quote: WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Another big winter storm was forecast on Monday for the U.S. mid-Atlantic still struggling to dig out from a blizzard that dumped two feet (half a meter) of snow and closed the federal government.
The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning for Washington, D.C., beginning at noon/1700 GMT on Tuesday and continuing into Wednesday, with projected snow totals of 10 to 20 inches (25 to 51 cm).
The potentially crippling new storm was expected to hit other big cities along the East Coast, like Baltimore and Philadelphia, that are still digging out and extend into New Jersey and New York.
It would only add to the 32 inches (81 cm) of snow that had fallen in suburban Washington in the biggest snowfall to hit the city in decades.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Ever ≠ decades.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Ever ≠ decades.
Enlightening.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I didn't click the link, but this winter has been crazy. My Delaware highschool is closed monday and tuesday because of the last storm, and then closed friday for unrelated reasons. It's unlikely I'll have school at all this week! Which actually is not a good thing for me because I struggle in my AP history class. I just realized I went of on a tangent, but thats how these snow storms are affecting me. The most likely place for someone to find me these next few days will probably be IHOP.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It's surely not all bad for the rest of the country if Congress is closed down for awhile.
How many more "Snowmageddons" must there be before the "cap and traders" will question their faith in global warming?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Brr. Glad I live on the left Coast.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I got to enjoy a snow day with my husband today. He works for the federal government. The downside is that it took two hours to shovel out our parking space and we still can't get more than a few blocks from our condo two days after the snow has stopped.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How many more "Snowmageddons" must there be before the "cap and traders" will question their faith in global warming?
quote:What’s particularly laughable about Mooney’s article is that according to the UAH satellite data so beloved of the anti-science crowd, the storm occurred on the warmest February 6 — and indeed, during the warmest winter — in the temperature record.
quote:Hmm. If only there were a theory to explain why we might be seeing massive amounts of moisture and extreme precipitation events….
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If the snow does not quit, you must acquit!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chicago has had a pretty easy winter so far. It is supposed to snow tonight and tomorrow. We have to go to work anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This to you is a big storm? In the grand old days of the Confederation, we would have had 100 storms such storms in so many nights.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Federal government snow day tomorrow too. Yippee for me!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's no-lose for the global warming nuts. If it's colder and snowier than usual, that's evidence of global warming. Anthropogenic global warming, no less And if it's warmer and drier than usual, well, that's evidence of anthropogenic global warming as well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Chicago has had a pretty easy winter so far. It is supposed to snow tonight and tomorrow. We have to go to work anyway.
Same here in Detroit. It's been kind of lame actually, but we're in for something in the next two days. I bet it never even materializes.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Ever ≠ decades.
Actually, we're already at the third snowiest winter in recorded history here in the DC region with 45" - only an inch behind the '95-'96 runner-up season. We're projected to get anywhere between 5" to 20" tomorrow night, which could easily put us above the 54.4" record of 1898-99.
And that's measuring at Regan National Airport, which is right by the river and pretty low. They got a little under 18" during this past weekend's storm, while my home (closer to Dulles Airport in Fairfax) got a little over 30".
Of course, having gone to school in Indiana, these numbers don't seem that crazy (altho I didn't have to dig a car & house out of snow while in college). But factoring in poor plowing and crazy drivers makes it a lot worse. Two days after the end of the storm and the major highway closest to my house is still a mess, and the drivers just don't know how to cope. I went six miles down it and another highway in similar condition in order to drop Abhi off at Dulles for a business trip this morning and saw four accidents.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's no-lose for the global warming nuts. If it's colder and snowier than usual, that's evidence of global warming. Anthropogenic global warming, no less And if it's warmer and drier than usual, well, that's evidence of anthropogenic global warming as well.
BZZZZ! None of the above. It's warmer and wetter than usual. Not colder -- the wetter means more snow, it need not be colder.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Lisa, straw-man much? You like to oversimplify the position to the point of absurdity. You know it's more complicated than that, and I know you're smart enough to understand that.
- - -
Jhai, here's some data from the link I posted. It's only three cities, and yes, this is a big storm, but it's not the biggest in decades.
Philadelphia has had comparable storms in 1983 and 1996.
Baltimore and Washington DC have had comparable storms in 1979, 1983, 1996, and 2003.
quote: Top 9 snowstorms on record for Philadelphia:
1. 30.7″, Jan 7-8, 1996 2. 28.5″, Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon) 3. 23.2″, Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse) 4. 21.3″, Feb 11-12, 1983 5. 21.0″, Dec 25-26, 1909 6. 19.4″, Apr 3-4, 1915 7. 18.9″, Feb 12-14, 1899 8. 16.7″, Jan 22-24, 1935 9. 15.1″, Feb 28-Mar 1, 1941
The top 10 snowstorms on record for Baltimore:
1. 28.2″, Feb 15-18, 2003 2. 26.5″, Jan 27-29, 1922 3. 24.8″, Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon) 4. 22.8″, Feb 11-12, 1983 5. 22.5″, Jan 7-8, 1996 6. 22.0″, Mar 29-30, 1942 7. 21.4″, Feb 11-14, 1899 8. 21.0″, Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse) 9. 20.0″, Feb 18-19, 1979 10. 16.0″, Mar 15-18, 1892
The top 10 snowstorms on record for Washington, D.C.:
1. 28.0″, Jan 27-28, 1922 2. 20.5″, Feb 11-13, 1899 3. 18.7″, Feb 18-19, 1979 4. 17.8″ Feb 5-6, 2010 (Snowmageddon) 5. 17.1″, Jan 6-8, 1996 6. 16.7″, Feb 15-18, 2003 7. 16.6″, Feb 11-12, 1983 8. 16.4″, Dec 19-20, 2009 (Snowpocalypse) 9. 14.4″, Feb 15-16, 1958 10. 14.4″, Feb 7, 1936
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Jhai is talking about the whole winter, not just one storm, as was Clive.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Alright. I got confused since Clive's title is about the winter, but his link is really about the next big storm, with nothing about the winter trend.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I live in Iowa. We've had 9? 10? snow days so far. I can't even keep track. We didn't have school today, and they already announced a two-hour delay for tomorrow. They will likely cancel if the winds pick up as predicted. School boards are discussing taking back days from spring break, having longer days or holding school on Saturdays in order to fulfill the legal required number of school days.
Also because of the predicted winds tomorrow on top of the snow today and overnight, I am staying at my mom's house tonight instead of trying to drive home (less than 10 miles away!) - this is after the last storm, when I nearly didn't make it home.
It's been the worst winter I remember - for Iowa at least. We haven't had the massive amounts of snow all at once that the east coast has recieved, but it has accumulated about every two weeks since the beginning of December. My whole yard and half my driveway are knee-deep in snow still, and we have had above-freezing temps and rain, which have made the snow level go down.
UPDATE: It's actually been 10 snow days for our school system.
[ February 10, 2010, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: CaySedai ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't know if it's the worst winter but it sure is the snowiest here in the Kansas City metro. No sooner did our first huge batch of snow melt than we got another. Only one school day so far that I know of (it's possible they canceled on a Friday and I didn't pay attention because my son is only going M-R at the moment).
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Global Warming is misnamed. It draws its name from the fact that in this climate change scenario, global average temperatures steadily rise. Which they are. This does not preclude localities from experiencing unnatural bouts of cold or warm or neither.
In fact Climate Change models predict an increase in extremes. Meaning colder winters and hotter summers and more/worse storms. Global Warming is more accurately named Global Weirding.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Alcon, my favorite term for it is Climate Destabilization. But I also like Global Weirding.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Global Warming is misnamed. It draws its name from the fact that in this climate change scenario, global average temperatures steadily rise. Which they are. This does not preclude localities from experiencing unnatural bouts of cold or warm or neither.
In fact Climate Change models predict an increase in extremes. Meaning colder winters and hotter summers and more/worse storms. Global Warming is more accurately named Global Weirding.
Silly me. And here, I used to think that falsifiability was a requirement for a model to be considered scientific. I didn't realize it had been replaced by majority rule.
Can you think of anything that could possibly disprove the ACC model? I can't. Because absolutely anything and everything that happens can be painted as supporting it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This winter's actually been pretty mild in Wisconsin, especially compared to the one we got two years ago.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It's currently 87°F here, 58% humidity, partly cloudy with a pleasant breeze.
You're all welcome to come and visit anytime you get sick of the snow.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Silly me. And here, I used to think that falsifiability was a requirement for a model to be considered scientific. I didn't realize it had been replaced by majority rule.
Can you think of anything that could possibly disprove the ACC model? I can't. Because absolutely anything and everything that happens can be painted as supporting it.
Yes. If that's a serious question, I can direct you the the large number of scientific papers on the subject. The models are being continually revised based on experiments using the scientific method.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I want more snow. Seriously. This is kinda wimpy and I say bring it on.
quote:Silly me. And here, I used to think that falsifiability was a requirement for a model to be considered scientific. I didn't realize it had been replaced by majority rule.
Can you think of anything that could possibly disprove the ACC model? I can't. Because absolutely anything and everything that happens can be painted as supporting it.
Why are you that confused? There's a very easy way to falsify ACC: If the long-term trend for global temperatures went downward. Since it has gone upwards for quite some time, you'd need at least a decade or so of downward trend to be sure, so it won't be disproved anytime in the near future.
Another possibility would be showing that a different model of the situation fit the current facts better -- that could remove the "A" from "ACC". That's not too likely, though.
No single year, much less any single storm is evidence for or against. Only the trends over time, the collection of those events, is evidence one way or the other. Do you not understand the difference between a single data point and a collection of them?
Of course, all the people who do spout off about a particular storm or a particular season's weather being caused by ACC are full of nonsense, too.
edit: note that the last is not the same as noting that current weather conditions are entirely consistent with ACC models.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its currently 87°F, 58% humidity, partly cloudy with a pleasant breeze. You are all welcome to come visit anytime you get sick of the snow.
This is an El nino year and the weather patterns are consistent with what is predicted for a strong El Nino, heavy rains in So. Cal, heavy snow on the eastern sea board, unusually dry weather in the central states and Caribbean.
Here in the eastern Caribbean we are only 1 month into the dry season and already rationing water. So if you are planning to visit, be prepared for dry.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You want predictions. Here they are.
We have a really strong El Nino. If it persists we will have an unusually hot summer. The last strong El Nino year was 1998 which is the hottest year on record. This year has a very good chance of meeting or breaking that record if the El Nino persists.
When this summer turns out to be record hot, Lisa, Clyde, and the rest of the deniers will not post here saying they were wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: heavy rains in So. Cal
Yup. Including right now. Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We have a really strong El Nino. If it persists we will have an unusually hot summer. The last strong El Nino year was 1998 which is the hottest year on record. This year has a very good chance of meeting or breaking that record if the El Nino persists.
Oooh, that bodes well for us; probably one of the few that's true for. 1998 set a few records as one of the locally coolest summers on record (our El Nino pattern seems to be getting wetter and cooler).
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
People should appreciate snow more. Heavy snows are just gorgeous, and snow is so fun to play around in. I WISH it snowed more where I live. We haven't a had a decent snow all year.
[ February 09, 2010, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
We finally are getting some decent snow here in Ithaca. I had plans to cross-country ski four weeks ago, but all the snow melted and has stayed melted since.
Maybe this weekend.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, we had a strong El Nino. It's expected to be ENSO neutral by the arrival of summer.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I heard on the news today that 49 of the 50 states now have snow. Presumably, the one without snow would be Hawaii. Several states in the deep south are reporting their heaviest snowfall in 100 years.
Anybody heard anything from Al Gore? Or is he hiding out in a groundhog burrow, clutching his Nobel Prize?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Can you think of anything that could possibly disprove the ACC model? I can't. Because absolutely anything and everything that happens can be painted as supporting it.
That's not even remotely true, and I'd like to believe that you understand it. However, I do recall demonstrations of your selective scientific understanding from when you actively denied the confluence of scientific data showing an earth older than a few thousand years old, so.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So much wrong with your theory Ron. The big question, where did all this water that became snow come from? Climate Change said heat creates energy in the atmosphere that means more power for bigger storms of all kinds.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I heard on the news today that 49 of the 50 states now have snow. Presumably, the one without snow would be Hawaii. Several states in the deep south are reporting their heaviest snowfall in 100 years.
Anybody heard anything from Al Gore? Or is he hiding out in a groundhog burrow, clutching his Nobel Prize?
I was going to prove you wrong, but it looks like Hawaii doesn't have snow right now. They did when I was there in March:
I'm so sad. We've hardly had any snow here in Toronto. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How many more "Snowmageddons" must there be before the "cap and traders" will question their faith in global warming?
DING DING DING DING DING!
5th post, and the first GOP lackey sounds off on his total lack of comprehension of basic science. Ron, for the 100th time, at least, an exceptionally cold winter is not proof negative of the absence of a global warming phenomenon. In fact, quite the opposite, climate changes can cause extremes at different points during the year, either cold or hot. As usual you have no idea what you're talking about- I suspect your comment is just more troll bate- but in case you're still totally clueless, ask any of the several experts on the board to explain it to you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Can you think of anything that could possibly disprove the ACC model? I can't. Because absolutely anything and everything that happens can be painted as supporting it.
:smirk: IF ACC is happening, then everything that does happen *will* support the model, and can thus be painted as support of the model. Now, is it just too much for your little old head to accept that the model accounts for heavy snowfall? That's just fundamentally unacceptable to you for some reason? Science cannot possibly expect you to accept the idea of warming trends causing harsh winters? Awwww. I'm sorry.
Here's something that could disprove the ACC model- the Earth cools over the next few decades, and none of the predictions made so far come true. Bam. Disproved. What are you worried about? Since you are convinced that will be the case, do you honestly believe scientists will still believe in the model if it never ends up matching any of the available data? What awful scientist beat you as a child?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
There is now currently snow in the contiguous 48 states, and liberals are still crying about global warming? Haha!
(Was that invalid reasoning? Okay, then the Global Warming Fanatics need to stop claiming specific draughts and hurricanes as evidence of global warming. If they can do that, then others are free to use record winters as evidence that Global Warming is a myth.)
By the way, time magazine specifically claimed that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Clive,
Have you not been paying attention? Climate change models predict climate instability as global temperature increases. More snow than usual, more/bigger hurricanes, etc. are all consistent with that. So yeah, when we get some unusually huge storms, it's not unreasonable to suggest that global warming is to blame.
On the other hand, using a predicted effect of global warming - heavier than normal snowfall - to dispute global warming is nonsensical.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
This winter has also inconvenienced me considerably as I ordered a second ps3 controller and a book from amazon 10 days ago and they're still not here.
On the other hand, there's awesome icicles hanging from my house that have grown so tall that they've connected with the snow on the ground.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Previously all the rage used to be "global warming this, global warming that." They then adopted the phrase "climate change" in order to use ANY big weather event as further evidence.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Omg, like other climatologists are making claims that contradict the liberal mantra:
What I don't get, what I flatly don't get, is this.
There is quite a bit of evidence of global warming leading to more extreme weather conditions. Doesn't matter what political beliefs you hold to believe that.
There isn't nearly as much cut and dried evidence to suggest that anything mankind has done has increased that warming -- it may be a natural cycle -- or that anything we do now could decrease it. That's where I can see the arguments forming. Is it worth bankrupting businesses in an attempt to change something we can't change? There is room for discussion there.
But that requires thought, and long-term planning. It's like we're in a small island village and we can see the killer wave coming. We can and should argue over how best to build walls and ride it out; it's insane to pretend the wave isn't there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Previously all the rage used to be "global warming this, global warming that." They then adopted the phrase "climate change" in order to use ANY big weather event as further evidence
They had to change the name because some goof balls kept saying stuff like "Call Al Gore" whenever there was a big snowstorm.
It still is global warming, but a couple degrees of global warming causes general climate instability.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QB] [QUOTE]Previously all the rage used to be "global warming this, global warming that."
Which is analogous to other idiots using every lake drying up or every hurricane to scare monger about global warming. Why get enraged by one and not by the other?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why get enraged by one and not by the other?
Because in one case phenomena consistent with global warming are attributed to global warming while in the other case phenomena that are consistent with global warming are being used to argue against it.
"Katrina was caused by global warming" - Plausible, consistent with theory which predicts unusually severe tropical storms.
"Record snowfall on east coast contradicts global warming theory." - No it doesn't. Heavier snow fall in some regions is consistent with global warming.
Also, "enraged" isn't usually my feeling. It's more bemusement/dismay.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
What global weather patterns would be inconsistent with global warming?
From my link upthread:
quote: According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
How consistent with global warming!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: [QB] What global weather patterns would be inconsistent with global warming?
Global trends of temperature reduction and/or the lack of discernible anthropogenic effect on climate forcings.
(pre-emptive whooosh)
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Clive, I really don't think I should be responding, because it clearly doesn't matter to you what data is shown and what explanations are given, but against my better judgment I am responding anyways.
When you hear statements from scientists regarding climate change, they (should, and almost always) are talking about trends on the order of 30+ years. Arctic summer sea ice in the last 30 years has been declining, so it is not unreasonable to stipulate that this is due to global warming.
I've seen some papers (and a speaker that came here to campus this week) who has some data showing a ice/ocean temperature cycle on the order of 70 years. So, according to him, the 30 year decrease in sea ice is not in fact global warming, just the down slope of this 70 year cycle. However, he did show that there was a slight overall decrease in sea ice (and warming of ocean temperatures) over the past 100 years that could not be explained by this 70 year cycle. He had no problem stating that this larger trend could very well me anthropogenic global warming. He wasn't certain, but he had no reason to reject this theory.
So increasing Arctic sea ice in the last 3 years is not inconsistent with global warming. It cannot be used as proof to reject the theory.
At the same time, a 3 year (or even 10 year) decrease in sea ice, or increase in Atlantic ocean temperatures cannot be used as proof of global warming. Climate scientists do not claim these things. Some scientists do make these claims, and the media will take these claims and run with them, but they simply cannot be used on their own as proof/disproof either way.
But I still believe, when you look at the ~ 100 year trend, that all of this decadal variation cannot account for the warming we are seeing. Many more scientists and non-scientists are making the same conclusions. They often are not as vocal as the "look! sea ice is melting!" crowd, or the "look! it's snowing outside!" crowd, but these last two groups are using noise as definitive trends. When you use noise and claim it's a bigger signal, you are just becoming noise yourself.
When you boil it down, it's really pretty simple. Ignore the noise, and look at the overall trend.
This is not a complicated concept, and I know you and Lisa and Ron are smart enough to see this. The fact that you ignore this fairly basic explanation, and continue to scream "Al Gore's a filthy liar!" when you have a link that shows some three year increase in sea ice, makes you just part of the noise. You lose credibility every time you do it. You look less rational and more reactionary every single time. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ya don't need a weatherman to know... ...the climes, they are a-changing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Claiming that Global Warming doesn't exist because of one cold spell or one snowy winter is like claiming that Christianity is not under attack based on how full the pews are on Easter.
Or better, claiming that Abortion is a non-issue because the pews are full on Easter Sunday, so everybody must be good Christians and not getting abortions, or soon will be.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Abortion is only ethical if those who favor it make it retroactive.
Since many scientists are now admitting that global temperatures have actually been trending downward for the past decade, why do some people still claim that global warming (from any cause) is a fact?
Perhaps left-wingers like the idea of GW because it gives them an excuse for yet another tax, which they use as a pretext for exercising more control over other people.
[ February 15, 2010, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Abortion is only ethical if those who favor it make it retroactive.
You're hard enough to take seriously when you're actually trying to make statements that you could possibly believe are true. Don't strain us further.
quote:Since many scientists are now admitting that global temperatures have actually been trending downward for the past decade, why do some people still claim that global warming (from any cause) is a fact?
First, this statement by you is useless unless you are willing to cite the 'many scientists' and explicitly point us to what you are claiming they are 'admitting.' This is because you have a flatlined record for correctly interpreting climate science when it comes into conflict with your belief that it doesn't exist.
Second, the expected reason why would be because climate scientists actually predicted a medium-scale pattern in temperature variance, one that could very easily mask the predicted 0.3C warming trend. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.
you guys seriously tried this in 2008.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Since many scientists are now admitting that global temperatures have actually been trending downward for the past decade, why do some people still claim that global warming (from any cause) is a fact?
Really? Did you ignore everything from my last post?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Pretty clearly he did. He does that. Don't feel too bad.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: [QB] What global weather patterns would be inconsistent with global warming?
Global trends of temperature reduction and/or the lack of discernible anthropogenic effect on climate forcings.
(pre-emptive whooosh)
How about there being no global warming in the last 15 years?
So where's the citations that show how there was no global warming in the last 15 years? That Daily Mail article appears suspiciously absent any citation. It just quotes a couple of scientists versus a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
If we're using your standard of evidence, I can just find an article that says that "yes, global warming exists" — but I'll do you one better. An article written by a competent scientific discussion body, complete with the citations that the Daily "read about breakthrough car that runs on water" Mail conspicuously lacks.
quote:B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:. . .Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
This is exactly my point. There is a statistical reason why any climate claim under 30 years is absurd. I have the link on my computer up on campus, and I'll post it tomorrow.
IIRC, there is no way to make a greater than 95% certain claim on climate with anything less than 30 years. 30 years being the absolute minimum. Anything below that and the claim is statistically inaccurate.
So, Clive, do you have any links to a 30+ year cooling trend? I mentioned the 70 year cycle in my previous post, and again, I'll try to link to it tomorrow. But even this guy, when talking about the 100 year trend, recognized a warming effect, that he said was almost certainly from anthropogenic sources.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: So, Clive, do you have any links to a 30+ year cooling trend? [/QB]
I don't. On the other hand, there have been other warming periods through out history. Just as those weren't due to human activity, so too is it probable that this isn't one isn't either.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Clive, as Rabbit has pointed out on occasion: scientists are not so stupid as to not have considered the possibility that this is simply a warming period like any other that we have no control over. That was an early hypothesis and the fact is that the normal environmental causes are not sufficient to explain the current trends.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I am coming up with a standard response to these threads:
"Science works. If some one is telling you something then they are trying to sell you something." In this case, they are selling gas, coal, SUV's and the desire to keep their energy bills artificially low.
I know, you think the Climate Changers are trying to sell you big taxes to "Control people" or they are trying to keep funding to their expensive lab tests. Seriously?
Which is more likely--Joe is going to lie to you in order to sell you a billion dollars in coal or Dr. Joe is going to lie to you so he can spend another thrilling winter measuring ice thickness in thrilling Antarctica?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Perhaps left-wingers like the idea of GW because it gives them an excuse for yet another tax, which they use as a pretext for exercising more control over other people.
Really? Really? You want to go there?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I'm so sad. We've hardly had any snow here in Toronto.
Seriously, eh? Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I cannot find a graph of the ocean temperatures that doesn't require a subscription, so I'll try to explain it a little better. The speaker was Petr Chylek and he was looking at surface ocean temperatures for the past 100 years. His data showed a pretty clear cycle on the order of 70 years, with the previous peak being around 1930, then dropping down to a minimum in the 1960s, and then rising again to another peak (or near peak) around 2000.
His argument was that most of the temperature rise we see in the surface ocean is from this cycle. However, when he tried to determine the larger trend, taking out this natural fluctuation and trying to look at the temperature anomaly, he found some evidence for slight unexplained warming. This is what he said could be due to anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Times: World may not be warming I was going to add quotes but it is a short article so anyone can easily read the whole thing. Basically it says some scientists say the research is flawed, and others say it is not.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
From DarkKnight's Link:
quote:Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.
quote:Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week’s 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record.
Dr. Menne’s study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the “good” siting category, while 454 fell into the “bad” category. According to the authors, though, “the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average”. Dr. Menne’s study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Was Dr. Menne's study peer reviewed?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Everything published in Geophysical Research is peer-reviewed.
Hobbes Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It is being published in a peer-reviewed journal, so without a lot of further digging, I'd guess yes.
Watt's study hasn't only not been peer reviewed, it hasn't been published. Basically he says he has a study and he says it proves certain things but we're all waiting to see it still.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I just find it odd that the temperature recording stations are amazingly accurate even in situations when they should not be...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The judgment "should not be" should be prefaced/clarified with an empirical reasoning. It 'should not be' because of what, exactly?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I just find it odd that the temperature recording stations are amazingly accurate even in situations when they should not be...
This is an aggregate analysis. It's very possible that some stations are significantly warmer and some are significantly colder.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Been following the Hatrack Global Warming discussion for a long time now without jumping in. I'm sort of a fence sitter here, that leans toward the "better safe than sorry" mentality.
But did you finish reading your own article Clive?
quote: E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It 'should not be' because of what, exactly?
if you had read the links you would know this answer
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: It 'should not be' because of what, exactly?
if you had read the links you would know this answer
I did. I am not going to presume YOUR judgment rendering a statement about what the data "should be." I don't play mind-reading when it comes to empirical analysis, which is why I am making the request that YOU should preface the statement.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:if you had read the links you would know this answer
This assumes that we all process data the same way that you do. I have read the links but I can only guess what you mean exactly. Please explain.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:(From DarkKnight's)These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Quite frankly I think the link was pretty explicit in why the data would be suspect. If the sensors are situated near areas with higher than normal heat, they should come out biased towards higher than normal heat. I don't think this requires a level of abstract reasoning so profound that you need to be anal about making people post their interpretation of the results in the context of an internet debate.
The fact that they AREN'T warmer than normal is weird and unexpected, but plenty of things in science are like that.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I think it just shows that the concerns for location of these temperature stations are overblown. Initially, you may think that asphalt and the location of buildings would skew the data significantly, but the results seem to show otherwise. The next step is to revise your thinking.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That. "Should be" is not equivalent, in my mind, to "I intuit that it would be." I suspected that this is what DK was doing but it seemed inappropriate to just presume it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You want predictions. Here they are.
We have a really strong El Nino. If it persists we will have an unusually hot summer. The last strong El Nino year was 1998 which is the hottest year on record. This year has a very good chance of meeting or breaking that record if the El Nino persists.
When this summer turns out to be record hot, Lisa, Clyde, and the rest of the deniers will not post here saying they were wrong.
I never denied that there's global warming, so I don't have anything to say I was wrong about. My issue isn't with global warming, and never has been. It's with anthropogenic global warming.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Samp, I like how that photo/screen capture was taken today, off all days, which has to be the coolest day we've had in northern Kansas in the past three weeks.
And I refuse to complain about the heat. It's so nice to sit here and sweat, as opposed to shivering under two layers of clothing. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I never denied that there's global warming, so I don't have anything to say I was wrong about.
You are definitely wrong about your 'no-lose' conceptual portrayal. And you have tried to discredit the idea of warming through ideas of there actually being cooling instead, or that they're on the same level of credibility.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)