warming?” And then, of course, none of them are asking them to prove any increase in frequency either.
Hi Suyts! Devils-advocate here…you chose a data set with the least amount of warming (mainly because it does not include the arctic), and then you chose a date range where the trend is not significant. I don’t think you are proving anything here.
Ah… thanks Ken, I’ve should have expounded on what I was illustrating with the graph. For the monthly variations, yes, I used HadCrut 3. However, if you look at the graph and the information on it, you can see that I’ve use HadCrut3, RSS for the 15 year trends and UAH and GIS for the 10 Year trends.
I could have made the trends for 3 of the data sets look like they were cooling. In fact RSS and HadCrut both can start on 90% of places forward on the graph and show significantly cooler trends. The fact are, from 10-15 years out, there has been no warming. Hope that clears things up for you.
Here’s an excellent tool:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
You’ll find that using 1996 as a starting date there’s only one global temperature set with a statistically (just barely) significant trend. That’s GISTEMP and it’s positive 0.134 +- 0.132.
None of the trends, 10 or 15 year, are significant. For example, your GIS trend starts in 2002. That’s a trend of -0.003 +- 0.241. “No warming since 2002″ is something of a stretch. It’s practically meaningless, and certainly does not prove anything.
Taking my devil’s advocate hat off, what IS interesting to me is that the time required to get statistical significance is slowwwly moving backwards. e.g. from 1996 to 2011 the trend was 0.157 +- 0.146.
Oh goody, another explanation needed.
Polsksm, what do you think the point of my post was? I wasn’t referencing statistical significance. In fact, that’s why I chose the start points I did. Those are flat lines.
The point is, all of the claims blathering about increasing in extreme weather events is tied to global warming. The weather isn’t getting more extreme by any quantifiable method. But, if it were, it couldn’t possibly be due to a warming globe because the globe hasn’t warmed in several years…. 10 or 15 take your pick. If it were related to the temps of the globe, then we would have already seen this imaginary extreme weather starting 10 or 15 years ago….. take your pick.
Of course, what has also been unstated is that this is the 3rd coldest year (so far) in the last 15 years. And 14th coolest in the last 30. So, run that warming globe theory by me one more time, just so we’re clear on what is causing what.
Here’s the problem, you say the earth is not warming and then show a bunch of graphs with one statistically insignificant trend after the other. It means nothing! Take GIS, I can just as easily say the warming trend from 2002 on is 2.38 C per decade. Would you accept that answer? Why not? It’s within the range of probability just as “no warming” is.
Put another way, if it’s 5 degrees warmer tomorrow and we get a thunderstorm, can I say that Hansen was right after all – it got warmer and we had severe weather?
Pols, I hope I don’t come off rude, but, I think you’re confused about the term “statistically significant” and how to apply it here. I’m not making a statement as to what will or may happen. I don’t dispute that the measurements may jump in the near future. I’m stating they haven’t in the recent past. I’m stating that in the last 10 or 15 years there has been no warming. This isn’t controversial. I’m not addressing anything in the past beyond 15 years and I’m making no statements towards the future.
So, when Hansen affirms, “man made global warming [is] responsible for the surge in severe heat events we’re seeing in recent years around the globe?” We have to ask, what warming is he talking about? Is he talking about the warming which may or may not happen in the future? Are these imaginary surges in heat events occurring because of future global warming? Or, is Hansen insisting that despite what his own data states that the globe is warming? Hansen can’t attribute what is happening today to what may happen tomorrow. That’s a most vapid position to take. But, consistent with many recent comments in the funny papers.
Suyts, no offense taken at all. “No warming in the last 10-15 years” simply is not true – it’s not false either. You can’t really say – and that is my point. I know exactly what you are getting at because I used to think the same way.
This summer has been extremely ,warm in the US as you know. Why? I suspect the arctic has a lot to do with it. So even if the global temperature has not shaken off enough noise to tell us what’s going on, that does not mean, in the least, that warming has stopped. We’ve had a couple of la ninas in a row. Things appear to be leaning nino’s way now, so I suspect if you look at this 10 or 15 year trend one year from now it will still be insignificant, but higher to the positive side.
Polsksm, I still think you’re misunderstanding my assertion. Yes, noise, but, these are the measurements much of the world comes to accept. These are observations. Empirical data. Will the trend increase later? Maybe. But, again, this year, by UAH satellite measurements says this is the 3rd coolest in the the last 15 years. One can not attribute the the U.S. heat wave to a warming world. It isn’t warmer, even according to Hansen. I assert you can say.
But, even if we accept your argument, which I don’t agree with, but let’s do for a moment…… look at what Hansen and the rest of the hyperbole driven people have just stated. They’ve invented a warming world, and invented trends which aren’t there. By your own statement, ‘it isn’t true and it isn’t false’, how many have simply asserted that this is a result of a warming world? How many supposed objective scientists have chimed in to say this heat wave is a result of a warming world? Their hyperbole invalidates their work.
BTW, I agree, the PDO shifted as did the AO, which caused a change in the weather pattern for the U.S. ENSO is something to watch now. It was suppose to go Nino, but it seems to have miscarried. Hopefully, it won’t drop back down to Nina before the Fall.
Ahhh – where did I say Hansen was correct? Not at all my good suyts. Just saying you haven’t proven anything either!
Here’s what I believe (today):
The earth is warming and has been warming for quite some time. That trend has NOT stopped – it may have slowed down some but we need more data (time) to tell.
Some of that warming is due to the CO2 increases.
The CO2 sensitivity is over 1 and less than 3C (probably closer to one).
I don’t think CO2 doubling will be catastrophic.
Burning fossil fuels for energy is just plain stupid. We are smarter than that.
Now you know what you are dealing with
Polsksm, again, you’re missing what I’ve stated….. “where did I say Hansen was correct?”….. that was the point of the post. That Hansen isn’t correct. You further state, “That trend has NOT stopped – it may have slowed down some but we need more data (time) to tell.”…… I’m wondering, do you believe we’re going to have more thermometers retroactively show up? For the time period I referenced, this is what we got….. unless you believe the historical adjustments of empirical data is correct, which would be for a different discussion.
The thing is, you’re hung up on statistical significance and time periods. That wasn’t the point of the the post. If tomorrow the earth’s observed temps take off and then reach the same rate as we saw in the 90s, that doesn’t alter what we’ve seen lately. We don’t need, nor will we obtain more temp readings for the time period of 1997 through July of 2012. This is history. It’s happened. Nothing occurring in the future alters what happened in that time period. So, when some one says it’s warming it is a fallacious statement. It may have warmed. We may have a small cessation of warming. It may warm again. Unless the argument is the warming seen in 1998 is now manifested, then what ever heat wave seen is simply due to weather.
BTW, Polsksm, I should have welcomed you. My mistake. I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for the discussion. Your perspective would add to the diversity of this blog. While I disagree with much of what you just stated, agreement with me isn’t required. Again, welcome.
James
Not all good scientists say co2 increases cause warming.
Lol, yeh, trick concept. oh, if everything just worked in a vacuum!
Not using natural gas, coal, and petroleum, which are so abundantly available and largely untapped, is counter productive, and also exacerbates already difficult living conditions most of the world is in. These could bring relief to all third world countries. These should be donated by rich countries to all peoples of the world suffering from not having them—until such time as they can provide these for themselves. It is near sighted for one to say it’s wrong to use these. Their comforts and luxuries in life, which have substantially come to their lives from these, have made them forget most of the world is struggling in poverty and disease.
Ross McKitrick can detail more on what I mean in this 2 minute video:
James,
I didn’t follow what you meant, vacuum?
Starting a new thread below….. I’ll explain.
polsksm
what you “believe” doesn’t count in science. There has been no warming for 17 years. You can’t just manipulate that and make it say what you would rather it say because of your personal beliefs.
Allow me to turn your logic around on you a little…
What do you think of UHI adjustments?
Let’s start a new thread below…..
Just do your turning around now without me having to answer your question.
AAIM, No trend in the last 17 years? That depends on the data set (GISTEMP is). Check out the link at the top of this page. Furthermore, if you play with that app at all, you may want to choose any 17 year period in the last 100 years or so and see how many have a significant warming (or cooling) trend. For example, look at the 17 years from 1977 to 1994. There’s nothing magical about 17 years, or 15, or 10, or 30. This isn’t about belief.
I look forward to the day when that tool shows statistically significant cooling.
It’s a wonderful app! How’s 50 years grab you? Tell me, what was CO2 doing during this time period? What were the effects suppose to be? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:1925/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:1925/trend
Sorry Suyts – I meant in the future. With any luck (if things cool off a little) we only have about 9 more years to go….
Oh, and the 50 years you chose are not statistically significant, at least not for hadcrut3. Probably because things starting warming up at the tail end of that period….hmmm.
What were they supposed to show? I have no idea. But I also don’t think you are foolish enough to believe CO2 is all that goes into temperature, or that anyone else has ever suggested that.
Oh, many have suggest just that. Apparently, you’re not one of them. I’m happy for that. pol, it’s been an absolute pleasure! I hope to see you back. I’ve had my twelve it’s time to call it a night for me. There’s some others who drop by in the midst of the night here, if you’re still up, I’m sure they’d be happy to engage.
p.s. sorry just got home and this computer is using my wordpress account – polsksm and Kenm are me!
No problem, but, thanks for stating such.
Pay no attention to the 1930′s behind the curtain.
Speaking of James Hansen and GISTemp……
A funny thing happened on the way to handling the data:
Part 1
Part 2
Lol, AAM, the missus wants to know who is sing this….. I can’t remember.
The first one!!! Well, the second one too……
Susanne Vega – Tom’s Diner
The reason I used this song is because Tom’s Diner is the restaurant on the first floor of the building where James Hansen works. It’s the same diner from Seinfeld.
Oh snap! Sweet! Imma gonna listen to it again!
Second song in first one, the instrumental, is
Polite, by MuteMath
First song in the second one
On Walks the Night, by Jesse Cook
Thanks!
Second song in the second one
Barcelona Nights, by Ottmar Liebert
Here’s a bonus song….. just because it sounds good:
El Cri, by Jesse Cook
I love it! I’ve always had an appreciation for the Latin beat and especially acoustic guitar. I’ll be searching iTunes for the album.
Well, that was fun while it lasted. I love doing that! I was conversing with Polsksm about Hansen and his inanity, was able to reply to AAM about the repub VP candidate all at the same time writing a post about Italy affirming the Laffer curve, sipping on my favorite hops and barely derived liquid refreshment! It doesn’t get any better than that!
I need to learn your technique. LOL!
It’s a game I like to play, but I don’t often get to play it here! Back when the internets were slow, I’d strike several conversations simply because I hated waiting on responses and page loads. Because no conversation can be alike, the subjects become diverse, regardless of the start point. I like to think it keeps me broad and not tunneled into one aspect of life. Beer does, eventually, adversely effect such technique.
I used to argue that a warming planet would have milder weather, not more extreme.
Here are three arguments to demonstrate my point:
1) Standard Thermodynamics: the input temperature is the Solar constant–the exhaust temperature is the planet’s average temperature. Now if the Earth warms, that raises the exhaust temperature. The Solar constant remains the same, so we have LESS temperature difference to drive our weather’s heat engines.
2) The GHE will warm the poles more than the tropics. The means that the variance between the poles and the tropics will decrease in a warming world. Less variance means less temperature difference to drive our weather’s heat engines.
3) As a pilot I’ve flown both recips and turboprops. I have pilot friends who fly jets. All three engine types have MORE power available when the air is colder and LESS power available when the air is warmer. Storms are heat engines too. They must also follow the same rules for power available.
By this logic, ice ages–when it’s colder–should be stormier/more extreme.
Exactly. The more conformity to one temp means less violence in the weather. Weather is violent when hot and cold mix. Well things in general are. So, if there is less discrepancy between extremes then there’s less violent events.
Jim:
That is the way I learned it and that has not been falsified like the CAGW WAG has.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
“oh, if everything just worked in a vacuum!”
What Newell was stating, is that, yes, CO2 is a GHG, he agrees that it acts in the manner most alarmists state. But, he understands that this isn’t were the story ends. It’s a simplistic view to say there’s more CO2 in the air, this will create more down-welling heat. Newell doesn’t disagree with that. But, what he knows and notes is that other things occur because of this. The CO2 causes heat which causes more atmospheric H2O which causes cooling …. and so one….. he’s essentially stating what Lindzen and Spencer have stated.
Ya, and I like the way he says it, so simple to understand him. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago. He fell forward at his desk, face down, and was rushed to the hospital. He never regained consciousness and died at the hospital (if what I read of him is correct). One of his friends at work said he died in the right place, doing what he loved.
The only way to go…… doing what you love. I remember him, but, it’s vague. Sadly, as I get older I can’t remember all the things I used to could.
I usta could do the Rubik’s Cube. Drove my sister nuts. She’d mix it up and mix it up for like a 1/2 an hour. Then I’d solve it anyway. hehe
polsksm says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:19 pm (Edit)
Allow me to turn your logic around on you a little…
What do you think of UHI adjustments?
===========================================
Well, that depends on what you mean. Do I believe the adjustments today are adequate? Nope. Do I believe they should be done? No. The thermometers shouldn’t be where they’re at to matter. But, that’s not your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong…..
Later, we’ll have more information to come to light and then we’ll alter our temps upwards later.
I’ve always been fascinated by this thought. We can sit with absolute certainty and declare this year was the warmest ever! And this year was this and this year was that. And, we say it with such certitude! But, then we change it. It turns out we didn’t know WTF we were talking about. It turns out X wasn’t the hottest ever, Y was! But Z may still be if the temps later get adjusted. I reject a dynamic and fluid history.
If we alter the data from the past, then that means our calculations based upon the data were in error. But, we’re not basing our calculations upon the data. We’re basing our data upon our calculations. See the top of the post. It is all fantasy. They continually fit the data to the presumptions.
UHI should be a demonstrable and quantifiable part of the equation. It simply requires a bit more complex thought than the CO2 phobes are capable of.
Actually that was my argument and we agree – there should not be a UHI adjustment, or any other (excepting of course for actual instrument error). I did not expect that answer!
So, if Hansen is asked about US extreme temperatures – which around here anyway have indeed been extreme, do you suppose that’s more likely to happen in a cooling or warming planet – or is it equally likely no matter what’s happening in other parts of the world? My hunch is the temp changes in the arctic have had some effect on the blocking pattern we’ve experienced. I also think extreme highs are more likely to occur in a warming planet. The data for the US support this claim. The data for the UK have not (I think).
I think extreme weather has little to do with the global temps. I believe, but can’t prove, that a warmer world would decrease extreme weather events. Conditional to the poles warming. I would think otherwise if the equatorial regions warmed disproportionally to the poles. ….. if, in the hypothetical world, the temps normalized around the globe, then there would be less extreme events. There would be less to cause them. Of course, this brings us to the fallacy of the concept of “global warming”. …….
When you say “extreme events” are you counting disproportionate record high temperatures as an extreme event? It almost seems obvious that would be a by-product of a warming world.
Well, maybe, except, 1, this hasn’t been demonstrated globally, and 2, if we’re speaking towards the U.S., a disproportionate amount of the records still standing are from the 1930s. …… when things were allegedly cooler.
When you say ” a disproportionate amount of the records still standing are from the 1930s” what exactly are you referring to? The state-wide highs or something else?
Were the 1930s cooler than the 1920s? The 1910s? The answer seems to support my conjecture – in a warming world you’d expect more record highs.
Getting late here so I’m gonna turn the keyboard off for a while. I’ve enjoyed out chat Suyts.
errr “our” chat….
Location highs. but, yes, state wide as well. The question would be were the 1930s cooler than today, or for the last 20 years.
No the question is – are extreme (high) temperature events more likely in a cooling or warming world. The 1930s were the peak of a temperature increase that started sometime in the early to mid 1800s. Then things dipped for about thirty years only to begin begin climbing again for the last 35+. When were the majority of temperature records set before the big heatwaves of the mid 1930s? My guess is they were from the 20s.
You bring up a good general point about the 1930s. I always understood that they were warmer than today until “the adjustments” were made, but again – that’s not the question.
polsksm says:
July 16, 2012 at 6:36 pm
“Burning fossil fuels for energy is just plain stupid. We are smarter than that.”
What’s “smart”; I know a tiny car in front of mine today said it’s “Smart”. Yes we are smart enough to use nuclear power – yet the population has been stirred into a panic over everything nuclear by the green propagandists; at least here in Germany, so would it be “smart” to promote nuclear power? Not for any politician; he’d be wiped out at the polls and so much for being “smart” – somebody else will do his job, and that somebody else would be a Green (or red or some shade in between, they’re the same anyway).
So, we can use biomass, wood, hydro, wind, solar if fossil is ruled out.
The first three are already in use, further growth in biomass for energy means less food production and rising food costs. Is that “smart” when we have abundant fossil fuels? Maybe in your book. Again, the population would not be too thrilled by exploding food costs.
So what’s left? We can surely install many more PV and wind contraptions. It’s an intermittent and expensive to extremely expensive power source; needing backup by base load power sources, mostly gas power, hmm, do you have an alternative for that? Maybe just cover the landscape with giant NaS batteries running at 200+ centigrades?
But let’s look at the numbers. 7% of electricity in Germany is produced by wind+solar; and electricity is a 7th of our primary energy consumption. So wind + solar produce about 1% of our total energy needs. So we’d just need to ramp it up by a factor of 100 and we’re done. Currently we’re shelling out 16bn EUR a year in subsidies for that so let’s ramp that up to 1600bn EUR/year which is, well, slightly above 50% of our GDP.
Nah, that won’t work. How about simply reducing our energy needs say to 10 % of what we have now? As GDP and energy consumption are still linked, well, dropping the more energy intensive parts of our economy first, like industry, we might be able to reduce our energy consumption to 10% and still have 20% of our GDP.
It’s fun to follow these simple green pipe dream statements like “Burning fossil fuels for energy is just plain stupid. We are smarter than that.” and see what happens…
Compare a nuclear bomb going off in Munich, or New York City with the risks of using nuclear energy. That’s what I mean when I say ‘we are smarter than that’ – maybe I’m wrong and we’re collectively too stupid to realize where burning dinosaur dung is going to take us.
polsksm, you don’t have to convince ME – 75% of the German populace want all nuclear reactors switched off according to latest polls. There’s no way at the moment to get new nukes online.
75%? Holy crap. You are making me second-guess my admiration for the German people, and especially their renowned powers of logic. Is this because of a Japan knee-jerk reaction, or something else?
Germans have been mostly anti-nuclear since 1980 at least, but as nothing bad happened for a number of years it went dormant. Then, Fukushima reminded them and for a short time the Green party shot up to 35% approval rating; so Merkel pulled the plug on the nukes. Half of them switched off immediately, the other half will be phased out til 2022.
And talking about logic: Germans are in principle capable of simple logical thought. I guess the language is precise enough for that. Some of them even use this ability; for instance the people I work with. Now, that works pretty well.
But what they are excrutiatingly bad is speaking English or listening to it. Really bad. Really unmotivated. So they sit in their tiny German language insula and get about 5 versions of MSNBC as news, half of them public broadcasters.
You can guess the rest.
Ahhh, it’s the great UHI debate (again). Over the years I’ve argued with warmers about UHI adjustments. My position is that no one knows how to make these adjustments correctly. The warmers’ positions are that climatologists are really smart and know how to do them.
The problem is that we never get to see this magical UHI adjustment algorithm. UHI adjustments are done behind the curtain without any scrutiny.
A few years back, I remember reading a paper about UHI adjustments. (I think it was on WUWT, but I haven’t been able to find it.) The authors (having the same problems as the rest of us in trying to decipher this mysterious UHI adjustment algorithm) were able to compare the before and after temperature datasets. That is, they took the before raw temperature data and compared it to the UHI adjusted temperature data to see what changed.
It appears that changes were made randomly to the data. Most would agree that UHI adds a spurious warm signal onto the data. A correction should reduce the average temperature. However, the final result was no change to the average temperature. The before and after datasets both give the same average temperature.
So this magical UHI algorithm simply modifies the raw data in random spots without changing the resulting averages.
No wonder they keep this algorithm secret. It’s a do-nothing algorithm that lets climatologists claim UHI adjustments are made correctly.
Jim
Jim:
UHI means that you can not compare today’s temperature to any measurements taken in the past. You can not compare any measurements to other sites. Also the information has a error margin of as much as 5C either side of the resulting temperature measured.
I watched three temperature records for 6 years. they were all at the same elevation and one was rural / remote. the others were 30 miles from the center remote site, north and south. The differences ranged from non to 10F depending on weather conditions and the range was observed during all times of the year. On unusually calm days all three could have the same temperature but that was rare.
One site was an urban airport, one was a farm and the last was a rural airport. Even if there were only 60 miles between the two airports, the measurements were rarely the same.
The massive evaluation of weather stations by the folks at WUWT resulted in showing the weather stations used are not up to standard and the records should be discarded. This entire game of what the global temperature is doing and why is a fools game because we are chasing imaginary information.
When the historic temperature records are fluid rather than fixed due to constant adjustments we are left with wild guesses to base recent weather conditions on.
Thanks for your support Mike. You and James have been good cheerleaders.
I live in the Seattle area, just east of Lake Washington. Before I retired, I worked for a large, aerospace manufacturer (yes, that one). A few years back I kept track of the car’s outside air temperature between home and work (Everett). So every day was different. The temps would never vary more than a couple of degrees F, but they did usually vary. One day the start temp would be higher than the end temp. The next day the start temp would be lower than the end temp. The temps in-between would vary from higher, to lower, or somewhere in the middle.
Supposedly, anomalies correct for this problem. They are also supposed to be valid for whole regions, i.e., if one thermometer’s anomaly goes up–all thermometers in the region will go up by the same anomaly and so on. With my little experiment, it was hard to see how any anomaly could read the same with the fluctuations I was getting from day-to-day and even during a single trip.
My commute distance was less than 20 miles, and the commute time was less than 20 minutes.
But climatologist are smart, and they have all of this figured out (phooey!).
Jim
Ehrlich crawls out from under a rock, teams up with SciAm (which used to be a great publication back in the 80ies!) to spread some alarmism. Great quotes.
“Meanwhile, a warming planet dissolves ecosystems and life-sustaining natural cycles and resources like sugar cubes in a pressurized teapot.” (And that was not even by Ehrlich but by the SciAm hack, a certain Paige Brown. Respect, respect, couldn’t have said it better myself.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/10/the-sustainability-paradox/
Ehrlich comes up with ” global shock waves “. Disappointingly, he says we consume 1.5 Earths, now that’s just like saying “could nearly work”; WWF said “1.5 Earths” for years, can’t the old dolt not say, for instance, 5 Earths?
All in all, a nice piece of alarmism. Ehrlich says he’ll try to manipulate the populace using some social science fu:
““We know that telling people the science doesn’t get behavioral change,” Ehrlich said. “But the social scientists know about what does get behavioral change.””
Sounds like a threat.
The science alone is not convincing enough so let’s ask the social scientists what other weapons we have…
POL SkS M:
Your link to SS as a reference web site distracts from any meaningful contribution you might have made. Your claim that use of fossil fuels is wrong, displays a lack of knowledge or a sheeple attitude.
You also do not seem to understand statistical significance related to weather and climate.
You want to use less than one data point to claim statistical significance for some so called global temperature.
There is no known global temperature.
As a card-carrying member of the “I’ve been banned from Open Mind (sic)” club, I’m getting a kick out of some of these comments directed towards me.
So, if you say we cannot estimate global temperature, how then do you measure the effects of CO2? Arctic sea-ice loss?
I see you think burning dinosaur poop, just like your grandpappy and his grandpappy before him is the smart way to get energy? Seriously? Where do you tie up your horse? Can you recommend a good quill? Get the picture yet? Consider where we’ve come in virtually all other areas of science and engineering and then explain why we are still getting energy that way. Abundance? Seriously? How much energy is in your pinky fingernail? Do you (or anyone else here) begin to understand what I mean by “we’re smarter than that”?
polsksm, we’ll get there, but we have to undo the damage of this warmist advocacy first. Watch as this realization sweeps across Germany….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/sweet-smell-of-success/
To observe the effects of Arctic ice loss we just look at periods in the not so distant past when there was no sea ice in the Arctic for portions of the year.
To observe the effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere we observe the records of periods when the CO2 concentration was higher than today.
Of course you are thinking we know with some certainty that we do know what the current concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere. Just like global temperature, CO2 concentration is also a Wild Ass Guess.
Hydro Carbon / Fossil fuels are abundant and cheap. There have been many advances in the fission fuel department that should be considered as a source for energy, but the Boogey Man is waiting in that arena.
Until we decide that CAGW is a non issue, Warming is a non issue, Climate change is a normal process that as been experienced since this rock has had weather.
What we are experiencing and have for the last 200+ years is some of the mildest weather that this rock has experienced. Yes the unusual thing about our climate is how mild it is compared to some of the extreme weather some regions experienced in the last 20,000 years.
In addition, the climate in the Arctic region would be milder and trees would grow near the Arctic Ocean just like they did a few thousand years ago.
The less difference i temperature between the Arctic and the Equator the milder over all the climate will be.
If we are experiencing some type of extreme weather events it is due to cold being driven into the mid latitudes from the colder regions.
You have not displayed any evidence of advanced intelligence, so I ask “Smarter than What”? What measuring stick do you use?
Lol….. now Mike, be nice. He may not understand our gruff form of dialogue. But, yes, that’s exactly how I see it as well.
Hi Mike!
The US is currently experiencing the worst heat wave/drought since at least the 1930s because arctic cold air is being blown to mid-latitudes. Yes! That must be it.
To see the effects of CO2 we need to look at the past. Of course we all know paleo climate research is a bunch of WAG hooey too, so I eagerly anticipate your treatise on how we see those past effects.
The steadily increasing CO2 measured in Hawaii is…a wild-assed guess. Obviously.
The disappearing arctic ice is normal and has happened “recently.” Well played, sir..
Can’t do nuclear because there are Boogey Men. Bravo!
Just out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that you are qualified to judge others’ level of intelligence?
Polsk:
How the F do you know the US is experiencing the worst heat wave it has experienced since the thirties?
OH! you are ignorant enough to believe4 the current temperature records are somehow comparable to those from the thirties.
One: Different measuring devices were used in the thirties, Apples and Oranges!
Two: different methods were used to record the results, Lettuce and Cabbage!
Three: Some very Magic formulas have been applied to any of the real measurements that have been made to “Better” get the desired results, Homogenized and Regurgitated.
Let me supply an answer from GISS regarding the quality of what you are claim is real temperature measurement:
Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70°F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be ‘hot’ in winter and ‘cold’ in July, since by ‘hot’ we always mean ‘hotter than normal’, i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
I don’t. I said “since at least the 1930s.” If English is your first language you may note that “at least” includes the possibility that the 1930s heatwave was worse.
I really don’t know – I’ve heard reasonable arguments from both sides, but I think it is safe to conclude they are pretty close, one way or the other.
Since the thirties was what I was referring to. That period is where the most damage to the records has been done.
As a matter of fact English, specifically South Western US English is my primary language.
We do not even know we are experiencing a heat wave currently. We are being told that is happening but most f the measurements are corrupted.
Just last week the local weatherman commented how the hourly showed a high of 85 but the reported daily high was 89. That number magically appeared after the day warming was ended and it was again cooing due to the sun setting.
What is your definition of a heat wave?
Mine is X number of days over 105F. But then I was raised in the desert Southwest.
You seem to think regional reported temperatures are some how accurate.
Ken:
Your claim about the thirties was noted and I repeat that we do not know to any reliable degree of accuracy even if we are currently experiencing a heat wave.
But heat waves are common in all regions. Nothing has changed because CLIMATE is the study of variable weather patterns.
Admittedly we are not as hardy here in the midwest, but to me a heatwave is well-above normal summer temperatures for an extended period of time. Last week the paper said we had experienced the longest period of 100+ days since the 1930s (“normal” high is 89/90). It’s effing hot. Every day. With no rain. That’s my official report. I honestly don’t remember a hotter period in my lifetime here, but I am getting older and more whiny so that may be a factor too.
As far as regional reported temperatures goes, I’ve noticed that the thermometer attached to the north side of my house is consistently lower than the stated high. I also like http://wunderground.com, where one can see how the temps vary by up to 10 degrees in a very small area.
Still, if you want to measure temps for an area I suppose you to have agree on where it will be measured. I really don’t think there’s some evil conspiracy going on with our local temperature statistics, like you seem to be implying with your local weatherman. I think what is going on is confirmation bias – they expect today’s temperatures to be higher so they don’t second-guess higher readings. They expect the temperatures 80 years ago to be cooler, so when they see something like 1936 they wonder how that can be, and come up with all sorts of plausible reasons on why the 1930 thermometer was probably reading too high. They could very well be right – but in my opinion they need to use the same critical eye towards today’s records too.
Actually I do not think regional temperatures are accurate to any degree useful to within 4 degrees.
Most recently I had my own weather station and before that I was aware if it was hot, cold, or mild as I spent a lot of time outdoors. 105 was the magical comfort number between hot and uncomfortable in the desert.
The purpose of science is to allow us to predict the furure. If it does that, it has utility. If it doesn’t, it has none. By a preponderance of all the credible evidence, climate change is happening. Whether it’s caused by man is academic to me.
A couple of years ago I began to invest as though climate change was a fact. For example, the drought now in the middle of the country was predicted, and using that prediction, I invested in corn and soy. That has, and continues to be, a good investment.
From a non-ideological viewpoint, it looks like there are several professional climate deniers leading a lot of very apprehensive folks down the garden path. That’s what happened with tobbacco interests a few decades ago. In fact, some of the leaders of the denial movement got their start in tobacco.
Harold…. you’re a funny person. There’s no such person as a climate denier. The skeptical position is that the climate has always, and will continue to change.
It’s laughable that you say this drought was predicted. You have any links?
From a non-ideological viewpoint, I’d say you’re a dithering buffoon. In reality world, we call this “weather”. It happens from time to time.
But, you stay on those investments. Let me know how that works out in the long run. I’ve got a farmer on the other line right now, can you tell him what he needs to plant next spring?….. We’re in SE Kansas…… let us know now so we can start planning!
“For example, the drought now in the middle of the country was predicted, ”
Could you provide that empirical evidence,please?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“it looks like there are several professional climate deniers”
I’m sorry, this is pure ignorance
Question:
Is “climate” static in nature?
Can you direct us to a point in the history of humankind that “climate” has been static?
1000 years? 3000 years? 50000 years?
Who do you know that denies that the VERY NATURE of Climate…is “change”?
Would we even be studying “climate” – if it were static?
It is measured – IN “differences” of changes.
IF you now see the ignorance of your above statement….
I must ask: Why do people tack on the redundant ” Change”….to Climate which is not naturally static – BUT a measurement of differences?
Could it be…they couldn’t sell “Climate” as a catastrophe?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“In fact, some of the leaders of the denial movement got their start in tobacco.”
A very brave accusation
You are aware…..Mr Gore got his start from his family tobacco business and oil?
[TOBACCO #1
March 1, 2000; San Jose Mercury News
GORE CLAIM: "It’s not fair to say, ‘Okay, after his sister died, he continued in the same relationship with the tobacco industry.’ I did not. I did not. I began to confront them forcefully. I don’t see the inconsistency there."
TRUTH: The same month Gore’s sister died in 1984, he received a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco. The next year, he voted against cigarette and tobacco tax increases three times and favored a bill allowing major cigarette makers to purchase discounted tobacco. In the 1988 campaign, Gore bragged of his tobacco background: "I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put [tobacco] in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it, I’ve dug in it, I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn, and stripped it and sold it” (Newsday, 2-26-88).
TOBACCO #2
March 1, 2000; San Jose Mercury News
GORE CLAIM: “My family had grown tobacco. It was never actually grown on my farm, but it was on my father’s farm.”
TRUTH: Gore had already admitted growing tobacco on his own farm: “On my farm, we stopped growing tobacco some time after Nancy died” (Cox News Service, 4-26-99). Also, Gore received federal subsidies for growing tobacco on his farm (Wall Street Journal, 8-10-95).”]
I do not know where you get your information…but if you are using it to buy commodities…………………………………………………..
Lol, now you’ve scared the poor thing off! Excellent spankage, btw. Harold!!!! Come back and talk to us!!!
I have a post coming up you’re going to love!
Whooooo whoooo:)
“In fact, some of the leaders of the denial movement got their start in tobacco.”
This claim came from:
Media Matters, Tides Foundation, Fenton Communication, Environmental Media Services [ Yes, RC is hosted by Environmental Media Services ] Open Society Institute.These are part of the Soros Organization. [ The man who thinks he is the messiah - see his book - Michael T. Kaufman, a Soros biographer, made two intriguing points about Soros the man: As a child, he felt a messianic calling, and as an adult he underwent extensive psychotherapy that only made it worse. ]
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11573
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/the_real_voice_is_george_soros.html
Soros Holdings:
Philip Morris International (tobacco products); Alliance One International (tobacco products);
Duke Energy, El Paso (natural gas), Encana (Canada, natural gas), BPZ Resources (oil and gas, no relation to BP, which he does not hold), Hess, Anadarko Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, Devon Energy, smaller amounts of Chesapeake Energy, Apache and Marathon Oil…………………
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/37113
Let’s debate with facts:)
Soros is one randy SOB.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.de/2011/08/george-soros-unhinged.html
NOW Kim2000:
I like your contribution to this conversation. You and James made anything I was going to add redundant, and you say it in a sweeter way than I would have.
Lol, sorry Mike…. I’ll try to leave some openings for you in the future.
LOL!
Ha ha ha ha
Thank you!