Its folly to rely on a few hot weeks in an area to say it proves global warming or climate change, yet this is what has happened with quite a few warmegedisnests and doomotoligests. June saw a heat wave pass over an area of America and the media and the few warmegedisnests and doomotoligests could not wait to write about how global warming climate change is happening.
We have seen it all before though haven't we the warmth as well as the hand wringing malcontents who without a second thought use heat waves as a weapon to bring home to everyone that fossil fuel is bad for everyone.
They were blind to the fact that on the 27th June 2012, 116 City's from Montana to Florida measured record low temperatures. Not one of these malcontents bothered to shout that little fact form the rooftops, Oh no they couldn't do that could they after all to shout from the roof tops that 116 Cities in America had record breaking low temperature's would not sit well with their warped activist agenda!!! No all we heard from this bunch of green activists was that we are all doomed.
Anyone remember that account of tarmac melting at Reagan National Airport posted by Pinocchio Gore? A passenger photographed the aircraft with a camera phone with its wheels stuck in the tarmac in 100-degree heat and Mr Pinocchio decided to use it in his blog to tell all his followers that it was proof that global warming was real. Really Mr Pinocchio what was your excuse in not using the data that said that Orlando International Airport, for example, saw an overnight low of 64 degrees, shattering the previous record of 66 set in 1920 why didn't you use that little bit of information in your blog?????
It is easy to forget that at 3.8 million square miles, the United States comprises less than 2 percent of the Earth’s surface. Sizzling thermometer readings here do not indicate temperature patterns elsewhere especially in summer.
Why didn't Mr Pinocchio tell all and sundry in his blog that Sweden saw its chilliest June since weather statistics were first recorded in 1786, with an average daytime high of 56 degrees — three degrees below normal, why didn't you blog that little fact Gore?
Why didn't he blog that my own country the United Kingdom is seeing the coolest summer since records began, why didn't that fact find its way into his blog, oh that's right if it did find its way into his blog it would show people what utter buffoons and charlatans his devout followers are. Beware of warmegedisnests and doomotoligests who point to localized summer heat as proof of climate change across the entire world: They are only making hay while the sun shines.
Only A Completely Daft Person or Dishonest person would try to assume that a few heat waves was proof of either climate change or global warming and try to get away with it.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 124
I also don't think that's necessarily a "green activist" perspective. It seems to be a scientific one.
Another study shows how the recent data has been massaged over the last several years to fit the models that don't work.
Could you please show me the study that shows the record high's out number the record low's and tell me over the course of a couple years how does this prove C02 induced climate change.
There's not too many people that will disagree climate changes and has for millions of years. So where is the proof of C02 induced warming? Did C02 induce the droughts of the thirties?
The science says it stopped getting warmer in 1997, and has been cooling slightly since then: check out the NASA satellite data:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the warming effect is proportional to the log of the atmospheric concentration (Beers Law). What does that mean? It means the first 20ppm has the same warming effect as the next 400ppm, and that the 40% increase in CO2 has a 3% (or 1 degree) increase ith the warming effect. This is so minor as to be swamped by other causal effects on temperature, such as Day/Night, Summer/Winter and Maunder Max/Minimum.
Look at the NASA data and draw your own conclusions: 15 years of cooling, while CO2 increases in a linear trend, does sort of bust the AGW hypothesis doesn't it? Data going the other way than the theory predicts, but you stick with the theory anyway? That is not science.
This one of yours is comparing apples and oranges - The NASA HadCRUT data is atmospheric temperature recorded from satellites, immune to such factors as the urban heat island effect, your graph is from surface stations, mostly at airports and other urban locations, but for the sake of argument let's accept your graph in spite of its flaws. It says that right now the temperature is 0.7 degrees warmer than the long-term average, the zero point in your graph.
I never said that it isn't warmer now than 100 years ago: if you actually read what I said, rather than go to your default setting of ad hominem "Denier" attack, you would see that I said the science predicts a 1% increase in global temperature due to CO2 reaching 400ppm (It hasn't quite, but is where are headed within 20 years). We have actually achieved only 0.7 degrees due to negative feedback loops in the environment. So I actually believe and understand Anthropogenic Global Warming. It exists, but is very minor - you need to throw exponentially increasing amounts of CO2 into the air to maintain a linear increase in temperature. Global Warming exists but is a very minor effect which explains the fact that temperatures have been static or falling (depending on which data set you look at) since 1997.
AGW is real, but is not a significant problem, and probably of net benefit to the human race. The threat has been over-sold by political activists, and the logical response to a tiny increase in temperature is to no nothing for now.
That is my position, unpopular with warmists and skeptics, half way between the extremes, a lonely place right now, but half way between the extremes is where the truth usually lies.
NASA can speak for itself, and does not need interpretation from a blog.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
So can NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html
Temperatures have not been static or falling since 1997—the trend is rising. Let's address your explanation of the discrepancies between the two graphs. First, while the graph I linked to is from a NASA website, yours is found on c3headlines.typepad.com, a denialist website. A legend on the graphic itself, however, purports to provide data from the UK Met Office (the British weather service). The link that is documented on your graphic points to the HadCRUT3 monthly time series for combined northern and southern hemispheres, which is discussed on this web page at the Met Office Hadley Centre. The report discussing the data sources is on the page (labeled "the paper introducing the dataset"). It's not satellite data as you said, but land and marine station data. And the actual Met Office chart (page 23) shows a warming trend since 1997, not the bogus trend on the chart you linked.
Some of your other comments don't make sense to me. A 1% increase in temperatures would constitute a 3-degree (C) rise, which at the temperature extremes would be devastating. The current atmospheric CO2 level is in excess of 395 PPM, up from 373 PPM 10 years ago. You're obviously welcome to your own opinion on how important any of this is. Stay cool!
" Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. "
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-department-of-energy-involved-in-hiding-temperature-data/
"More details are given in the paper introducing the dataset."
The link is to a paper authored (in part) by Mr. Jones. And, within that paper,
"1 Introduction
The historical surface temperature dataset HadCRUT [Jones, 1994, Jones & Moberg, 2003] has been extensively used as a source of information on surface temperature trends and variability . . "
As well as numerous other references to data/methods taken from those papers by the same Mr. Jones, and others by him (Jones et al., 2001, Johns et al., 2004, Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986 . . )
So, bearing that in mind, think again about what he wrote;
" Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. "
And while your thinking about that, think about this quote of Mr. Jones also from the Climategate 2 collection;
" Anyway, I’ve been contacted by someone in Nature who has
noticed their letters and UEA responses on the Climate Audit site. I’m in two minds about whether to contact Nature, as it may give them airtime which is not my aim. I’ve got nothing to hide, but I don’t see why I should make the raw data we’ve collected available – particularly as for some we agreed not to pass it on (with the National Met Service that provided it) to third parties (but we can use it in the grids)."
And one of my personal Mr. Jones favorites, just for fun ; )
"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. "
The paper, however, discusses the improvements and calculations of error ranges in the data that had been undertaken. Some of the original reporting data that erroneously had been duplicated is now removed, systematic anomalies were eliminated, additional station data was incorporated, etc.
Sounds pretty suspicious, eh, JK? But don't worry—there's an even better target for denialists like you to whine about: HadCRUT4. That's right: now both 2005 and 2010 are ranked as hotter years than 1998. There goes your "cooling trend." Have fun with it!
Don't matter to me why you linked to it, Dave, my point is that Mr. Jones' previous handiwork "has been extensively used as a source of information on surface temperature trends and variability" in the revised HadCRUT guesstimates, and he's not been at all "open" about the original data used for generating his guesstimates, and neither have his primary sources for much of that original data.
And obviously (to me) Dave, Allen was expressing his skepticism about surface temp guesstimates, as opposed to satellite measurements, precisely because there is so much room for extraneous influences, selectivity bias, weighting bias, and interpretative adjustments to the hodgepodge of "data" that goes into the surface temp guesstimates . . which the satellite measurements are not nearly as vulnerable to.
The very fact that reworked versions keep changing over time, demonstrates (to me) that Mr. Jones et al have not been doing what can rightly be called "hard science" . . or particularly reliable "soft science" either ; )
You don't read the reports or you're lying about the reports, take your pick, which explain the revised datasets, JK. Nothing out of the ordinary for you.
Wether you like it or not, I am of the opinion that what Allen was trying to express was his lack of confidence in surface temp data. That's what this looks like to me;
"This one of yours is comparing apples and oranges - The NASA HadCRUT data is atmospheric temperature recorded from satellites, immune to such factors as the urban heat island effect, your graph is from surface stations, mostly at airports and other urban locations . . "
"You don't read the reports or you're lying about the reports, take your pick, which explain the revised datasets, JK. Nothing out of the ordinary for you."
No, I just don't believe I'm looking at unbiased scientist's work or yimmer yammer. I actually believe that scientists are corruptible people like anyone else, and that the AGW clan is deeply corrupt. That you don't is of no interest to me, for I see no sign that you've even entertained the idea that it is possible. For you, it appears to me, to be a matter of blind faith in human authority figures. It seems you cannot do otherwise, to me.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/
"Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record. The Northern Hemisphere used to have a broken hockey stick problem. According to the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975, the hemisphere had cooled 0.7C since the 1930s, and was colder than it was at the turn of century . . . "
On August 15, 2008, "Steven Goddard published an article titled 'Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered' in The Register. Goddard claimed that the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on August 25, Goddard retracted his claim … . The retraction may have been too late, as Goddard’s article had already received over 70 references by blogs and websites skeptical of man-made climate change."*
He is a contributor to the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), which is a climate change denialist organization headed by Robert Ferguson. Ferguson has no training in science, including climate science. He was paid a salary of over $300,000 (including bonuses) in 2009 by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of Mother Jones magazine's 2009 global warming skeptic "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial." SPPI has ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right wing corporate-funded organization that pushes pro-business bills through state legislatures.
Sources: *DeSmogBlog, which TIME Magazine named in its "25 Best Blogs of 2011" and SourceWatch.org
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/97-of-greenland-says-that-nasa-is-fos/
Notice the picture put out to the media by NASA. Notice how the picture is vivid with red and white, the white being the snow and the red presumably being the warming part. Notice also how it deceives, because at a glance it seems that all the ice and snow has gone in just a few days.
However when you delve a little bit closer and obtain the real photos you see a very different story low and behold the photos taken when the melt was occurring show no change whatsoever.
But that's not the end of the story because in the NASA article which I don't doubt it tells us all right at the end that this happens every 150 years the data got from the ice samples.
Now I wonder why NASA decided to give the media this false picture why did they not just give them the true photos? after all if you read what they have to say about the melt its obvious that there was some kind of melt.
Ah though if they had given the media the true photos of the time when the melt was occurring along with the web cam photograph it would not have been much of an impact would it.
Talk about being dishonest you deniers have got it down to a tee and you actually believe all your own bullshit.
This is actually evidence in favor of global climate change, which predicts not only higher average temperatures, but more extreme weather events.
Any scientist will tell you that if you pump energy (as we have, with our global warming emissions) into any complex system, it will become much less stable. In the case of climate, this means more storms, droughts, higher high temperatures, and lower low temperatures.
The amount of alcohol in the blood is defined by the Blood Alcohol Level (BAC.) If someone has just a little to drink, and they’re BAC is between 0.01% and 0.029%, they will appear outwardly normal. What does this mean? It means that the alcohol content in the blood is between 95 and 270 parts per million. It is a trace chemical in the blood.
Increase the BAC to 0.11% to 0.20% and this person loses gross motor control, staggers when walking, and their speech is slurred. What does that mean? The alcohol concentration has increased to 1,100 parts per million or more. Just a factor of 4 increase in this trace chemical leads to system-wide imbalance in a human being—a complex biological system.
The "a little more of nothing amounts to nothing" argument is steeped in ignorance, and should be rejected by anyone upon the slightest bit of reflection (pun intended).
I am not making the argument that no tiny alterations in anything at all can cause any sort of change at all.
I am making the flat statements of fact that CO2 does not directly cause any change in weather events, and that we haven't been pumping significant amounts of "energy" into the system, by pumping a tiny amount of this or that gas into the atmosphere.
There are plenty of substances that effect human bodies in plenty of ways, I certainly agree.
What's your basis for a "flat statement" like that?
Of course CO2 does influence heat retention.
Dave,
"What's your basis for a "flat statement" like that?"
Basic knowledge . . there's just no reason at all to think CO2 at such minuscule levels has any direct effect on weather, and I've never seen any scientist propose that it does. The effects proposed are all indirect, (through gradual warming of the system overall, over time, predominately related to increased evaporation/water carrying capacity) not any changes in the way air behaves at a given moment (direct effects). All other things being equal, an air-mass that has a tiny bit more CO2 will behave the same as air with a tiny bit less. Clouds will form or not the same, ice will form/melt at the same temperatures.rates, air masses will rise/fall at the same rates, and cause the same air pressures, wind will blow or not just the same . . there's just no reason to expect any change in real-time physical behavior of the atmosphere.
"And how do you define "weather event?" Does your use of terms mean you're not really addressing AGW at all here?"
I am addressing Ann's (and your) apparent belief that the minute change in the composition of the atmosphere our CO2 emissions have caused, would itself alter how air behaves on a weather event level, as in real time effects on the physical properties of air, and, the notion that we humans have been pumping significant amounts of "energy" into the system, such as to itself cause some sort of instability.
No, it's just the slight warming (over whatever temps would have occurred anyway, not necessarily actual ongoing warming) that might cause changes in stability. And such changes would not necessarily be increased instability in any given weather generation circumstance, and it's not really clear scientifically speaking that it would mean increased instability in a general sense.
The overall climatic systems of Earth are vastly more complex than something which can be treated with a simple more energy in = more instability equation. What instability even means in such a hyper-complex sytem is not actually definable . . it could mean less steady freezing-over of a continent as the next ice age develops . . more rain to a desert area . . less flooding in a flood prone one. The system itself is filled with instabilities at all sorts of levels, so instability to the system could actually mean more stability in weather from our perspective, rather than less.
The con-men who I am quite sure are running a con about CO2, are intentionally not educating the average person about these comples weather/climate matters, because it's far easier to convince people who don't know much about such complex matters, it seems to me. The more I learned, the more obvious it became that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that "the science is settled" ; ) That's just silly talk. Much easier to sell the con based on a simplistic "Oh no! the earth is in a greenhouse and we will cook!!", sort of fanciful storyline.
Increased clouds due to slight warming through reduced heat loss into space, for instance, could be a basic negative feedback which keeps the joint from going into a meltdown every time the ratio of greenhouse gases gets a wee bump-up. Same with plant cover/mass, which would logically rise with a rise in this particular greenhouse gas (CO2), since it's critical for plants, and the levels are actually near "starvation" thresholds at this point, from what I've studied. Assuming there's any real likelihood of us sending the earth off into a doomsday scenario, is itself rather speculative thinking, it could end up mitigating a nasty cold spell. like the little ice age. Such spells have been rather disastrous for us, and many other species, apparently.
In fact, it was amid mounting "fears" of an impending ice age type event among many climatologists in the seventies, that the increase in CO2 as a potentially significant factor in climate change first emerged . . as a slightly good thing, if anything, to help us get past the impending hypothetical cold event. We been conned I tell you, guys, and that was me too a few years ago, before I started looking into this stuff more carefully, and critically. (I can go get the comments made right here on this site if you'd like).
My skepticism grew as my understanding did, not the other way 'round as the conmen like to sneer. And, it was that sneering which got me to wondering in first place. That ought not be there, in the place of clear answers and explanation when the science is really settled. That's what conmen do, when questioned seriously.
Then, a fallacious appeal to authority: "there's just no reason at all to think" X, "there's just no reason to expect" Y, "it's not really clear scientifically speaking" Z. You're not in the position to make a priori statements like that, and you know it. The bogus study that "won you over" used subterfuge and biased datasets to present a distorted picture of the influence of clouds on warming, and you were conned by it. To claim all of a sudden that you're the arbiter of last resort on cloud studies—yeah, there's the fallacy. You use a self-contradictory argument about complexity: you cite the complexity of system to support a skeptical view of assertions about the interaction of CO2 and climate, and yet you yourself make assertions about what can and can't occur. That's what the climate scientists (and not you) are working on, JK. You also commit a fallacy in your inverted appeal to common belief; the others, you figure, are all simply going along with the crowd, and so they can't be right.
As I said in another comment below, most of your content is political. You're desperate to weave the scientific community into your dubious conspiracy theory that sees a "totalitarian elite" bent on world domination. That's a reason not to accept your assertions here—it does not lend strength to your arguments.
"First, a straw man argument—you've substituted "direct effect on weather" in place of a contribution to climate change."
Substituted? what in the world are you talking about?
Why couldn't it both be true that CO2 has no direct effect on individual weather events, and it also have some effect on the "system" through boosting temps in general? I hate to break it to you, Einstein, but that's what the AGW concept is based on . . That's the whole idea, so to speak. It is not based on the idea that a slight change in atmospheric composition will change the way atmosphere (air) behaves at any given moment.
It's not my fault that you never thought this stuff through, or that your indoctrinators never explained this to you, or gave you trite phrases to deal with this (not really all that difficult) concept. The same thing could be said of many "inputs" into climatic conditions overall, which contribute over time to the "system" at large, but do not directly have any significant effect on individual weather events. Over time, something like clams must have some effect on the general system, but it is not rational to speak of clams having a direct effect on an actual thunderstorm, or a drought here or there, or a cold spell in Chad, right?
"Then, a fallacious appeal to authority: "there's just no reason at all to think" X, "there's just no reason to expect" Y, "it's not really clear scientifically speaking" Z. You're not in the position to make a priori statements like that . . "
Is anyone? About anything?
Are you not "in a position" to make the statement; There's just no reason to think today's stock market prices are having a direct effect on rainfall in Idaho? If you made that statement, based on your general understanding of how such things are related, wouldn't it be up to a person challenging your statement to somehow explain why you were not "in a position" to make it?
If you said; "There's just no reason to expect little green frogs to jump out of my butt at midnight", would that be you overstepping your "authority" to speak on such matter? Are you not "in a position" to make a priori statements like that, simply because you have a general understanding of how biological systems work? Would it be rational for me to denounce you for making "appeals to authority"?
How exactly do you know I am not similarly "in a position" to make the statements I did, because I learned enough to understand these matters we are discussing? Are you not simply assuming you understand them better than I? Simply recycling that assumption over and over again, at each point of contention, and imagining that you disagreeing with me means I am ignorant of the ultimate truth of any given matter, by default?
"To claim all of a sudden that you're the arbiter of last resort on cloud studies—yeah, there's the fallacy."
Who claimed that, space cadet? Not I . . But, why are you any more of an "arbiter of last resort" than I am?
"The bogus study that "won you over" used subterfuge and biased datasets to present a distorted picture of the influence of clouds on warming, and you were conned by it."
Says who? God? You? Look at your lingo there, space cadet, that's YOU speaking as though YOU were an "arbiter of last resort". How did you come to be "in a position" to speak so about a subject you don't actually have much understanding of yourself? You don't actually possess much understanding of the matters that study dealt with, do you?
You're basing your opinion on what others supposedly understand, right? Not your own understanding, but just what some people you think of as "authorities" said of the matter, right?
This is how a non-narcissist might say something like you did;
*The study I think is bogus, that "won you over" in some sense, used subterfuge and biased datasets I read, to present a distorted picture of the influence of clouds on warming, and I suspect you were conned by it.*
See how that lacks the "God voice" you are surely not "in a position" to speak on those rather technical matters in? I did not use the "God voice" in that previous discussion you are referring to, but honestly spoke of that study helping me understand some things to the point of forming a firm opinion, about some aspects I was hesitant to do so in regard to.
I was not actually using that particular person and his conclusions as an "authority figure", to pull a "He ought to know best, I'm with him" maneuver, but rather as a look into what people working with satellite systems actually see, and can measure, compile, keep track of and so on. It was the lack of evidence being presented along those lines by AGW "alarmists", that I was hesitant to interpret as evidence they were avoiding referring to direct observations, in favor of computer simulations.
See, I wasn't sure what they could actually detect in the way of heat escaping into space at the TOA (top of atmosphere) . That study gave me an avenue of understanding that they can observe such a thing more directly and comprehensively, in real-time, than I was aware of. So that the "missing" presentation of evidence in that realm I suspected was significant, I could understand was probably significant.
I could then logically conclude that they were not showing us more about the net radiation of heat from the TOA, and how that varies over time, because what they had along those lines was not showing a strong enough heat loss retardation, or "trapping effect", to justify claims that heat would build up in a cumulative sense over long stretches of time.
In short, seasonal heat build up was rather quickly mirrored in increased IR radiation at the TOA, and was therefore not really subject to much carry over from year to year . . meaning any "extra" heat retained by way of "greenhouse gases" would dissipate fairly quickly, meaning we were not in a true "greenhouse" like situation, wherein the little bit of extra warming caused by a mall amount of additional CO2 right now, would result in a significant difference in next year's global temps. It should pretty much just be a series of small, non cumulative "bumps" in general warmth, not a "pressure cooker" sort of deal. Any"extra" warmth of years past, is long gone now, and not continuing to contribute to current temps.
The AGW fanatics hated that study because it reopened a discussion they do not want to have, I surmise.
Your second section wonders somewhat wistfully, "Is anyone [in a position to make an a priori claim]? About anything?" Yup. But not you, about AGW. Sucks, doesn't it? Dismissed.
I'm not the arbiter of last resort about climate change. I'm simply dismissing the illogical effluvia that you seem pretty proud of here, JK. That's a much easier job.
"those rather technical matters" - Sorry, JK. The jury is in and everyone can see that you are incapable of speaking of "technical matters" after your silly comments about the bogus, fossil-fuel-sponsored pseudo-science that you amazingly still defend almost a year after it was dismissed from the literature on AGW. I'm actually glad that you keep making up excuses for this crap. It continues to reveal you for the uninformed charlatan that you are.
I'm embarrassed for you regarding your last few paragraphs. I know that you mean well, John. I know that you're trying to "reason through" this stuff the best you can. You're simply factually wrong. You may come to grips with this one day, and I hope you do.
" . . your saying: "there's just no reason at all to think CO2 at such minuscule levels has any direct effect on weather." No one claimed that, JK. You brought it up."
Of course I brought it up, but you claimed I "substituted" if for something . . What the hell were talking about here? ;
"First, a straw man argument—you've substituted "direct effect on weather" in place of a contribution to climate change."
What does that mean? "substituted .. in place of"? What place? Where is this thing I substituted for?
Do you mean you think I am supposed to read any statements by any AGW fanatics/believers, as them just mentioning that they think CO2 probably makes a contribution to climate change? No dice, pretend expert/repeater of simplistic propaganda, this is what Ann wrote;
"This is actually evidence in favor of global climate change, which predicts not only higher average temperatures, but more extreme weather events.
Any scientist will tell you that if you pump energy (as we have, with our global warming emissions) into any complex system, it will become much less stable. In the case of climate, this means more storms, droughts, higher high temperatures, and lower low temperatures."
I commented on that, not some imaginary mentioning of her sense that CO2 makes "a contribution to climate change" . . If she had said that, I might even have agreed, but I certainly would not have said what I did . .
Readers, please check out this faker's act;
"I'm embarrassed for you regarding your last few paragraphs. I know that you mean well, John. I know that you're trying to "reason through" this stuff the best you can. You're simply factually wrong. You may come to grips with this one day, and I hope you do . . . . . . . . "
No real response at all . . He can't discuss this stuff, I am growing more and more convinced. When the time comes to actually discuss logics and evidence and "the science", he just fades away into a hokey child-like version of an "authority" dressing down a inferior/little kid . . He thinks if he acts like he's way more knowledgeable than his "mark", he can just skate on the rest . . just fake it.
I'm becoming quite convinced its all about authority figures to him, for "safety" reasons, not educating himself. Basically just about figuring out what is the least ridiculed/questioned position or understanding . . and then using the supposed "upper hand" that gives him to get his kicks demeaning and ridiculing others. It's got virtually nothing to do with what he actually understands about anything, except whether or not he can engage in ridicule and bullying, without much risk of serious blow-back . .
An that's why you see him just firing away in that last comment, just trying to belittle and shame . . read it again carefully, I suggest, and you will see the whole thing is just puffery . . just pompous talking down to another, without any evidence or reasoning or demonstration of his take/grasp on anything at all. Someone could know virtually nothing about the scientific matters we are supposedly discussing here and never have given a second thought to the actual scientific questions and logics and evidence, and write everything he did.
He's just faking it, just posing, I believe. For sadistic kicks ; )
You still haven't given up the first straw man fallacy I pointed out, JK. Let me walk you through it. You're expressing disagreement with the assertion that a bit of CO2 might be linked with a specific weather event. No one, including Ann, is claiming that. Straw man fallacy. When you quote Ann, you overlook the fact that she is debunking the fallacious claim in the article itself, to wit, that extreme rain and unusually cool temperatures (specific weather events) demonstrate that AGW science is flawed. Ann doesn't need specific weather events to debunk the article's claim. AGW science is consistent with an increase in climate instability and extreme weather events, including heavy rain, flooding, drought, hurricanes, and wildfires.
Tell me, did you derive sadistic pleasure when you erroneously and fallaciously labeled Ann's legitimate point a "load of crap?"
I dismissed your pretensions to indicate what was "reasonable" especially when they mostly contradict a body of literature. There isn't a lot to do with your "top of atmosphere" seat-of-the-pants musings. They aren't even supported by Spencer and Braswell's flawed work.
The greenhouse effect is universally recognized as the reason that the earth's surface is as warm as it is. Clearly climate research into AGW is looking at the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation with an eye to the resultant surface temperature at equilibrium. El Niño Southern Oscillation (which Spencer and Braswell ignored to the peril of the validity of their work), cloud effects, ocean CO2 absorption and other complications make climate science work difficult.
A simplified, although useful and valid method of thinking about the earth's radiation "budget" under the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is as follows. The difference between the earth's surface temperature and the atmosphere at any altitude below the stratosphere is approximately 6.5°C per kilometer elevation. Assume that infrared radiation escaping into space is supplied by the atmosphere (ignore radiation from the earth's surface, since much of it is captured by the atmosphere in any event). The altitude above the earth's surface from which the majority of radiation escapes is based on the temperature at that altitude and the opacity of the atmosphere. Go "too high" and less radiation is produced because of colder temperatures. Go "too low" and the atmosphere above is too opaque to permit radiation to escape to space. As CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque, the typical altitude of escaping radiation increases. But at 6.5°C per kilometer elevation, the earth's surface temperature is increased accordingly based on the higher release altitude. As a result, higher CO2 concentration is associated with warming at the earth's surface.
I was not even a little bit wrong as I see things, Mr. Arbiter-of-first-and-last-resort, and that you happen to think/declare I was means nothing at all to me. For you pretend scientifically minded authority worshipers, it may seem real important that alcohol can mess up a human being, and that the earths climate patterns and human beings are both complex systems, but I don't think in such crude and robotic terms.
Neither of you seems to realize that the question is not; Is it possible that human generated CO2 could cause increased average temps over what would otherwise occur "naturally"?, but rather; Is human generated CO2 going to send the planet into a catastrophic death spiral sorta deal. That's all, just that catastrophic death spiral stuff would call for any serious attempt to do anything about a slightly higher "greenhouse" effect, since periods of slightly warmer temps have actually been the relatively "good times" for us humans, and a rise is CO2 has just plain got to be good for plants in general, which in general, is good for animals, naturally.
You've explained (in meandering and rather pointless detail as far as I can tell) what no one I am aware of is disputing;
". . higher CO2 concentration is associated with warming at the earth's surface."
Congratulations, you have the basic idea now . . and, you have a dogmatic belief that if CO2 is higher now than it has been for a while, catastrophe is a given, apparently. Bozo reasoning to me.
Ann:
==========
'They were blind to the fact that on the 27th June 2012, 116 City's from Montana to Florida measured record low temperatures."
This is actually evidence in favor of global climate change, which predicts not only higher average temperatures, but more extreme weather events.
==========
I don't remember making the statements that you're making up and then challenging (while ducking responsibility for finally admitting that Ann's comment debunks the article), so your entire shifty side-steppy comment qualifies as yet another straw man fallacy.
Global climate change cannot possibly predict anything, and I tire of having to decipher these nonsensical pretzel logic statements and pronouncements. Some AGW fanatics/pushers claiming that each extreme weather event is evidence of "global climate change" is just plain silly to me. Such events have been happening throughout history, and apparently all along on this planet.
At any given time, in any given year, there will likely be an "unusually" high number of this or that sort of "extreme weather event" somewhere on the planet, I would imagine . . and so I expect that claim to be used for PR purposes from now till . . hell freezes over ; )
Why aren't you guys discussing with/asking Graham if that was what he intended to say, it don't look like that to me. It looks like he's warning about the "alarmist" PR using heat waves in that way, by making a big noise when they occur, which it seems to me they did . . Here's the first paragraph;
"Its folly to rely on a few hot weeks in an area to say it proves global warming or climate change, yet this is what has happened with quite a few warmegedisnests and doomotoligests. June saw a heat wave pass over an area of America and the media and the few warmegedisnests and doomotoligests could not wait to write about how global warming climate change is happening."
He mentions that other places were not hot, and some were actually unusually cool . . I don't see how you guys got the idea he was claiming the cool temps were evidence of much of anything but a sort of "tunnel vision" approach that stresses heat when it occurs, and extreme weather events when they occur, and the next proclamation by the AGW clan when it occurs . . That's all I see him trying to warn of, that focusing on whatever serves "the cause" . .
" . . but simply notes that extreme events are not at odds with global warming science."
That is just not true, she wrote;
"This is actually evidence in favor of global climate change . . "
If she had written what you just did, I'd have no beef at all with that statement you wrote, or something like it. I agree that extreme events are not at odds with global warming science, or just regular old climate science either. I never heard anyone say otherwise . . it makes no sense to me to think otherwise . .
"You embarrass yourself to pretend that you can't understand that simple and straightforward logic."
But I never did, you spacey AGW fanatic. It did not happen. I never disputed THAT logic in any way.
Record lows are not a counter-argument to evidence of global warming. Incidentally, the ratio of record highs to record lows in the US exceeds 2 to 1 in this century, up from 1.14 to 1 in the 1980s.
Global warming science does predict instability in the weather leading to extreme weather events, precisely as Ann said. It does not, however, currently predict specific weather events—that was never claimed. The state of the art is "attribution." "[Peter] Stott [of the Met Office] led one of the first studies attributing a single extreme weather event to climate change: The 2003 European heat wave, which killed 40,000 and was the hottest summer on record since 1540. The study concluded that human influence more than doubled the event's likelihood. Last week, a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded there was an 80 percent chance that the killer Russian heat wave of 2010 would not have happened without the added push of global warming."
"Now, Stott and other researchers are melding weather forecasting skills with pioneering computer models to attribute - or link - individual weather events to climate change. Understanding how climate change influences the weather is increasingly seen as key to predicting natural disasters, Stott said, and the new studies should help policymakers anticipate the conditions and trends associated with weather extremes. 'There's this very strong connection between attribution and prediction,' noted Stott…." - source
"Ann's wording was fine."
You're a nut-case to me, dude. You can't even carry on a mature, rational dialog . . Look, I realty don't care if your are too stupid or biased to recognize that saying "This is actually evidence in favor of global climate change . . ' is not "simply note[ing} that extreme events are not at odds with global warming science." It's become what I expect from you, but it does not interest me much anymore. You're just not a rational human being in my eyes.
"When Graham made a series of observations about cold temperatures, his belief that it argued against global warming was made crystal clear."
Where's the "to me" at the end of that? A rational, mature person it seems to me, would realize the person they are speaking to had just expressed a different view, and therefor would not speak in absolute terms, like some infantile spoiled brat demanding that his view be acknowledged as correct by default . .
"For example, he says, "They were blind to the fact that on the 27th June 2012, 116 City's from Montana to Florida measured record low temperatures. Not one of these malcontents bothered to shout that little fact form the rooftops, Oh no..." "
I don't see how that does not fit with what I said he seemed to me to be doing here . . It's a total mystery to me. It's like you're just blocking out the potential I mentioned, and thinking that if you declare he was doing/meaning what you felt he was, it becomes an absolute fact . . You disgust me, you crazy narcissist.
"This is actually evidence in favor of global climate change..." is a perfectly accurate and defensible statement, and no amount of obfuscation, profanity, ad hominems and illogic from you can "take it down." I feel sorry for you for having to defend your position, JK. The fact remains that any extremes of temperature are completely compatible and proper evidence in the scope of global climate change.
You've attacked my comment, "When Graham made a series of observations about cold temperatures, his belief that it argued against global warming was made crystal clear." There is no question about Graham's message (you agree with it—where is the problem?). He went on just today to opine "We were… chastised visciously [sic] when it was a particularly cold winter and everyone was commenting about how freezing cold we all were. We were told that weather is not the same as climate." Graham's comments actually don't matter: we have your own irrational and unsupported comments in this thread. It's you now, JK, who is the irrational champion of denialist rhetoric: refuted, point by point on every matter of substance; left only to crazy ad hominems launched at any who stand against the madness of your rants.
Not to me, it's evidence of cold weather in a few places. Is there anything at all in the way of weather, that is not "evidence of global climate change" to you? Anything at all?
"When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather."
According to that, a single day of unusually cold temps (which is what Graham mentioned) would not constitute evidence of "climate change" at all, let alone evidence of "global climate change".
First of all (which will be obvious to anyone, other than you, apparently, who has been following this discussion), the fact that there have been cold temperatures (record colds, even!) is not dispositive of anything. It "proves" neither that global warming is happening nor is not happening, for example. It is Graham alone in this thread who makes that claim. He thinks that a few cold temperatures prove that global warming is disproved.
Extreme weather events, and particularly increased frequency and intensity of weather events are predicted by proponents of global warming. If we were not seeing extremes (flooding, violent storms, temperature extremes, heavy rain, drought, hurricanes, and wildfires) with increasing frequency we could begin to reasonably question the current state of the art in climate science. We could attribute these events and trends to random fluctuations in weather. That's why it's taken a few years of observation to confirm that the climate science is giving us an accurate picture of what's going on. That awareness occurred about 10 years ago for most who were paying attention. What happened thereafter is that ignorant people found a year (1998) that was inordinately warm, according to one calculation, and decided that, against all other evidence, that that proved that global warming had ended that year. You are one of those ignorant people, JK. Those that did misunderstood basic understandings such as regression toward the mean or analysis of trends. Those that labored hard to tell the story based on observations of the gentle planet were (by a coterie of people) vilified because they reported something that was not attractive or wanted. Their report implicated too many people in behavior that challenged the survival of humans on the planet. (One hates a call from the bank that says that one's account is overdrawn.)
Where the planet goes from here will be guided by a lot of ignorance (by the numbers) and by a stalwart few stewards who want the best future for the human family. The counter-narrative, that has lots of people dying based on conspiracy theories, pales in comparison to the ready fact of corporate greed from fossil fuel burning, which works to our detriment. You'll never win the argument that fictional conspiracies are more important than real, observable greed, JK. You keep trying, but it never works.
"First of all (which will be obvious to anyone, other than you, apparently, who has been following this discussion), the fact that there have been cold temperatures (record colds, even!) is not dispositive of anything. "
That's just plain dense of you, I haven't said anything that contradicts such a statement . . Nothing.
""It is Graham alone in this thread who makes that claim"
I am unaware of him making any such claim, I don't see it . . and why are you not demonstrating he did with a quote? Is it just that you think/say he made such a claim that you are referring to?
There is no relationship I can see between what you declare about people's comment/positions, and what people actually write . . It's like you have lost track of the real world . . and are just bouncing around in your imagination . .
"Extreme weather events, and particularly increased frequency and intensity of weather events are predicted by proponents of global warming."
But what about warming? Again, you don't seem to realize that it is BECAUSE of gradual warming that such increases in extreme weather events might occur, according to the theory that human generated CO2 will have significant effects on weather, not any direct effects that a minuscule change in atmospheric composition that our CO2 emissions have resulted in, directly.
Do you, or do you not understand that? Do you understand that it's not the CO2 itself being in an air mass that alters how weather develops, but just the potential general warming it might cause, according to the AGW folks themselves.? There is no one proposing as far as I know, that the slight change in composition wound directly (physically in real-time) effect weather events of any kind.
Will you acknowledge that, please? Or, present some sort of evidence that scientists are proposing the tiny bit of extra CO2 being in the air while weather develops, which would alter weather events?
So, this greed stuff has no effect on climate scientists that get paid by the Government, but, it has caused some scientists who get paid by "big oil" or whatever ways, to conspire to put out bad science? Why wouldn't the same motivations apply to all scientists, potentially?
If there's been roughly a hundred billion dollars made available to those scientists that propose to do work that supports the AGW climate change hypothesis, why wouldn't at least some of those who wanted money (as well as a career boost, and maybe even a Nobel Prize) from there efforts, do at least some bad science? Why would all those people be immune from temptation, while those funded in other ways would fall victim to the temptation?
You are a fruitcake, sir, and a scoundrel, I say. Imagining up crap and attributing it to whomever you feel like. You are a disgusting person to me, I cut farts with more class ; )
Allen H. (Jul 21, 2012, 3:24am EDT): "The science says it stopped getting warmer in 1997, and has been cooling slightly since then... draw your own conclusions: 15 years of cooling..."
Graham L. (Jul 21, 2012, 6:27pm EDT): "Not a single model predicted the stagnant temperatures the globe has seen for the last 15 years."
William Ernest McKibben, journalist with no climate scientific credentials other than seeing a niche in the global warming market to sell and get rich from people like you who have brought the whole package lock stock and barrel.
Problem with people like Mr McKibben who protest at such things as the fossil fuel industry and organize protests to bring it down, they never seem to be able to actually tell anyone how they would cope with out all that nasty evil fossil fuel that they would get rid of in an instance.
Your not one of them are you Dave you wouldn't try to derail how we live at the moment.
If you are then you wont mind telling everyone what we would have as a substitute to run all of our homes, all the factories, supermarkets, hotels, shopping centers, all other businesses, all our cars, all our vehicles that supply everything that we need to survive.
If you are one of them, you wont mind giving up your car even if its an electric one seeing that most of its components were made from Oil. you wont mind moving out of your home seeing that most of it was made from oil such as the coating on the wiring that lets you use all of the fossil made equipment such as televisions, computers, Hi-Fi system, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, air condition units, heating systems. You wont mind giving them up will you?
And you wont mind not going down to the shops or the supermarkets to buy your weekly shopping list, you wont mind not buying the bottles of shampoo made out of plastic, or any other good of that nature.
You also wont mind forgoing any air miles that you have booked or are about to book after all we wouldn't want you to turn up at the airport and find that all flights are canceled due to the fact that Mr McKibben and his sheep have successfully shut down all oil depots all over the world due to their dislike of all fossil fuel.
However I am sure that your not at all like Mr McKibben's as you seem a far more intelligent person than him
"Where the planet goes from here will be guided by a lot of ignorance (by the numbers) and by a stalwart few stewards who want the best future for the human family."
Dave is an elitist, who sees the bulk of his fellow humans as a hindrance to the few (including himself by implication), who are "stewards" that, in their own minds anyway, are the only ones that want the best for their (mostly retarded) human family. The rest of us presumably, are little better than self serving savage beasts, unable to muster such noble desires, and need folks like Dave to dominate us, for our own good of course.
And I believe that's why you see him over and over again speaking in that ridiculously self aggrandizing manner, and making flat assertions of (obviously disputed) fact, without any qualifiers at all, while denying a "lower" human the authority to make ANY assertions of fact, even one's he himself agrees (by sneaky implication) are not in dispute by anyone, including himself;
"You're expressing disagreement with the assertion that a bit of CO2 might be linked with a specific weather event. No one, including Ann, is claiming that."
While earlier, he wrote;
*Dave A. Jul 19, 2012, 5:00pm EDT
"I am making the flat statements of fact that CO2 does not directly cause any change in weather events." (me)
What's your basis for a "flat statement" like that? (Dave) *
Why would he ask that, I ask, if he already knew that it was true, in the sense that no scientists were claiming otherwise?
Logical answer I say; He didn't.
The man knows virtually nothing about "the science" itself I surmise, not even rudimentary stuff like what he asked about, but is just "attaching" himself to the seemingly most authoritative voices he hears, and faking it. For sadistic kicks . . as the "supermen" in their own imaginations, the self appointed "stalwart few stewards" are want to do . . The folks who see the "little people" as quasi-human encumbrances that need to be dominated or, well, got rid of.
Your "flat statement" commentary: quoted out of context, and a failed, foolish bloviating attempt at rewriting the conversation, JK.
Dave A. Jul 19, 2012, 5:00pm EDT
"I am making the flat statements of fact that CO2 does not directly cause any change in weather events."
What's your basis for a "flat statement" like that?
...followed immediately (before any other comment) by my clarifying question:
Dave A. Jul 19, 2012, 5:02pm EDT
(And how do you define "weather event?" Does your use of terms mean you're not really addressing AGW at all here?)
In other words, your term "weather event" was misdirection, and I clearly asked you whether you were talking about climate change ("AGW") or "weather." You can try side-steppy comments and ad hominems, JK, but the record is there. You're ignorant about AGW, you support "authority figures" (your term) whose work has been roundly dismissed, specific flaws having been documented by the scientific community, and you can't and won't play the part of an honest broker in a dialog. But that's your track record, pointed out again and again by dozens of people on Gather.
Sure, all I need do, is what you do; Attach myself to "the seemingly most authoritative voices" I hear, and say "me too" ; )
" . . ..followed immediately (before any other comment) by my clarifying question"
Oh yeah, you "clarified" . . that you are religiously fixated on the AGW agenda, and expect everyone else to speak as though it is the Gospel truth, but said nothing about the actual statement in question. The statement you did not recognize as a simple expression of the reality of the how the trace gas CO2 is believed by all scientists (as far as I have ever heard) not to have any (appreciable) direct effect on weather systems of any kind.
"In other words, your term "weather event" as misdirection . . '
Nope, it means just what it says in that statement. That's the truth, you faker, and you once again revealed the weakness of your grasp of these matters when you wrote this;
"I have never suggested that a molecule of CO2 somehow triggered a specific weather event, extreme or otherwise."
A ridiculously silly statement, but one that shows how tentative your grasp of the matter was, even at thas point I say.
And, you just keep on doing the same totally self contradictory "victory dance", as the Arbiter-of-first-and-last-resort in your own mind, based on blind faith in authority figures;
" . . but the record is there. You're ignorant about AGW, you support "authority figures" (your term) whose work has been roundly dismissed, specific flaws having been documented by the scientific community"
That means, of course, " the seemingly most authoritative voices" you hear, and nothing more. But no, it is not me that constantly leans on authority figures like that, that's what you do, habitually;
"But that's your track record, pointed out again and again by dozens of people on Gather."
You're such a coward I say, you can't even discuss serious matters without some form of "authority figure" to back you up . . even if it's just some ditsy "dozens of people on Gather" ; )
I'm not sure how anyone with any sort of logic is still defending this hoax.
Thanks for posting
In fact those of us living in the UK have observed this phenomenon taking hold over the last few years, with warm dry Springs and cool wet Summers. In March temperatures reached the mid-twenties and by early June there were hose-pipe bans in southern counties. It hasn't stopped raining since! There are flood warnings all over the UK - in summer.
To claim this is evidence that militates against belief in man-made climate change/global warming is frankly bizarre.
The weather is becoming progressively cloudier and wetter. (We got 70 inches of rain last year; the average is supposed to be in the 40s). Autumns are warm and major snowfall is typically delayed until late December or early January. The pattern was much different only a few decades ago.
"Eh?"
You said; "To claim this is evidence that militates against belief in man-made climate change/global warming is frankly bizarre."
And as you said; "One must always be careful not to point to specific anomalies and cry: 'proof', which is not what Graham has done here. He has pointed out essentially that one must always be careful not to point to specific anomalies and cry: 'proof'. He is saying that the pointing out of specific weather anomalies, does not constitute "proof" of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis, nor that it demonstrates significant climate change in this or that place.
Please cite any evidence you are aware of that catastrophic global warming is occurring as a result of human generated CO2, for I know of nothing but some computer modeler's (of "Climategate" infamy) claims that their models show it will happen. You are free to believe those modelers cannot be wrong and/or dishonest, but that belief in modelers and their models is just belief, not itself evidence.
I am very distressed to report that American 'frackers' are planning to extract shale gas in the UK.
nasa seems convinced.
Perhaps the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn't doing exactly what scientists predicted it would. You clearly think it isn't. An effect that is predicted substantiates a hypothesis, however.
"The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists"
NASA did not exist in 1880, obviously. and that is just one department of "NASA" talking there, which does not represent anything but that recently created department's politically appointed leader's opinions.
What you are not seeing, is straightforward evidence of what the computer models this whole catastrophic AGW theory now rides on so to speak, predicted, having manifested. No serious person is disputing that we are in a relatively warm period, and repeating that over and over again does nothing to demonstrate that CO2 is going to cause anything particularly catastrophic to happen. It is to be expected during a relatively warm period, and this is the only such period wherein we have reliable direct instrumental measurements to look at. Brief periods during the Medieval or Roman warm periods would surely also yield "unusually" high instrument readings if we could go back in time and make direct real-time measurements, but we can't. Those periods were clearly not caused by us humans.
Well actually no, we have not, our Metrological office stated last week that we have had the worst rain downfall since records began in 1910 what they did not say however that their records actually began in the 1730s and that the UK saw the worst rain downfall in 1860s
It is always easier to break records when you shorten the time available for comparison.
Of course, when you look at where they have offices and who they share data within those same buildings is it any wonder that they fudge the data. They share the same building as the climate scientists of University of East Anglia fame.
I am very distressed to report that American 'frackers' are planning to extract shale gas in the UK.
So am I Mike but not for the same reasons that you will have. I am distressed that it is not British Frackers exploiting our vast reserves of shale gas that will transform the way get energy. We are sitting on trillions of it that will make all our energy bills cheaper and bring much needed work to the many people in Britain that have no jobs just like it’s doing in the many States in America where they are Fracking for gas. So why isn't it a British Company Fracking? That's the reason I am distressed
Green people were all for exploiting this type of gas a couple of years ago, as it’s far cleaner than the Gas that we already exploit. Then it was pointed out to them that all this Fracking would do away with the useless Wind farms not just in the USA and the United Kingdom but all over the world an low and behold it’s now the worst thing on earth bar nothing.
I would love someone from the Greens to tell me how advanced countries such as our country and North America would survive on the little bit of power that we see the Wind Farms produce. Our ones dotted about the UK all 3,800 of them produce just 0.2 % when they are working yet no one seems to want a gas that is far cleaner easy to produce and does little damage to the environment.
I really don't think people opposed to fracking are so inclined because they fear that 'wind-farms will be done away with', although I know what you're getting at - they fear there will be less impetus to develop alternatives to burning fossil fuels. But they're more worried about fugitive emissions, toxic waste water and uncalled-for seismic events in heavily populated, intensively farmed areas. The industry does not have a good record I would assert, although you may disagree, but I think the numerous strictures and hedges in the recent Royal Academy of Engineering report are indicative. Yes, I have read the report and I am aware of its conclusions. Although I questioned your attack on the integrity of the Met Office above, you might forgive me for raising an eyebrow at Lord Browne's significant interest in Cuadrilla.
Mike, far from being the benign old grandpa that we British love the Met office is an organisation that has been high jacked by climate scientists who are intent to follow whatever the IPCC gives them without question.
Julia Slingo is the Met offices chief climate scientists who specialises in climate models.
Not one climate model has looking back at the much ballyhooed climate models; we see that they have made a complete string of major mispredictions:
1. Not a single model predicted the stagnant temperatures the globe has seen for the last 15 years.
2. Not a single model projected the recent slowdown in sea level rise.
3. Not a single model predicted harsh winters of the type many parts of the world have experienced.
4. Not a single model projected the disappearance of hurricanes striking the US. Not a single model projected fewer cyclones globally.
5. Not a single model projected increasing sea ice at the South Pole.
Yet she is an expert on climate modelling, why as a scientist is she not holding up her hands an saying hang on a moment something is quite wrong let’s take a step back for the moment and see what we are doing wrong.
Professor Stephen Belcher. He is not an expert in climate modelling but uses them in his areas of expertise. So going back to the failed predictions that both of these people must know about why isn't he holding his hands up and saying the same.
Dr Andy Brown, works at predicting our weather from models, so we know who to blame for the all the wrong weather predictions when we get the old barby out and it pours torrents. I can tell you short term weather predictions its quite easy I wrote a few articles a while back on how to do it and if you follow my instructions to the letter we get it right every time, but this eminent man and his team uses climate models and they get it wrong every time. They can’t get it right in our country so what makes him think that he can predict world weather predictions using the same models.
Dr Alan Dickinson, another scientist who uses computer models, in fact it was him that was responsible for the Met using super computers to predict weather. Someone should whisper in his ear that they are a waste of time and a waste of money and that they are not doing the job that they are supposed to do.
Prof Brian Golding, one more that relies on the same models. However, his main job now is to get next year’s Met budget in place I suppose he has to go along with whatever the rest of them say after all no one wants their budget cut do they. Even though they can see that the models don't work and that the predictions that they give out to our Government are so way of the mark that it’s a miracle no one has sued them under the false misrepresentation act 1967.
Prof John Mitchell, this man is a good example, if he is not conspiring with the University of East Anglia climate scientists then I don't know who is.
John is a Visiting Professor at the University of Reading, and an Honorary Professor at the Universities of East Anglia and Exeter.
John has been a lead author in three IPCC Assessments.
Wow I would drop those boasts of my web page if I was him as firstly the University of east Anglia has been shown as a hot bed of liars and charlatans and the IPCC has been shown for what it is an organisation that is far from impartial when it comes to climate change and is led by a green activist of dubious nature.
I am of to bed now Mike its way past my bed time got to look after this old body of mine :-)
The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
The earth's magnetic fields are indeed moving, but this is, as far as we know, unrelated to climate change. The North and South poles reverse about every 450,000 years, so mankind has lived through several pole revresals during our evolution.
In the next paragraph, "cities" is inexplicably capitalized twice, and the first time it's misspelled "City's". Also in that paragraph, "shout that little fact form the rooftops," contains the typo "form" in place of "from". Same paragraph: "rooftops, Oh no they couldn't do that could they after all to shout..." "rooftops" should be followed by a period, "they" should be followed by a question mark, and "after" should be capitalized. That's just 2 of the 8 paragraphs.
All my life I have found people like you who like to embarrass people like me with their ill thought out criticism of their English.
No one asked you to correct my English so why did you feel it necessary to embarrass me?
Its an utter disgrace that in today's world there still people like you who feel its their duty to come on an open forum and police people like me who have this disability.
Fortunately for my part I have over the years got used to people criticizing my English and don't usually respond. However in this case I have chosen to speak out about it.
However out there in the world there are many people who have this disability who confidence in everything they do is held back by people like you who seem to think its their right to do the sort of thing that you have done with one thought of what it might do.
Your an utter disgrace think next time when you feel the need criticize a person.
The "Word/grammar/spelling Police” strike again.
Go critique e e cummings for the lack of capitalization.
Show us all how incredibly intelligent you are.
(For the record, John is a doctor who would never knowingly mock someone for having a disability).
If John is a doctor, all the more reason I say, that he ought to be able to detect when an otherwise intelligent seeming person makes an inordinate amount of errors in their typing, and realize there may be a disability involved and not just sloppiness.
And to what do attribute his continued attack on Graham?
"(I notice that in your rant about my corrections that your disability did not interfere with your ability to write in correct English.)"
Looks like a bully in action to me. Doctor or no.
John,
Your "eagle eye" seems to me to have missed several things in Graham's response to your "analysis", which look potentially like his disability interfering with his ability to write in correct English. Read it again carefully, and if you can't detect them, I will point some out for you.
What's your excuse for that "sloppiness", sir?
The errors in his response are common ones and not diagnostic of a disability.
Ann
Thank you. You are correct. I would never knowingly mock someone for having a disability.
Graham, I apologize for my comment which pointed out some errors in your post. I had no intention of insulting you with my " ill thought out criticism of [your] English.
"The errors in his response are common ones and not diagnostic of a disability."
I didn't say they were, sir. Aren't you savvy enough to understand that when you drew attention to the problems, you naturally increased his concerns about what he produced in that response? Geez, dude . . this is not rocket science . .
Dave
"Neither Ann's nor Graham's writing suggest any hint of dyslexia."
You are just you, not God. You learn to speak for you, not everyone, and I will prolly stop referring to you as a narcissist. You don't, and I prollly won't . . Get it?
Graham's writing habits have long suggested to me that he has some sort of problem along the lines he's now spoken of . . it seemed obvious to me, and I have learned to read him with a "flexible" eye. There are others around here I do that with, including some I suspect just didn't get a good start in the reading/writing game, and I am in no position to judge them for that, they may have done twice as well as I would have under the circumstances they had to deal with . .
I see what John did as rediculous and mean spirited. You don't like that I see it that way? Tough chit, I do.
"What is this—kindergarten class?"
No, so I advise you stop acting like it is. Realize that you happen to be good at something which isn't really all that important here generally speaking, it seems to me. Perhaps to those who are more concerned with boasting or impressing others than actually communicating with them it is . . but I see no real excuse for complaining about other's skill level, since the better one is at the reading/writing trick, the easier it ought to be for one to adapt their reading/decoding to those with less skill. If you're good at it, put that skill to work I say. This is it, this is where that extra skill can come in very handy . . Let's not pretend we are still in school, I say.
An occasional pointer about a recurring spelling error, or misuse of a term one feels might be misleading or something, I see in a different way, more as an attempt to help or teach . . but I feel we all ought to know by now that many people for many reasons are not up to speed, so to speak, in terms of technical skills, and yet have much to offer in these discussions. I want then to offer it . . freely.
Nothing in particular, pops . . what do you want from me?
Here's what you're going to get, double-talker.
"It's beyond me why you are dragging this out."
This is clearly egocentric thinking, to me anyway. you do not speak of me as if your equal, such that you commenting to me is "dragging this out", just as much as me commenting back to you is "dragging this out" . . Can you see that? Can you see that you've essentially complained about someone else doing what you yourself just did?
Yes or no, sir; Can you see that your comment about dragging this out is irrational and hypocritically accusatory? Can you see that it's manipulative, and weasly? A sort of pretend playing victim, while you hurl more stones? Can you detect that error, sir?
Here's the deal; If I see you eff with anyone at all, in any sense, sir, I will take is as an invitation for me to interact with you, if I feel like it. Got that? Let it sink for a moment . .
Here's the kicker, John; That's what we're here for, that's what we are supposed to do. You get to flex your great big "editor" muscles if you like . . and so do I, and so does Graham, and Dave, and eve4rybody, as I see it. Not just you, and then if anyone flexes back, it's time for you to whine, and accuse them of doing something wrong or out-of-line. No, and that goes for me too, a I see it.
Sort of a level playing field, see? If you don't like that, too damn bad, I'm just going to keep right on making any comments I feel I ought to make. Whine away if you like, I'll just comment about that, if I feel like it . . as I did. I'm easy ; )
This is Gather, a writer's site, where members are expected and encouraged to criticise and suggest improvements to each other's writing as posted to Gather. John Beck is a decent man and a literary talent: I can vouch for him that there was no malice intended: he was trying to help.
My wife has dyslexia so I understand the frustration that prompted your tirade against John, but I can assure you he did not deserve it.
And I have no idea why John Knight thinks someone appointed him the "White Knight" whose job is to attack anyone he doesn't agree with.
John
I have yet to see a post from you that isn't hostile: consider the possibility that you may be the problem.
I've just read the string of insulting ad hominem attacks from Dave A, and withdraw my comment above: you were under pressure from the "warmegedisnests and doomotoligests" so deserve to be cut some slack.
Take it from me, though, you attacked a nice guy, who didn't deserve it.
I'm not running for office, sir, or applying for a job, and I fully expect blow hards to react negatively to anyone with a direct and honest approach they can't match, it's what blow hards do, as far as I can tell. They like vague unspoken rules they can bitch about others not following.
But seriously, in my eyes John has been rather quick to criticize here, and slow to apologize. I mean, look what he said to Jean up above . . He was flat wrong, and made no apology to her . .
I, obviously, agree with Vic on the approach John has taken to Graham's writing in the article, as well as his further interactions with him here. He can redeem himself to me at any time . . I'm not ruling out the potential that he can be nice guy . . but to paraphrase the old saying; Actions speak louder that vouchers ; )
So I read his corrections as more of the same proofreading for a Gather writer. I'm picking that he wouldn't have bothered if he didn't appreciate Graham's writing as I do. Graham was shining a light on the fallacies and inconsistencies of the warmist "consensus science" way before the AGW theory began to seriously unravel, and has so far been right more often than the Phd Climate Scientists of the IPCC.
If you all could see me writing with pen and paper, you all would think that I had lost my mind it’s that bad. The program I use has changed my writing ability to what it is now, it’s not perfect by any means and my writing will never be perfect no matter how hard I try but it’s a lot better than I could ever imagine it ever could be.
I would like to thank John Knight for his support not only on this topic but also on many of the other times when he has jumped in to support me when he has seen people vilify me. I have seen people who have done this very same thing to him over the years not on his writing ability but on what people see on his World domination and conspiracy theories. And I would like to say this to them who do this. Just because you don't see how it could be possible that there could be a one World Government does not mean it could not happen or is not happening. If anyone wants to see how this could happen then you have just to peek at what the European Union stands for and how all Governments in the European Union are ruled by one body that are based in Brussels.
Thank you Vic for your support and encouragement it was very much appreciated.
Allen, when I sit down in the cold light of day and look back, I can see that John meant well and perhaps it came out in not the way he meant it. So we have both apologized to each other and for me that's the end of them matter. Thank you very much for the accolade that you gave to me, praise indeed and it’s very much appreciated.
Wow, when I wrote what I did I never thought for one moment that it would start an argument between everyone, the comment to John not the article I might add. I don't mind one bit if anyone wants to argue about the article and what it stands for :-)
I'm sorry that this distracted from discussion of the meat of your article.
Please realize that this is very serious business, and it's been put forth by the very people (UN elites) who would gain tremendous power/wealth if the theory is treated as a done deal. They (and other champions of it) have always had a vested interest in seeing this supposed "crisis" treated as a done deal. Don't just play at being logical/scientific minded by agreeing with the apparent "consensus", I implore, do it. Dig in to the matter, in earnest, rather than use it as an opportunity to play "Me too", for a momentary ego boost.
Your silly aphorisms about how the climate works aren't worthy of comment. Most of your content is political, and centers on bringing your view of AGW in line with your "elitist world domination" conspiracies. I understand that motivation. I just don't find it interesting.
Please note the insulting/personalizing quality of this man's supposed arguments, readers.
"You were unprepared to discuss the refutation of the bogus study that resulted in the editor of Remote Sensing resigning over having the paper appear in his journal."
That's quite often how Dave frames a childish "I was right and you were wrong" declaration, from what I've witnessed/experienced. He simply speaks as though God Himself gave Him a big thumbs up, and his opponent a thumbs down. True circular reasoning, amounting to nothing more, logically speaking, than declaring that since he was right in his own eyes, he must be extra right in an absolute sense. (Simply put; Narcissism ; )
This is the dead away, I tell you, that you are seeing a close-minded person acting out the bigot role. No different than if I had said this;
*You were unprepared to discuss the bogus refutation of the valid study that resulted in the editor of Remote Sensing resigning over having the paper appear in his journal.*
It's not an argument at all, just a claim of being right.
The editor was clearly a big time advocate of the catastrophic AGW theory, and the "refutation" Dave is referring to was not even peer reviewed, it was just an opinion piece . . and, the peer reviewed paper in question was not even withdrawn from the journal. Yet Dave clearly thinks that if the man resigns, that somehow demonstrates (like a big thumbs down from God Himself ; ) that the paper was "bogus" . . talk about gullible and vulnerable to manipulation . . All that had to happen was for a man to resign, and that settles the matter for Dave the human authority worshiper (I mean, WOW! The EDITOR of 'Remote Sensing' resigned!!! ; )
That he simply wanted to go do something else, and took the opportunity to get in a shot at "deniers" through some melodramatic BS, does not even occur to Dave, it seems.
"Most of your content is political, and centers on bringing your view of AGW in line with your "elitist world domination" conspiracies."
Now think (and reread) please. Is it really true that "most of my content" here is political? No, obviously not I say.
And this is how a (sloppy) circular reasoner thinks, it seems to me. Each aspect that contributes to a view that is different than his, is simply treated as conformational bias, by default, while never suspecting that the exact same "argument" could be applied to himself. It assumes the "user" is right about the larger question, nothing more. Basic circular reasoning.
I wanted to tell you that even though I'm not here (except for the moment, of course) I still read everything you write because your topics are the most consistently interesting on all of Gather. Some people write such drivel, but not you, no, not ever. Carry on, Graham. I'm still reading.
One thing that bothers me greatly is the fact that the scientists always refer to the ice breaking up and falling into the oceans as being evidence of global warming. They assume no one else understands physics. The explanation for this occurrence is quite simple. There are cracks in the ice in Greenland, and these are not like a crack in a windshield of a car, but cracks that are several miles long and very deep, as well. When the ice melts, (a natural occurrence from time to time) the water flows into these giant cracks in the ice. When water freezes, the volume increases as much as 9%, so this is quite an expansion with these events. With the increased volume, the new ice serves as a wedge between the crack and the main body of ice. As a result, it sometimes simply pushes the smaller side of the ice into the ocean. The scientists do not dare explain such a simple explanation.
We should be concerned about the environment, but it should not be based on a combination of guesswork and financial gain for those who are investing in the possible legislation to come. The Republicans call it weather...
Vic, I can never get my head around how these scientists use computer models to predict how the climate will change. As an example how can they with all honesty put data into a computer from heat sensors that are situated in many of the cities of the world on top of the roofs of buildings that have either air condition units extracting heat from offices not only in summer but in winter as well. Stand on any modern office building in the summer months and it will be a lot warmer by far than in the street below. And in winter when it’s snowing or icy, it’s like a barmy summer day on those same roofs especially if the roof of the building is enclosed but without a roof. Yet these are the buildings that the scientists are getting their readings from, no wonder they see the earth warming.
Now I am not saying that they are doing it on purpose, I guess that someone somewhere goes up on those roofs to take those readings and then gives it to someone who then takes that data to them and then it’s put in to the model by the climate scientists who then have a eureka moment.
Far better for them to go out in the field and see for themselves instead of leaving it for someone else to get that data. They then could see how flawed the system is.
I also think that there are people out there who see CO2 as a great excuse to bamboozle people into thinking that fossil emissions are the great Beelzebub of our time because it suits their green agenda and I have wrote about this many times. Also, many people such as Gore have seen a great way to make as much money as possible through what I call the gullibility of these same persons. They have dropped right into his lap right at the moment when he decided that he would never become President. I bet he could not believe his luck at the gullibility of these people who without even knowing it have made him the first $ billionaire on the back of climate change.
I call it weather as well Vick.