Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

The UK is getting several places with 3 or 4 rainfall events in 15 years that were once in 100-200 years before this century. York, Cumbria and various places in the south west have had this sort of thing. Something is clearly happening with weather and climate here.

England has one of the longest, continuous weather records (Central England Temperatures) in existence. Look into it and don't be surprised when you find that what is happening is just your normal variation with a little extra warmth thanks to the end of the Little Ice Age (like no more Frost Fairs on the Thames...). The recent floods (for example) are mostly due to poor river management and letting drainage systems degrade because of green influence and EU regulations. Sad but true.

[johnu]

You are looking at daily records. You need to switch to all-time records. Seattle has not broken its all-time high this year. The record from 2009 still stands. 2018 has not been a particular hot year for the US. Some places have been hot, but that is true every year. The average temperature is increasing because lows are increasing. Highs are not.

 

I knew Dennison climate change deniers were low information (or no information) decision makers but this quantifies matters. You are willing to toss out 99.7% of the world's temperature data to try to make your case look better.

 

Suppose Seattle had a real crazy weather spell in January where every day topped 100F. If none of those days broke the highest temperature reading of all time for any day of the year, you are saying to ignore the significance of those days because it's just averages. Well done. I can see how this just confuses those Dennison climate change deniers.

 

My suggestion is to ignore temperatures from any year which is not a leap year divisible by 400 (ie, 1600, 2000, 2400, etc). This will greatly reduce the data for those who are being overwhelmed by numbers. You can now claim that we really only have 1 data point to work with, and should wait until 2400 or 2800 before trying to make conclusions about climate change.

[johnu]

Could the Dennison climate change deniers have something to think about?

 

Climate Researchers Warn Only Hope For Humanity Now Lies In Possibility They Making All Of This Up

 

For those unfamiliar with the Onion, it is a premiere satire site.

[Daniel1960]

I knew Dennison climate change deniers were low information (or no information) decision makers but this quantifies matters. You are willing to toss out 99.7% of the world's temperature data to try to make your case look better.

 

Suppose Seattle had a real crazy weather spell in January where every day topped 100F. If none of those days broke the highest temperature reading of all time for any day of the year, you are saying to ignore the significance of those days because it's just averages. Well done. I can see how this just confuses those Dennison climate change deniers.

 

My suggestion is to ignore temperatures from any year which is not a leap year divisible by 400 (ie, 1600, 2000, 2400, etc). This will greatly reduce the data for those who are being overwhelmed by numbers. You can now claim that we really only have 1 data point to work with, and should wait until 2400 or 2800 before trying to make conclusions about climate change.

 

Sorry for overestimating your scientific nature, but now I see you are just here to post misinformation and insult those with whom you disagree. What does your knowledge of leap year calculations have to do with temperatures.

 

I show real data that maximum temperatures have not risen, and you dismiss this because it only represents a single data point? Sorry, but the lack of new maximum temperatures clearly shows that summertime high temperatures have not risen. This is supported by many other lines of evidence. Even your previous misreading if the data shows a similar result. There are over 100,000 recording stations in the U.S. The hottest summers has several hundred to a thousand new all-time maximum records. Anything below 100 is a decrease, and the lower number you claim shows a greater decrease. Even the epa heat wave index, which shows an increase since the cooler 70s, shows that heat waves are much less than earlier years.

 

Some of us try to keep this site scientific in nature. Please try to follow suit.

[johnu]

Some of us try to keep this site scientific in nature. Please try to follow suit.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: Stop, you're killing me :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Cyberyeti]

England has one of the longest, continuous weather records (Central England Temperatures) in existence. Look into it and don't be surprised when you find that what is happening is just your normal variation with a little extra warmth thanks to the end of the Little Ice Age (like no more Frost Fairs on the Thames...). The recent floods (for example) are mostly due to poor river management and letting drainage systems degrade because of green influence and EU regulations. Sad but true.

 

That hasn't changed any more in the last 20 years than it did in the previous 20.

 

And I'm talking about the rainfall events more than the floods, when you're getting what has been the best part of a year's normal rainfall in 3 days, 4 times in 15 years, this is not normal.

[Daniel1960]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Stop, you're killing me :lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps you should take the words of MLK jr to heart, “nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.”

I would which you are following.

[hrothgar]

 

I show real data that maximum temperatures have not risen, and you dismiss this because it only represents a single data point? Sorry, but the lack of new maximum temperatures clearly shows that summertime high temperatures have not risen. This is supported by many other lines of evidence. Even your previous misreading if the data shows a similar result. There are over 100,000 recording stations in the U.S. The hottest summers has several hundred to a thousand new all-time maximum records. Anything below 100 is a decrease, and the lower number you claim shows a greater decrease. Even the epa heat wave index, which shows an increase since the cooler 70s, shows that heat waves are much less than earlier years.

 

Some of us try to keep this site scientific in nature. Please try to follow suit.

 

Here's a site the allows one to look at said recording stations

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

I just did a quick search on 7/16/2018 --> 8/15/2018

 

Claims that well over a thousand records were broken in this 30 day period alone

[Daniel1960]

Here's a site the allows one to look at said recording stations

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

I just did a quick search on 7/16/2018 --> 8/15/2018

 

Claims that well over a thousand records were broken in this 30 day period alone

 

Yes, 1024 new daily highs out of about 3 million potentials. That would be normal, if there were 300 years of temperature data at all reporting stations. Since there are much fewer, this is quite a lie value, indicating a decrease in new daily highs.

[hrothgar]

Yes, 1024 new daily highs out of about 3 million potentials. That would be normal, if there were 300 years of temperature data at all reporting stations. Since there are much fewer, this is quite a lie value, indicating a decrease in new daily highs.

 

Two posts back, there is a quote from you in which you directly assert

 

The hottest summers has several hundred to a thousand new all-time maximum records. Anything below 100 is a decrease, and the lower number you claim shows a greater decrease.

 

You're shifting goalposts

[johnu]

That hasn't changed any more in the last 20 years than it did in the previous 20.

 

And I'm talking about the rainfall events more than the floods, when you're getting what has been the best part of a year's normal rainfall in 3 days, 4 times in 15 years, this is not normal.

 

Are you going to believe your lying eyes, or believe the climate change deniers who tell you this is a random fluctuation?

 

For example, in the US, glaciers are disappearing at an increasing rate.

 

US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left

 

Climate change deniers will say there are just as many glaciers around as before, but some of them are taking a break and will be back real soon. I could give you a mathematical proof but it's "New" math so I can't.

[johnu]

What does your knowledge of leap year calculations have to do with temperatures.

 

I'm just trying to help you out by making your numbers look even better for the low information Dennison climate change deniers. You can run some numbers and post them on some client change denier forums and claim full credit with my compliments. Maybe somebody in Dennison's circle will take notice and offer you a job at NASA or NOAA to keep making those numbers up. If that happens, you don't even have to thank me. :P

[johnu]

Perhaps you should take the words of MLK jr to heart, “nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.”

I would which you are following.

 

I can tell you what I see from climate change deniers, and that is sincere stupidity, and conscientious ignorance.

[Al_U_Card]

Are you going to believe your lying eyes, or believe the climate change deniers who tell you this is a random fluctuation?

 

For example, in the US, glaciers are disappearing at an increasing rate.

 

US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left

 

Climate change deniers will say there are just as many glaciers around as before, but some of them are taking a break and will be back real soon. I could give you a mathematical proof but it's "New" math so I can't.

Did [CO2] cause their recent retreats the last couple of times prior to the advances in the 50s and 60s? Overall a bit less ice over the last 3 centuries due to natural warming with several coolings mixed in. Neither catastrophic nor even remarkable.

[Winstonm]

I can tell you what I see from climate change deniers, and that is sincere stupidity, and conscientious ignorance.

 

I think you are missing their point - their beef has nothing to do with climate. It is change they so adamantly despise because it means intervention in the "free markets".

[Al_U_Card]

I think you are missing their point - their beef has nothing to do with climate. It is change they so adamantly despise because it means intervention in the "free markets".

That is your deflection of the real issue, real science vs. pseudo-science.

 

CAGW alarmist: CO2 is going to overheat the world so we must tax and spend to reduce CO2 by radically altering our lifestyles to save the planet.

 

Skeptical real scientist: I have numerous real world measurements and analyses that disprove your hypothesis.

 

CAGW alarmist: Evil denier! Doom is nigh! Submit to the consensus.

 

Skeptical real scientist: Your theory is conjecture and your hypothesis relies on anecdotal information that is continuously being disproved.

 

CAGW alarmist: Most climatological modelers tell us that CO2 increase will fry the planet!

 

Skeptical real scientist: Those climate models are parameterized to use CO2 rise to equate to temperature rise. All other analyses point to other factors.

 

CAGW alarmist: Think of the children! Better to do anything rather than take a chance on it. Your heretical position means you must be in denial of reality!

 

Skeptical real scientist: Better to spend our $ and efforts on solving real problems by using the scientific method.

 

CAGW alarmist: 97% of people that care are afraid of .....

 

Skeptical real scientist: Oh dear...

[Daniel1960]

Two posts back, there is a quote from you in which you directly assert

 

 

 

You're shifting goalposts

 

Actually, no. We were discussing all-time maximum temperatures. You piped in about daily high temperatures, to which I responded. The only one shifting goalposts is you.

[johnu]

That is your deflection of the real issue, real science vs. pseudo-science.

 

CAGW alarmist: ...

 

Skeptical real scientist: ...

 

CAGW alarmist: ...

 

Skeptical real scientist: ...

 

CAGW alarmist: I have an advanced degree in climatology/meteorology/atmospheric science from one of the top universities in the country, and have spent my adult life working with other top scientists at the most prestigious universities, private foundations, or government agencies.

 

Skeptical real scientist: I read stuff on the internet on a government conspiracy website and I have a BS degree in Real Life from Dennison University. Oh, and somebody I frequently quote has a PhD from the very prestigious MIT and it doesn't matter that the degree was in theoretical math.

 

CAGW alarmist: We have done thousands of studies, laboratory tests, data analysis and projections, computer simulations and they tell us the global warming is a real problem and we need to do something now.

 

Skeptical real scientist: We are ignoring everything you have done because it doesn't agree with our beliefs. We will cherry pick the numbers to prove there is no global warming.

 

CAGW alarmist: Oh dear...

[johnu]

Actually, no. We were discussing all-time maximum temperatures. You piped in about daily high temperatures, to which I responded. The only one shifting goalposts is you.

 

Only a very low information Dennison climate change denier will fall for that ridiculous blowing up the goalposts and painting a picture of a tunnel on a sheer rock mountain face with a sign saying this way to the goalpost.

 

Let's go back to my Seattle example. A search says the maximum all time temperature was 103F set in 2009 (about 39.4C). Your climate change denier masters are telling you that if the all time temperature isn't increasing, there is no problem with global warming.

 

So by this so called logic, if every day in Seattle in the past year topped 100F but didn't break 103F, then there is nothing to worry about because there is no global warming. Now there are some people, including me, who would be totally alarmed that winter temperatures were 40 or 50 degrees higher than normal, but you are telling me "No problem, the temperature was less than 103F".

[Winstonm]

Only a very low information Dennison climate change denier will fall for that ridiculous blowing up the goalposts and painting a picture of a tunnel on a sheer rock mountain face with a sign saying this way to the goalpost.

 

Let's go back to my Seattle example. A search says the maximum all time temperature was 103F set in 2009 (about 39.4C). Your climate change denier masters are telling you that if the all time temperature isn't increasing, there is no problem with global warming.

 

So by this so called logic, if every day in Seattle in the past year topped 100F but didn't break 103F, then there is nothing to worry about because there is no global warming. Now there are some people, including me, who would be totally alarmed that winter temperatures were 40 or 50 degrees higher than normal, but you are telling me "No problem, the temperature was less than 103F".

 

Fortunately, Rudy Giuliani today cleared up your confusion: "Truth is not truth." B-)

[Daniel1960]

Here's a site the allows one to look at said recording stations

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

I just did a quick search on 7/16/2018 --> 8/15/2018

 

Claims that well over a thousand records were broken in this 30 day period alone

 

Statements of individual numbers without context can be meaningless. These records need to be compared to past numbers. From the same website, here are the daily new highs for past heat waves (June - Aug totals). For comparison, I also added two of the coldest summers recently (1967 and 2004)

 

2018: 2661 (thru 8/15)

2017: 3929

2016: 4732

2012: 9665

2007: 7813

2003: 7251

1995: 6313

1988: 17295

1980: 10195

1954: 9552

1940: 5499

1936: 18943

1934: 13964

 

2004: 2036

1967: 2438

 

As you can see, new daily high temperature records for 2018 are running closer to those of the colder years, than past heat waves. Temperature increases are not the result of hotter summer days. Rather, average temperature is increasing due to increases in nighttime lows and wintertime temperatures. These are more than offsetting the decline in summertime highs.

[Cyberyeti]

That is your deflection of the real issue, real science vs. pseudo-science.

 

CAGW alarmist: CO2 is going to overheat the world so we must tax and spend to reduce CO2 by radically altering our lifestyles to save the planet.

 

Skeptical real scientist: I have numerous real world measurements and analyses that disprove your hypothesis.

 

CAGW alarmist: Evil denier! Doom is nigh! Submit to the consensus.

 

Skeptical real scientist: Your theory is conjecture and your hypothesis relies on anecdotal information that is continuously being disproved.

 

CAGW alarmist: Most climatological modelers tell us that CO2 increase will fry the planet!

 

Skeptical real scientist: Those climate models are parameterized to use CO2 rise to equate to temperature rise. All other analyses point to other factors.

 

CAGW alarmist: Think of the children! Better to do anything rather than take a chance on it. Your heretical position means you must be in denial of reality!

 

Skeptical real scientist: Better to spend our $ and efforts on solving real problems by using the scientific method.

 

CAGW alarmist: 97% of people that care are afraid of .....

 

Skeptical real scientist: Oh dear...

 

This is laughable because there are many times as many equally well qualified scientists who believe in CAGW after doing their research, and also when you look at who funds the skeptics, it can usually be traced back to somebody with a vested interest in CO2 production somewhere. It all points to the same kind of denial associated with the health effects of smoking. From what I see, most of the "I know everything after looking at the internet" people are on the denial side.

 

My main question is as to why ANYBODY would want to cry wolf on this and create an unnecessary panic ? And what's in it for the governments that support this ? It would be much cheaper and easier for everybody to carry on as we are (till the oil runs out).

[Daniel1960]

This is laughable because there are many times as many equally well qualified scientists who believe in CAGW after doing their research, and also when you look at who funds the skeptics, it can usually be traced back to somebody with a vested interest in CO2 production somewhere. It all points to the same kind of denial associated with the health effects of smoking. From what I see, most of the "I know everything after looking at the internet" people are on the denial side.

 

My main question is as to why ANYBODY would want to cry wolf on this and create an unnecessary panic ? And what's in it for the governments that support this ? It would be much cheaper and easier for everybody to carry on as we are (till the oil runs out).

 

There are well qualified scientists on both sides of this debate. However, science is determined by the numbers in the data, not the number of scientists believing in thing or another. Also, the internet have people who know everything posting on both sides of this argument, and tend to be those posters on the extreme fringes. The funding claim works both ways.

 

A corollary to your is question, is why would anyone want to squelch something that is supposed to be such a catastrophe?

[hrothgar]

 

A corollary to your is question, is why would anyone want to squelch something that is supposed to be such a catastrophe?

 

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

 

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

[ldrews]

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

 

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

 

Could you provide a link to the evidence suggesting that correlation? Thank you.