View Full Version : An ‘inconvenient result’ – July 2012 not a record breaker
An ‘inconvenient result’ – July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/
"I decided to do myself something that so far NOAA has refused to do: give a CONUS average temperature for the United States from the new ‘state of the art’ United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). After spending millions of dollars to put in this new network from 2002 to 2008, they are still giving us data from the old one when they report a U.S. national average temperature. As readers may recall, I have demonstrated that old COOP/USHCN network used to monitor U.S. climate is a mishmash of urban, semi-urban, rural, airport and non-airport stations, some of which are sited precariously in observers backyards, parking lots, near air conditioner vents, airport tarmac, and in urban heat islands. This is backed up by the 2011 GAO report spurred by my work............................."
Years ago we talked about those old weather reporting sites - and just where they were located. Watts has a .pdf link to to his report in the above paragraph.
So the government spends millions building new state of the art weather reporting stations - and then doesn't use the data because it doesn't fit the liberal template.
Inflexible Six
08-10-2012, 06:56
...So the government spends millions building new state of the art weather reporting stations - and then doesn't use the data because it doesn't fit the liberal template.
Not only that, sir, but they've also expanded their template options (and you may have heard this before) by including data from Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other gentlemen of that era--and before--who occasionally recorded weather observations. So they now have centuries of inexact data from which to pick & choose the numbers that suit them.
Michael Crichton's State of Fear opened my eyes to the extent of the duplicity in the Global Warming "industry," the trillions of dollars at stake, the pressure and intimidation brought to bear on any professional scientist who dares to rock the boat. And of course tax-free donations and government grant money increase proportionately to the amount of fear they can generate.
Dozer523
08-10-2012, 08:21
I don't need a template or an agenda to notice it is hotter and and dryer here in centeral Illinois. Nor do I need NOAA to tell me thousands of acres of corn are withering in the fields. I drive a lot.
And the farmers were prety happy a few months ago -- they got the crop in really early this year. This was supposed to be harvest time not plow under time.
Does any one have that report the Koch bros. commissioned to prove global warming doesn't exist? Their credentials are Unquestionable!:eek:
I don't need a template or an agenda to notice it is hotter and and dryer here in centeral Illinois. Nor do I need NOAA to tell me thousands of acres of corn are withering in the fields. I drive a lot.
And the farmers were prety happy a few months ago -- they got the crop in really early this year. This was supposed to be harvest time not plow under time.
Nor here. The corn is fried just like last year. However my electrical usage is down 12% from this period last year.
Does any one have that report the Koch bros. commissioned to prove global warming doesn't exist? Their credentials are Unquestionable!:eek:
You can't get a straight answer out of either side of the issue because there is Big money and Big profits involved.
vorticity
08-10-2012, 10:49
Breaking my 'grey-man' lurker status because I actually may have something to contribute to the conversation for once.
Respectfully to QP Pete, Andrew Watts' blog is well-known among climate scientists, and usually can be counted on to 'interpret' data in whatever manner supports his hypothesis that climate change is a.) not influenced by human activity, or b.) not that serious. And using 114 disparate stations over the CONUS to compute a national temperature average, and finding that that average is less than an average computed using a *different* set of disparate stations, isn't all that interesting. He could have easily computed that the USCRN data had a *higher* average temperature, and it also wouldn't mean anything - when you compare stations against each other, you're folding in additional information about location, instrument type and calibration, etc. into the measurement, and that gives you a larger error bar, and differences between the USCRN average and the other average is certainly within that error bar.
What's more useful is an anomaly record for each station - comparing this July's temperature record against all July records measured by that station. Because you're only comparing the station against itself, you don't have to account for differences in sensors, etc. - it's a straight difference comparison, which you can then map out. That's how climate records are measured - not by lumping stations in Wisconsin with stations in Arizona, but by comparing the differences noted by the stations in Wisconsin and Arizona against their own history. You can then take those local anomalies, map them into different regions (national, by state, by county, etc.) and rank them in terms of their anomalies. NCDC has such maps online, and they can be found at:
NCDC Climate Maps - July 2012 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps.php?submitted=true&year=2012&month=7&imgs[]=Nationaltrank&imgs[]=Nationalprank&imgs[]=Regionaltrank&imgs[]=Regionalprank&imgs[]=Statewidetrank&imgs[]=Statewideprank&imgs[]=Divisionaltrank&imgs[]=Divisionalprank&ts=1#maps)
There are a lot of questions to resolve about climate and climate change, but the notion that July wasn't the hottest on record for much of the country simply isn't borne out by the data, when making a fair comparison. Hope that's a useful analysis.
mark46th
08-10-2012, 11:16
You know the whole thing stinks when the name had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". The weather is dynamic. It pukes and farts at will. It always has, it always will and you have to be conceited to think that the human race has that much influence....
Breaking my 'grey-man' lurker status because I actually may have something to contribute to the conversation for once.........
So bottom line up front in your contribution is the government using - and putting out - data from the new stations or the old stations?
vorticity
08-10-2012, 13:59
So bottom line up front in your contribution is the government using - and putting out - data from the new stations or the old stations?
The answer is 'yes': data from both the new and old stations are being used - the USCRN webpage has a pretty good description of how they're being used online at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/programoverview.html
Their data is also publicly available on that website as well.
To answer your 'old vs new' question, the USCRN was built to be the 'gold standard' for climate observations; because they were recently installed, they can't really be used to authoritatively detect meaningful climate anomalies yet. (In other words, the USCRN can't really say it was the hottest July ever if they've only been around for ten or so Julys.)
In the meantime, they can be used as a 'calibration' reference for the current surface network (old data), correcting the well-known issues in station records (siting issues, etc.) So they use the 'new' data to improve the quality issues in the 'old' data, while using the 'old' data to detect trends (hot months, etc.) If the 'old' stations have a bias of a degree or so, that can be corrected by using the 'new' data, but the trend will remain, with the magnitude adjusted according to guidance from the 'new' data.
Either way, a 'national average temperature' is a sketchy number to hang a hat on, especially when you're not comparing like datasets. If the COOP number is biased high, then the USCRN data will correct for that, but as I say, the trend will remain. Hope that helps clarify things somewhat.
So in other words since the 1930's data was taken out in fields and the new "old" data is next to a runway showing increased temps and the data from the "new" new stations is showing cooler temps then the old "new" stations - thats proof of AGW?
You guys wake me up when the Vikings move back to Greenland.
I think real sientists have pretty well nailed down that for the last few thousand years the earth's temp has varied by more than a few degrees.
Interesting that some of the high points in civilization matched pretty well to the high points in temp. Hmmmm.
So would the many peoples of the earth be better off with a few degrees of warming - or of cooling?
Pretty high sun spot count today.
vorticity
08-10-2012, 14:41
So in other words since the 1930's data was taken out in fields and the new "old" data is next to a runway showing increased temps and the data from the "new" new stations is showing cooler temps then the old "new" stations - thats proof of AGW?
If the trend can be corrected in the manner described, and the trend is positive, it's evidence that the climate is warming, yes. Correcting the issues with the older record and preventing them for future observations is the purpose of the USCRN.
Respectfully, whether the trend is human-caused or not remains a separate issue, and is not an issue directly addressed by either myself or Watts.
You guys wake me up when the Vikings move back to Greenland.
I think real sientists have pretty well nailed down that for the last few thousand years the earth's temp has varied by more than a few degrees.
That's also correct, and accurately detecting that variation is part of the plan. We're coming out of a cold era if you look at the long-term (> 500 000 year) record, and we're topping out higher than the ice core record would suggest. I think there's no disagreement about that, either from 'real' scientists or otherwise.
Interesting that some of the high points in civilization matched pretty well to the high points in temp. Hmmmm.
So would the many peoples of the earth be better off with a few degrees of warming - or of cooling?
Again, respectfully, that's not an issue either Watts or I address. Ideally, that's a policy issue to be decided by government, using the most accurate observations possible. MOO, quasi-scientific 'analysis' by folk like Watts muddy, rather than clarify, that issue.
I'm happy to give you the last word, since this is your house, not mine. Before I retire to my corner (or get my figurative ruck thrown down the hall) I hope that the links I've provided will at least help defuse the notion that NOAA or other climate scientists are engaged in a large-scale conspiracy theory - the process of making accurate observations, and correcting long-term datasets, is subtly precise, more than a little arcane at times, and very susceptible to creative interpretation from uninvolved parties on both sides of the political fence. The latter is what I saw from Watts' blog, and I sought only to clarify the commentary on the data record as stated.
If.....Again, respectfully, that's not an issue either Watts or I address. Ideally, that's a policy issue to be decided by government, using the most accurate observations possible. MOO, quasi-scientific 'analysis' by folk like Watts muddy, rather than clarify, that issue. .......
Not so I think.
I think it looks more like - Well, we have really good long term data from this stations - even though they report higher temps - we'll just keep using them - because - well - we've been using them a long time.
The longer you use bad data the more you can bend the Hockey Stick.
Government decides? Come on quit kidding around. This whole thread is about what government thinks - and government is in the tank for AGW.
Peregrino
08-10-2012, 20:45
vorticity - Thank you for attempting to clarify something that most non-scientists don't understand and that vested interests have worked diligently to make even more obscure/less accessible to the average person. I've been paying attention to weather since Boy Scout days and while I don't claim a farmer's or sailor's command of the practicalities, I do have a decent understanding of the science. IMNSHO AGW is BS - of the "make some people filthy rich" variety. I'm firmly in Pete's camp WRT warmer periods in global history - civilization can flourish a lot better with a couple degrees increase than it can with the same % of decrease. And that is just from purely natural cycles. NTM (ancient) Egyptian fashions are much more esthetic than (Ice Age) Inuit ones.
So in other words since the 1930's data was taken out in fields and the new "old" data is next to a runway showing increased temps and the data from the "new" new stations is showing cooler temps then the old "new" stations - thats proof of AGW?
LOL! Common sense would should tell you it is going to be substantially warmer next to a road with no trees or foliage. Urban areas will likely be warmer than rural areas for the same reason.
I wonder what the temp readings are in, around and above a solar panel farm?
Solar flares may also be a factor in temps:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/09/sun-erupts-with-strongest-summer-solar-flare-yet/
And there is a possibility that the rotation of the earth has changed.....which may change where the sun hits, which might equate to a moving of the equator line.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rotattion+of+the+earth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=8aW&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=rotation+of+the+earth+changes&oq=rotation+of+the+earth+changes&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l2.43217.47444.0.47599.9.9 .0.0.0.0.159.1031.0j9.9.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.m3AFB9L JOVw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=69e57d2f89da56b8&biw=1360&bih=608
Wind mills, Solar panels and Cars with batteries with caustic acids aren't going to save mother earth....but they will make some rich.
vorticity
08-11-2012, 09:51
LOL! Common sense would should tell you it is going to be substantially warmer next to a road with no trees or foliage. Urban areas will likely be warmer than rural areas for the same reason.
That's what the USCRN network is correcting, and largely why the USCRN-derived mean temperature is lower than the older COOP-derived number. That doesn't mean that July wasn't still the hottest month on record for a lot of the country - it just changes what the hottest number is.
Solar flares may also be a factor in temps:
And there is a possibility that the rotation of the earth has changed.....which may change where the sun hits, which might equate to a moving of the equator line.
Solar and orbital changes are included in the estimate of climate change, with a computed impact of around 0.12 W/m2. Anthropogenic impacts are computed to be 1.6 W/m2, out of a total signal of ~3 W/m2. So solar affects are absolutely important, but they're coming in third behind human and Earthbound components of climate change.
Wind mills, Solar panels and Cars with batteries with caustic acids aren't going to save mother earth....but they will make some rich.
That's one camp attempting to manipulate the conversation. I think you'll agree that the petroleum and coal industries also make some rich, and they have just as much motivation to manipulate as the 'greenies' do. The Watts blog post falls in this camp, IMHO.
...... So solar affects are absolutely important, but they're coming in third behind human and Earthbound components of climate change. ......................
You were doing pretty good until you slid into the human componet.
So go over how humans were responsible for the previous warm periods.
Romans had SUVs?
We need a Poindexter forum.
You were doing pretty good until you slid into the human componet.
So go over how humans were responsible for the previous warm periods.
Romans had SUVs?
I don't think they know, but it is easy to blame things we understand, in this case...humans...oil...CFC's...cow farts...and market it ( a Profit Scheme) to the public under the guise of Public Safety or Ecological Disaster.
Snake Oil at his finest.
That is not to say there isn't a problem...but the Guru's and TPTB appear more interested in agendas, making profits through schemes and have little interest in truly addressing any 'REAL' problems.
vorticity
08-11-2012, 10:52
You were doing pretty good until you slid into the human componet.
So go over how humans were responsible for the previous warm periods.
Romans had SUVs?
Again, respectfully, you can surely understand that humans don't have to be responsible for every warming trend just because they have a part in the current one.
Climate is constantly changing, and there have been many warming and cooling episodes in the history of the planet. We are in a natural warming trend right now. We are also putting radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, and we can measure the radiative impact of those gases. The result of that is that, because of our activities, we are simply adding a little more warming to the natural trend. This is seen in the magnitude of the current warming trend, which is warmer than other warming periods. We know what kinds of forcings could create that kind of warming. And we have a pretty good handle on what those numbers are - it's not all wonky surface data that this is coming from, not by a long shot.
The numbers are what the numbers are. What we do with that information is completely a separate issue. Science cannot (and IMHO should not) dictate economic or social policy. Economic and social policy can and will dictate the direction of scientific research, but they shouldn't dictate the *results* or subjectively interpret them.
I'll be happy to continue offline in PMs, since anything else I'll have to offer to this thread will likely get bogged down in more arcane details. You guys are a tough crowd, but a manifestly polite one, and it's been fun.
Again, respectfully, you can surely understand that humans don't have to be responsible for every warming trend just because they have a part in the current one. ..........................
So you believe humans are responsible for this period of GW - and that we can stop it or slow it by trading Carbon Credits through Al-Gore's Bank?
And all this is based on data? Data that you admit is being twisted by the believers as well as the non-believers.
So while I can believe that we are in a slight warming period that has followed other ups and downs - and the yearly figures will vary here and there.
How many cycles of "We're all going to be dead in 10 years" have we gone through? We're in our third one at least I think.
Now if you go off in the direction of "We're over fishing the seas" you'll probably get more agreement here.
Last hard class
08-11-2012, 12:18
Personally, I don’t think the actual answer is material yet. We are short term thinking creatures. If we knew for sure this would cause the world to end in 200 years, we would wait about 190 years until we got serious about fixing it.
The majority of American politics is just a tool for one group to gain an advantage (wealth, power, ect.) over another group. This issue is all about money, big money, huge money. Suppose that humans are exacerbating the warming trend. This would mean drill here, drill now is really just kicking the can down the road. That realization might require a fundamental restructuring of the energy, automobile and other VOC producing industries as we know them.
This is not unlike the tobacco issue 40 years ago. Prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that cigarettes are bad for you. Until then, smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. The energy industry and everyone who benefits from the current system will muddy the water and drag their heels until they have maximized the profits regardless of any actual scientific findings.
Ultimately though, it will be economics that will win the day. Not until it costs less to produce clean energy than fossil fuel energy will any real changes be made. I predict when that day comes we will suddenly uncover irrefutable proof that humans have been contributing to this warming trend.
LHC
vorticity
08-11-2012, 12:26
So you believe humans are responsible for this period of GW
Partially, and I've even given the numbers to denote what fraction the human contribution is.
and that we can stop it or slow it by trading Carbon Credits through Al-Gore's Bank?
Separate issue, and not really, no.
The CO2 that's in the atmosphere is there to stay. We're good for ~1.5 degrees of warming no matter what we do - further CO2 emissions put us in the 2-8 degree warming range. Limiting CO2 emissions puts us in the lower part of the range, but given economic, social, and technological concerns, I'll hazard a guess that we'll end up in the 3-4 degree range, ultimately. The economic and social concern will ultimately determine our response to climate change, balancing the cost of both managing climate-related impacts (rising sea level, agriculture changes, etc.) and disruption in energy production and societal concerns to minimize the overall cost.
And all this is based on data? Data that you admit is being twisted by the believers as well as the non-believers.
The data's only being twisted through interpretation in the media and online - the data itself is trustworthy insofar as it's also as good as we can make it.
So while I can believe that we are in a slight warming period that has followed other ups and downs - and the yearly figures will vary here and there.
How many cycles of "We're all going to be dead in 10 years" have we gone through? We're in our third one at least I think.
One thing you and I will agree 100% on is that alarmism isn't helping. To a large extent, the overextension of the environmental movement in the 90s coopted climate science, and the inevitable backlash against the greenies has caught up legitimate science as well.
Now if you go off in the direction of "We're over fishing the seas" you'll probably get more agreement here.
Certainly, but I don't know anything about fish. :D
And QP Dusty, if there is a Poindexter thread that I've missed, I'll be happy to stay in that lane. :lifter
GratefulCitizen
08-11-2012, 19:00
The atmosphere contains ~.0012% of the Earth's carbon.
More than 99.9% is found in sediments, mainly limestone.
The rest is found in the oceans, coal, hydrocarbons, and life forms.
Do AGW advocates have an explanation for the carbon distribution, carbon cycle, or the origin of limestone?
Not sure why so much economic control should be turned over given the severe uncertainties involved.
Inflexible Six
08-11-2012, 19:50
I don't know what's true or false, I just know I don't respond well to hysteria, to people telling me the world is going to end if I don't by a $50,000 electric car that needs a 24 hour recharge every 40 miles. The world economy is based on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels ships don't sail, planes don't fly, trucks don't deliver, nothing moves. Solar power is impractical. Wind power is impractical. It may be decades before fusion power becomes practical. Frakking for natural gas is practical but environmentalists don't want to talk about it. Americans are not going to go out and buy Chevy Volts just because environmentalists and climate change advocates run around hysterically. And right now, the PRC is the biggest polluter on the planet and they don't seem to be paying much attention to Al Gore or any of the other harbingers of doom. So when you get right down to it, it doesn't really matter jackscratch what's causing what if nobody can do anything about it either way. And right now all they can do is talk. I got my sunglasses, I got my sunscreen, I got my A/C. Wake me up when somebody figures it out.
I don't know what's true or false, I just know I don't respond well to hysteria, to people telling me the world is going to end if I don't by a $50,000 electric car that needs a 24 hour recharge every 40 miles. The world economy is based on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels ships don't sail, planes don't fly, trucks don't deliver, nothing moves. Solar power is impractical. Wind power is impractical. It may be decades before fusion power becomes practical. Frakking for natural gas is practical but environmentalists don't want to talk about it. Americans are not going to go out and buy Chevy Volts just because environmentalists and climate change advocates run around hysterically. And right now, the PRC is the biggest polluter on the planet and they don't seem to be paying much attention to Al Gore or any of the other harbingers of doom. So when you get right down to it, it doesn't really matter jackscratch what's causing what if nobody can do anything about it either way. And right now all they can do is talk. I got my sunglasses, I got my sunscreen, I got my A/C. Wake me up when somebody figures it out.
Keep in mind this is not the first go around with alternative energy sources. Back in the 70's my Radical Left Wing Uncle went on a binge buying electric weed eaters, electric chain saws, trimmers, B&D electric push mowers, the GE Elec-Trac Riding Mower and huge investment in Solar based heating and hot water for the apartment complex. And then, like now the Government helped subsidize the effort.
Like Obama, my Uncle was going to bring down the Petroleum and the Utilities Cartels......and for me and everyone else involved it was a nightmare that lasted 2-3 years.
Then and now, none was robust enough to compete with Coal, Natural Gas and Petroleum.
AngelsSix
08-12-2012, 06:30
An almanac, heard of it? We've had some comparable summers, believe me. I think what people have failed to realize (someone here probably already said it thought) is that the human factor HAS changed things, which could have resulted in some of the changes in weather patterns, but not all of them. Things like hurricanes and tornadoes, those are truly unpredictable. But what about all the concrete and asphalt we have laid down across the planet? I know that isn't making the corn wither, but what if all the covering up of the soil has something to do with things now? There has got to be more heat being absorbed by the earths surface now than 200 years ago. How does that factor in? Let's not even get started about the trees....:D
longrange1947
08-12-2012, 08:23
I am still trying to figure out when they stopped predicting a "New Ice Age" and went to Global Warming due to man made emmisions.
How many of you Fogs remember that as the initial scare tactic? :munchin
I am firmly in the "Mother Nature has cycles" camp. Take a look at some of the old ports that are now a mile from the water. Others are flooded. It is a cycle. We puny humans have little affects on the effects. (Grammar Nazis did I reverse that????) To imagine we are making this big of a change is right arrogant I do believe. Unless you include reading temps at heat sinks. :)
Ambush Master
08-12-2012, 09:04
He puts all of this into a perspective that you can't help but agree with!! RIP George!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0
Later
Martin
I am still trying to figure out when they stopped predicting a "New Ice Age" and went to Global Warming due to man made emmisions.
How many of you Fogs remember that as the initial scare tactic? :munchin
All this time I thought my old man was kidding when he said people actually read that particular magazine for the articles.
He puts all of this into a perspective that you can't help but agree with!! RIP George!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0
Later
Martin
Thanks for that.
Lol, Carlin was a comic genius. Fully realizing that Carlin might not have been everyone's cup of tea - IMO his often irreverent brand of humor and his particular ability to tell an entertaining story is missed.
IMO, his particular point about arrogance in this particular bit was right on target.
During his career, he probably pissed off folks on both sides of the aisle (more than once) at one time or another. RIP George.
Time for a quiz.
Global climatic change is:
a result of the effects of unknowingly sustainable levels of increasing population growth combined with growing fossil fuel use, urbanization, and industrialization.
Yugos and Trabis and SUVs...oh, my!
natural adjustments to the Universe related to what the so-called Founding Fathers termed "Nature's Laws and the God of Nature".
a mythological fall from grace by magically appearing disobedient humans created in the image of some never seen entity.
George W Bush's fault.
Barrack H Obama's fault.
a {insert conspiracy of choice} to control the World.
a fact Jack!
another $19.95 Home Shopping Network bargain.
known to those who are certain they know but unknown to those who don't know or aren't sure.
yet to be determined.
none of the above.
some of the above.
death from above!
all of the above.
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
Inflexible Six
08-12-2012, 11:43
Default setting for everything bad since '08 is George W. Bush
Time for a quiz.
Global climatic change is:
a result of the effects of unknowingly sustainable levels of increasing population growth combined with growing fossil fuel use, urbanization, and industrialization.
Yugos and Trabis and SUVs...oh, my!
natural adjustments to the Universe related to what the so-called Founding Fathers termed "Nature's Laws and the God of Nature".
a mythological fall from grace by magically appearing disobedient humans created in the image of some never seen entity.
George W Bush's fault.
Barrack H Obama's fault.
a {insert conspiracy of choice} to control the World.
a fact Jack!
another $19.95 Home Shopping Network bargain.
known to those who are certain they know but unknown to those who don't know or aren't sure.
yet to be determined.
none of the above.
some of the above.
death from above!
all of the above.
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchinBut...for #15 to be true, then none of the answers are correct!
But...for #15 to be true, then none of the answers are correct!
Depends on whether or not you took your meds before the quiz and they had a chance to kick in so you'd know that #15 was actually #12 and #12 was actually #15 IAW #10! :D
Team Sergeant
08-12-2012, 12:19
The earth has been around for a few billion years and humans have been keeping accurate weather data for maybe a few hundred years. It was also thought the world was flat just a few hundred years ago about the same time humans enjoyed burning witches.
I smile every time humans buy into something like global warming, even funnier when a small few stand to make billions, maybe trillions off of stupid humans.
On the up side it does make it easier for me to understand how & why lemmings will run off a cliff to their deaths.
Maybe we should try burning politicians...
Team Sergeant
08-12-2012, 12:29
I like the way you think......;)
longrange1947
08-12-2012, 12:46
All this time I thought my old man was kidding when he said people actually read that particular magazine for the articles.
And what mag are you referring to since I am referring to the BS that was first put out that man made pollutions will cause the same as a nuclear winter. When that could not be supported they went to Global Warming, now it is Climate Change as I guess we are back to a possible global freeze with climate change and the ocean conveyor. Whatever.
And what mag are you referring ......
National Geographic I would think.
I used to love reading it in the 80's and 90's.
But for the last number of years it seems to be the monthly AGW rag. Gets harder and harder to send in my renewal each year.
The ice cover satellites have only been up a few decades but they are "GOD" when it comes to long term ice cover. From the limited years of records it appears "they" hand picked the years that would be the average - of course they would say "they" didn't. So 2007 was the lowest year - remember the hype then? This year looks to be pretty close so look for the "we're all going to die" come September - and "Ice has never been so low".
Of course every now and again some old journal pops up with detailed logs where folks were sailing over 100 years and more ago. Surprise, Surprise.
Makes me wonder if there are more MSM reports and "coverage" of these supposed GW trends during the hot summer months. I'm not sure if I recall all that much hype about GW during winter months.
Then I have to ask where these data stations are located. Are there any in places like Alaska, Greenland, Churchill Canada, Siberia?
In places where there are noticable season changes, it will be warmer in the summer, colder in the winter. In places where there is little climate change, any changes at all will hardly be noticable.
One thing I know for certain is it is really hot right now here in Texas, and it will probably be really cold in winter. We might even get a bunch of ice when it rains and freezes, and maybe even some snow. I'll have two to three layers of cloths when I'm outside, and asking where all the GW is now.
Badger52
08-12-2012, 14:50
I am still trying to figure out when they stopped predicting a "New Ice Age" and went to Global Warming due to man made emmisions.
How many of you Fogs remember that as the initial scare tactic? :munchin
Remembered most clearly; plan B was that MAD would favor no survivor because the planet would spin off its orbit, friction (friction?) would burn it up, and then it would get really cold (with no one around to notice).
It's been a hot couple of months up here, some nice rains now every few days. Looks like some of the crops'll do alright and many got a few hay cuttings in and meanwhile there's still alot of meteorological horsehockey to shovel.
I like MR2's idea; Kingsford briquets or LP...?
ZonieDiver
08-12-2012, 20:36
Time for a quiz.
Global climatic change is:
a result of the effects of unknowingly sustainable levels of increasing population growth combined with growing fossil fuel use, urbanization, and industrialization.
Yugos and Trabis and SUVs...oh, my!
natural adjustments to the Universe related to what the so-called Founding Fathers termed "Nature's Laws and the God of Nature".
a mythological fall from grace by magically appearing disobedient humans created in the image of some never seen entity.
George W Bush's fault.
Barrack H Obama's fault.
a {insert conspiracy of choice} to control the World.
a fact Jack!
another $19.95 Home Shopping Network bargain.
known to those who are certain they know but unknown to those who don't know or aren't sure.
yet to be determined.
none of the above.
some of the above.
death from above!
all of the above.
And so it goes...:rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
You didn't tell us there'd be a test! This isn't fair. I didn't have a chance to study. Can I retake it if I get a bad grade? You're the meanest teacher in school! I'm not kidding! All the kids say so.:D
Personally, this "warming" has been going on at least since 1945 or so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IUDNMlKW1U
ARB looks at reducing 'cap and trade' burden on businesses
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/13/4720127/arb-looks-at-reducing-cap-and.html#storylink=cpy
" Big business sees California's global-warming law as a job killer, a $1 billion tax that could force some of the state's heaviest industries to flee.
Now state regulators, trying to ease the burden, are studying whether to give hardship breaks to dozens of companies...................."
All to "save the planet". Let's see, the state is looking to ease the burden on some companies - do I read that as "Companies that contribute to Democratic coffers"?
Companies and speculators are buying already - thinking prices will go up in the future?
The whole "scam" had politician's sticky fingers all over it.
Think companies are going to pay this? Silly Boy, it's going to go straight through to the consumer - or the company will move if it can.
The Keys to the Climate Debate
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/08/the_keys_to_the_climate_debate.html
"Hardly anyone knows that two thirds of the warming predicted by the climate models comes from assumed changes in humidity and clouds, and only one third comes directly from the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.........."
An interesting article on the issue. The last few paragraphs are well worth the read.
I always found these debates to be interesting viewing and/or reading.
IQ2 Debate: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
http://crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part1.html
http://crichton-official.com/pdfs/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
04-07-2013, 18:25
Another inconvenient result...
The US is now the only nation in the world who has met their emission reduction targets set by the Kyoto climate treaty. Did I mention we never signed the treaty in the first place?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/co2_emissions_in_us_lowest_since_1994.html
Of course, the coal is just being exported to China.
At least there is less global warming here in the USA!
Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
"....Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere. ......"
That's the bottom line up front.
The rest of the article goes on to rant about "Don't worry about the above news - we're all going to die of global warming no mater what the data says."