Global Warming / Early Spring

I wish.  This is Rock Creek Lake, California, on May 20, 2010.  In a normal year our campground there would have been open a month ago.

Postscript:  Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments.  I understand.

  • Jay

    Its odd, isn’t it?

    NOAA claims that Jan-Apr 2010 world-wide is the warmest ever on record since 1880. They also claim Arctic sea ice coverage in April is 2% below average, but covers the largest area since 2001. NOAA claims China had their coolest April since 1961, while several Chinese cities reported record lows in April. In Dallas, Texas, we had more snow events this winter than I have ever seen in 50 years. We had the 5th coldest winter on record. We set a 2nd place record for the most day in a row below 90 at almost 180 days.

    Weather and climate are tremendously chaotic, each subject to billions of variables, the interactions of which which are poorly understood. The fact that there has been no measurable increase in the average global temperature (as stated by Dr. Jones himself in the recent CRU investigation hearings) in the past decade demonstrates the utter futility of creating computer programs and claiming they can model climate changes decades into the future.

  • ADiff

    Unless I’m mistaken my reading of NOAA’s pronouncement is based on surface measurements, a record for which good case has been made is badly off-track and might be considered less objective measurement than self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Perhaps you might consider larger black-top parking lots, concrete buildings and such. Then you might manage to open a bit earlier each season!

    And be sure to properly ‘adjust’ your thermometers….so potential visitors don’t get the wrong perception!

  • Waldbrrrrrr

    ****”Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments. I understand.”

    Soooooo…why did you even post this, Mr. Meyer?

    Is this more of Mr. Meyer’s “science?”

  • hunter

    “Postscript: Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments. I understand.”

    Quite obviously you don’t.

  • Waldter

    ***”Quite obviously you don’t.”

    No, I was just ignoring his directive. Besides, my post is not a lecture, it’s a question. I was simply asking why Mr. Meyer was posting something he knew to be incorrect or, more precisely, why he fell into the dumbassedness of posting something one knows is patently irresponsible to imply.

    Methinks it’s you who doesn’t understand, my friend.

  • papertiger

    Sacramento California. Normal temps for May 20th are 83 for a high and 55 for a low.
    Actual temps for May 20th, 2010 were 74 and 50.
    Same has been going on since March, inspite of NOAA claims of early spring and heat anomalys.

    Straight up fucking liars. Not even trying to hide the hot spot in a remote area anymore.

  • hunter

    Waldter – who was I quoting? Who, therefore, do you suppose my comment was directed at? It’s actually not hard to work these things out, with a moment’s thought.

  • mike

    Hunter and Waldter I have been reading this blog and your posts for a while but never before made a comment. I think you should both examine your motives and methods. In this case you have both been so desperate to attack Mr. Meyer that you managed to both miss his point and attack each other. Please understand that your approach does your cause huge damage in the eyes of people like me who are interested in this issue but not caught up in it.

  • Ben

    The point here is that we are told that 2010 is the warmest year ever by NOAA, and in evidence everywhere, its colder then a witches teet.

    Either the monitoring is off for some (still unexplained reason) or the data is being corrupted. Until this is explained, all temperature study should be suspect to scrutiny. Of course, this has been studied by climate “sceptics” much more then the main players who have funding, so one does have to wonder… “why is this reported when it is not explained”…

    And here is something to ponder…

    Is weather really not climate? Lets face it, climate today is the weather around the globe averaged over a long time period. And the fact that climate models attempt to predict weather in the future including everything from droughts to hurricanes is the worst hypocrisy ever. Then we hear about how April is the warmest month from our media stooges. Why not report about how cold it is in May or even March if you are going to do that?

    The fact is, the science has been compromised so much and differing opionions are thrown out so regularly that this is no longer questioned. Science will take years to recover from this. Instead of arguing terms, why not argue the logic and reason behind people’s ideas….

    Anything with weather in it is thrown out by the AGW croud simply because they have this what I would call fallacy that “weather is not climate.” But we do have to ask ourselves at some point, is this a real correct statement?

  • This is off topic but I have always wondered:

    The alarmists love to say “Climate change is much worse than we predicted”

    Since according to Phil Jones of CRU fame “There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years”

    When did they predict less than ZERO warming in the last 15 years ?

    Since all climate change depends upon warming, no warming no change ! Blaming cooling or staying the same on CO2 is mentally challenged.

    If they predicted less than zero warming they must have whispered it very quietly into a closet so no one would hear them. I have asked for citations but never got any.

  • Shills

    netdr,

    “There has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years”

    This does mean less then zero. I think Jones said it was actually pretty close to achieving significance; just below. So I think there was some warming just not quite enough to claim it statistically during that 15 years.

  • So a tiny amount of warming occurred. [Statistically insignificant]

    Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?

    Did they whisper their prediction into a closet ?

    Why should I be alarmed ?

  • AnonyMoose

    One week to Memorial Day Weekend!
    Relax, roll the grill out on the snow, and grill some burgers or chicken. Enjoy some tasty food even if you can’t eat it outside this year.

  • MrCannuckistan

    Weather is to climate as food is to health. Without weather there can be no climate. Without food there is no health. With good food and good weather we have good health and good climate. With bad food and bad weather we have poor health and poor climate. Define for yourselves what you consider good and bad weather.

    Around my parts we had a warm spell in late March or early April. People were making elevator small talk about the weather and how nice it was. People’s faces changed to the ‘deer in the headlights look’ when I retorted with, “Damn Global Warming.” Everyone hates cold weather and they love warm weather. Global warming is in conflict with that attitude.

    Lastly, I can’t see how more snow is not consistent with a warmer world. More water vapour may be consistent, but for the precipitation to fall as snow it must be cold(er). Otherwise the snow will just fall as rain. For areas to be getting colder and facilitating more snow is not consistent with a warming world.

    MrC

  • Waldorama

    ****”Waldter – who was I quoting? Who, therefore, do you suppose my comment was directed at? It’s actually not hard to work these things out, with a moment’s thought.”

    Oh sorry, you’re the hunter who takes the skeptics to task. Right. The other denier hunter usually posts inarticulate, inaccurate, poorly thought-out responses directed at anyone who dares to criticize the might Mr. Meyers. On preview, good post.

  • Drew

    mike – I think there was a misunderstanding there between Waldter and hunter. That’s pretty obvious to see so I’m not really sure how that misunderstanding relevant to any merit Mr. Meyer’s ‘argument.’ In fact, Mr. Meyer didn’t even make a point, he just blatantly skirted the issue which is “climate is not weather.” I suggest you re-analyze your motives and methods.

  • Drew

    Ben – Record temperature and other weather data are NOT broken far more often than they are. Yet it’s becoming increasingly more apparent that records are being broken much more frequently than they used to. Also, I just want to point out that Rock Creek Lake, California is in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. It’s gonna be cold there sometimes.

    “Some still unexplained reason?” Really? That is the best you’ve got. Not only can you not explain your reasoning, you’ve put it in parentheses, thus emphasizing your lack of understanding. Here’s a third option as to why NOAA has 2010 has the warmest year ever. Because it’s the warmest year ever. I’m far more inclined to believe NOAA’s statistical data than you’re gut feeling and terrible reasoning.

    All temperature studies ARE subject to scrutiny. That’s called peer-review. As for your claim that this topic has been studied much more by “climate deniers” than actual scientists is at best, laughable, and at worst, indicative of our culture’s hostility to expertise.

    No, weather is not climate. That is a fact by virtue of your own definitions and any reputable dictionary. You cannot draw the same conclusions from climatological data that you can from meteorological ones. Also, I fail to see the hypocrisy in climate modelling. Climate predictions are not the only objective of modelling.

    I totally disagree with you that science has in any way been compromised. However, the public’s understanding of science has been greatly compromised over the last few decades. You can’t argue with logic or reason if you don’t understand the terminology being used by climatologists. Case in point: You.

  • Waldo

    Hello Drew,

    My motive for posting is to counteract, as far as I am able in my limited capacity, the agitprop that is Climate Skeptic.

    Mr. Meyer and the CS tribe use a fair amount of propaganda and poorly reasoned, poorly researched (or un-researched) misinformation for the simple reason that they wish to discredit the climate science community, no matter how.

    There are, by the way, two “hunters.” Both are a bit reactionary. I was confused about which one I was talking to.

    I appreciate your post – very nicely put.

  • Fred from Canuckistan

    Waldo . . . spoken like a good little warmonger, like someone well versed in greenie, hairy-scary fear mongering of any weather event that supports the stupidity that is the anthropogenic global warming theory.

    So Warren uses “agitprop” eh ?

    What would you then call crapola like “An Inconvenient Truth” or incessant NYT headlines of rising seas, increased hurricanes & tornadoes and fading Arctic ice ?

    MEGA-SUPER-DUPER-BIGGEST-BADDEST-AGITPROP ?

    There is no need to try an discredit the global climate science community . . . they do it every day to themselves in spades. It is almost like they enjoy digging their own scientific & political graves every time the torture their data and publish their faked scientific papers, peer reviewed by their fellow travelers.

    Anybody who would trust anything written by Michael Mann or the rest of his ilk would likely trust bridge salesmen.

    But no worries . . the great scam is soon to be history. Even the UN is now saying climate change is not as big an issue as biodiversity. They are already trying to dream up the next great Fear & Scare campaign to take over, just like they invented AGW to pick up when The Population Bomb & The Club of Rome faded away under the barrage of truth & reality.

    But hey dude, if you still want to believe in AGW, to bow & scrape at the altar of St. Al Gore, to worship NOAA & the NASA/Hansen scammers, the Hockey Team, the East Anglia Tricksters, the IPCC Reports . . . well just fill your boots & enjoy it, wallow it, marry it for all anyone with more than two brain cells will care.

  • Walfred

    Why yes, Fred, I would lump Al Gore and his much-touted movie in with the whole charade which has become the global climate conversation. I suspect the infamous, inconvenient movie and the subsequent books are accurate, but they have ceased to work in the way they were intended and now appeal primarily to the opinionated and monolithic denier community as the focus of their myopic and reactionary worldview (and I always have to wonder if this is actually a blog about Al Gore and not climate science). I wish Al and Mr. Meyer would do the same thing, shut the hell up and let the scientists do their work.

    Which would be my same advice for you, but after reading your last post I know that would be a silly thing to suggest.

    How about this: everything you say is a generalized, unsupported exaggeration. The global climate science community has not necessarily been discredited among thinking people, and has only been discredited with the herds of sheep in the deniosphere because of agitprops such as the one I am now posting on and not because of science. And you are the gullible public that falls for it.

  • Fred from Canuckistan

    “I suspect the infamous, inconvenient movie and the subsequent books are accurate”

    ’nuff said.

  • Shills

    netdr,

    ‘Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?’

    No one made any predictions based on a 15 year time scale. It is too short. Something closer to 30 years is what the science uses to look at trends.

    That particular 15 years thing was just a skeptic’s cherry-pickin’ in a question posed to Jones, from what I understand.

  • Shills: wrote

    netdr,

    ‘Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?’

    No one made any predictions based on a 15 year time scale. It is too short. Something closer to 30 years is what the science uses to look at trends.

    That particular 15 years thing was just a skeptic’s cherry-pickin’ in a question posed to Jones, from what I understand.
    ***********************
    15 years is a good long time and it ends today which is the best time to assess the future. [With the most recent data]. Computer models predict that slight cooling will continue for another 20 to 30 years. You do believe in computer models don’t you ?

    Contact me then [in 30 years] and see if you still believe in CAGW!

    The reason I picked that particular cherry is because it is the most recent and it is backed by a true believer in global warming.

    I could easily have picked dozens of similar time periods but the most recent is the most important.

    It has long been argued that there is something “special” about the most recent warming, in fact the whole alarmist argument hangs on that premise but it is false.

    Here is another quote from Dr Jones:

    Question: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    Dr Phil Jones:” An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
    Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

    [This indicates that the recent warming is not exceptional. Moreover, even if it had been “exceptional,” that would not prove it is due to greenhouse gas emissions?]

    I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/#more-16418

  • Shills

    netdr,

    you say: ’15 years is a good long time and it ends today which is the best time to assess the future.

    15 years is too short, look it up. it even implies that in the Q n A.

    Those measures of prev. centuries might have other temp forces at work, like volcanoes, solar etc. Or inversely the more recent measures might be lacking known climate forcers like those mentioned. Those ideas are implied in the Q n A. However, none of this proves, disproves AGW.

    Don’t waste time cross examining an interview. Get some of your denier buddies together and submit a paper for peer review.

  • Waldlove

    These are also from the same BBC interview, netdr.

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    Lets look at that last point: “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

    In other words, one can cherry-pick any shorter period of time to say whatever one wants – either to indicate that the Earth is steaming into a hotbox or that the Earth is cooling significantly. As an engineer, netdr, you should know this. As a teacher you should know that any evaluation should take in the whole of as much available information as possible.

    Then there is always the question, who should we believe – a retired weatherman with a blog? Or a world renowned government scientist who actually works in the field? And once again we see Climate Skeptic informed by another blog with an axe to grind. So I find this Q&A to be particularly interesting:

    BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    And then there is always Shills’s suggestion to submit your findings to peer-review (perhaps you and Fred, netdr).

  • Waldohate

    BBC: Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?

    Jones: First, I am assuming again that you are referring to the surface record from both land and marine regions of the world, although in this answer as you specifically say “station” records, I will emphasise the land regions.

    There is more than one “official” surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good.

    Given the web-based availability of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which is used by both NCDC and GISS, anyone else can develop their own global temperature record from land stations.

    Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).

    The graphic in the link below shows that the global land temperature series from these 80% of stations (red line) replicates the analysis based on all 100% of stations (black line).

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/data-graphic.GIF

    The locations of the 80% of stations are shown on the next link in red. The stations we have yet to get agreement to release are shown in grey.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF

    I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.

  • GP Hanner

    For the past two winters the Hawaiian islands, especially Oahu and Kauai, have been experiencing lower than normal temperatures. One of the residents on the north side of Kauai told be they were having night time temperatures in the mid-50s. That’s cool when you don’t have a source of heat other than the sun.

  • How long of a time period is significant ?

    The thermometer was invented at the end of the Little Ice Age and it has gotten slightly hotter since then.

    Well DUH !

    If we go back 20,000 years or more we see that it has been much hotter and much colder. [BTW: did the polar bears tread water for hundred’s of years ?]

    Just picking the time since the end of the LIA is just “cherry picking”! In the grand scheme of things today’s temperatures are pretty normal.

    The original post said:

    “So a tiny amount of warming occurred. [Statistically insignificant]

    Where did they predict an even tinier amount of warming ?

    Did they whisper their non scary prediction into a closet ?

    Why should I be alarmed ?”

    Even if you double or triple the timescale there is still a trivial amount of warming even with the help of parking lots and UHI. The more recent warming is not confirmed by satellites. In fact with some admitted cherry picking I can show periods when satellites show cooling while ground stations show warming ! The more recent time periods show exactly that, which you would expect since there are no parking lots in space.[yet]

    Here are the predictions of 9 climate models stating in 1990

    http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/wpe6.gif?PHPSESSID=5bad55a0170f76d1bc284698bb3d4f35

    Here is the temperature data to evaluate them against.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

    As of 2009 :
    One model predicted no warming and is clearly the winner!

    The rest predicted between .25 and .75 o C warming.

    So the one predicting no change is clearly the winner

    The error of the others about 1000 %.

    My Ouija board can do better.

  • wally

    Shills,

    “15 years is too short, look it up. it even implies that in the Q n A.”

    There is no time peroid in which you are sure to acheive statistical signifigance. It depends on just how much warming or cooling is happing. If you saw 4 degrees of warming in 5 years, I’m sure it would be significant. Like wise if you saw .25 degrees of warming over 100 years it may also be significant. So its disingenuous to just say the time peroid is too short. The time peroid is only too short in combination with the warming. While it might be true that this amount of warming would be significant over just another 5 years, but you don’t have that data. In that amount of time it very well may cool to keep us in this statistically insignificant range.

    Saying something was nearly significant is fine, but implying its only because of the time peroid is not correct.

  • mbabbitt

    Our winter in the Pacific Northwest was a very warm one but we are now paying for it with May being one of the colder ones. Usually in May, we have some sunny streaks with a few mid 70’s and even a day or two touching the 80’s, but this month has been more like April than May with the temps in the low 60s if we were lucky; too many days in the 50’s. June is usually a disappointment in that we return to clouds and back to the upper 50’s and low 60’s. This year June could only be equal to May and perhaps even an improvement.

  • ADiff

    Very good cases have been made the surface temperature records significantly diverge from accuracy. This record is uniquely at odds with records of satellite and balloon temperatures over very long periods, suggesting there are issues with this record. In addition it appears, based on statistical analysis, that this record has been repeatedly subject to ‘adjustment’ that appears more an artifact of observation bias than correction. The same observation bias has apparently begun to creep into the latter two records as well, but not as dramatically and not as early as the surface record. The surface temperature record, especially, appears to very likely be suffering from the effect of a ‘we need to fix this because it doesn’t reflect what we KNOW it has to be’ thinking…..

    As is true of any Faith, if you look for evidence of your beliefs you will find it, one way or another….

  • Waldorama

    Wally, I think the point is that one can cherry-pick a smaller section of the overall temperature record to prove whatever one wants regardless of what the long-term record is indicating.

    netdr, you are an interesting character. You’ve now posted the same two graphics for a third time. If history repeats itself, you will now disappear (I posted a number of questions about your interpretation of the graphics once before…)

    And ADiff, where do you get your evidence? What “cases” are you posting about? Dr. Jones seems to disagree with you.

  • Shills

    @ Wally,

    You say: ‘There is no time peroid in which you are sure to acheive statistical signifigance.’

    Not what I’m saying.

    Basically, dido what Waldo just said. And check out a page on climate:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

    30 years is the time scale used mostly.

  • papertiger

    SacBee – Keep your sweater – and umbrella – within reach.

    The chilly weekend temperatures were among the coldest in more than a half-century from Redding to Stockton, the National Weather Service reported Sunday.

    Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/24/2771679/persistent-cold-wet-weather-stunts.html#ixzz0ou5skkBR

    Merced SunStar
    Cold weather isn’t imaginary … we’re setting records for late spring
    Low of 40 Saturday was coldest for Merced.

    KHSL TV 12 serving Chico, Redding, North State California
    The run of unusually cold and wet weather has put a damper on a previously bright almond forecast.

    Warren, how do you get all these Californian newspapers to play ball, reprinting your propaganda and such?

  • Justa Joe

    Since so called climate change doesn’t manifest itself in any change in the weather (as “climate isn’t weather”) then climate change is really nothing to worry about.

    I wish that the climate isn’t weather brigade were as vocal when the press was presenting every day with an above average temperature as proof of “global warming”.

  • Justa Waldo Tyger

    Well Tigre, on the other hand, worldwide this was one of the warmest winters on record:

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1842508/fifth_warmest_winter_on_record_worldwide/index.html

    Furthermore: “The NOAA reported in February that the past ten years have been the warmest period on record, surpassing the previous hottest decade — the 1990s — quite easily.”

    But you’d rather look at the local weather. Okay. Today it was 80 degrees by 8am in my neck of the woods. Is it possible that climate is not the same thing as weather? Hmmmm…

    And Joe:

    ****”I wish that the climate isn’t weather brigade were as vocal when the press was presenting every day with an above average temperature as proof of “global warming”.”

    Can you give us an example of this? Or were you simply exaggerating?

  • ADiff

    Just about every press mention of extreme weather in the past decade has touted a connection to Global Warming or Climate Change. Just a brief Google search makes it very clear that almost every note of any notable weather claimed connection or reference to such. And yet anything contradicting or calling into question such connections was almost universally ignored. An entire chapter in Climate of Extremes is dedicated to this phenomenon. Those begging strawmen be documented might make reference to the citations of that one source, perhaps to their personal edification, or at least enough to abjure rhetorical appeals to (referential) authority, especially on matters of speaker’s common knowledge. I watch the news and read the papers. So do others. They do not need references satisfactory to Trolls to legitimate their own first-hand knowledge, I would assume. But then I do not pretend to be arbiter of righteousness, as so so many in thrall to some ’cause’.

  • WaldoTiger

    By the same token, ADiff, a brief Google search will net countless stories about the CRU crisis or any number of supposed scandals or “proof” that AGW is a hoax or some such. So any victimization scenarios of the deniosphere are patently and provably silly.

    But that’s not really the point.

    The point is that Joe and his ilk routinely exaggerate these claims or simply make unsupported blanket statements like the ones above as if these were proven talking points.

    The bigger point is not what the media reports anyway – we know the media is going to get it wrong – but what does the science say?

    And this, “I do not pretend to be arbiter of righteousness,” is just plain BS, my friend. You are as righteous as anyone on these boards. You simply have gotten much more vague recently…maybe you’re tired.

  • ADiff

    Perhaps you should refer to the citations instead of just endlessly Trolling in service to your cause. Try the book I’ve recommended. You might actually learn something.

    If that’s possible. But I rather suspect you already know it all…..

  • Waldo

    What I was commenting on was the “bait and switch” tactic employed in the phrase “SLR [insert favorite metric here] will be much worse than we predicted.

    Using SLR as an example the reader thinks of the 20 foot SLR predicted by Al Gore and they think ” My god it will be even greater than that.”

    First problem “will be” — No it probably won’t be the model hasn’t been correct yet so why start now?

    Second problem treating a prediction like a fact. A prediction is a prediction and doubling it changes nothing. [except to make it more wrong]

    If the speaker had said SLR measurements are greater than what our models predicted that would have meaning, but they will never say it because all models are too high ALWAYS. A workmanlike set of models should bracket the truth some high some low but why are they always high ?

    SLR is 3 MM per year or 1 cigarette length in 30 years. Since 2006 there has been no SLR perhaps because there has been no warming.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  • papertiger

    “But you’d rather look at the local weather. Okay. Today it was 80 degrees by 8am in my neck of the woods. Is it possible that climate is not the same thing as weather? Hmmmm…”

    Congratu-fucking-lations on reaching average, dipshit.

    Why is it when Waldork makes something close to a declarative statement of fact, when you go to check it always ends up being a lie?
    Is it some sort of rule that global warmers have to be invariable liars?

  • hunter (the real one)

    papertiger,
    The answer would be ‘yes’.

  • Wally

    Shills, Waldo,

    30 years is no magical number. It may be that given typical year-year variation leads to stistical significance given the historical rates of change in GMT, but that doesn’t mean a 30 year window tells you anything terribly important. Look at the changes we see on the 1000 year time scale, even 100,000. And you’re gonna tell me you can’t also cherry pick a time scale on the order of 30+ years to mean what ever you want?

    This is exactly what climate scientists and the politicos that attach to did with the global warming scare. They also did the same thing 30 years ago or so with globabl cooling.

    So yeah, you’re exactly right, you can cherry pick just about anything you want out of short term climate changes, and that cuts to both sides of the debate.

  • Waldalakeshoredrive

    My heavens, Paperkitty, I didn’t make anything up – I simply posted a link that claims that ’09-’10 is the fifth warmest winter on record globally. So that’s a lie? Can you prove them wrong then? (If it is “a lie,” you can reveal it, right?) Interesting glimpse into your thinking there that, because the link does not conform to your faith (yes, the term applies to you), it must be a “lie.” (Sore loser) But rather than deal with it, you simply post another weather anomaly. This is particularly relevant because we all know that weather is not climate right? So the temperature in the Sierras might not be as significant as, oh I don’t know, the global temperature records?

    But that’s fine.

    I do have to wonder if there are changing weather patterns. If the planet’s climate is changing, isn’t one of the effects the change in weather patterns?

    How did netdr get onto SLR? And are you sure, netdr, that you read thost graphics correctly?

    So Wally,

    ****”you can cherry pick just about anything you want out of short term climate changes, and that cuts to both sides of the debate.”

    Then I guess the intelligent thing to do would be to look at the long-term weather record, correct? Then why haven’t you called out Lindzen for this tactic? Or Mr. Meyer? I always have to wonder why you are so critical of only one side of the debate. And if, as the scientists posit, the long-term weather indicates that our current weather is a unprecedented (and yest this includes the MWP etc), shouldn’t we be alarmed?

  • Justa Joe

    And Waldo:

    ****”I wish that the climate isn’t weather brigade were as vocal when the press was presenting every day with an above average temperature as proof of “global warming”.”

    “Can you give us an example of this? Or were you simply exaggerating?” -waldo

    Ding… ding… ding… Give that man a cupey doll. You figured out that I was exaggerating a bit. Your abhorrence of my exaggerating seems to be a tad mis-placed as the outlandish claim and the wild eyed exaggeration is the main tool of the CAGW industry. before you mindlessly demand an example you may want to consult http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    You want me to present an example of a hot day, a record hot day, or some extreme weather event as being presented as proof of AGW? I’m not going to acquiesce to your demand because everyone alive today have heard these types of reports. Heck I just got through listening to this crap from a purported climate “expert”. Listen to the guy with the glasses.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ0iDoZhLKk&feature=player_embedded

    I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t bastardize my name. We’re not friends, and I’d prefer to not have my name associated with climate crank-ism.Your tactic is to mindlessly nay-say everything. It’s clear.

  • Justa Joe

    I encourage you to continue to spout this month, year, decade… whatever is the hottest eva… blah… blah… blah! People are going to hear this and look around and notice that the temperature(s) aren’t anything extraordinary and dismiss your BS alarmism all the more rapidly.

  • hunter

    Justa Joe is right on target with this. The ‘highest levels evah!’ that are trumpeted are so trivial in nature and often so counter to reality as to make the catastrophic AGW promotion machine look more plainly like the chicken littles they are.
    John Maddox in ‘The Doomsday Syndrome’ pointed out the tradition of over stating risks threats and challenges by those misusing science to justify their positions.

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    “And if, as the scientists posit, the long-term weather indicates that our current weather is a unprecedented (and yest this includes the MWP etc)”

    This is a false statement, or at the very least something still uncertain. Can you show me unbiased and unadjusted data that rivals the MWP? How about the various warm periods ~100K years ago and more?

  • George

    I am coming to the conclusion that everyone, and I mean everyone, concerned with the Global Warming debate has a distorted concept of time and what “long-term” means, and I include all of the climate science professionals. Fifteen years, 100 years, 1000 years, whatever, these are not significant terms for determining trends. One famous climate scientist (frequently quoted on this blog) once called himself a “Paleoclimatologist” because he had looked at temperature proxies back as far as 1000 AD. Well, think of that! All the way back to 1000 AD! When he has reviewed temperature data (and violent storm data) for 5000 or 10000 years I will begin to listen to him. Yes, such data do exist, and they do not paint quite the picture the anthropogenistos want us to see.

  • Jason M. Nichols

    Hello,

    I find your theories very interesting. I’m trying to find some of your work in the scientific literature to incorporate into a literature dossier I am compiling to inform myself, and my colleagues, on climate issues. Could you please send me some of your peer-reviewed work describing how current models over-estimate CO2 sensitivity? I would be most interested in any alternate models you have published in peer-reviewed journals that account for recent trends relevant to climate change.

    Thank you for your time,
    Jason