Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DirtyThirdFrog

Chicago: Coldest 4 months on record

Recommended Posts

Really, the only scientist I can think of who could be accused, with some evidence, of pushing a political/financial agenda is Hansen. Most of the political conflation on the pro-AGW side has been due to Gore, who obviously isn't a scientist, despite inventing the interwebs. As I've said before, Gore was at the same time the best and worst thing that could have possibly happened to spurring action on AGW. Because while he lent an lot of visibility to it, he also single handedly convinced half the country that the whole thing is a liberal plot to wrest power.

Part of the problem is what is perceived as fear mongering by the climatology community is that some of the potential outcomes are pretty scary, but they are uncertain. And , I think, the success we've had in the past dealing with potentially scary technological developments have led to a sense of security by the general population that the potentially scary thing was never a problem in the first place. Overpopulation, acid rain, ozone depletion, Y2K, were all real and scary (and not completely gone as problems) but technology mitigated the problems. Hopefully, technology will mitigate the future problems associated with AGW. But we've got to get serious as a society in investing in that technology and developing the infrastructure for it, rather than having political pissing matches over whether it is a problem at all.

It's not the scientists who are corrupting the issue. By and large, they do their thing with noble intent. It's the various political, social and economic groups who are using the issue to further their own interests that cast doubt on whether or not we can trust the process.

This is a very complex issue. Perhaps too complex for the average citizen, who pays more attention to and relies upon dumbed-down media and PR propaganda than scientific studies. This is not a vaccine, whose results are easily measured.

The problem is that nobody has been able to effectively show "if we do X, Y will happen." I'm afraid it's going to be a stalemate until that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it is hubris to think we small ants can fundamentally change the course of the planets life cycle by burning fossil remnants of a bygone age.

Cyanobacteria is the reason why the atmosphere is 21% molecular oxygen. If it is hubris for us to think we can impact atmospheric climate, those blue-green algae pricks must be completely unbearable at dinner parties ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyanobacteria is the reason why the atmosphere is 28% molecular oxygen. If it is hubris for us to think we can impact atmospheric climate, those blue-green algae pricks must be completely unbearable at dinner parties ...

So that's why it's so miserable in Lubbock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much algae in Lubbock.

Well except for stock tank slime.

Craig James used to spend a lot of time out there ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One small ant can do little, but put 7 billion of them together, and they can move mountains.

Somebody famous said that.

I think.

Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant, but he's got high hopes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Fox has improved. In an analysis of 40 evening and night spots in 2012, Fox was found to have provided 37 inaccurate and 3 accurate reports on climate change. In 2013, in a different analysis whose methodology ought to be biasing the categorization procedure a bit more to the negative rather than less, Fox was found to have provided 36 inaccurate and 14 accurate reports. This difference--to the good--is significant at the .012 level (Fisher exact test, 1 sided).

 

That said, between the lower 48 contintental cold and the release of IPCC reports, the reporting Jan-Mar would likely show a bit of a backslide, I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much algae in Lubbock.

 

Well except for stock tank slime.

Well, Kliff will fix that, boy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News!

Note I said they were improving! They went from 91% inaccurate reports about climate to only 72% inaccurate reports about climate in only 1 year. That is both statistically and practically significant! They should be rewarded for this.

 

I haven't seen the results for Forbes and WSJ, but I doubt they show improvement and if anything went even closer to 100% inaccurate. Especially Forbes which seems especially vehement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas on the fire causes global warming...

 

It's all Saddam's fault.

 

Burning-oil-fields---resize.jpg

 

 

If we can get all of the Global Warming Alarmists to move into "Climate Controlled" cities and then let the non-believers have the rest of the Earth, I'm on board with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picture some dorky professor pointing to a graph and saying "well you see this here chart? That right there proves that global warming is real and is a threat. Never mind that the entire country spent all winter freezing their asses off and broke numerous records for cold and snow".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp. I'm a believer now!

Science!

Sounds like Newf wrote that. Or at least edited it.

 

 

I picture some dorky professor pointing to a graph and saying "well you see this here chart? That right there proves that global warming is real and is a threat. Never mind that the entire country spent all winter freezing their asses off and broke numerous records for cold and snow".

 

Masterful, logical, deep, scientifically informed, and statistically valid analyses there, I must say!

 

You even managed to provide a single fact. Of course that fact is a completely misleading, cherrypicked regional fact which implies a global result completely contrary to actual global observations. But, you know, that just kinda' happened by accident, I'm sure!

 

Here's your regional fact in context in pictures so that even a child might understand. Note how well your regional fact describes global reality. But hey, what's a little white lie among friends? It's just politics, after all. It's certainly not science...

 

nmaps.gif

nmaps_zonal.gif

 

 

Here's some science: When you burn a 6 pound gallon of gas you get how many pounds of CO2 "ashes"?

 

a. 3 pounds

b. 5 pounds

c. 11 pounds

d. 20 pounds

 

Easily solved with derision, words, and politics! Harder with math, observation, and scientific work. But oddly the second route gives a more solid answer and even the reasons why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp. I'm a believer now!

Science!

Sounds like Newf wrote that. Or at least edited it.

When you readily admit your own beliefs aren't falsifiable, then it really doesn't matter what the science or the dorky professor says, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you readily admit your own beliefs aren't falsifiable, then it really doesn't matter what the science or the dorky professor says, does it?

Actually, the expressed beliefs are of downright Nelsonian stature. Not that one, this one!...

 

simpsons_nelson_haha.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You guys are too smart for me...

 

But before I bow out. I leave you with this:

 

German Public Television seems to disagree with you. But like I said. I'm a naive, dumb, hick. The German's must be too.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

 

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/28/german-public-television-stuns-its-readers-concedes-medieval-warm-period-may-have-been-0-5c-warmer-than-today/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You guys are too smart for me...

 

But before I bow out. I leave you with this:

 

...

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

 

 

 

From this ref (which incidentally directly cites Mann's research as two of the lines--MBH1999 and MJ2003) you get the following summary: "In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years."

 

If someone told you this graph somehow disproves global warming and/or that there was a Medieval Warming Period that exhibits greater warming in either rate of increase or height of curve, well they told you wrong. It shows neither.  What you cited there is in fact the key "hockey stick" graph as updated in 2007 which is used as one of the fundamental legs of the evidence for AGW. 

 

That said, I think this graph is all or almost all NH as there simply is a dearth of data (and good sites) for doing this work in the SH. That limits the inferences you can make from it to some degree.

 

The TV graph I have no idea about. I'd suggest looking at original scientific sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...