California`s June Oddity

reply to post by niceguybob

I don't see a pattern with which to guage at ALL. How the heck can you make a chart and graph 150years into a billion?
I guess I'm saying we don't know what normal is based on a 150years.

Except for our human-centric outlook and pure hubris, there is NOTHING that indicates that the climate/weather of the mid-20th centruy is ideal, "normal," or even average for the Earth.

The truth is much different from what some people think. We cannot control climatr, much less have any lasting influence.

We presume way too much to think otherwise.

jw

We have a "tradition" in Southern California called "June Gloom", where it is overcast most of the mornings, and sometimes into the afternoon. It usually starts mid to late May, and is called "May Grey".
Should you take into consideration that it's been happening long enough to have names, you'll soon understand it is somewhat normal.
Rain in NorCal in late May / early June is not unheard of, and seems to follow an approximate 40 year cycle.

More interestingly, we're supposedly experiencing "La Nina" conditions, which should mean drier conditions in the Mid-Western USA, but floods abound... rain, tornados and such. More El Nino.

I'm in So Cal & last summer was the mildest in my 16
years out here (La Nina, maybe?). I grew up in Kansas City & when I was
a kid it was always snowing all winter. As I got older the
winters became more & more mild with less snow.
It's getting weird no matter where you live.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

As we continue to experience extreme weather patterns EXACTLY AS PREDICTED by thousands of climatologists over the pat few decades, it will be entertaining to see your side continue to pretend it isn' actually related to the mountains of data that have been warning against this exact outcome for years.

In addition to ther failed "predictions" I've enumerated on p.2, there are of course, Jim Hansen's predictions simce 1988 that NYC would be underwater by 2000, 2010, and now 2030.

Of course, these came before he published his May 11, 2011 article in which he recognizes that most climate models are "untenably" flawd because they utteerly fail to take into account the COOLING effect of global atmospheric aerosols, and exaggerate the oceams' cycling of surface heat.

The bottom line is that most climate-model predicttions are wrong, and that "thousands of climatologists" have NOT made such predictions! There may be thousands of scientists who accept the IPCC's political opinions as mostly true, or fact, but the IPCC itself has had to retract, qualify and re-examine many of the findings of its 2007 report as well as its predecessor's.

Admittedly-flawed and inaccurate models cannot accurately predict anything.

jw

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

No amount of bad-mouthing carbon tax schemes actually addresses the SCIENCE of climate science.

Sorry, but your and the AGW faithful's idea of "science" is far from settled.

NASA regularly corrects its GISS data when discrepancies are pointed out, such as when they ignored 1934 to delcare 1998 the hottest year on record. Or when Jim Hansen has to revise his estimates for disappearance of arctic ice. Or when they revised their "rising ocean levels" upward to reflect their "arctic measurements" when they have NO INSTRUMENTS IN THE ARCTIC!

Do they admit their falsifications? No, they revise them to reflecy their "arctic estimates,"
which are still nonetheless based upon conjecture.

Or the Univ. of Colorado's (NASA-funded) revision of an earlier report showing decreasing rates of sea -level changes by adding a .3mm/year "adjustment" to the actual ARGO readings to "compensate for" land-mass rebound.

This is not science, it is political pandering and fear-mongering loosely based upon flawed models, adjusted "proxies" for actual measurements, and fudged data to reflect an unspoken agenda for wealth redistribution.

jw

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

sorry im just replying to inform you i dont sit around debating or going back and forth with replies with people who dissect, pick apart and chop replies so they can take it out of context, make point by point replies, points being what you obviously pick and choose. but failing to make one clear concise argument, thats how i post here, thats how i expect to be replied to here. dont dissect me, i wont dissect you.

i also do not debate with people who virtually stroll around handing out ignorance certificates, because uh, thats such an ignorant thing to do.

also you clearly have alot more personal interest and time to sit around and basically deny, attack and bash anyone you don't agree with in this thread.
that you are invested in this particular topic, thus far was the only thing you have proven.

have a nice day

my views and points on this matter were already posted here, its my opinion and i stand by it.
as such i will no longer add imput to this thread

ill watch it go down, like precipitation

I see you're angry that I dissected your argument and disproved it. Sorry to say... but that's how proper debate is carried out. If you can't take the heat, get out the kitchen (or ice caps).

As for you standing by your opinion... well that's another way you've gone wrong. This isn't about OPINION it's about scientific facts versus deliberately manufactured and politically/economically motivated doubt/denial of the science of global warming. Those who respect science and scientists and who do unbiased research will easily find that global warming is far from a hoax. Those who would rather dive down into some conspiracy trap disguised as a rabbit-hole to secret truth need to justify their views with opinion and faith. However, we all know where faith/opinion gets you in matters of scientific fact... that's why there's a creationist museum, and that's why remotely educated people laugh at it.

Listen... if global warming actually was a hoax perpetrated by some shadowy organization, I'D BE ALL OVER THAT SH**. But what I've seen is the exact OPPOSITE, and I won't stand for the spreading of misinformation simply because it feels good to perpetuate conspiracies against the establishment. You must be wary of viewpoints that superficially seem anti-establishment but are actually serving the establishment (i.e. the fossil fuel industry). Dig deeper, my friend, down and sideways.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

No amount of bad-mouthing carbon tax schemes actually addresses the SCIENCE of climate science.

Sorry, but your and the AGW faithful's idea of "science" is far from settled.

Well, good, because I didn't say it was settled, straw-man killer. I said that bad-mouthing cap and trade carbon trading schemes is not a refutation of climate science. Ironically, I notice your 'refutation' of climate science is still missing any actual science.

Again, it's like you want to disprove gravity by calling Newton a communist. If you knew the science, you would argue it on it's merits. But you clearly dont know the first thing about the actual data, favoring instead a re-hash of punditry.

The earth IS warming. We ARE seeing the effects. all Al gore names, or me names, it doenst address the science.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

As we continue to experience extreme weather patterns EXACTLY AS PREDICTED by thousands of climatologists over the pat few decades, it will be entertaining to see your side continue to pretend it isn' actually related to the mountains of data that have been warning against this exact outcome for years.

In addition to ther failed "predictions" I've enumerated on p.2, there are of course, Jim Hansen's predictions simce 1988 that NYC would be underwater by 2000, 2010, and now 2030.

I see. And so ONE GUY'S predictions somehow discredits DECADES of peer reviewed science from THOUSANDS of scientists from LL OVER THE WORLD!

It's noteworthy how you guys never actually address the SCIENCE with science, instead favoring off-topic pot shots. Almost as if you KNOW that if you address the actual data, you'll lose the debate.

Speaking of 'warming' it was 88°F, sunny and a north wind here at the top of the state in California.

Summer is here, business as usual.

Yes, it has been less than ideal summer type weather in north county san diego so far, quite sunny most of june but very strong winds for weeks up until a few days ago, there was a sudden bout of moisture and rain in the past few days, what san diegans call "june gloom" has set in. Not sure how unusual the cool winds were in the spring but I know in the fall it's a warm wind called "santa annas" and is typical. we also get a few tropical-like, fast moving, freaky thunder/lightning storms. One day last summer in july, it was sunny, very hot and humid for hours, then ten minutes later everything changed. this crazy storm showed up out of nowhere. the one a few days ago was like it but cold.

Most my life I lived in the san francisco bay area, talked to my mom the other day, she said there were many days of heavy june rain, I thought that was strange. But then again, my british dude said that san francisco weather is really similar and slightly better version of UK weather, had to agree. It's very erratic, unpredictable, can be cold and rainy day in August.

The news story of loads of rare june snow on top of mauna kea hawaii did catch my eye yesterday... I didn't even know it snowed anywhere there at all *derp*

reply to post by moogle


Hey when is that tropical depression supposed to be hitting you guys?

Originally posted by squirelnutz

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
reply to post by kro32

 

actually we are overdue for another ice age, not coming out of one.

Wrong. We're not due for another ice age for thousands of years to come.

Actually, we are still in an the 'ice age' ... nice try though.. y'all need to read a book before arguing and trying to sound smart

Actually we're in an INTERGLACIAL. Which means a warmer period WITHIN ice-ages. Currently we're experiencing the Holocene Interglacial within the Quaternary Ice Age. If you want to play semantics, I was wrong. If you want to read what I said in layman's terms (which was how it was intended) then you'd know that I used ice-age interchangeably with glacial period. Ice is not covering half the planet, so I am correct in my layman's use of ice-age. We are also not going to see a glacial period for thousands of years.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Forevever

 

have we not taken steps since 1979 to prevent it? could it possibly be, even in the slightest, that we reversed some of the major issues like melting polar icecaps and we're just seeing the minor (though severe in some places) leftovers of climate change?

If you believe that man-made GHGs are to blame, then NO! Every measurement shows that levels of CO2, methane, NO2 and other GHGs have gone up since 1979, not down.

What "steps" do you know of that could have prevented these AGW predictions?

Might as well throw in Hansen's repeated claims (since 1988) that NYC would be under water by now.

jw

edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: sp

Those "steps" would be, in their entirety, quite a simple concept (though difficult to implement):
STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS.

However, industrialization has created a runaway train running on coal and oil which wasn't going to stop in the 70's and probably won't stop till the 2070's...

Also, you lambast these supposed "predictions" yet give no mention of whether such warnings were ADMITTEDLY concrete, speculative, or simply hypotheticals. Something tells me that Hansen wasn't speaking concretely but that you deniers like to pretend he was in order to make him look crazy or foolish. Please provide proof of his claims and their nature...

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Stratus9

 

So you tell me- WHO has an agenda?

How about the NGOs, University programs and "independent" groups that want a share of the $100,000,000,000 that AGW advocates and the UN say will be transferred from developed economies ANNUALLY for the next 20 years to combat imaginary disasters those same groups attribute to anthropogenic global warming?

And yes, the WHO has an agenda, as does the IMF and IPCC.

jw

edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: sp

You're kidding right? YOU'RE JUST LOOKING FOR SPECTERS WHERE THERE ARE NONE TO BE FOUND.

What you just said is that universities, scientists, and scientific organizations are engaged in a dark conspiracy to hoard this supposed "$100 billion" by manufacturing the theory of global warming so that they can somehow get a payoff? That's plain stupid, paranoid speculation that has no real grounds in sound logic. It's also dead wrong.

You're also saying that since money is going to be spent combating global warming, that somehow that automatically means there was a pre-meditated hoax. Sorry buddy, but the combating came AFTER the discovery of the very real problem of AGW. If you think people are going to take on such a monumental task without using money, you're once again lacking proper grasp/logic.

Why you people insist on focusing on the small mouse in the corner while ignoring the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM (fossil fuel industry) is beyond me. Or maybe it's very simple... maybe you're just the sort of person who cannot stand to be on the same team as "hippie liberals", maybe you can't stand the fact that there's this huge, almost unsurmountable problem in our world that won't magically work itself out. Yeah... sticking your head in the sands of conspiracy is much more entertaining and less scary than the real problems themselves. Time to wake up and pull your head out... we're not living in the twilight zone where every damn thing that happens is part of some massive conspiracy. The real conspiracy is by humans and against this planet, period.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by niceguybob

 

I don't see a pattern with which to guage at ALL. How the heck can you make a chart and graph 150years into a billion?
I guess I'm saying we don't know what normal is based on a 150years.

Except for our human-centric outlook and pure hubris, there is NOTHING that indicates that the climate/weather of the mid-20th centruy is ideal, "normal," or even average for the Earth.

The truth is much different from what some people think. We cannot control climatr, much less have any lasting influence.

We presume way too much to think otherwise.

jw

Wrong... our human-centric outlook is EXACTLY WHAT GOT US INTO OUR MESSES. We believed that somehow we could do whatever we want without consequence and that if we faced consequences we could erase them after the fact using the same logic/technology that got us into it.

What's arrogant isn't believing that we have an effect on the planet, what's ARROGANT is believing that somehow we're not destroying/altering the planet and that we can somehow continue on our merry way without taking responsibility/foresight for our incredibly destructive actions.

We've already altered the climate in a myriad of ways. We've destroyed ecosystems, desertified forests, acidified oceans, destroyed topsoil, created a massive garbage patch in the middle of the pacific ocean, we're currently causing the planet's 6th Great Extinction... and somehow we're "too small" to do anything?? Yeah the planet is small too, and via our actions as humans, we can absolutely have a devastating effect via our extreme technology, resource consumption, and sheer numbers spread across the globe.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

As we continue to experience extreme weather patterns EXACTLY AS PREDICTED by thousands of climatologists over the pat few decades, it will be entertaining to see your side continue to pretend it isn' actually related to the mountains of data that have been warning against this exact outcome for years.

In addition to ther failed "predictions" I've enumerated on p.2, there are of course, Jim Hansen's predictions simce 1988 that NYC would be underwater by 2000, 2010, and now 2030.

Of course, these came before he published his May 11, 2011 article in which he recognizes that most climate models are "untenably" flawd because they utteerly fail to take into account the COOLING effect of global atmospheric aerosols, and exaggerate the oceams' cycling of surface heat.

The bottom line is that most climate-model predicttions are wrong, and that "thousands of climatologists" have NOT made such predictions! There may be thousands of scientists who accept the IPCC's political opinions as mostly true, or fact, but the IPCC itself has had to retract, qualify and re-examine many of the findings of its 2007 report as well as its predecessor's.

Admittedly-flawed and inaccurate models cannot accurately predict anything.

jw

PROVE it! Everything I've read shows that previous IPCC predictions were TOO CONSERVATIVE and that the rate and effects of global warming have been even GREATER than predicted.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

No amount of bad-mouthing carbon tax schemes actually addresses the SCIENCE of climate science.

Sorry, but your and the AGW faithful's idea of "science" is far from settled.

NASA regularly corrects its GISS data when discrepancies are pointed out, such as when they ignored 1934 to delcare 1998 the hottest year on record. Or when Jim Hansen has to revise his estimates for disappearance of arctic ice. Or when they revised their "rising ocean levels" upward to reflect their "arctic measurements" when they have NO INSTRUMENTS IN THE ARCTIC!

Do they admit their falsifications? No, they revise them to reflecy their "arctic estimates,"
which are still nonetheless based upon conjecture.

Or the Univ. of Colorado's (NASA-funded) revision of an earlier report showing decreasing rates of sea -level changes by adding a .3mm/year "adjustment" to the actual ARGO readings to "compensate for" land-mass rebound.

This is not science, it is political pandering and fear-mongering loosely based upon flawed models, adjusted "proxies" for actual measurements, and fudged data to reflect an unspoken agenda for wealth redistribution.

jw

You're making absolute mountains out of ABSOLUTE molehills.

Fact is... 1934 WAS NOT THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD. Perhaps in part of the United States (which is what you're referring to) but NOT the planet. 2010 was the HOTTEST year on record, 1998 is up there, and so is 2005.

You're also making their corrections out to be these huuuuge blunders when THEY'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD DO AS SCIENTISTS. It's like you're blaming them for correcting their own MINOR mistakes... RIDICULOUS. Seriously, you need to quit the denier booze and sober up... it's affecting the way you come off to people.

I thought I might just post in this thread rather than make a new one since it all seems to be regarding unusual weather.

In May, my area saw multiple tornadoes (I have personally never seen a tornado in my life, and they missed us, thanks to the weather gods) and at least 2 earthquakes - small earthquakes by comparison (1.7 and 1.9), but they're extremely unusual

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by kro32
Global warming is a fact that can't be debated. The temperature is rising on a global scale and it's just a matter of taking temperatures. You may dispute the reasons or causes for it but you can't argue with factual data.

As ice core data shows, the earth goes through warming and cooling periods on a regular basis. I don't think anyone disputes that. And ice core data clearly shows temperature leading CO2 increases and not the other way around. I mean really, a few parts per million can raise the temperature by over 2%? How can anyone believe that? Sheeple maybe.

www.sciencebits.com...

Originally posted by ibtek

As ice core data shows, the earth goes through warming and cooling periods on a regular basis. I don't think anyone disputes that. And ice core data clearly shows temperature leading CO2 increases and not the other way around. I mean really, a few parts per million can raise the temperature by over 2%? How can anyone believe that? Sheeple maybe.

www.sciencebits.com...

Watch this: