3,000 Record Low Temperatures Set This July Across USA.
THREE THOUSAND chances to make a cheap dig at global warming, but I'm not gonna do it. Why? Because I now know that weather has nothing to do with climate and only a scientific ignoramus would come out with trashy, low-rent slogans like, "If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold, it's weather". So, I'm not gonna do it. Others might. Not me.
Why not?
Well, first, because this is a classy site.
And second, because I know that if, next summer, there are 3,000 record highs, the A-G Double-Uites are going to resist the temptation of making a connection between a hot summer and global warming, and, if some ignoramus from the MSM attempts to make such a connection, the AGWers are gonna be all over him.
And second, because I know that if, next summer, there are 3,000 record highs, the A-G Double-Uites are going to resist the temptation of making a connection between a hot summer and global warming, and, if some ignoramus from the MSM attempts to make such a connection, the AGWers are gonna be all over him.
You think I'm kidding? Let me illustrate. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, there's a whopping hurricane next year. I mean a Katrina of a hurricane. Do you think the AGWers would try to link this to AGW, or worse, make a video and try to profit from it? Of Course Not! Or, in the lingo of global warmers, "hockey sticks!".
And that's why I'm converting to the AGW camp.
Oh sure, skeptics are gonna ask, "Where's all this cold coming from when the earth has a fever and the planet's on fire?"
Obviously, all the extra heat in the atmosphere is displacing the cold and it has to go somewhere. Duh!
In fact, the colder it gets, the scarier global warming gets.
Hey -- I used global warming and scary in a sentence -- I AM a believer!
Cue the music (with apologees to the Monkees):
I thought planet Gore was just a fairy tale
Meant for someone else but not for me
Gore was out to get me
That's the way it seemed
"Inconvenient Truth" was just a dream.
Then I saw the slides, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
Ditch the gloves, I'm a believer!
Earth's got a fever, man, we're fried!
Doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo
I thought climate change was just a Western thing,
Made to make us all give up our cars
I thought climate change was just a Western thing,
Made to make us all give up our cars
What's the use in tryin? (doo-doo-doo-doo)
All you get is pain (doo-doo-doo-doo)
Change your bulbs but climate stays the same --
All you get is pain (doo-doo-doo-doo)
Change your bulbs but climate stays the same --
Then I saw the slides, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
Ditch those gloves, I'm a believer!
Earth's got a fever, man, we're fried.
(we're in deep)
Doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo
And that's the way the warming-up-to-global-warming Ball bounces.
21 comments:
Ball: "THREE THOUSAND chances to make a cheap dig at global warming, but I'm not gonna do it. Why? Because I now know that weather has nothing to do with climate..."
Wow - even when you (facetiously I'm assuming) ~try~ and get it right you fail miserably! It's like you're trying your very hardest to remain ignorant!
"I now know that weather has nothing to do with climate"
Not true. That "climate" and "weather" have different meanings does NOT mean that they have "nothing to do" with each other.
"Let's say, just for the sake of argument, there's a whopping hurricane next year. I mean a Katrina of a hurricane. Do you think the AGWers would try to link this to AGW, or worse, make a video and try to profit from it? Of Course Not!"
You clearly do not understand this topic - at all.
If there is a huge hurricane then that alone will NOT indicate climate change... but climate change might still be the reason for it. More factors than just one event go into determining if something is a result of climate change or just simply a blip in the weather.
Really - this is not difficult to understand... I don't see how you can keep getting this so terribly wrong RK!
Hey RK:
I just thought I'd pass this on to you. It's Richard Lindzen, Al Gore's worst nightmare, making a similar point as my NP column re: the missing hotspot.
Oh and I LOOOOOOVE Joe Agnost's comment. He's as incapable of dealing with sarcasm as he is of dealing with science.
I love how RK_ball cherry picks weather events and then claims that he's only being sarcastic or that 'the AGW cheerleaders do it so why can't I?' - like that excuse is valid beyond age 6!
Oh - and to Jerome: You're getting somewhere now, at least you spell "science" correctly... next stop: learning what it is. ;)
Joe Agnost:
The whole view of science by people like you - those who are in the AGW camp - is this: trust the UN.
If I was feeling more generous I would say your view of science is "trust the scientists", which is just as wrong but perhaps less mind-numbingly dumb.
But that doesnt work because clearly some scientists are on the other side, so your view of science is better stated as "trust the scientists who are on the side of the UN".
Here's a clue. The scientific method is this: formulate a theory, make a prediction based on the theory, test the prediction against observation. If they match, your theory lives another day, if they dont, revisit your theory.
There is a growing body of science which tests out the AGW theory and found it to be completely inadequate. In response, instead of revisiting the theory, the AGW scientists and the IPCC revisit the data.
This has happened in the case of the missing hotspot in the troposphere - a very important prediction of AGW theory which is not corroborated by data. But, hey no problem, just find all sorts of biases post-facto with the measuring equipment and claim the error margins are sufficient that the hotspot might be there (Santer et al).
Or you can claim rather ingenuously that the hotspot was not found by the rather silly method of using thermometers to measure temperatures, and we can get a much better idea of temperature by looking at wind patterns, and then claim that the error margins of your wind pattern data is large enough so that the hotspot might be there - yes really (Sherwood et al)
Joe Agnost: Sorry the lesson is not over yet.
There is the whole issue of feedbacks and the changes in outgoing radiation versus temperature.
(Here the discussion gets a bit complex and scientilicious but clearly you are a great scienticizer from the University of AlGore so you will have no problem understanding it, as you have formulated the great scientific principle thatMore factors than just one event go into determining if something is a result of climate change or just simply a blip in the weather.)
As an aside, that sentence is incoherent, but I wont dwell on that fact, because what you mean is fairly clear even if you're unable to express it clearly.
Anyways, back to outgoing radiation and feedbacks.
The whole AGW theory is based on positive feedbacks. Even the UN is not afraid of the warming caused just by CO2. No, the trick is, CO2 will warm the earth a tiny bit, and this tiny bit of warming will increase water vapor concentration in the atmosphere and that will kick off some really serious warming.
Now all the models assume that as the temperatures increase outgoing radiation will be reduced because more radiation is absorbed by increasing water vapor. The observations in fact contradict this. As far as I know the IPCC has yet to formulate a talking point to fudge their way around this one.
If you want visual confirmation of the data, check out these graphs. The red one is the observations, the others come from the models. If you want a discussion of these results, check out thispaper.
Oh and one more thing about that Santer et al paper I mentioned in my earlier post. This line from the abstract is priceless:
We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.
"no longer a serious discrepancy" - thats like saying to a girl "you're not horrifyingly ugly".
"Jerome: I must come to Joe's defense. What Joe is saying is, when there's a weather event, it may or may not be linked to global warming/climate change. That's up to the AGW scientists. IOW, "It's not climate change until we say it's climate change!"
That's why I have said, in the past, "If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold, it's weather" -- just reflecting the AGW scientists thinking on the matter.
But I now know, from Joe, that I was totally, totally wrong about this. That's why I've gone over to the other side.
I now know that there is no link between weather and climate, unless AGW scientists say there is.
Then there is -- because scientists have said so!
I hope this clears up the confusion!
What, no post about the record high temperatures this week in Vancouver, Arizona , the Yukon ?
No, that would be silly. These are anomalous events, these are what we call “weather”. And as a climate scientist, I am ready to admit we don’t need these day-by-day weather events to make the case for climate change. It would be great if those few still living in denial would man up and make the same admission. The weather in Wagga Bagga today has tells us very little about the state of global climate.
Of course, if you were to tell me that the northeast of the United States had shown below average temperatures for a number of years, and could support this with data, then I would be interested in seeing that, because it would demonstrate a climate trend…
"What, no post about the record high temperatures this week in Vancouver, Arizona , the Yukon ?"
I didn't want to scare my readers -- the temperatures speak for themselves -- the planet is on fire! And, elsewhere, climate change is causing killer-cold.
Plus, I'm kind of waiting for Al Gore to step down on Katrina.
Waiting. Waiting. Waiting...
Flashback to 2007: "Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years [2007-2009], before rising sharply at the end of the decade.
The forecast... reveals that from [2009] on, temperatures will rise steadily.
Temperatures are set to rise over the 10-year period by 0.3C.
It's like I've been telling Joe, "If it's hot, it's global warming, if it's cold, it's weather".
"The weather in Wagga Bagga today has tells us very little about the state of global climate."
Hey -- I'm FROM Wagga Bagga. I take personal offense at this statement as do all right-thinking Wagga Baggers as we like to call ourselves.
July Was World's Hottest Month on Record; High Temperatures Fuel Global Warming Debate
The Washington Post | August 10, 1998
"The White House will release figures today that confirm what many in the sun-baked Southwest may already suspect: July was the hottest month the planet has seen since reliable record-keeping began more than a century ago.
July is now the seventh consecutive month in which global temperatures ...
"When it's hot, it's global warming, when it's not, it's weather".
"And as a climate scientist...."
This is an inclusive site. No-one will hold this against you.
"like that excuse is valid beyond age 6!"
And what, exactly, makes you think I'm "beyond age 6"? Have you checked my photo?
Bastien: "The whole view of science by people like you - those who are in the AGW camp - is this: trust the UN."
First of all - I've never said that I'm in the "AGW camp". I only point out how ridiculous some of the statements made on this site (the constant misuse of weather and climate for instance). I haven't said which "side" I'm on so that I wouldn't clog up MY points (on the use of "weather" versus "climate") with useless posts like Bastien is providing currently.
It doesn't matter WHICH side you're on - the use of "weather" and "climate" should be accurate.
Second of all - I think the UN is pretty much a joke in this day and age.
Other than that - you nailed me! It's like you've known me my whole life! (roll eyes).
"The scientific method is this: formulate a theory"
Nope - it's an hypothesis at this stage. It doesn't become a "theory" until it passes enough tests.
*****
Ball: "And what, exactly, makes you think I'm 'beyond age 6'? Have you checked my photo?"
Or read your posts!! ;)
(sorry - I couldn't resist. That was TOO easy! I'm kidding...)
Joe:
Glad you think the UN is a joke and you're not in the AGW camp.
RK's been joking about how warmies constantly use weather events to "prove" global warming and yet dismiss every single cold event as "just weather" for a while on this blog now. And this post is a case in point, yet you started this thread by going all self-righteous over what was clearly a parody.
And fine its not a theory its a hypothesis. You're right on that point but other than an error in terminology the substance of my post is 100% accurate.
And Im must say Im surprised that you're not in the AGW camp your first post really reads like it was written by the goreacle himself.
Bastien: "...you're not in the AGW camp..."
I didn't say that either!
I have purposely stayed away from taking sides since I'm not nearly familiar enough with the science involved.
I will say this though - it sure looks like the AGW deniers are a little on the loony side of things... but again, I just don't know enough to take a side.
"Im surprised that you're not in the AGW camp your first post really reads like..."
It's the ignorance that I abhor... and I'll try and correct it whenever I see it.
Actually I don't think you will find a climatologist anywhere who attributes the hot weather in X on day Z to global warming.
What you will find is laymen AGW proponents trying to attribute hot days to AGW and laymen AGW critics doing the same with cold days.
Both are, of course, wrong, but none of that has any relevance to the science of AGW.
So the point of this post was what, exactly?
@Jerome
"[...] I would say your view of science is "trust the scientists", which is just as wrong [...]"
"I would say your view on malign lymphoma is "trust the doctor", which is just as wrong."
Oh no, God forbid that we listen to people who actually might be knowledgable on the topic in question.
"In response, instead of revisiting the theory, the AGW scientists and the IPCC revisit the data."
Since you so enjoy lecturing people on science, allow me to lecture right back at you. So, science 101:
First you check the data, then you discard the theory.
Case in point: I recently measured some spectra that flat-out contradict previously published results. Do I immediately reject the previous study? No, I check to make sure my data and my conclusions are correct (or rather: I'm in the process of checking).
If I contradict a whole theory, then I can be pretty sure that others will check my data as well. And maybe they will spot an error I missed.
lastchancetosee:
of course you check the data. and the data's been checked and published. but its something else entirely when ALL of the available data points against a theory to say, post-facto, there must be something wrong with the data cause it doesnt fit the theory.
its also one thing to check and recheck data if it contradicts an established theory, or to recheck and recheck data for a theory which has never been supported by empirical evidence.
it'll be interesting to see what happens to the ERBE satellite data now that it seems to falsify the AGW hypothesis once again.
this data is extremely interesting I find, although it simply shows what you'd expect: that the earth radiates more heat the hotter it gets. i find it fascinating that the models are based on the assumption that as the earth would heat up, it would radiate less, which is when you think about it the whole idea behind AGW.
Jerome -- I must dig up the article on Newtonian vs. Einsteinian approaches to science -- it's what this argument is all about -- empirical evidence vs. a mathematical model "too good not to use", or, "too good to throw away".
Or, as one scientist said, as the story goes, "It may work in practice, but it will never work in theory!"
RK:
Yeah im interested in that article too but as far as I know both Newton and Einstein had a beautiful mathematical theory, which also happened to match up against observed data. True, Einstein devised his theory using a thought experiment, but he admitted openly that one observation was all it took to discredit it.
And, Einstein's theory of relativity was validated by a bold prediction on the apparent position of stars behind the sun - which are not visible most of the time because of the sun, but which could be observed during an eclipse. Against all received wisdom at the time, Einstein's theory correctly predicted where stars would appear in the sky during the eclipse. Einstein also predicts how time would stretch in a different field of reference then the earth, something that has been observed by satellites and by having atomic clocks run on airplanes.
So Im curious to see the article but I wouldnt suggest that the AGW crowd have adopted either an einsteinian or newtonian approach to science.
Their approach seems to boil down to the predictable corruption of science when the interests of the UN, Goldman Sachs, and environmental zealots converge.
You've come up with an intelligent response without even seeing the article. I'll dig it up and do it as a fresh post. But, you've nailed it.
Post a Comment