Global Warming Thread IX

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:42 pm

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:1I do not make these things up. I have posted the DATA about climatologists surveys before. But here it is again and I had it right- 2the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW.

3The 2008 poll
Image
Question 2 was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

4And it was 97% of climatoligists as well in an independent 2007 poll that believed in GW (only 5% believed human activity does not contribute to GW)
5The 2007 poll
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

6If anything the climatologists are becoming more sure of AGW while many of the right leaning public (and some others) have fallen to the misleading lies of the denialists.

7Deal with that DATA before you run off at the keyboard with another empty diatribe like "Your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth" or hand out another baloney cheese since you cannot prove your points rationally.

1) Perhaps you don't personally make up the "DATA," but 97% of the data you post is decidedly AGW propaganda. And no, you didn't have it right. You may have had it right according to the data you quoted, but it comes from AGW sources, which are generally untrue. (More about this in subsequent points.)

2) That's a ridiculous comment. If you actually believe the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW, you're living in a fantasy world. It turns out that the more a scientist is involved in GW/CC scientific work, the more likely he/she is to be a skeptic. You're just flat wrong...

3) I did a bit of research on that link. The graph comes from an article by Peter Doran and a graduate student by the name of Maggie Kendall Zimmerman.

4) Comments about the "97% formula" in this this wild piece.
  1. In the first place, only one portion (the "General Public" data) of the graph is from a legitimate source (Gallup Poll).
  2. Secondly, Doran and his graduate assistant are biased to AGW and participants in the survey were all AGWers. No small wonder Doran could come up with such a massively skewed survey. It's AGW propaganda at it's very best.
  3. Thirdly, the blogger (Tim Lambert) who posted the blog attempted to lead his readers to believe that 97% of ALL active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming. The claim is hogwash. The survey included only 77 active climatologists. And being a skewed survey, there were supposedly only 2 out of the 77 in the survey who refuted the notion that GW is caused by human activity.
  4. For the sake of argument, let's put the essence of Doran's skewed survey to the test. If 97% of all climate scientists believe that GW is caused by human activity, it would mean that 97 out of 100 climate scientists believe GW is caused by human activity. Only 3 out of 100 do not believe that GW is caused by human activity. Consider just one gathering of climate skeptics (the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York). About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives attended the event. Admittedly not all were climate scientists, but there were 80 presenters. For the sake of argument and taking Doran's 97% AGWers/3% "deniers" formula, let's say that only 200 of those attending the 2009 ICCC were climate scientists. And suppose that the 200 represented only 3% of all "denier" climate scientists. The formula would compute something like 9,700 AGWer climate scientists. But that falls woefully short of the number of registered skeptic climate scientists. There are now more than 34,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that global warming is probably natural and not a crisis (Source: bottom of this page) You can deny it all you want, Keith, but there are far more skeptical climate scientists, (with credibility I might add) than there are AGW climate scientists.
5) This poll is more than 2 years old. It's outdated. The AGWers have taken a hit everywhere, including in the Harris Poll. Today only 41% think it is 'a very serious problem.' E.g. Big Drop in Those Who Believe That Global Warming Is Coming.

6) Not so... The misleading lies are coming from the AGWers. Most notably from Al Gore & company...

7) I have presented rational (and documented) material in this and previous posts. I will continue to say that your alarmist views will not allow you admit the truth. Truth is on my side, not yours...


David,

1. I hope that 100% of what I post is AGW.
2. I provide the actual data and give a correct interpretation of that data that makes the point that 'the more a climatologist is into GW science the more AGW he/she is' - the stair-step nature of the plot above makes that point. You claim that is "ridiculous" and claim just the opposite based only an Inhofe sampling of 14 hand picked scientists (only 4 of which are climatologists, I notice) which isn't even a poll. Geez.
3. I did some reasearch as well, and Doran is actually one who cites the earth's cooling (especially Antarctica) and has been cited by such anti-AGW luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton. Peter Doran wiki. Hardly started out with a GW bias in 2002 but has seen the light. His polliing methods are given here and can be seen to be completely neutral unless you believe there is some inherent bias in academic instititions and research institutes. But they are the group that knows most of these subjects and he even categorizes them according to depth of GW research and shows the trend there.
4A. You calling Doran poll illegitmate based on what - you don't like the results? or what?. Heck it involved 3146 samples more than the Gallup poll you cite which had only 1615
4B. Your claim that "all the participants were AGWers" is what is really ridiculous. There were several (but not many) who said otherwise. You are quite taken to exaggeration (even obviously disprovable assertions).
4C. The claim is not hogwash. It margin of error is +2%, -5% (using a 1-Poisson distribution with 79 samples). That means the real answer could be between 92% and 99% if the whole population were surveyed (with 95% confidence). Still very impressive and my point more than stands.
4D. The 34,000 from the Oregon Petition has been more than discredited here and here and here and
herehere and here. Besides there are not that many climatologists in the world.
5. The sceintists have not altered, the public has due to such propaganda as you listen to. Besides here are the results of another poll later in 2009
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2009
A 2009 study—published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States—polled 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions.
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers
. Whole report Stanford University Poll

and here is a summary of professional organization's viewpoints on GW
Scientific Consensus on AGW
which says:
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions.

That's against 3 synthesis reports, 32 national academies, and over 50 other organizations. That's 0 vs 85 (with 5 non-commitals).

You might want to read some of this to see how out of line your denialist sources are with the scientific consensus. They may meet privately and think otherwise but rational polls and organizational statements prove otherwise.

6. By looking at the polls on this subject over the years (summary given here, my case is substantiated - "If anything, the climatologists are becoming more sure of AGW". True also for the IPCC from 2001 to 2007 (confidence in AGW grew from 67% to 90%). The last part of my statement is based on the declining public belief in AGW (a fact I admit, but attribute to the onslaught of denialist propaganda).

7. Rational and documented huh? How about all you balconey cheese icons.

I guess we are both just incredibly stubborn. Difference is I'm much more scientifically and statistically attuned and am DATA driven - not ideology (or propaganda)-driven.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:00 am

.
.
Keith, judging from the page views, it appears that we're pretty much alone in this debate. I don't think much of anyone other than EdE and Howard are reading our posts. They're the only others who contribute to the discussion. That's okay with me and I suspect that it's okay with you. So let's trudge on... :)

That said, I have a pretty heavy schedule this week and will probably be somewhat slow with replies, but I'll squeeze in a post now and then.

For this post, I'm going back to revisit the first paragraph of your Saturday post. You opened your response with the following statement:
On Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 9:45 pm, KeithE wrote:I do not make these things up. I have posted the DATA about climatologists surveys before. But here it is again and I had it right- the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW.

My response was to refute the notion that a climate scientist becomes more sure of AGW when he is actually involved in GW/CC work. As I documented in point #2, your statement simply isn't true. A fresh new article hit the internet yesterday (Monday). The article documents several cases where scientists have reversed their positions after closer scrutiny. Read the following article and watch the embedded video. Dr. Denis Rancourt, a physicist and former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. Quite interesting and buttresses my point.

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:35 am

.
.
Keith, judging from the page views, it appears that we're pretty much alone in this debate. I don't think much of anyone other than EdE and Howard are reading our posts. They're the only others who contribute to the discussion. That's okay with me and I suspect that it's okay with you. So let's trudge on... :)

That said, I have a pretty heavy schedule this week and will probably be somewhat slow with replies, but I'll squeeze in a post now and then.

For this post, I'm going back to revisit the first paragraph of your Saturday post. You opened your response with the following statement:
On Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 9:45 pm, KeithE wrote:I do not make these things up. I have posted the DATA about climatologists surveys before. But here it is again and I had it right- the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW.

My response was to refute the notion that a climate scientist becomes more sure of AGW when he is actually involved in GW/CC work. As I documented in point #2, your statement simply isn't true. A fresh new article hit the internet yesterday (Monday). The article documents several cases where scientists have reversed their positions after closer scrutiny. Read the following article and watch the embedded video. Dr. Denis Rancourt, a physicist and former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. Quite interesting and buttresses my point.


Incidentally, Dr. Rancourt has a personal blog or two. One goes under the name of ACTIVIST CLIMATE GUY. Evidently he's also a 9/11 Truther. I find it quite odd. Unless I misread the article, he's an AGW "denier" and a 9/11 Truther rolled into one. Here's the article: 9-11 and global warming are both inside jobs...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:29 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
Keith, judging from the page views, it appears that we're pretty much alone in this debate. I don't think much of anyone other than EdE and Howard are reading our posts. They're the only others who contribute to the discussion. That's okay with me and I suspect that it's okay with you. So let's trudge on... :)

That said, I have a pretty heavy schedule this week and will probably be somewhat slow with replies, but I'll squeeze in a post now and then.

For this post, I'm going back to revisit the first paragraph of your Saturday post. You opened your response with the following statement:
On Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 9:45 pm, KeithE wrote:I do not make these things up. I have posted the DATA about climatologists surveys before. But here it is again and I had it right- the more a climatologist is actually involved in GW/CC scientific work the more sure they are of AGW.

My response was to refute the notion that a climate scientist becomes more sure of AGW when he is actually involved in GW/CC work. As I documented in point #2, your statement simply isn't true. A fresh new article hit the internet yesterday (Monday). The article documents several cases where scientists have reversed their positions after closer scrutiny. Read the following article and watch the embedded video. Dr. Denis Rancourt, a physicist and former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. Quite interesting and buttresses my point.


Incidentally, Dr. Rancourt has a personal blog or two. One goes under the name of ACTIVIST CLIMATE GUY. Evidently he's also a 9/11 Truther. I find it quite odd. Unless I misread the article, he's an AGW "denier" and a 9/11 Truther rolled into one. Here's the article: 9-11 and global warming are both inside jobs...


It is hard to debate you when you don't seem to have a clue about interpreting data or sticking to the point being made. The poll data from Doran (it's stare-step nature) makes the point that - the more into GW science one is, the more AGW one is. Admit that.

I'll admit there have been AGWers that have reversed themselves (but that was/is not the point and there are no doubt many more counterexamples). You seem to have turned the question over to temporality saying some sceintists have become more AGW-skeptical with time and some have actually changed their minds from AGW adherents to AGW skeptics. The Doran and Anderegg polls talk about settled viewpoints not whether or not they have changed. They are polls about what percentage certain classes of scientists (or the public by adding a Gallup poll result) believe in human caused GW/CC at the time of the poll. Doran poll in 2008 and Anderegg in 2009.

That said, you provide only examples (not polling data) to make your claims on this altered claim - that some scientists have chamged their viewponit. And you didn't even note that many other examples can no doubt be found that changed the other way. Anyone can find examples. But citing a few examples (there are 4-6 others at the bottom of your linked article), even your case on your altered claim is not made. One has to do the hard work of scientific poll taking to make such claims. Examples do not hack it.

As for Rancourt he would fall into the class of scientists who were "Active Publishers - All Topics" in terms of Doran's polls if indeed he is still an actve publisher after being fired. Rancourt on Wiki. And he was fired not for GW dissent, but was for giving all his students A+ one year, letting unauthorized people into a lab, and sueing the university after several battles with his school adminstration over his anti-corporate viewpoints. He was really more a physicist than an environmentalist; left-leaning for sure with his statement
I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might
which I basically agree with, btw. What he is really saying (after having read his long article) is that there are other more pressing social ills that could dismantle the earth (e.g. nuclear strikes, disease) than GW/CC which he believes will be later in coming and more minor in discomfort level (compared to nuclear war or pandemics) - he might be right; somewhat like Lomberg's views.

As for his purported 9/11 views (not expanded on much in your linked article), good for him. The buildings (all 3 of them) fell due to timed explosives as well as >50 other very suspicious evidence against the Official Conspiracy Story.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Trout dying in Moscow

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:50 pm

"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8980
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Major Study Released Today

Postby KeithE » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:44 pm

Phytoplankton has Declined 40% in 60 Years due to oecan temperature increases.

More Info/DATA here
Cumulative evidence of the reality of global warming with 10 independent indicators
For each of the 10 indicators they compiled several studies done independently of each other, revealing broad agreement between different analyses on what was happening to the climate.

Seven of the areas, including air and sea surface temperatures, the amount of heat in the ocean and humidity, were on the rise, while three areas - the extent of Arctic sea ice, glaciers and winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere - were in decline.

Dr Stott said: 'Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming.

'When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability.

'Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.'
...

Dr Stott said studies showed the changes were consistent with an increase in greenhouse gases, which provided the 'glaringly obvious explanation' for why the climate was changing.


And here are plots showing multiple DATA sources (in agreement) for three indicators:
Image
Image
Image

Hint, they are not all "manipulated".
Last edited by KeithE on Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Major Study Released Today

Postby David Flick » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:44 am

KeithE wrote:1Phytoplankton has Declined 40% in 60 Years due to oecan temperature increases.

2More Info/DATA here
Cumulative evidence of the reality of global warming with 10 independent indicators
For each of the 10 indicators they compiled several studies done independently of each other, revealing broad agreement between different analyses on what was happening to the climate.

Seven of the areas, including air and sea surface temperatures, the amount of heat in the ocean and humidity, were on the rise, while three areas - the extent of Arctic sea ice, glaciers and winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere - were in decline.

Dr Stott said: 'Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming.

'When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability.

'Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.'
...

Dr Stott said studies showed the changes were consistent with an increase in greenhouse gases, which provided the 'glaringly obvious explanation' for why the climate was changing.

Attributable to increases in ghgs

And here is plot showing multiple DATA sources (in agreement) for three indicators:

Keith, your two links (1 & 2) are the same article. The first link (#1) appeared in the CommonDreams.Org blog and was copied verbatim from the UK Daily Mail (#2). Except for the graphs, they are identical articles.

The article is little more than alarmist propaganda. The title tells you that much. (i.e. "Are Our Oceans Dying? Phytoplankton has Declined Terrifying 40% in 60 Years") Who, pray tell, was measuring ocean phytoplankton 60 years ago? To help put this piece of alarmist propaganda into perspective, land covers 29.2% of the earth's surface. Water covers 70.8% of the earth's surface. (Source...) How on earth would anyone, other than an AGW alarmist, know whether or not the stuff has declined by 40% over the last 60 years? Much less by a terrifying 40%. And you're trying to convince me that the unnamed author of the article knows with certitude precisely how much phytoplankton currently exists in the oceans and how much has terrifyingly gone missing over the last 60 years? What will the alarmists come up with next to support their cause? :lol:

As for the article (the one with the graphs), the data for the graphs came from warmist sources, including HadCURT, NOAA, and NASA. All three of these AGW-leaning organizations have been caught red-handed manipulating data (see here, here, here, and here.) Inasmuch as the data for the three graphs in the articles comes in large part from sources which are known to manipulate climate data, the accuracy is suspect.

I want to comment on one section of the article in question:
Fellow author Marlon Lewis added: 'Climate-driven phytoplankton declines are another important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are already stressed by the effects of fishing and pollution.'

It comes as scientists today announced that the world is 'unequivocally' warming and has been for the past 30 years.

Researchers at the Met Office compiled data from a series of several independent studies including sea levels, air temperature, humidity and glacier loss.

1The review also said the past decade had been the warmest on record, while Met Office scientists said this year was on track to be the warmest ever.

2The report comes in the wake of the 'climategate' furore around climate science, which stemmed from emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

3The scandal prompted prompted claims from sceptics that scientists were manipulating data to back up a theory of global warming.

4They were since been cleared of any wrongdoing but were accused by an inquiry set up in the wake of the scandal of being secretive and unhelpful.

5But today's report published as part of the annual State of the Climate review led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that global warming is 'undeniable', scientists said.

1) The Met Office is associated with the Hadley Center. Hadley data, known as HadCRUT, is listed among those who have manipulated climate data. That's part of Phil Jones' bailiwick. Both Jones and the Met office have been thoroughly discredited as accurate sources for climate data.

2) The Climategate emails were not "stolen." They were leaked from an insider. There's no doubt in my mind that if they had indeed been "stolen," the culprit would have long since been arrested. It has yet to be proven that they were stolen, or for that matter, "hacked."

3) As cited above, the Climategate scientists did manipulate the data to support their theory of man-made global warming. (see here, here, here, and here.)

4) The Climategate personalities were cleared only in their own minds. See here, here, here, and here.

5) The NOAA report claiming that the first half of 2010 was the warmest on record (which came out Wednesday) turns out to be false. Here's a long, documented article that gives the story. I'll post the last 6 paragraphs of the article in the quote box below.
NOAA and other government climate-change outfits have come under increasing fire in recent years for myriad reasons, including inaccurate and distorted temperature readings (in its defense, NOAA claimed accurate readings weren’t important), placing monitoring stations too close to biasing influences that create the appearance of warming, and countless other reasons.

Of course, the fact that the agencies’ budgets depend on continually pumping out new, alarming reports on climate change also likely plays a little-mentioned but crucial role.

But NOAA wants everyone to know that climate change is real and is causing changes. In its press release about the report, the agency said, “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters.” It did not mention that, even if true, many of those changes could prove beneficial.

“People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the press release concluded. It also directs readers to the agency’s climate-change website, climate.gov, which features a variety of articles on global warming.

Numerous media pieces <--(3 separate links there) have recently proclaimed the demise of the “global-warming cult,” noting that the public doesn’t buy it and that politicians who push the alarmism are dropping like flies. But with hundreds of billions of tax dollars invested in the alarmism machine, the movement will not go away quietly.

In the coming days, researchers will undoubtedly find more problems with NOAA’s report — most of which will be mentioned in the press but rarely. But whether the avalanche of alarmist headlines produced by the report will help salvage economy-destroying “climate” legislation remains to be seen.

Conclusion: In the scheme of things, the warmists have no sane argument to support their cause by producing a frightening (alarming, terrifying) article about an organism (phytoplankton) that nobody knows precisely how much of the stuff exists (either now or 60 years ago). It's more of the same old same old (i.e. alarmist hype).
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Jim » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:43 am

For the folks who insist that this summer’s recent temperatures mean that the earth is simply on a melting trend need to look at what happened in Britain during the past winter to see that only worldwide anomalies over a period of time amount to anything, not cherry-picked local events. This was published by the Telegraph in January: Britain’s Coldest Winter. The worldwide cooling trend has been in effect for over a decade now, according to reliable data and reliable climatologists, not the CRU/IPCC folks who have a vested interest in stoking the global-disaster fires caused by man. Nobody believes that stuff anymore...or at least very few.
Jim
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:20 am

Oh yeah, David, they are all manipulated, all ten indicators each with multiple independent data sets. All of your "here here here here' links and the counterattack on the multiply-attributed article about the first half of 2010 being the hottest ever, are from the denialist camp (eg. Climate Depot, New American). They do not provide counterdata, they just declare "the data is manipulated" maybe finding a localized (in space or time or both) instant that they can fake their adoring constitituency with, but the long term, global trends (since 1900) tell the real truth coupled with the growth in ghg's
Image
and the well founded fact of ghg's absorption. As a world population we cannot continue using our air and our oceans as dumping grounds.

Get some sleep, you need it. Ditto, Jim. Then read some real science about GW not filtered through your denialist sources.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:55 pm

KeithE wrote:1Get some sleep, you need it. Ditto, Jim. 2Then read some real science about GW not filtered through your denialist sources.

1) I may need some sleep but it's certainly not because I'm losing it worrying about catastrophic AGW. I don't lose sleep over stuff like that... :lol:

2) I do read real science, Keith... My so-called "denialist" sources are, in the scheme of things, far more credible than your alarmist sources...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Howard V » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:00 am

Just an observation from Huntsville, AL. We are having rather hot temps daily - bumping 99 and 100 F. And we have been having temps in the 90s for a good while and they are being predicted to continue there for some time.

However, we are setting very few records for the hottest daily temps. Almost without exception the hottest days happened a good while ago, a whole bunch of them way back in the 1930s.

Do our hot temps mean we [Earth] are warming? Probably not. I've been reminded on this forum that local temps [cold] are no indication of planetary cooling, so I assume our current hot temps are no sign of any real warming trend - though it is warm [make that HOT] right here right now.

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:14 am

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:07 pm

Howard V wrote:Just an observation from Huntsville, AL. We are having rather hot temps daily - bumping 99 and 100 F. And we have been having temps in the 90s for a good while and they are being predicted to continue there for some time.

However, we are setting very few records for the hottest daily temps. Almost without exception the hottest days happened a good while ago, a whole bunch of them way back in the 1930s.

Do our hot temps mean we [Earth] are warming? Probably not. I've been reminded on this forum that local temps [cold] are no indication of planetary cooling, so I assume our current hot temps are no sign of any real warming trend - though it is warm [make that HOT] right here right now.

Howard


Rather meaningless "observation" when talking about global warming.

But I'll second that bit about it being hot lately in HSV - just returned from a round of golf (shot a 47 - 40 =87) - it was 97 deg but humidity not real bad.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:04 pm

Howard V: || However, we are setting very few records for the hottest daily temps. Almost without exception the hottest days happened a good while ago, a whole bunch of them way back in the 1930s.

Howard V: || Do our hot temps mean we [Earth] are warming? Probably not. ||

Jan-June 2010 has been the hottest on earth for the first six months - ever, since data starts in 1880. Strangely, where I was was AVERAGE. Again, where I live in Exciting Central Oklahoma USA, has average weather not normal (as in climate). Average is the numerically computed number (as in tempature) so far. Under El Nino conditions (only monitored the last 20 years or so) we have different 'climate' then when El Nino is changeing places with La Nina conditions. I said all that to say this:

Jan-June 2010 in Central Oklahoma (yes, and Enid, where David lives & works) has been AVERAGE.
The 'hot' spots of the earth are the North Polar regions and half the Antartic Regions. Here 'hot' means 'warmer than usual'. I recall once (I think Dec 1983-Jan 1984, there was a week where the high all week was +15ºF (-10ºC). A 'hot front' came through making the days clear up to freezing: 32ºF (0ºC) . that 'warm spell' was +10ºC. Global warming 2001-2009 (compared to 1901-2000 - 20th Century) was only about +0.68ºC
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:18 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:Howard V: || However, we are setting very few records for the hottest daily temps. Almost without exception the hottest days happened a good while ago, a whole bunch of them way back in the 1930s.

Howard V: || Do our hot temps mean we [Earth] are warming? Probably not. ||

Jan-June 2010 has been the hottest on earth for the first six months - ever, since data starts in 1880. Strangely, where I was was AVERAGE. Again, where I live in Exciting Central Oklahoma USA, has average weather not normal (as in climate). Average is the numerically computed number (as in tempature) so far. Under El Nino conditions (only monitored the last 20 years or so) we have different 'climate' then when El Nino is changeing places with La Nina conditions. I said all that to say this:

Jan-June 2010 in Central Oklahoma (yes, and Enid, where David lives & works) has been AVERAGE.
The 'hot' spots of the earth are the North Polar regions and half the Antartic Regions. Here 'hot' means 'warmer than usual'. I recall once (I think Dec 1983-Jan 1984, there was a week where the high all week was +15ºF (-10ºC). A 'hot front' came through making the days clear up to freezing: 32ºF (0ºC) . that 'warm spell' was +10ºC. Global warming 2001-2009 (compared to 1901-2000 - 20th Century) was only about +0.68ºC


True words and good data Ed.

I note we have GW believers and disbelievers both in Central Oklahoma and Northern Alabama.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:26 pm

Jim wrote:For the folks who insist that this summer’s recent temperatures mean that the earth is simply on a melting trend need to look at what happened in Britain during the past winter to see that only worldwide anomalies over a period of time amount to anything, not cherry-picked local events. This was published by the Telegraph in January: Britain’s Coldest Winter. The worldwide cooling trend has been in effect for over a decade now, according to reliable data and reliable climatologists, not the CRU/IPCC folks who have a vested interest in stoking the global-disaster fires caused by man. Nobody believes that stuff anymore...or at least very few.


From that link:
// Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict \\

EdE notes that 'predict' is an OPINION.
What has happened should be some kind of fact?

I happen to have some pretty good facts that show the temps of 2010: Jan 2010 through June 2010. It shows my temps AVERAGE.
It shows Great Brittian's tems AVERAGE. In fact, it shows a space of one sine wave (lowest over N.America, highest over Russia) of average tending temps THAT HAPPENED. AKA: a fact. Again, where I was June 2010 was low (mid 80s insterad of mid 90s in the day) -- so low I saved probably US$120 on my electric bill (I have an electric pump) that is US$200 for June instead of US$200.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Jim » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:41 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:
Jim wrote:For the folks who insist that this summer’s recent temperatures mean that the earth is simply on a melting trend need to look at what happened in Britain during the past winter to see that only worldwide anomalies over a period of time amount to anything, not cherry-picked local events. This was published by the Telegraph in January: Britain’s Coldest Winter. The worldwide cooling trend has been in effect for over a decade now, according to reliable data and reliable climatologists, not the CRU/IPCC folks who have a vested interest in stoking the global-disaster fires caused by man. Nobody believes that stuff anymore...or at least very few.


From that link:
// Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict \\

EdE notes that 'predict' is an OPINION.
What has happened should be some kind of fact?

I happen to have some pretty good facts that show the temps of 2010: Jan 2010 through June 2010. It shows my temps AVERAGE.
It shows Great Brittian's tems AVERAGE. In fact, it shows a space of one sine wave (lowest over N.America, highest over Russia) of average tending temps THAT HAPPENED. AKA: a fact. Again, where I was June 2010 was low (mid 80s insterad of mid 90s in the day) -- so low I saved probably US$120 on my electric bill (I have an electric pump) that is US$200 for June instead of US$200.



Thanks for making my point in spades!
Jim
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:58 pm

.
.
Saw this quote in the comment section of a thread on global warming:

"Warmists lack a sixth sense that skeptics have in abundance -- common sense."
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:07 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
Saw this quote in the comment section of a thread on global warming:

"Warmists lack a sixth sense that skeptics have in abundance -- common sense."


More like a common wish - that they do not have to change their ways or be burdened with problems (especially those that are projected to get serious beyond their lifetimes). Unless
Image
and this
Image
reverse,

these are going to continue upward:
Image
Image
Image

That's common sense and scientific fact.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:14 am

.
.
IPCC Con job...
(emphases mine)


The IPCC, Climate Change and Solar Sophistry
By Dr. Tim Ball

Control of the science and content of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports was planned from before it was officially formed in 1988. Exposure of manipulation to achieve desired results also began early.

Benjamin Santer graduated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), where Tom Wigley supervised his PhD. He returned to the US working at the government’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He was appointed lead author of Chapter 8, titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. It turned out Santer had significantly altered the meaning of the Chapter from that agreed on by the other authors. As Avery and Singer noted in 2006, “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.

Continue reading...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:05 am

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:.
.
Saw this quote in the comment section of a thread on global warming:

"Warmists lack a sixth sense that skeptics have in abundance -- common sense."


More like a common wish - that they do not have to change their ways or be burdened with problems (especially those that are projected to get serious beyond their lifetimes). Unless
Image
and this
Concentrations of Greenhouse Gasses chart
reverse,

these are going to continue upward:
*Sea-surface Temperature chart
Land Surface Air temperature chart
**Sea Level chart

That's common sense and scientific fact.

* Keith, your sea-surface temperature chart is false. The sea-surface temperature isn't rising at all. In fact, the sea-surface temperature is falling. The definitive source on this is your cross-town climate scientist friend, Dr. Roy Spencer. Three days ago, he published a blog declaring: Global Sea Surface Temperature Update: The Cooling Continues. So your "common sense" declaration turns out to be a common myth... :lol:

** Your sea level chart is also false. Check here...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:11 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
IPCC Con job...
(emphases mine)


The IPCC, Climate Change and Solar Sophistry
By Dr. Tim Ball

Control of the science and content of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports was planned from before it was officially formed in 1988. Exposure of manipulation to achieve desired results also began early.

Benjamin Santer graduated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), where Tom Wigley supervised his PhD. He returned to the US working at the government’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He was appointed lead author of Chapter 8, titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. It turned out Santer had significantly altered the meaning of the Chapter from that agreed on by the other authors. As Avery and Singer noted in 2006, “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.

Continue reading...


No one single-handedly changes anything about a chapter in an IPCC Report. Here is the 1995 IPCC WG 1 Report Santer was on of 4 lead authors on Chapter 8. The Summary fro Policymakers (which receives a line by line approval of all the authors (not just the lead authors) and a spate of independent reviewers) came up with this nuanced statement at the time of 1995 IPCC.

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global
climate is currently limited because the expected
signal is still emerging from the noise of natural
variability, and because there are uncertainties in key
factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of
long term natural variability and the time-evolving
pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in
concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and
land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of
evidence suggests that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate.

Although these global mean results suggest that there is
some anthropogenic component in the observed
temperature record, they cannot be considered as
compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link
between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth's
surface temperature. It is difficult to achieve attribution of
all or part of a climate change to a specific cause or causes
using global mean changes only. The difficulties arise due
to uncertainties in natural internal variability and in the
histories and magnitudes of natural and human-induced
climate forcings, so that many possible forcing
combinations could yield the same curve of observed
global mean temperature change.


"Balance of evidence" says human infuences are "discernable". " ..some anthropogenic component" and " they cannot be considered as
compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth's
surface temperature. ". Hardly the phraseology of a zealot promoting AGW as Ball would have you attribute to Santer.

By 2001 they had more precise usage of terms like "probable", "more likely than not" etc. and the AGW statement was human influences were "more likely than not" (meaning 67% confidence in that human are having an influence). By the 2007 IPCC that has become "highly likely" meaning 90% confidence in AGW. The evidence (from many sets of DATA) had been more thoroughly studied by 2007.

Santer is just a convenient target to demonize (favorite trick of FoxNews, FlickRants, and the RW in general) being mentioned in the illegally Hacked and Selectively Dissseminated CRU Emails.

Would provide more DATA, etc but need to get dressed for work. Besides no one herein ever comments on the DATA

As for Ball he is a long ago retired Professor of Geology and an apologist for the Canadian oil interests.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Jim » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:15 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
IPCC Con job...
(emphases mine)


The IPCC, Climate Change and Solar Sophistry
By Dr. Tim Ball

Control of the science and content of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports was planned from before it was officially formed in 1988. Exposure of manipulation to achieve desired results also began early.

Benjamin Santer graduated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), where Tom Wigley supervised his PhD. He returned to the US working at the government’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He was appointed lead author of Chapter 8, titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. It turned out Santer had significantly altered the meaning of the Chapter from that agreed on by the other authors. As Avery and Singer noted in 2006, “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.

Continue reading...

They’re beginning to close down the swimming pools here now and will have them dry by Labor Day, thus causing a huge sigh of relief since all that water throws CO2 into the atmosphere and threatens the polar bears. The sewage-sanitation pools are also full of water and that awful CO2-spewing bacteria, so the city may have to require outdoor privies that require no water at all. Researchers are probably figuring a way to cool off the entire Pacific Ocean since El Nino is causing a heat wave locally, though, as someone noted above, the temps so far this year are normal worldwide. Patrolling unmanned submarines heated to 1 million degrees are a possibility. Penn State has cleared Dr. Mann of the Hockey Stick fraud, claiming that nobody was around in 1100 to actually witness weather much warmer than now and so he had to deny what all other climatologists claim and just do away with that era. He also had to do away with the Little Ice Age that followed in order to be fair and balanced, citing Fox News as the paradigm for same. Now, the federal money for his research is safe and for a small break in U.S. borrowing, the Chinese are offering to explain how they planned to stop the Monsoons in 2008, using 33 (count ’em) airplanes, so the Olympic Games could be dry. The IPCC report for this year was written in 1988, so the annual IPCC clambake in Mexico, assuming anyone is left alive in the drug war there, will be as productive as Copenhagen. Joe Biden is rumored to be in line for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he has been quoted as describing as something %^&$*&^(&%# big. Another possibility is Ahmadinejad, who claims that the 12th Mahdi will arrive this year and do away with all climate, Hockey Sticks included.
Jim
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:22 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:

these are going to continue upward:
*Sea-surface Temperature chart
Land Surface Air temperature chart
**Sea Level chart

That's common sense and scientific fact.

* Keith, your sea-surface temperature chart is false. The sea-surface temperature isn't rising at all. In fact, the sea-surface temperature is falling. The definitive source on this is your cross-town climate scientist friend, Dr. Roy Spencer. Three days ago, he published a blog declaring: Global Sea Surface Temperature Update: The Cooling Continues. So your "common sense" declaration turns out to be a common myth... :lol:

** Your sea level chart is also false. Check here...

Go look at all the AMSU data (Spencer's data) at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps for the whole 2010 truth - not just the last month which has seen a La Nina effect. Check all the years and "Redraw". What you wil find is the SST are easily seen as higher than any other year since 2003. Go to the near surface air temps (channel n4) and the effects are even more pronounced and it is available back to 1998. Spencer selects any AGW denying data he can conjure up and blogs about that and never mentions the much more predominant higher-than-ever Jan-June 2010 data by all accounts (not just the AMSU data, but RSS, Hadley, GISS as well - they all agree). He also very conveniently does not make plots available for the AMSU data from 1979 (its inception) to 1998 (a known high point) all so it appears that we have no real trend (the eighties and nineties had real strong positive temp trends by all accounts). Dishonest data analysis.

You mention Morner again - your only source of sea level expertise (which he is not). Again a retired professor from another field - Geez and his Sea level articles (never in a major journal) are the biggest jokes of scientific papers I have ever seen!

Bye.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:11 am

.
.
I work nights at the Enid News & Eagle newspaper. The paper begins rolling off the press at midnight. My primary job is to help pack the papers off in lots of 25 and stack them on a table for the "stacker" to stack them in a large pile on the floor so they can be placed in the inserting machine where they proceed down the line to have the various ads inserted into the paper. I am the first person to touch the papers as they come off the press. I am able to read headlines that appear on the front page.

Today's paper had a very interesting headline that related to the current weather situation in northwestern Oklahoma. I am copying the entire article below with highlighted emphases...

August 5, 2010
Weather cooperates, this year’s area corn is called ‘above average’

By Joe Malan, Staff Writer Enid News and Eagle

ENID — There’s good news this year for local farmers needing feed for their cattle.

This year’s corn crop is above average, thanks to lower temperatures and better moisture during pollination — better conditions than were seen last year.

Roger Don Gribble, area agronomist for Garfield County Oklahoma State University Extension Office, said temperatures during pollination, which usually is around the second and third week of June, were between 85 and 95 degrees.

The temperatures during pollination last year averaged around 105 degrees.


Last year was pretty bad,” Gribble said. “We got into a hot stretch in June a year ago (when) we just didn’t pollinate well. As a result, we had a poor yield.

“This crop has really come along very well.”


A normal crop for corn is an average yield of 80 to 110 bushels per acre, Gribble said.

He sees this year’s crop having an average yield of about 100 bushels per acre, at least.

The local corn crop is in what’s called the dry-down phase, when the stalks appear dry, but the corn is ready to be picked.

Farmers will begin harvesting corn by the middle of this month. By Aug. 15, Gribble said, harvest should be in full swing.

All the corn in our area is distributed for feed. In the Panhandle, Kansas and Nebraska, corn gathered from harvest is immediately re-distributed to livestock. In parts of Oklahoma, including Garfield County, the corn is first processed and then re-distributed.

Gribble said most of the corn in the area will reach between 102 and 112 days of maturity, with some having lower or higher maturities.

While northwest Oklahoma has seen some hot temperatures over the last several days, the heat will have little effect on any crops, Gribble said, because most of them are beginning their maturity phase.

That’s not to say a little precipitation and cooler weather wouldn’t help. According to U.S. Drought Monitor, an area of moderate drought conditions has developed over extreme northwest Oklahoma, near the Panhandle.

“I hope it gets cooler mid-August, and that we get some precipitation as well,” Gribble said.

Source...

Flick's Commentary: While many of my global warming alarmist friends have been all "hot and bothered" about perceived record warm temperatures this year, that certainly hasn't been the case here in Oklahoma. Certainly not in Garfield County and northwestern Oklahoma. As one can observe from reading the article, our part of the globe was hotter last year (by 10 to 15 degrees) than this year.

Since before man named the seasons, there have been four of them. One is cool, one is warm, and two are in between. True, some cool seasons are cooler than others and some warm seasons are warmer than others but contrary to what my warmist friends are saying, there hasn't been a hint of anything catastrophically hot this year. I guess you could say that some of the in-between seasons have been "more average" from one season to the next than others. :D

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that there's a whole lot of much ado about nothing when it comes to global warming alarmism. We're smack dab in the middle of the warm season at this point on the calendar. The warm season, which by the way is called "Summer," is about what you would expect them to be in Oklahoma. Earlier this week, an Oklahoma City meteorologist stated that the Oklahoma record for the number of consecutive days with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees was 50. And that record occurred in 1980. I discovered that Houston, TX experienced 100 days with temperatures above 100 degrees in the same year (1980). Goodness, that was 30 years ago (3 decades ago). So much for the notion that this year is going to be the hottest on record.

I haven't seen or heard of a single record high temperature in our part of the globe this year. It's amusing to observe my warmist friends falling all over themselves quoting trumped-up internet articles about major heat waves while blaming them on man (AGW). I'll become a true AGW believer when someone can actually document the notion that man can change global climate or cause global warming. Until then, I'll remain a skeptic...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:36 am

.
.

Selected paragraphs:
“Global warming” is rapidly increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as it does every summer, but alarmists in the media are doing their best to make it seem like summer heat waves never occurred before. They are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures.

[...]

Federal mortality statistics show 800 more people die every day in December, January, and February than occurs on an average day during the rest of the year. The winter months kill 72,000 more U.S. citizens than the spring-summer-autumn average.

The three months with the lowest mortality are the hot-weather summer months of June, July, and August.

[...]

According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were prevalent the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today. The warming that has occurred (much of it overstated by placing temperature stations on asphalt, next to buildings, etc.) has primarily been during the winter and at night. High temperatures are not getting hotter, but rather the much more deadly extreme low temperatures are becoming more moderate.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest