February 02, 2011
Global Warming Update (LVI)
Record Snowfall across North America
Record cold has South Korea telling citizens: wear long johns
And a NOAA satellite image map of the snow-covered Northern Hemisphere:
(by way of the UK's Daily Mail)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 02, 2011
09:45 PM | Email This
Yeah, yeah, I know. Weather isn't climate, and cold weather (like warm weather) is evidence of global warming, etc., etc.
1. If you don't need to be told that this isn't reflective of a global climate shift like global warming than why the snarky post?
2. If you don't need to be told that this isn't reflective of a global climate shift like global warming than why the snarky post?
3. I looked for a "Global Warming Update (LIE)" post here in July of 2009, when the record-high temperature for Seattle was set, at 101 degrees Fahrenheit. Could you please help me find this locally-relevant post? I mean, you must have written it, right?
4. Personally, I love it when the unhinged AGW cultists comment defending this myth (much like that of "global cooling" 40 years ago). It makes me understand exactly how Jonestown was first cultivated, spread by the true believers, yet eventually collapsed under its own backdrop of lies, deception and insanity back in the 1970's. But then, why question AGW when the guy that took the "initiative to invent the internet" is the lead purveyor of this mythology?
Al Gore said sea level would rise by 20 feet over the next 100 years due to global warming. That was about five years ago, so we should have seen at least a foot of rise by now.
I was at a friend's house on the water the other day. The high water mark on their bulkhead was right where it has always been.
That Global Warming better get cracking or independent voters might start thinking they've been lied to by politicians masquerading as scientists.
6. That was about five years ago, so we should have seen at least a foot of rise by now.
Yes, if you believe that non-linear systems (weather and climate) obey your simplistic linear approximations. What if it's zero feet per each of the first ten years, then a ten-foot rise for each of the next two years? That would prove Al Gore correct, and much of the world's human population drowned/forced to flee.
7. HIDE THE DECLINE!!
Can you explain why the GCMs can't predict past weather or climate but are supposed to predict future climate?
It's funny that the left gets so agitated about faith. I'd say it takes a lot more faith to really believe sea level rise is going up 20 feet within 100 years than it does to believe in religion.
You just keep watching that shoreline tensor. In the next 10 to 20 years when there's still been no rise, you'll start to realize you were duped.
OMG - You guys are climate-change deniers TOO?
This site is too much fun! I wish I had tripped over it years ago.
Can you explain why the GCMs can't predict past weather or climate
Because one does not 'predict' the past, mostly.
For a teensy look at the mountain of evidence that we're rapidly destroying God's lovely creation, how about NASA?
(Or is NASA another nefarious arm of the evil government?)
And yeah, the reference to God was tongue-in-cheek - I'm an atheist. But really, for those that do believe in God, as I imagine many of the regular readers here are, how do you reconcile the responsibility for the gift that the lovely habitable earth is, with the rapacious destruction of the environment? If God indeed gave us this place, how do you guys countenance even the possibility that human activity is altering the climate, or for that matter poisoning aquifers, or degrading arable land, or creating CAFOs and fecal lagoons, etc etc etc. If even a fraction of the climate change data is true, there's at least a possibility that we're doing grievous harm - shouldn't we be treating God's creation with a little more caution?
This from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (I believe a joint NASA/Univ. Colorado project):
Warm conditions in the Arctic and cold conditions in northern Europe and the U.S. are linked to the strong negative mode of the Arctic oscillation. Cold air is denser than warmer air, so it sits closer to the surface. Around the North Pole, this dense cold air causes a circular wind pattern called the polar vortex , which helps keep cold air trapped near the poles. When sea ice has not formed during autumn and winter, heat from the ocean escapes and warms the atmosphere. This may weaken the polar vortex and allow air to spill out of the Arctic and into mid-latitude regions in some years, bringing potentially cold winter weather to lower latitudes.
Do you guys really believe that this is some plot to destroy capitalism and apple pie by zombie academics?
Or rather, what does lead you (and this is the collective 'you' as I assume from the tone of the post that the community here treats climate change with snark and general rejection) to dismiss the consensus in the academic climatology community that human activity is altering the global climate?
BTW, if you guys look here:
you will see that despite the snickering tone of the original post here, that if you look closely at his satellite photo, or the data from NSIDC, that the extent of winter sea ice, despite the terrestrial cold and snow, is actually at an all time low this winter.
12. It's weird how that image doesn't appear anywhere on NOAA's web site -- just the Daily Mail.
I'm just wating for Gore to direct his robotic believers to follow him to Guyana
. Once there, the drinks are on Al, kids.
14. dr fiberal
you have to love you demoCRATS no snow global warming to much snow global warming.i mean you have it covered end of story.still waiting for that coming ice age from the 70's time magazine cover story.just wondering.ENJOY
OK, you don't buy the data-driven argument that humans are changing the climate.
Is NASA lying? Climate scientists around the world? Is the extant sea ice data fabricated? Is it all a big hoax/fraud? If so, how do you prove that?
BTW, is "demoCRATS" some sort of epithet?
16. dr fiberal
like i said just waiting for that coming ice age.so now nasa is the gold standard.so demoCRAT hit a little close home.ENJOY
It is true that snowfall has no real relationship to warming, not in an area where any increased temperatures would still be well below freezing. So if your area regularly gets into the low 20s, and increases would still have you in the mid 20s ... then no change in the temperature conditions necessary for snow.
But increased temperatures CAN result in increased precipitation, and therefore, CAN result in increased snowfall ... again, as long as the increased temperatures are still well below freezing.
Of course, we have no real reason to believe in these increased temperatures, let alone that man is causing them, if they exist. But increased snowfall does absolutely nothing to disprove increased temperatures: you have to actually look at the temperatures.
(The problem, of course, is that our global temperature data is almost completely unreliable, so we can't do that. :-)
18. so demoCRAT hit a little close home
No, actually - I really don't understand the insult - I assume from your tone there's an insult in there - explain please.
so now nasa is the gold standard.
A reputable source, I think - do you have issues with their veracity?
I was one easily accessible presentation of the data. Do you have a source a data that refutes this? Do tell, I would really like to know.
19. Of course, we have no real reason to believe in these increased temperatures
our global temperature data is almost completely unreliable
Care to support your blithe assertions with data, or citations? (I know, I know, you don't have to do citations...just humor me)
20. Of course, we have no real reason to believe in these increased temperatures
Pretty much sums up the wingnut worldview. What's data when you have belief?
Not surprised that the lefties here don't know that the two most prized temperature datasets are actually flawed. NASA of course believes their dataset, but it has been shown to be compromised by UHI and poor siting.
I'm not going to bother citing one of the most widely read science sources on the WWW, becuase smart readers here are already aware of it and its abundance of real published science. And the lefties here will simply dismiss anything they disagree with as funded by big oil or some other nonsense.
Is that it? Really?
Is there skepticism because environmental protection is a sort-of generically leftist issue, and of course, everything leftist is bad, ergo global climate change is a hoax.
Is that really the dynamic?
On another thread an anti-abortion poster made the comment, acknowledging for the sake of argument some ambiguity, that if an embryo could be a bona fide human, then the risk that abortion being in fact murder was too great - in an argument in favor of banning the procedure.
Does not the same logic apply here? If the risk of anthropogenic climate change is even existent, with potential catastrophic consequences for the planet and its human and other life, demand that systematic change to avoid the danger be implemented?
Doesn't denying the risk of climate change represent the same cavalier attitude toward a precious God-given life as saying that abortion is probably not murdering a human?
23. An appropriate penalty for the liar Al Gore would be to shovel snow.... at the point of a cattle prod....every day for the rest of his miserable, thieving, money-grubbing life.
24. but it has been shown to be compromised by UHI and poor siting.
Please cite where this has been 'shown'
I'm not going to bother citing one of the most widely read science sources on the WWW, becuase smart readers here are already aware of it and its abundance of real published science
Please educate me. If you want to convince me of your argument, you'll need some data.
Please don't pull a pudge and insists the "obvious" things don't need to be proven, or the proofs cited.
While I know that this is not an academic venue, when I wrote and defended a dissertation, had I stated that I was not going to specifically cite a "widely read science sourse" because "smart readers were already aware of it" I'd have been laughed off the podium.
Come on, let me in on your widely read science source, I'd love to read it.
Jeff: Speaking of flawed data, how do you feel about Stefan publishing a faked image he claims is from NOAA, when that image doesn't appear anywhere on the NOAA website or in its press releases?
Do you think it's odd that the lower left corner of the image shows "(c) NOAA", when works produced by federal agencies are not subject to copyright?
To all the folks who think that NOAA is somehow an "unbiased" gummint agency that respects only the true science involved, please take a gander at this recent Powerline post.
Clear, unamibuous and easily understood, even for the Algorophiles.
You are a big boy. You can use Google. If you need hand holding, start with the link @26. The NOAA and NASA datasets are both flawed and have been manipulated. You won't believe anything you read here anyway. You've got to figure it out for yourself. Go start reading.
Stefan didn't publish anything. He posted link to an article where the picture was published. Go read the article.
Jeff: He posted the image and wrote that it was from NOAA.
But you're right -- he probably didn't mean for us to take him seriously. I know I don't.
Jeff: He posted the image and wrote that it was from NOAA.
But you're right -- he probably didn't mean for us to take him seriously. I know I don't.
30. scott - are you saying the Daily Mail faked the image?
The picture comes from the article. In the article it has the NOAA stamp, and the article references the NOAA several times in the text. Again, read the article. If that's an issue for you, then you should contact the Daily Mail.
33. That NOAA image is misleading with the red coloring. an average increase of +.62C above 2005. But the coloring makes the average viewer think the world was boiling! Fake, but accurate?
34. so what is the human effect on climate? We have released a lot of locked up carbon the last 100 years, that is bound to have an effect. Current CO2 is 395ppm which is 2x higher then pre-Industrial Revolution levels. During the coal-bedding epoch "Carboniferous" CO2 levels were at about 2000ppm, Oxygen 30%.
The following update says it all:
They are still hiding the decline. BTW- there is not a statistically significant correlation between surface concentrations of CO2 and surface temperature. Water vapor and methane are much better indicators of warming, which is nothing new - just a fact that the IPCC wants to ignore.
36. Hey, scottd, wanna buy some snake oil? Let's sort this out. Leftist swindlers loot the world's governments out of billions using fabricated climate data, then expect sensible people to continue believing their fairy tales, even after the East Anglia (and other) perpetrators come clean. You stole the taxpayers money, filled Gore's pockets and we're not going to start worshiping mother earth, so what the hell else do you want? Get lost....idiot!
I was back at Home Depot yesterday - grabbed 3 more 6 packs of incandescent bulbs. Phillips has a banner saying "Stock up NOW"... and
if you use your HD card you get an extra 10%!
I will admit to using a swirly twirly ice cream cone light bulbs - PSE was giving them away a while back. Not one penny of mine will be spent on them.... especially since the warming mongers can't explain how potential/possible warming is worse than certain mercury poisoning of my kids, my dog, streams, lakes, drinking water...
AND their nonsense about phosphates in my dishwasher soap has not only infuriated me AND cost me $169 but proven totally and completely WRONG in regards to the phosphate level in the Spokane River (where the phosphate level has gone UP since the 2009 ban.) I've been searching the country (and soon Canada) for DW soap with phosphates (None in NV or FL) but if indeed I can't find it, I am considering getting out my kitchen scale, measuring some DW detergent then adding 8.7% of TSP. ... right after I spread my 6 week regimen of fertilizer and weed killer...
38. dr fiberal
if you come back do a goggle search for Phil Jones from East Anglia University.if you keep being nice you might become my favorite demoCRAT,but then again the only good demoCRAT is a dead demoCRAT!just kidding come on now just a little satire.ENJOY
Just bought a 6-pack of commercial Cascade with phosphates dish detergent from Restockit.com. Look it up. $5 off and free shipping. Should keep me going for a while.
Dr. Libtard: 9. OMG - You guys are climate-change deniers TOO?
No, no one rationally denies climate change, since it has forever changed, warming and cooling dependent upon that orb in the sky. Those with any common sense sees right through the attempted power and money grab complicit with AGW hysteria. There are economies to be decimated and $Trillions at stake with carbon trading. Besides riches, AGW believers salivate in the goal of killing those evil 1st world polluters in order to give the 3rd world polluters an even chance.
It is the evil cult of a self-destructive psychosis based upon data manipulation and politics, not science.
Here's the list
, for those who would like to know more about the effects of global warming.
(For the record, I haven't figured out how global warming causes acne yet, but I haven't given up and clicked on the link yet, either.)
Chris @39 THANKS! I ordered!
Jim @41 - a fav site to highlight absurdity of the WARming mongers
Liberal: Care to support your blithe assertions with data, or citations?
If someone other than a damned liar asks, sure.
(I know, I know, you don't have to do citations...just humor me)
See, there's our proof. You're a liar. I never said or implied that. What I said before was only in the context of things that are actually universally known, such as that the fetus inside the mother is a distinct organism of species homo sapiens. EVERYONE knows this obvious fact, and there is literally no need to cite it, and only an idiot would ask for a citation.
What you ask for evidence of is not only not well-established fact, but it is not well known that it has been published, and is certainly and obviously worthy of citation.
But since YOU ask for it, no, I won't bother providing it.
44. Stefan only gives his global warming update during the winter for some reason ...
So, Dr. Liberal.
I have a question for you. And I need it answered right away. And keep it simple as I'm not very smart. Certainly not as smart as you.
Question: The Earth has been warming and cooling since the dawn of time. At one point the Brits were growing wine grapes throughout the land. In another space in time, they were ice skating on the Thames. So what makes you think that the climate we are trying to preserve right now is the right one?
Thanks in advance Doc.
Richard Pope: Stefan only gives his global warming update during the winter for some reason ...
Bzzzt. Actually, he has given about (I didn't doublecheck my count) 20 in winter, 20 in spring, and 13 each in summer and fall.
47. Mr. Nobel Prize needs to take a crash course in climatology.
What's causing this wild winter weather? An atmospheric pattern known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO involves a mysterious change in the water currents of the North Atlantic. Like its cousin El Nino in the Pacific, no honest scientist can definitively explain why these patterns turn on and off, but when they do, the weather can become extreme.
Now the bad news: The NAO has what we call a "negative" and "positive" phase. Right now, we've entered the negative mode, which often lasts for decades. The last time it went negative was from 1955 to 1979. Many of the weather records that are being broken this winter were established during that frigid 24-year period.
Interestingly, those years roughly coincide with a major cooling trend that struck the globe between 1940 and 1975.
When the NAO was last in a positive phase, from 1980 to 1995, winters were overall more moderate and global temperatures slightly warmer. The NAO went rather silent after 1995, and (sans 1998 when there was a monster El Nino in the Pacific) there has been no notable warming since.
But who cares about those pesky, inconvenient facts? Certainly not Al Gore.
Nor his Koolaid lemmings...er, enthusiasts.
48. The last couple months of 2009 put the last nail in the coffin of anthropomorphic CO2 rise leading to catastrophe when it was shown that East Anglia University altered data and created data from thin air that is the basis of the UN's assertion.
49. IMO it's a hoax...at least the version Al Gore and the Weather Channel were pushing. OTOH if Russia burns up next summer I'd entertain any conspiracy theory regarding man-made climate change you'd care to offer.
50. The state prosecutor's office found that in 2009 the Madrid municipality had quietly moved nearly half its pollution sensors from traffic-clogged streets in the city centre to parks and gardens.
51. Bzzzt. Actually, he has given about (I didn't doublecheck my count) 20 in winter, 20 in spring, and 13 each in summer and fall.
Then please provide the link to the post he gave in July 2009, when the local temperatures set their all-time high record.
I don't get it Shark; you obviously post snarky AGW posts as red meat for the regulars who follow SP. You get lots of posts. But do you really think the level of discourse here invites people who want to think, be intellectually challenged, and have a dialogue with reasonable folks who have divergent ideas? Not likely.
If you do happen to be an inquiring mind stumbling through here, go to realclimate.org for the definite climate change science site.
tensor: Then please provide the link to the post he gave in July 2009, when the local temperatures set their all-time high record.
You are implying that anything I said means that he made such a post. As usual, you're a liar.