White House: U.S. is cold because the planet is hot

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Very well put! Thank you. You put more research into it than I am willing to, at this time.

reply to post by Kali74

I agree it shouldn't, but it wasn't Al Gore that brought it to politics and the irrational hatred and credit lent to him is just that... irrational. Both sides would do well to forget his name, everyone else has.

Given that he was heavily involved in a "documentary" that made statements that were provable and demonstrable lies in order to forward his "enrichment" I fail to see how anything negative directed at him is irrational.

As I watched it (and I was on the fence at the time doing my own research) I felt utterly insulted and betrayed that a leader of this country could spout such obvious lies. With my experience in geology (not climatology) I instantly recognized the outright lies relating to claims of past conditions. A little research uncovered more...when I think about those who watched that and swallowed it all in whole as absolute truth I was sickened by the deception that was being presented.

But that is me...I will not forget. He who fails to learn the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them.

reply to post by bbracken677


Sorry, I haven't seen the film. What lies did he tell?

Today's Obama.News.Flash......

While announcing new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said “unchecked” carbon pollution prior to his administration’s efforts to raise fuel economy standards “was having severe impacts on our weather.”

“Carbon pollution was going unchecked, which was having severe impacts on our weather,”


Obama: ‘Unchecked’ Carbon Pollution Had ‘Severe Impacts on Our Weather’

that's *Severe* impacts. Severe.Period.

I got bored of the tired, same old responses about page 4....

Honestly, this thread is just another example of moronic thinking.

"It's cold, therefore GW must be false"

All this demonstrates, rather than GW being false, is that people have done little to no research on how the climate works at all (Granted, the term "Global Warming" is a tad misleading, which is why most in the know call it "climate change")

This is exemplified by the fact that people have posted articles on the exceptional weather we've had in the UK and others have declared it "unrelated" because their problem is in New England.

News flash - the weather which happens in the Philippines affects the jet stream, which affects the weather in North America, which affects the jet stream, which affects the weather in the UK etc etc etc... We've just had the Wettest winter on record, which has followed a recent pattern of record breaking weather over the past few years. If you look at all the UK's weather records, all the "wettest/coldest/hottest" have been in the past decade.

Wake up - the climate is changing. Whether it is man made or not is really neither here nor there, we need to act to be able to manage the problems it is going to bring, not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

reply to post by stumason


Aye...

It's a cold winter in Dallas, which proves: this year it's a cold winter in Dallas. Last year it was a mild winter in Dallas which proves: Last year it was a mild winter in Dallas.

Local phenomena, in and of itself, proves nothing.

It's the whole enchilada that counts.

But, Stumason, I am not sure but that it's too late to do anything. The melting tundra permafrost is irreversible, IMO.

bbracken677
But, Stumason, I am not sure but that it's too late to do anything. The melting tundra permafrost is irreversible, IMO.

Quite - I fear that is too late as well. I think the pendulum has swung too far, in a manner of speaking.

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Sorry, I haven't seen the film. What lies did he tell?

The one which resides closest in memory was the statement that we were about to enter an era where co2 levels were higher than at anytime in the worlds history. This while showing a graph that conveniently begins AFTER co2 levels were higher than his predictions. I watched it when it first went to dvd which was ... years ago. I do remember several attempts at deception which I recognized immediately because they related in some way to the geologic record.

There were a number. I don't remember the specifics. I am sure you can google it and find out. My memory, unfortunately, is not what it once was. If you research it you may be more satisfied than if you just follow links I provide.

Yes, for anyone who doesn't understand climate.

The USA is cold because the polar ice caps are hot, and the hot air has pushed the jetstream containing cold air further south than it usually goes.

Hotter air than usual at the poles means cooler temperatures and bigger winter storms further South as the Jetstream gets pushed out of it's normal alignment.

Thus endeth the science lesson on how Global WARMING can cause it to be COLD.

reply to post by babybunnies


I understand what you are saying and have read the same before.

The part I don't understand is for as far back as I can remember I have seen representations of the jet stream during winter and it has always dipped south well into the US during winter, at least once if not multiple times.

So is this actually a result of global warming or just a seasonal phenomena? After all...wouldn't the same happen during the summer since that is when the Arctic would be receiving the most sunlight and would, by definition, be the warmest?

And I always thought is was because some giant unseeable hand keeps messing with the thermostadt, capital city of robonia! It's too hot. It's too cold. the planets warming. the planets cooling! Ughh! I hate taking the human race camping !

tencap77
And I always thought is was because some giant unseeable hand keeps messing with the thermostadt, capital city of robonia! It's too hot. It's too cold. the planets warming. the planets cooling! Ughh! I hate taking the human race camping !

edit on 2182014 by tencap77 because: spellin

The hand messing with the thermostat ... that would be my wife's

muahahaha !

tothetenthpower
I'm really tired of people thinking that Global Warming means that it gets hotter everywhere on the planet, all at once.

And when the world learned this wasn't happening, the politicians needed a new angle, Climate change!

Our politicians decided that if the science doesn't reflect conditions, then just change it, or rename it!

The only problem is what are they doing to solve it? Blaming everyone but leaving all the fossil fuel burning to continue unabashed. I know, Maybe some new taxes can fix it..

Just kidding there, I totally agree with your point..

Oddly...in response to terrorism we will pass un-constitutional legislation (Patriot Act, amongst others) outright depriving citizens of their constitutional rights.....

And yet, for something with far larger ramifications the govt seems only marginally interested in addressing it.

Makes you wonder....

reply to post by talklikeapirat

Ismail, I hope you know (you should) that science is never settled by a majority vote.

Do I really come across as that thick ?

The 'pause', and the inability of climate models to simulate observed trends, is discussed in chapter 9 (Box 9.2) of the last IPCC report. Only three of the papers referenced within the section are model-data comparsions, with a specific focus on either, the last two decades or the overall ability of climate models to simulate prolonged periods without surface warming.

The acceleratory predictions are off, and I have to agree with your initial statement : climatology isn't a very mature field. However... Pause in the acceleration does not mean a pause in the rise, as this graph clearly shows.

Here is the raw data for that graph, courtesy of NOAA.

None of the studies above supports the IPCC's statement, 'that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series', two of the papers directly contradict claims that model simulations of surface temperature trends are evidence for man-made global warming.

I am curious as to where you found that statement in the studies that you linked. From the GRL study :

The observed record shows a very similar distribution to the 20 th century simulations, especially considering that only one version of the observed record was used in this analysis, adding credence to the conclusions in the IPCC AR4 that the observed warming since 1950 is very likely due to increasing greenhouse gases.

I fail to see where these studies are contesting the fact that the global trend is warming, and that one of the major causes is anthropogenic. Their main aim is contesting periodical discrepancies in measurements, and the interpretation of certain types of data.

Here you can find the synthesis of two major studies carried out on the subject of scientific concenssus in relation with anthropogenic climate change.

The Doran & Zimmerman study was done for a master's thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that followed the study reported on 2 of the 9 questions. The study found, in part, that 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels", and that 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to those survey questions implies that debate on the "role played by human activity is largely nonexistent" amongst climate experts.

Doran & Zimmerman 2009 source

The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE. That study's sample included 903 scientists counted as CE ("convinced by the evidence"). Scientists were assumed to be CE when in the list of those credited by the IPCC as having done research utilized by AR4 Working Group I. Such an assumption resulted in a list of 619 names, which, after adjusting for duplication, became a total of 903 when also adding in those who signed one of several statements supporting the IPCC.

Anderegg 2010 source:

reply to post by Ismail

Do I really come across as that thick ?

It's hard to tell, when you say things like this.

Pause in the acceleration does not mean a pause in the rise, as this graph clearly shows.

Would you say it is rational and intellectually honest to insist something is happening, when it is clearly not?

I don't believe you can't see the difference between 'has warmed' and 'is getting warmer'.

I've posted the Matt England interview for a reason. He went public and accused people of lying, including colleagues, just to claim not even a year later his new study explains the very thing he said was a lie. Can you keep a straight face and say that this is perfectly normal behaviour for an unbiased scientist.

I am curious as to where you found that statement in the studies that you linked.

Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis.

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.

This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal.

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

No consensus here. Whatever the models are simulating, it's not the climate on Earth. The point is not that the inconsitency between models and reality disprove global warming, but that it would be irrational to claim it's evidence thereof.


Asking 77 scientists or counting papers doesn't really change that.


The science has already moved beyond fake consensus fabrications. In my book, it is sign of genuine progess when scientists are able to fundamentally disagree with eachother. It's about time too.

climexp.knmi.nl...@somewhere

I'm still convinced the whole problem is caused by the internet. Instant commumications and if you tell the same lie enough times it becomes the truth.

We had a cold winter not the first and not the last .

We had a hot summer not the first and not the last

Simple isn't it it's just weather

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Excellent post.

When it comes to data and graphs I have a bit of experience. Enough to know that how you present the information and the nature of the graph, as well as the organization of the data can significantly affect how one perceives the information. I could take one data set and create 2 graphs which would appear to be presenting different information and each would convey a significantly different message.

I won't even bring up the outright falsification of data that the "man-made-climate-change-proponents" have been caught red handed in. These days, serving up scientific data that is bogus will almost always be exposed.

The weather is no different than it has ever been. Only fools believe climate change is happening. Some years are hotter than usual, just as some years are colder than usual. It happens...

theyknowwhoyouare
The weather is no different than it has ever been. Only fools believe climate change is happening. Some years are hotter than usual, just as some years are colder than usual. It happens...

Climate change has been happening since the earth developed an atmosphere. Climate change is not in question in any manner, form or postulation.

The only question is how much of an affect man has had on it. The only question is how soon will we see real change.

Just an FYI: I am not chicken little. I am not advocating massive lifestyle changes to counter climate change. We do not know enough to understand what the effects may be or even if we can change it's direction. Only the universe is larger than man's hubris.

The polar ice cap is melting, reflecting less heat. The tundra is melting, which will release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

Another question is whether the earth's balancing system (so to speak) will react and counter additional warming by, say, shutting down the North Atlantic current throwing us back into a period of glacial growth.

Another question: Will Hollywood types and politicians actually reduce THEIR carbon footprint as they preach to us to do? (Buncha freakin hypocrites)