July in US was hottest ever in history books (Update)

Aug 08, 2012 by SETH BORENSTEIN

(AP) — U.S. scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states, breaking a record set during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. They say climate change is a factor.

And even less a surprise: The U.S. this year keeps setting records for weather extremes, based on the precise calculations that include drought, heavy rainfall, unusual temperatures, and storms.

The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees (25 Celsius). That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Records go back to 1895.

"It's a pretty significant increase over the last record," said climate scientist Jake Crouch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center In the past, skeptics of global warming have pointed to the Dust Bowl to argue that recent heat is not unprecedented. But Crouch said this shows that the current year "is out and beyond those Dust Bowl years. We're rivaling and beating them consistently from month to month."

Three of the nation's five hottest months on record have been recent Julys: This year, 2011 and 2006. Julys in 1936 and 1934 round out the top five.

Last month also was 3.3 degrees (1.7 Celsius) warmer than the 20th century average for July.

Thirty-two states had months that were among their 10 warmest Julys, but only one, Virginia, had the hottest July on record. Crouch said that's a bit unusual, but that it shows the breadth of the heat and associated drought.

For example in 2011, the heat seemed to be centered mostly in Oklahoma and Texas. But this summer "the epicenters of the heat kind of migrated around. It kind of got everybody in the action this month," Crouch said.

The first seven months of 2012 were the warmest on record for the nation. And August 2011 through July this year was the warmest 12-month period on record, just beating out the July 2011-June 2012 time period.

But it's not just the heat that's noteworthy. NOAA has a measurement called the U.S. Climate Extreme Index which dates to 1900 and follows several indicators of unusually high and low temperatures, severe drought, downpours, and tropical storms and hurricanes. NOAA calculates the index as a percentage, which mostly reflects how much of the nation experience extremes. In July, the index was 37 percent, a record that beat the old mark for July last year. The average is 20 percent.

For the first seven months of the year, the extreme index was 46 percent, beating the old record from 1934. This year's extreme index was heavily driven by high temperatures both day and night, which is unusual, Crouch said.

"This would not have happened in the absence of human-caused climate change," said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.

Crouch and Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said what's happening is a double whammy of weather and climate change. They point to long-term higher night temperatures from global warming and the short-term effect of localized heat and drought that spike daytime temperatures.

Drought is a major player because in the summer "if it is wet, it tends to be cool, while if it is dry, it tends to be hot," Trenberth said.

So the record in July isn't such a big deal, Trenberth said. "But the fact that the first seven months of the year are the hottest on record is much more impressive from a climate standpoint, and highlights the fact that there is more than just natural variability playing a role: Global warming from human activities has reared its head in a way that can only be a major warning for the future."

Here are some more numbers unlikely to provide cold comfort. The coolest July on record was in 1915. The coldest month in U.S. history was January 1979 with an average temperature of 22.6 degrees (-5 Celsius).

Explore further: Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

4.1 /5 (18 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

July heat wave almost breaks record

Aug 08, 2006

July was the second hottest month, averaging 77.2 degrees in the 48 contiguous states of United States, just below the record of 77.5 set in 1936.

Earth records 7th warmest July on record

Aug 15, 2007

Scientists said the month of July brought record and near-record warmth to the Western United States and was the seventh warmest July in recorded Earth history.

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

4 hours ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

5 hours ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

7 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 235

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

djr
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 08, 2012
"U.S. scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the contiguous United States."

There has been no significant warming in the past 10 years - Ubavona. Sigh.....
dschlink
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2012
Weather is amazing stuff. The PNW has 'enjoyed' one its coldest Julys ever, the bible belt gets toasted and the East Coast floods.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (22) Aug 08, 2012
And the 30s were hot because of global warming, too?
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2012
GLOBAL average temperature has continued to rise. Local(and extended) extremes are an expected part of this trend.

As far as the continental US,

Weather is amazing stuff. The PNW has 'enjoyed' one its coldest Julys ever, the bible belt gets toasted and the East Coast floods.


The key term is "average". Cool PNW and flooded East Coast occurred during the HOTTEST JULY ON RECORD.

And the 30s were hot because of global warming, too?


No, Swenson --somebody left the stove on.

djr
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2012
"And the 30s were hot because of global warming, too?"

That would be relevant if the 30's were as warm or warmer than they are today. Look at the facts Rygg.

http://www.ncdc.n...-3-6.gif

Do you have any long term data sets that would suggest the 30's were as warm as today?
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 08, 2012
Only 1 state set a record - Virginia.

http://sunshineho...y-state/

"What made this year different from the Dust Bowl summer of 1936 was nighttime temperatures, he said. In the Dust Bowl years, the warmth was largely driven by daytime highs. This July, the record heat was also pushed by warm nighttime temperatures the overnight lows werent that low."

It wasn't hotter. Nights were warmer. Which is a sure sign of UHI.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2012
AGW Rule #1: 1936 hottest July ever - silence ....

AGW Rule #2: 1936 record broken 76 years later - CO2 did it!!!!!!

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2012
"That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, "

.2/(273.15 plus 25) = 6.7e-4.

.067% higher average than the previous record.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2012
I know one thing from chaotic systems. Defining new extremes continually is indicative of a permanent new mean, as the temperature prices are TRENDING.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
So that's a period of ~77 years.
There is a solar cycle that's ~77 years.
http://ff.org/cen...usly.htm

And it snowed in Johannesburg, RSA.
kochevnik
4.1 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."
EverythingsJustATheory
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2012
PETM (55M yrs ago): One of the most extreme climate changes in the history of the planet in terms of temperature change/yr:

Temperature Change: 6' C over 20,000 yrs. Rate: 0.0003' C /yr

Last 100 years: 0.8' C over 100 yrs. Rate: 0.008'C / yr

So we are heating up 26 times faster than one of the most rapid temperature changes that caused many species to become extinct, and you all have the gall to say this is entirely natural? What do you think the outcome will be for species on this planet (including us) that cannot adapt to the rapidly changing conditions?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."

So you think the mean data is 3 sigma more accurate than .067% ?
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."

So you think the mean data is 3 sigma more accurate than .067% ?
Extremes define trend, so yes. Your use of sigma levels is irrelevant for nonstationary data like temperature graphs.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
Change your perspective....

Look, we have this crazy notion that we can control the fundamentals of reality...on both sides. The truth is that we can't, at least we can't yet. Again, one side fears what needs to be done to control the problem they can't admit to. The other side has some crazy notion that they can control people to the extent that we can change our impact on the environment. NEITHER positions are in sync with reality.

The idea that we can control humanity is illusory, and the idea that we can control the environment is illusory.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."

So you think the mean data is 3 sigma more accurate than .067% ?
Extremes define trend, so yes. Your use of sigma levels is irrelevant for nonstationary data like temperature graphs.

Extremes define trend? Since when?
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."

So you think the mean data is 3 sigma more accurate than .067% ?
Extremes define trend, so yes. Your use of sigma levels is irrelevant for nonstationary data like temperature graphs.

Extremes define trend? Since when?


Since always, reference politics....
kochevnik
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2012
Extremes define trend? Since when?
Since college
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."

So you think the mean data is 3 sigma more accurate than .067% ?
Extremes define trend, so yes. Your use of sigma levels is irrelevant for nonstationary data like temperature graphs.

Extremes define trend? Since when?


Since always, reference politics....

The last ice age was an extreme. What trend did it define?
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2012
What extreme? It's practically in the noise from the 30s.
Doesn't matter if it's "practically." What maters is "actually."

So you think the mean data is 3 sigma more accurate than .067% ?
Extremes define trend, so yes. Your use of sigma levels is irrelevant for nonstationary data like temperature graphs.

Extremes define trend? Since when?


Since always, reference politics....

The last ice age was an extreme. What trend did it define?


What trend did communism define? Libertarianism? Democracy? All are extremes and set the trend. Fashion is another example. The definition is immaterial, the effect is real...
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
The last ice age was an extreme. What trend did it define?
The end of the trend signified the temperature nadir and a low median temperature, around which the climate cycles for a long duration. The trend itself was shorter-lived thus less devastating than being stuck at that median for millennia.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2012
The last ice age was an extreme. What trend did it define?
The temperature nadir and a low median temperature, around which the climate cycles for a long duration.

WHAT? The climate cycles? How can that be? You just asserted the temperature trends are going to increase forever.
Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2012
The last ice age was an extreme. What trend did it define?
The end of the trend signified the temperature nadir and a low median temperature, around which the climate cycles for a long duration. The trend itself was shorter-lived thus less devastating than being stuck at that median for millennia.


Well done, extremely succinct.

Look life interacts with the environment. This is reality. This is how it is...period. Interaction isn't the problem. The problem is are we "trending" to the extent that "we" reach a "new normal". The GOE was a "new normal" for this planet. It was brought about without the "benefit" of human intervention. Single celled organisms "accomplished" it. It also made possible the emergence of more complex forms of life....

cont
Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
cont

There is nothing to fear here, on either "side". If the environment gets too "out of wack" we will be pushed. If the government gets too "out of wack" it too will be pushed. I'm going way out on a limb saying those two things, but I "have faith" in that assertion.

You just asserted the temperature trends are going to increase forever.


Did he? Where?
jonnyboy
Aug 08, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2012
cont

There is nothing to fear here, on either "side". If the environment gets too "out of wack" we will be pushed. If the government gets too "out of wack" it too will be pushed. I'm going way out on a limb saying those two things, but I "have faith" in that assertion.

You just asserted the temperature trends are going to increase forever.


Did he? Where?

"Extremes define trend". No limits implied.
Extremes typically define a change in a trend.
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2012
cont

There is nothing to fear here, on either "side". If the environment gets too "out of wack" we will be pushed. If the government gets too "out of wack" it too will be pushed. I'm going way out on a limb saying those two things, but I "have faith" in that assertion.

You just asserted the temperature trends are going to increase forever.


Did he? Where?

"Extremes define trend". No limits implied.
Extremes typically define a change in a trend.


So it's your assertion that he implied that the surface of the Earth could reach 10^100 degrees??

Perhaps it would be more productive if you ASKED him what he really meant instead of assuming idiocy and knocking down a straw-man....
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
So it's your assertion that he implied that the surface of the Earth could reach 10^100 degrees??

That's what koch asserted. The trend must continue indefinitely. I know it's a stupid assertion which is why I point it out.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
The 1930's were hot?

Sorry Tard boy. Not on this planet.

Can you find the warm 30's on planet earth? Here is a temperature profile for that period.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2011

Maybe they were hot on your planet of Conservadopia.

"And the 30's were hot because of global warming, too?" - RyggTard
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2012
But the fact that the first seven months of the year are the HOTTEST ON RECORD is much more impressive from a climate standpoint, and highlights the fact that there is more than just natural variability playing a role: Global warming from human activities has reared its head in a way that can only be a major warning for the future.


Well deniers, hate to say; told you so... So fork it over. Start pay on those bets you lost.

kochevnik
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2012
@ryggtard That's what koch asserted. The trend must continue indefinitely. I know it's a stupid assertion which is why I point it out.
Where did I write that? Oh right, nowhere. That's where you live.
@ryggtard WHAT? The climate cycles? How can that be? You just asserted the temperature trends are going to increase forever.
What do you think the 'end' in trEND is about, you nitwit?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2012
WHAT? The climate cycles? How can that be? You just asserted the temperature trends are going to increase forever.
What do you think the 'end' in trEND is about, you nitwit?

If you claim July '12 is the peak, this is the end of the trend and temperatures will start to decrease?
kochevnik
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2012
@ryggtard If you claim July '12 is the peak, this is the end of the trend and temperatures will start to decrease?
That's not what I wrote. Work on your reading skills.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2012
ryg said: "And the 30's were hot because of global warming, too?"

If you look at the studies, you will find that land management was the first human endeavor to have an impact on the climate by reducing the CO2 sinks. So, yes, the 30s were probably warmer than they would have been without humans denuding the planet. Remember, this was first predicted in the late 1800s. The fact that it is changing a lot faster now is due to the combustion needed to keep the industrial revolution going. Look back to the 1700s if you want to stop blaming CO2. Pulling out the 1930s just points out that you seem to think that the signal was visible then.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2012
ryg said: "And the 30's were hot because of global warming, too?"

If you look at the studies, you will find that land management was the first human endeavor to have an impact on the climate by reducing the CO2 sinks. So, yes, the 30s were probably warmer than they would have been without humans denuding the planet. Remember, this was first predicted in the late 1800s. The fact that it is changing a lot faster now is due to the combustion needed to keep the industrial revolution going. Look back to the 1700s if you want to stop blaming CO2. Pulling out the 1930s just points out that you seem to think that the signal was visible then.

2012-1936 = 76 years. The 77 year solar cycle correlates to the peak. Since AGWites are convinced by correlation, why not this correlation?
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2012
One whole state had the hottest July ever.

South Dakota July 2012 was 2nd warmest ever. Only 5F colder than 1936.

North Dakota July 2012 was 2nd warmest ever. Only 5.9F colder than 1936.

1936 July was brutally hot. 2012 July wasn't as warm in the daytime as 1936.
djr
5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2012
"One whole state had the hottest July ever."

From the article - "U.S. scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states"

Do you have a source for your claim that only one state had the hottest July ever?
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2012
"One whole state had the hottest July ever."

From the article - "U.S. scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the Lower 48 states"

Do you have a source for your claim that only one state had the hottest July ever?


http://sunshineho...y-state/

Virginia was red = record.

Only one state.

And precipitation looked pretty normal ... except for the 6 states in the middle.

http://www.ncdc.n...age4.gif

No record either.
djr
5 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2012
Wonder if Rygg missed my question.. I will repeat it.

Do you have any long term data sets that would suggest the 30's were as warm as today?
djr
5 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2012
OK - now I get it - I was trying to understand how July could be the hottest July on record - but only one state has broken the record. But of course - in any one year - some states may be warmer, and others may be cooler - and you have to look at the whole picture. So once again NP - you ignore the big picture - and cherry pick a piece of data that supports your narative. So here is the relevant detail - "The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation" From - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

You never give up cherry picking do you?
ReduceGHGs
5 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2012
So many uninformed deniers posting comments. Sad that despite what every respected scientific institution has concluded too many people just don't get it.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
Yep, Dir has my money on him, Its a safe bet too. All you have to do is walk outside and look (look at the dried up grass) and feel the nasty 95F heat. NP is a ridiculous fool and R2 is right there with him.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2012
OK - now I get it - I was trying to understand how July could be the hottest July on record - but only one state has broken the record. But of course - in any one year - some states may be warmer, and others may be cooler - and you have to look at the whole picture. So once again NP - you ignore the big picture - and cherry pick a piece of data that supports your narative. So here is the relevant detail - "The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6F, 3.3F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation" From - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

You never give up cherry picking do you?


One state. A small one. Fact.

Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2012
Give it up NP. You can't seriously want to continue this global warming debate? The debate is over and your side lost.
sennekuyl
not rated yet Aug 09, 2012
Is there a problem with averages that I'm not seeing? If average tended to be high rather than low surely one record could push the average a little higher again? Were there record lows that is making this an infeasible proposition?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2012
"One state. A small one. Fact."

A pretty irrelevant fact. Here is another fact - "Since the beginning of July, 142 all-time record highs have been set or tied across 19 states." From - http://www.accuwe...ec/67593]http://www.accuwe...ec/67593[/url]

So clearly - we can cherry pick the facts to match our own narrative. Surely the relevant facts are the long term data trends.

http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

There is no doubt when you look carefully at the graphs on that page that we are in a long term warming trend - and that fact is supported by some others - "The tally of record high temperatures during the time period is 2,476, and the tally of maximum low temperature records is 1,365." Also from - http://www.accuwe...ec/67593]http://www.accuwe...ec/67593[/url]
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2012
The real comparison is heat retained which could be better represented as the mean daily temperature.
As I calculated the mean thermal difference from July 1936 and July 2012 is .067%. Recall that when using temperature for any heat calculation one must use absolute units, Kelvin.
How significant is .067% from July 1936 data to July 2012 data?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2012
As I calculated the mean thermal difference from July 1936 and July 2012 is .067%. Recall that when using temperature for any heat calculation one must use absolute units, Kelvin. How significant is .067% from July 1936 data to July 2012 data?

Oh. Wow.

Please go back to school. You clearly have not the smidgeon of a hint of a clue what statistic significance means and how it's computed.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
.00067 is significant?
Doesn't this mean they must have recorded the temperatures in 1936 and 2012 to at least 5 significant figures to assert .00067 is significant?
Maybe they should review NIST's GUM.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012
"The 77 year solar cycle correlates to the peak."

Do you have some references for this 77 year solar cycle? - I could not find anything with a quick google search. I found a bunch on the 88 year Gleissberg cycle.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2012
"One state. A small one. Fact."

A pretty irrelevant fact.


Record July's by decade for CONUS

189x 1
190x 4
191x 1
192x 4
193x 15
195x 6
198x 2
199x 4
200x 6
201x 5

SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012


Record July's by decade for CONUS

189x 1
190x 4
191x 1
192x 4
193x 15
195x 6
198x 2
199x 4
200x 6
201x 5



193x 15
201x 5

15 records in 10 years
5 records in 3

Whats your point?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2012
.00067 is significant? Doesn't this mean they must have recorded the temperatures in 1936 and 2012 to at least 5 sigificant figures

No it doesn't. You can't just make shit like that up.

look up:
significant figures
expected value
distributions
probability density functions
statistical significance
statistic hypothesis tests

It is very, very obvious that you don't know these things (and probably have never heard of them...though you should if you've gone through high school)

Maybe they should review NIST's GUM.

Maybe you should review your textbooks. Seriously. That 'math' you just did would be hysterically funny if it weren't so shockingly wrong.

djr
5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2012
"Whats your point?"

That July 2012 was the warmest month on record in the continental U.S. which is very much in keeping with the long term data trend.

That all of your slicing and dicing of the data is childish and irrelevant - when you can just go to the meta data - and look at the facts.

http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

That the sooner we accept the reality of global warming - the sooner we start talking about the path we should take as a species to find ways of living sustainably - rather than continuing to do harm to the environment that sustains us.

That is 3 points - but I am sure you don't mind.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2012
"Whats your point?"

That July 2012 was the warmest month on record in the continental U.S. which is very much in keeping with the long term data trend.


So the trend was every year from 1937 to 2011 was cooler than 1936.

And only one state had the hottest July ever?

CO2 didn't start working until 2012?

Why is CO2 so selective?
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
"So the trend was every year from 1937 to 2011 was cooler than 1936."

What are you smoking? The multi decade temperature has been nothing but up. How can you look at this graph and conclude that every year from 1937 to 2011 was cooler than 1936.

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

Here is the continental U.S. temperature. http://climvis.nc...play3.pl

Granted 1936 was a very hot year - that does not give you the right to arbitrarily select it as the beginning point for some kind of trend. Do you notice that most of the dots are below the line before 1980, and then most of the dots are above the line after 1980?
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2012
"So the trend was every year from 1937 to 2011 was cooler than 1936."

What are you smoking? The multi decade temperature has been nothing but up.


The discussion was July in the USA.

Every July from 1937 to 2011 was colder than 1936.

And 1936 is still hotter in terms of maximum temperature. 2012 just had a warmer minimum, which is the class UHI symptom ... A/C units keep pumping out hot moist air all night long.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
"The discussion was July in the USA." The discussion is global warming - or global temperature trends. July was the hottest month on record in the contintental U.S. - which is in keeping with global temperature data. You insist on slicing and dicing - selecting arbitrary years - and using them as a beginning point for trends - because they were an anomaly - and you don't understand data. The global trends have been nothing but up. An article discussing July 2012 as the hottest month on record in the U.S. says nothing in itself - it is slicing and dicing - but it is certainly in keeping with the global temperature trends - that are supporting the projections of previous climate models.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
That 'math' you just did would be hysterically funny if it weren't so shockingly wrong.

You claim to be a Phd. What's wrong?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2012
Let's try this again:
Q36 is the heat energy in July 1936 with a mass, m, and a heat capacity, c.
Q12 is the heat energy in July 2012 with a mass, m, and heat capacity, c. I am assuming m and c are equal for the different times.
The formula is Q=mcT (T is in kelvin).
The article claims the mean temp for July 12 is 25C = 273.15 plus 25 K, .2K higher than 1936.
So the delta increase in heat from July 1936 to July 2012 is:
Q36=mc(273.15 plus 24.8)
Q12 =mc(273.15 plus 25)
Percent Q increase is Q12-Q36/Q36 = .2mc/mc(273.15 plus 24.8) = 6.71e-4.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2012
Let's try this again:
Q36 is the heat energy in July 1936 with a mass, m, and a heat capacity, c.
Q12 is the heat energy in July 2012 with a mass, m, and heat capacity, c. I am assuming m and c are equal for the different times.
The formula is Q=mcT (T is in kelvin).
The article claims the mean temp for July 12 is 25C = 273.15 plus 25 K, .2K higher than 1936.
So the delta increase in heat from July 1936 to July 2012 is:
Q36=mc(273.15 plus 24.8)
Q12 =mc(273.15 plus 25)
Percent Q increase is Q12-Q36/Q36 = .2mc/mc(273.15 plus 24.8) = 6.71e-4.


Rg2: You are not calculating a temperature difference here you are calculating the difference in heat energy in the system. It has to be a small number because the heat capacity of the earth is huge. This is saying that the energy of the earth increased by this much. This is a huge number just made small by dividing it by itself. I can make anything small by dividing it by the mass of the earth. You need parentheses to make it right.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2012
What is temperature? A measure of the heat energy in the system.
Energy is calculated with absolute temperature, not relative.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012
Energy is calculated with absolute temperature, not relative

So delta E is not proportional to delta-T? I'm having a hard time grasping what you are saying.

Give it up R2, global warming is real and is doing everything we said it would. Once you admit to yourself that, yeah, you were wrong about the AGW issue, go back and read. It's worst than anything you can imagine for the end-of-the-world.

I don't like to exaggerate but in 100 years we could be 160F in the middle of Kansas, Basically a desert.

That is how important it is to stop AGW as soon as possible. Hopefully you political mind will grasp that.

SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012
What is temperature? A measure of the heat energy in the system.
Energy is calculated with absolute temperature, not relative.


The area of the 48 states is about 8,000,000 sq Km

Taking just the air to an altitude of 1 Km and ignoring the change in temperature of the land, water vapour content, and pressure and assuming it's a closed system. It would take about 2.9 million gigawatt hours to raise the temperature by 0.2 degrees kelvin. This is just a wild approximation the actual figure is much higher.

How significant is .067% from July 1936 data to July 2012 data?


Do the math

Heat capacity of dry air at sea level 1.0035 joules per gram per degree kelvin

The density of dry air at standard temperature and pressure 1.293 Kg per cubic meter

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2012
"The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees (25 Celsius). That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree,"

Another way to illustrate:

Now I could have been wrong when I assumed the .2 degree was .2K. Maybe it was .2 R.

So if we use thermo's way, a .2 deg F change is .2/77.4 = 0.00258.
If the .2 is K then its .2/24.8 = 0.00806. So first it's important to know the units.
If the units are R, then the change is .2R/(537.4R)= 3.7202e-4.

Note that I assumed the same mass and the same heat capacity for JUL 36 and JUL 12. But the temperatures must be in absolute units to be fair.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
An illustration of why absolute scales must be used.
Say the mean July 36 temperature was 0C and the mean July 12 temperature was 2 C.
The percent increase from July 36 to July 12 is 2/0 = inf.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2012
OK there is an old song called Pascal's wager. I know this is "stupid" but it's worth a try to break through all the fear on the "denalist" side of the argument.

If we set aside all the political solutions to this problem, what have you got to lose if we go the technology route? What have you got to lose if all those crazy scientists are right?

I'm just tossing things against the brick wall here hoping something sticks...

As an aside, when I was on the other side of the argument I can admit now that in the back of my mind there was some real fear that all those scientists were actually RIGHT. That we might really be doing some serious damage to the environment. It's just that my fear of the political solutions being espoused outweighed those fears. I'm willing to be willing to bet I wasn't alone in this.

Set aside your fear. No one is trying to kill you here. No one can really control humanity to the ridiculous levels you imagine they can. Set "yourself" aside and actually listen.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2012
If the units are R, then the change is .2R/(537.4R)= 3.7202e-4.

Not to pick at your results R2, but talk about *forests from the trees*. You and NP both need absorb the fact that your info is wrong and your own political beliefs are misguided on this issue.

To date, there have been 4899 temperature records broken for this year in the USA lower 48 as of Aug, 8 2012. Today, Aug 8, there were 15 records broken a various stations. That is not normal!
However, it was predicted by the *AGWites* with our computer models.

NotParker
2.1 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2012
"The discussion was July in the USA." The discussion is global warming - or global temperature trends. July was the hottest month on record in the contintental U.S. - which is in keeping with global temperature data.


Only because of UHI keeping temperatures warmer at night.

What fascinates me is how the July 1936 record was ignored for the whole time AGW has been discussed, and now that it has finally been broek by a tiny amount (and probably only because of artificial adjustments) the July record is now PROOF of AGW.

The 1936 record was clearly PROOF of natural variation, not AGW.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012
The 1936 record was clearly PROOF of natural variation, not AGW


Here is a good discussion on 1936. (it's worth a click);
http://www.wunder...rynum=33

We have already surpassed 1936.

Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2012


The 1936 record was clearly PROOF of natural variation, not AGW.


OK so explain this to me like I'm new to all of this. I'm not being sarcastic here I'm honestly trying to understand....

Were we not injecting industrial levels of Co2 in the atmosphere in 1936?

Also as an aside I remember being fixated on the extremely low sample time with respect to climate when I was on the other side of the debate. It's been less than 100 years since 1936....

That being said have your cake, or eat it. Either 1936 is important somehow or it isn't with respect to sample size. Decide....
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2012
"U.S. scientists say July was the hottest month ever recorded in the contiguous United States."

There has been no significant warming in the past 10 years - Ubavona. Sigh.....
So now "Global" Warming is all about what happens in the USA? Really?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2012
GLOBAL average temperature has continued to rise. Local(and extended) extremes are an expected part of this trend.
No they haven't. There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years (15 years according to HadCRUT3 data).

As far as the continental US,

The key term is "average". Cool PNW and flooded East Coast occurred during the HOTTEST JULY ON RECORD.
So now you too think "Global" warming is all about the current weather in the USA? Really?
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
So now "Global" Warming is all about what happens in the USA? Really?

No - it is about global temperatures. Here are the global temperatures. http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

Please look carefully at the graphs - and tell me how you can conclude there has been no warming in the last 10 years. The fact that July was the hottest month on record for the continental U.S. is just another piece of data in the puzzle - I take it as significant. How is it that you are OK with Parker taking individual states - and using sliced and diced data to validate your narrative on global warming - but July being the hottest month ever in the U.S. - and you roll your eyes? Add this jewel in "The August 2011-July 2012 period was the warmest 12-month period of any 12-months on record for the contiguous U.S" and don't you even begin to wonder if you might be wrong?.....
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2012
Here is a neat graphic from your woodfortrees site Uba - giving a comparative graph - of all data sets - since 1979.

http://www.woodfo...ah/trend

No warming in the past 10 yrs?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2012
Ubatubby: Your nose is growing!! You said: "No they haven't. There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years (15 years according to HadCRUT3 data)."

You are about the only person left on earth who thinks the global temperatures are not going up. Even Watt thinks the temperature is going up, he just thinks it is natural variation. However, you have said both. You have said the temperature is not going up and it is natural variation that it is going up. Can you just settle on one denialist view? Is it going down (as you say) and is that part of the natural variation? Please point out any reputable source for this tall tale.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. Now he is down to yammering about single year trends.

This explains his dishonest technique.

https://docs.goog...1bUhRQUE

"So the trend was every year from 1937 to 2011 was cooler than 1936." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard will never recover from his mental disease.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2012
Just let it rest. NotParker can't tell the difference between

- local and gobal
- US and global
- weather and climate
- data point and data trend

and - judging from his inability to read graphs - up and down.
(not to speak of his inability to comprehend even the most basic statistical measures)

There's really no use discussing science with the scientifically illiterate.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
4899 temperature records broken

Broken by what percent change?
As I noted, the 'record' temperature claimed in this article is 1.00067 times greater than the 'record' in 1936.
Why do you think this is significant?
Especially since there are known solar cycles of ~77 years.
1936 was 76 years ago.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
"Why do you think this is significant?"

Because it is part of a larger narrative. The facts are the facts - the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets are melting, the ocean levels are rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, global temperatures are rising, etc. etc. The science is telling is that this POTENTIALLY has serious consequences for us as a species - with 7 billion of us living together on this planet. That is why many of us see this as significant.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
glaciers are melting,

Fortunately they have been melting for over 10,000 years.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2012
Rg2 you say:
"glaciers are melting,
Fortunately they have been melting for over 10,000 years."


That comment can easily be fixed (but I am sure you will find something wrong with the fix that you will just make up). Here is a fix:

"Glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate."

Now, please locate your scientific references that show that statement is not true. Rush Limbaugh does not count.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
Rg2 you say:
"glaciers are melting,
Fortunately they have been melting for over 10,000 years."


That comment can easily be fixed (but I am sure you will find something wrong with the fix that you will just make up). Here is a fix:

"Glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate."

Now, please locate your scientific references that show that statement is not true. Rush Limbaugh does not count.

Compared to what?
Do you have data showing the melting rate 10,000 years ago, 5000 years ago, ...?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
Year record high recorded in state as 1 AUG 12

1898 1 OR
1900 1 WY
1911 3 ME,NH,VT
1912 1 CO
1913 1 CA
1915 1 AK
1925 1 AL
1926 1 NY
1930 5 DE,DC,KY,MS,TN
1931 1 FL
1934 3 ID,IA,OH
1936 14 AR,IN,KS,LA,MD,MI,MN,NE,NJ,ND,PA,WV,WI
1937 1 MT
1954 3 IL,MO,VA
1961 1 WA
1975 2 MA,RI
1983 1 NC
1985 1 UT
1994 2 NV,NM,OK
1995 1 CT
2006 1 SD
2007 1 AZ
2012 1 SC

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
And the record lows:

1893 1 DE
1899 5 DC,FL,LA,NE,OH
1904 1 PA
1905 3 AR,KS,MO
1912 1 MD
1917 2 TN,WV
1933 4 OR,TX,VT,WY
1934 3 MI,NH,NJ
1936 2 ND,SD
1937 2 CA,NV
1940 1 GA
1943 2 CT,ID
1951 1 NM
1954 1 MT
1963 1 KY
1966 2 AL,MS
1968 1 WA
1971 2 AK,AZ
1979 2 HI,NY
1981 1 MA
1985 5 CO,NC,SC,UT,VA
1994 1 IN
1996 4 IA,MN,RI,WI
1999 1 IL
2009 1 ME
2011 1 OK
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
High data revised:

1898 1 OR
1900 1 WY
1911 3 ME,NH,VT
1913 1 CA
1915 1 AK
1925 1 AL
1926 1 NY
1930 5 DE,DC,KY,MS,TN
1931 2 FL,HI
1934 3 ID,IA,OH
1936 14 AR,IN,KS,LA,MD,MI,MN,NE,NJ,ND,PA,WV,WI
1937 1 MT
1952 1 GA
1954 3 IL,MO,VA
1961 1 WA
1975 2 MA,RI
1983 1 NC
1985 1 UT
1994 3 NV,NM,OK
1995 1 CT
2006 1 SD
2007 1 AZ
2012 2 SC,CO
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2012
Do you have data showing the melting rate 10,000 years ago,..

Here you go R2; "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctic" by Petit et al.

http://www.daycre...1999.pdf

From the abstract, "PRESENT-DAY atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been UNPRECEDENTED during the past 420,000 years.". (CAPS are my emphasis). Those gasses being Methane and CO2. Ice cores don't lie.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2012
The Petit et al paper is from 1999. It would be really interesting to see if an updated analysis has been done that can compare todays (2012) temperatures with those 400,000 years ago.

You know R2, looking at your data, I wonder if your reading it from the same sites as NP. For example, you list 2012 high data revised as SC, and CO. What high data are you referring to? Grins? If it was something like number of days with temps in excess of 100F, just about every state in the USA broke some record.

But look, this is bigger than the USA. These issues are global.

NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2012
1936: Hottest Summer in USA proves nothing about AGW.
1937: 1936 still hottest - proves nothing about AGW.
1938: "
1939: "

...

2011: Still proves nothing

2012: Record broken in one state thereby changing national average by a minuscule amount.

AGW Cult: ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2012
just about every state in the USA broke some record.


And why were all the earlier records from the 1930s?

Why is the warmest July for many states still from the 1930s.

Why is the hottest (daytime) July still 1936, and the NOAA admitted it was nighttime temperatures that helped nudge the continental 48 to break the record?

sennekuyl
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
How many states were above average between 1936 & 2012 --- even if they didn't set a record?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
How many states were above average between 1936 & 2012 --- even if they didn't set a record?

What difference does it make?
According to this article and what many AGWites say, all that counts is the extreme. "Extreme sets the trend", or something like that.
But considering what a record high in a state means, and especially when so many records were set in rural areas not too contaminated by air conditioning and asphalt, 24 all time state high temperatures occurred from 1930 to 1936 must have some significance.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
1936: Hottest Summer in USA proves nothing about AGW.
1937: 1936 still hottest - proves nothing about AGW.
1938: "
1939: "

...

2011: Still proves nothing

2012: Record broken in one state thereby changing national average by a minuscule amount.

AGW Cult: ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Or you know...the truth. Like in those multiple posts right above yours with multiple links to papers written about the 1930s before the record was broken. Or any of the hundreds of other articles that you have brought 1936 up in, and these same counter arguments being made in all of them.

Due to ignorance/obstinateness of people like you, it looks like we're going to keep going down our current path for about another decade, let things go to hell, then go to an international Manhattan Project style program for reversing the damage we've done. Can't wait.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
"2012: Record broken in one state thereby changing national average by a minuscule amount."

"The August 2011-July 2012 period was the warmest 12-month period of any 12-months on record for the contiguous U.S." From - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

July was the warmest month ever on record.

This is all part of a larger narrative - again - the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets are melting, the ocean levels are rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, global temperatures are rising etc. etc. Some people do believe this is the end of the world - I am not in that camp. The science is telling us this is serious - I think intelligent people will pay attention to the science. I agree with shabs above - we are fighting ignorance - fortunately you are in the minority - and history marches on. The U.S. reached 50 GW of wind power this year http://cleantechn...of-2012/ and the republican sponsored PTC looks like cont.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
cont. it will be renewed - so there does seem to be cause for hope that reason will outweigh ignorance at some point.

Rygg - I state that this temperature data is part of a much broader narrative - you pick up on one aspect - and claim that glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years - so we should not be concerned about current melt rates "it is normal" right? Slicing and dicing the data to support your world view shows your scientific illiteracy. Please take the time to read this information - http://en.wikiped...nce_1850

Let me leave you with one quote - "The loss of these glaciers would have a tremendous impact on the ecosystem of the region"

I am not saying the sky is falling - or the world is ending - I am saying these things POTENTIALLY have dire consequences for our species - and we should be intelligent and listen to the science.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2012
If the AGWites were really serious about a technical solution, they would be advocating for nuclear power.
But they are more interested in destroying the economy and gaining political power.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
RyggTard compares two points and ignores the trend.

"As I noted, the 'record' temperature claimed in this article is 1.00067 times greater than the 'record' in 1936. Why do you think this is significant?" - RyggTard

He shares the same mental disease as ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
RyggTard implies that Nuclear Power is the solution.

But that solution requires the construction of over 200,000 nuclar reactors worldwide, at a construction cost of 2 to 4 thousand trillion dollars.

Given recent history as a guide, we can expect 1 chernobyl type accident every week or so, and will need to open one Yucca Mountain nuclear repository every couple of days.

"If the AGWites were really serious about a technical solution, they would be advocating for nuclear power." - RyggTard

RyggTard can't do his numbers. Libertarians/Randites never can.

That is why Libertarian Economics has been such a spectacular failure wherever it has been tried.

He has the faith, but not the ability.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
ParkerTard "logic"

Why did Joe Schmoe die in 1930?
If you don't know then murder isn't possible in 2012.

"And why were all the earlier records from the 1930s?" = ParkerTard

The 1930's were 10 years long and hence the weather during those years was exactly that... Weather.

The current trend is decades long and is therefore climate.

ParkerTard is paid to confuse the two.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
The temperatures in 2 percent of the globe in 1936 constitute a weather anomaly.

Similar temperatures expressed globally, and rising over several decades constitute climate.

"1936: Hottest Summer in USA proves nothing about AGW." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased and paid to confuse the two concepts.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
AGWite keep need to show what is happening now has NEVER happened before, ever.
That's why Mann tried to hide the MWP and little ice age.
Noting glaciers have been melting for thousands of years doesn't fit their narrative.
Someone noted Antarctic ice core data. So that single data point on the earth can explain the entire climate of the earth but the thousands of data points describing the MWP must be confined to a region.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
What? People die of natural causes? How can that be?

Therefore by Libertarian/Randite Logic, murder is impossible.

"WHAT? The climate cycles? How can that be?" - RyggTard

Regular Glacial cycles are relatively new to the earth's climate, and are the result of the gradual draw down of atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the point where slight changes in the earth's orbital and rotational parameters reduce the earth's insolation to the point where glaciation is possible.

Most higher order live on the planet will be extinguished by a rise in temperature of 10'C, which translates to an immediate rise of 5'C followed by a slower rise of 5'C as the oceans warm.

Currently a temperature rise of 3'C plus or minus 1'C is anticipated by 2100 followed by an doubling as oceans warm.

Continued emissions past 2100 in the range anticipated by RyggTard will produce temperatures in the range of 5'C immediate and 10'C as the oceans warm, which will extinguish most higher order life on the planet.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
RyggTard just can't seem to figure out what the word "global" means in the phrase "global warming".

"Year record high recorded in state as 1 AUG 12" - RyggTard

Similarly, he just isn't smart enough to distinguish between high's on a single day and a 150 year temperature trend.

He is suffering from Libertarian Disease.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
"If the AGWites were really serious about a technical solution, they would be advocating for nuclear power."

I am a vocal advocate for nuclear power. I hope to see us develop LFTR, TWR, NFR, and eventually fusion. I guess I am not an AGWite - your childish name calling suggests to me that you do not understand the complexity of these issues. The Brits seem more willing to pursue a more holistic approach - recognizing the importance of developing alternatives to fossils as soon as we can - http://www.nytime...nts.html I disagree with Anatalias on this one - but we do agree on the need to develop a healthy and sustainable world that will not leave our grand children wondering why we were so incapable of seeing what was right in front of our faces.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
"Noting glaciers have been melting for thousands of years doesn't fit their narrative."

It is climate scientists across the world who are developing the proxy data to try to get us an understanding of the history of our climate. It is these scientists who have given you the data that allows you to keep talking about the MWP. Do you think these scients (the ones who developed your data for you) are not aware of the MWP? It is these same scientists who are trying to let us know that there is a problem - and one we should be paying attention to. Again - it is part of a wider narrative - there are many trends that we should (no thanks to obstructionists like yourself) be paying attention to. cont.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
cont - here is just one piece of research - stress this is just one piece of a very large and complex puzzle. http://www.csmoni...ientists

So this one piece or research tells us the Greenland glaciers are melting - the rate is accelerating - and the consequences are potentially dire. I just don't understand your need to be an obstructionist - and to spend your life holding back progress. Here is one quote from the article.

"Both of these areas hold vast amounts of ice and the potential for very large sea-level rises. We need to understand what's happening on them to see what potential scenario will be realized."
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
" This was its average temperature over those three months from 1951-80."
http://www.econom...21560235

Why not use data prior to 1951 or compare the arbitrary mean to data prior to 1951?
Looking data from the 1930 to 1936, 24 all time state high temperature records were set.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
Why not use data prior to 1951 or compare the arbitrary mean to data prior to 1951?
Looking data from the 1930 to 1936, 24 all time state high temperature records were set.


In other words, "Why aren't you cherry picking data? Here, let me cherry pick some to show you how it's done!" Your paranoia of thinking there is a massive conspiracy is really showing. The 98% or so of scientists and all the regular people who believe in climate change aren't some homogeneous group with identical beliefs out to get you.

I am also a fan of nuclear power and believe it should be a part of our long term solution along with wind/solar/wave/geothermal/better battery technology/better education.

We're not saying we have all the answers, or know every fact there is to know. We're saying that if you look at the whole of data, from local temperature readings to ocean acidification to frequency of extreme events to rate of glacial retreat;

cont'd
Shabs42
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
cont'd

there are clear trends that the global climate is changing. Speaking for just myself, I don't really care if it's caused by humans or is a natural part of the Earth's cycle. My personal belief is that it's a mixture, with humans responsible for a large portion. The important part is figuring out what the ramifications will be if the Earth continues on its current path. If those consequences are going to result in a mass extinction and/or a planet uninhabitable by humans, then we need to do everything we can to prevent it.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
If those consequences are going to result in a mass extinction and/or a planet uninhabitable by humans,


And what data do you have to support this?
That is the excuse the watermelons are using to take more control of the world.
If the threat is really that serious, why not support serious technical solution, not political solutions?
Destroying the world's economy reduces the potential for any innovation needed to adapt to the dire threat predicted.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
Here is a neat graphic from your woodfortrees site Uba - giving a comparative graph - of all data sets - since 1979.

No warming in the past 10 yrs?
Hmm... There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years."

Here's the actual data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
So now "Global" Warming is all about what happens in the USA? Really?
No - it is about global temperatures. Here are the global temperatures.

Please look carefully at the graphs - and tell me how you can conclude there has been no warming in the last 10 years.
Here's a more relevant graph:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

The fact that July was the hottest month on record for the continental U.S. is just another piece of data in the puzzle - I take it as significant.
Well, then you're a fool.

How is it that ...July being the hottest month ever in the U.S. - and you roll your eyes? Add this jewel in "The August 2011-July 2012 period was the warmest 12-month period of any 12-months on record for the contiguous U.S" and don't you even begin to wonder if you might be wrong?
Local weather isn't global, nor is it an indicator of global conditions.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
How is it that you are OK with Parker taking individual states - and using sliced and diced data to validate your narrative on global warming - but July being the hottest month ever in the U.S. - and you roll your eyes?
You mean like how you're doing by strictly focusing on the current weather in the U.S. and using graphs that are irrelevant to the time period under discussion?

Can you say, "Hypocrite."
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2012
Especially since there are known solar cycles of ~77 years.
1936 was 76 years ago.


This is (at least) the 2nd time you've made this statement. I am not aware of such a cycle, and you have been asked previously where you got this information.

I'll be clearer for you. On what basis do you make the claim that there is a "known solar cycle of ~77 years"?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2012
Ubatubby: Your nose is growing!! You said: "No they haven't. There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years (15 years according to HadCRUT3 data)."

You are about the only person left on earth who thinks the global temperatures are not going up. Even Watt thinks the temperature is going up, he just thinks it is natural variation. However, you have said both. You have said the temperature is not going up and it is natural variation that it is going up. Can you just settle on one denialist view? Is it going down (as you say) and is that part of the natural variation? Please point out any reputable source for this tall tale.


http://www.woodfo...02/trend

'nuff said.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
"Well, then you're a fool." Such a sophisticated analysis you have.

Local weather isn't global, nor is it an indicator of global conditions. I agree - which is why I emphasize my understanding that each piece of data is one small part of a very large and complex puzzle. How is it that it is fine for deniers to cherry pick data - like the temperature of Washington state on one particular year - and claim some significance to that - but a larger slice of data like the last 12 months in the continental U.S. - and that is just local weather that is not an indicator of global conditions? I agree with your statement - which is why I say it is part of a larger puzzle - and many pieces are being put in that puzzle - and the science tells us we should be paying attention - as opposed to playing obstructionism. Here is a more relevant graph for you - cont.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
I am not aware of such a cycle,

You are not looking very hard in the literature or at the data.

http://www.jstor....40736947
djr
4 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
cont - http://www.woodfo...ah/trend

Oh that is right - only you are allowed to dissect the data - everyone else has to use global data - except when it does not support your narrative (see above link) - so then it is OK for you to present selective data that supports your narrative.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
Extremes typically define a change in a trend.

No they do not. I've told you before: Go read an introduction to statistics (if that's too hard at least read the wikipedia page on statistics)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
You are not looking very hard in the literature or at the data.


Wow you are an idiot! Read the bloody thing! It has nothing to do with a 77 year solar cycle.

I am not saying the sky is falling - or the world is ending - I am saying these things POTENTIALLY have dire consequences for our species - and we should be intelligent and listen to the science.


Well said and I agree completely.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
"Well, then you're a fool." Such a sophisticated analysis you have.

Local weather isn't global, nor is it an indicator of global conditions. I agree - which is why I emphasize my understanding that each piece of data is one small part of a very large and complex puzzle. How is it that it is fine for deniers to cherry pick data - like the temperature of Washington state on one particular year - and claim some significance to that - but a larger slice of data like the last 12 months in the continental U.S. - and that is just local weather that is not an indicator of global conditions? I agree with your statement - which is why I say it is part of a larger puzzle - and many pieces are being put in that puzzle - and the science tells us we should be paying attention - as opposed to playing obstructionism. Here is a more relevant graph for you - cont.
All you're saying is, "I'm a hypocrite cherry-picker."
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
cont -

Oh that is right - only you are allowed to dissect the data - everyone else has to use global data - except when it does not support your narrative (see above link) - so then it is OK for you to present selective data that supports your narrative.
Again, there seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years." Here's the relevent data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
Here is a neat graphic from your woodfortrees site Uba - giving a comparative graph - of all data sets - since 1979.

No warming in the past 10 yrs?
Hmm... There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years."

Here's the actual data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend


Great. So, you just pick your spot to start the regression. I just arbitrarily picked 1995. Here it is:

http://www.woodfo...95/trend

Where did you down-trend go?

Oh, I bet you run back and pick another favorable spot. Instead, why don't you do it blind and run a 5 year moving average (but then that would erase your fictional drop in temperature).
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
I am not aware of such a cycle,

You are not looking very hard in the literature or at the data.

http://www.jstor....40736947

Great R2. A single article from 1995 and nothing that I can find in the current litterature that points to this being correct. Have you slipped to quoting single articles that have no independent cooberation?
DavidW
1.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2012
We have this and about 100 other issues just as grave today, and we are fighting over each one. There will be 1000 issues just as bad in just a few more years. Think it's hard to get everyone on the same page now? How will it be when all of mankind is suffering terribly? Will we just have the solutions all of the sudden?

We have the solution right now and it is the only solution that will ever be: Everyone gets on their knees before Truth and Life as their master. That's what it takes and nothing else is going to stop the suffering. So, no matter what happens, it's all for the best, as the end of suffering is coming in short order.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years."

Here's the actual data:
Great. So, you just pick your spot to start the regression.
There's nothing arbitrary about it. I simply pointed out there hasn't been any significant global warming in at least the last 10 years (15, if using HadCRUT3 data).

I just arbitrarily picked 1995. Here it is:

Where did you down-trend go?
That you and djr have to use other time bases to show warming, only serves to demonstrate the validity of my claim.

Oh, I bet you run back and pick another favorable spot. Instead, why don't you do it blind and run a 5 year moving average (but then that would erase your fictional drop in temperature).
So you're claiming all those hardworking climatologists, who've gathered the HadCRUT3 data, are lying now?

And AGWites call me a denier! LOL

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

ubavontuba
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
We have this and about 100 other issues just as grave today, and we are fighting over each one. There will be 1000 issues just as bad in just a few more years. Think it's hard to get everyone on the same page now? How will it be when all of mankind is suffering terribly? Will we just have the solutions all of the sudden?

We have the solution right now and it is the only solution that will ever be: Everyone gets on their knees before Truth and Life as their master. That's what it takes and nothing else is going to stop the suffering. So, no matter what happens, it's all for the best, as the end of suffering is coming in short order.
Not that I have anything against praying, per se, but doomsday thinking is stupid and dangerous.

kaasinees
Aug 11, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
AMO PDO is the intersection of two cycles.

http://www.appins...e010.jpg

"Drought over north America has been correlated to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The correlations account for the drought in the Great Plains during the 1930s dust bowl and more recent droughts."

http://oceanworld...ght.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Nuff Said

"Nuff Said" - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Nuff Said - VendiTard
There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years." Here's the relevant data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2012
If the AGWites were really serious about a technical solution, they would be advocating for nuclear power.
But they are more interested in destroying the economy and gaining political power.

I do advocate nuclear. I want to be an IMBY nuclear powered household.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
All you're saying is, "I'm a hypocrite cherry-picker."

Yes - and you don't get the point being made because your confirmation bias gets in the way. Please look at the big picture.

http://www.woodfo...ah/trend

Now - this graphic includes the last 10 years - correct?

The straight lines on the graphs represent the trends. Do you see how there is warming in the past 10 years? Now go ahead and slice and dice the data if you want. Pick a start date with a high year, and an end date with a low year - and you get a down slope. That does not mean the globe has cooled - it means you cherry picked the data. If 2013 is cooler that 2012, then you will say "look, the earth is cooling" - but that will be cherry picking. cont.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
cont. So in a debate about an issue of science - in which the facts are complex - but the long term trends are undeniable (see the above link) - I wonder about the need of a group of folks to spam the internet with rubbish. It is rubbish to just keep repeating "but there has been no significant warming in the past 10 years." It shows your illiteracy of fairly fundamental science. You cannot look at the above referenced data and conclude that the earth is not warming. You can comb the data for noise - that reinforces your narrative. The question for me is - "why would you need to do that?" You, Rygg and Parker will of course never answer that question. So why should I care what you think? Well I am interested in progress. I am interested in what resists progress. I see ideology as the main problem - and science as the main solution. So when I see high levels of anti science ignorant ideology - I understand this is anti progress - and try to do a little to point it out.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
long term trends are undeniable

The Vikings must have thought this when they attempted to colonize Greenland.
Or owners of the vineyards in Scotland must have though the climate was changing to allow them to grow grapes.
Genghis Khan must have counted on the grass to keep growing to maintain his empire.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
"if natural climate change brought about the downfall of one of historys most powerful empires, imagine where a few centuries of manmade climate change might lead us."
http://www.pbs.or...ge/6724/

The biased authors acknowledge the Roman Empire was impacted by natural climate change. Their intention is to motivate political action to mitigate 'man-made' climate changes.

They wave their hands and assert what happened to Rome and many other empires throughout history was the result of natural changes with no details about what caused those changes.
But ANY change we see today can ONLY be caused by humans. While NATURAL climate changes occurred for billions of years in is NOT happening now, according to the AGWites and biased scientists.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
More bias:
"Giosan notes that people living there today cannot move across borders as easily as the Indus did so long ago, "
http://www.voanew...303.html

Another example of how a civilization collapsed due to changing climate.
The US govt, VOA, implies it must control climate because people can't migrate.
Of course this control demands more govt taxes and economic control.
The Indus civilization adapted to their climate by building the infrastructure to manage the water. They collapsed because they couldn't adapt to the change.
We have the technology to adapt to any climate so why aren't scientists and engineers promoting, advocating and selling ways and means to adapt? Instead they are promoting and advocating the exact opposite, more govt control to maintain the status quo.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2012
Wow - that is quite a post rygg - and honestly leaves me a little confused about your main point. I read the PBS article - thought it was very interesting - did not see any specific recommendations from it - just some questions for thought. There is much too much to respond to in your post - so could you briefly explain what your main point is?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
Wow - that is quite a post rygg - and honestly leaves me a little confused about your main point. I read the PBS article - thought it was very interesting - did not see any specific recommendations from it - just some questions for thought. There is much too much to respond to in your post - so could you briefly explain what your main point is?

If you read the voa article and the pbs article, both state at the end that it is likely those empires collapsed due to NATURAL climate changes and proceed to imply that our current 'empire' will collapse due to climate changes. But the assumption is the any current climate changes are ONLY the result of humans and so the solutions are political.
AGWites must assert any present climate change is human cause IF they want the power to control. If present climate change is natural, it presents two challenges for AGWites, it shows their models are wrong and it shows they can't 'fix' the climate.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2012
Well - I would agree that the final paragraph of the pbs article is a very inaccurate summation of the article - and only mentions climate change - where as the author of the actual report stated -
"Climate shifts that affected farm output were factors in amplifying political, social and economic crises,"

Your characterization - "it is likely those empires collapsed due to NATURAL climate changes" is patently false - both articles suggest that climate change may have been a contributory factor - but they also discuss the other factors. I would personally agree with this conclusion " [We] must act to slow it or face the consequences. Cont.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Natural:
" monsoon rains allowed settlements to grow and farming and trade to prosper. But when the monsoons began to bring less rain, the Indus did not irrigate their crops."
"the study provides a lesson from the past: that todays mighty civilizations - whose industrial activities have sped the pace of climate change - must act to slow it " {Natural climate change affected the Indus civilization, but not today.}
http://www.voanew...303.html

must act to slow it

If no one knows why the monsoon changes affected the Indus or why the Mongol plains dried what are you going to act upon and how do you know those acts are effective?
The most rational acts to take are to accept the climate changes and act to adapt to that change.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
cont. On a very related note - you ask - " why aren't scientists and engineers promoting, advocating and selling ways and means to adapt?" How did you conclude that they are not? Is Lovelock not a scientist? Does he not advocate nuclear power as a part of the solution? Have I not just demolished your lazy thinking?

You continually use the term AGWite. Again very lazy thinking. Someone already pointed - most of us are complex - and don't fit a lazy categorization that defines us. I take responsibility for my words - and my positions. I do advocate technological as a response to the climate problem. I would like to see nuclear power implemented on a massive scale - desalination of the oceans - and projects like greening the desert adopted across the globe. Wind/solar/geothermal/tidal/otec etc ramped up as they become cost competitive. I am fine with free market mechanisms - as long as governments play their role in oversight. We don't need another Chernobyl.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Natural: Again - your characterization is false. The pbs article states that climate change may have been one factor. The voa hypothesis is that when the monsoon rains did not come - the people simply migrated. Do you have a counter hypothesis? Would you like to write a paper stating what your theory is regarding the demise of the Indus civilization is? Let me leave you with a quote from the article - that surely suggests the authors understood that climate change MAY have been A factor in the demise of the civilization. "Climate change may have hastened the end of the largest civilization in the ancient world" Do you see the word 'may'? Do you see the term 'a factor'. I am really thinking that your are unable to read with good comprehension.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
"Having already upset many environmentalists for whom he is something of a guru with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power, James Lovelock is now coming out in favour of fracking, "
"Climate scientists are likely to face charges of putting politics before science, following two controversial decisions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month. Controversially, it voted to increase the role in those assessments of grey literature: publications not subject to peer review. "

"http://www.canada...me-out1"

Why has Lovelock upset AGWites?

"Im entirely happy to take climatologists word for it about climate. Hydrologists about water, cloud specialists about clouds and so on but I do object vehemently when the experts on those same subjects decide to try pronouncing on a subject theyre ignorant of, economics."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
Do you see the word 'may'?


Do you see the world 'likely'?

"They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more."

http://climate.na.../causes/

Where do 'may' and 'likely' lie in the range of absolutely false to 100% true?
Why the wishy-washy words? Scientists are becoming lawyers now?
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Why has Lovelock upset AGWites? I don't know what an AGWite is - so I am unable to answer your childish question. Lovelock has not upset me - even though I may disagree with his position on some issues - he has a right to his position - and seems willing to defend his position fairly intelligently. He is certainly concerned about global warming - and is willing to have an adult conversation about the appropriate response to a serious question that science is informing us about.

Scientists use words like may, and likely when there is not certainty. Looking back into the past (your Roman article) - and projecting into the future both involve varying degrees of uncertainty. You again show your complete lack of understanding of principles of science.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
Scientists use words like may, and likely when there is not certainty.

Except for AGW at APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this warming period."
http://www.thebla...warming/
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable,

Then you must have a different definition of what 'stable' means to everyone else. The energy content of heating up something like the Earth's atmosphere by 0.8 degrees is gargantuan. What this can mean in terms of energy intensive events (changes of air and water circulation patterns, frequency of global storm activity, melting of ice reservoirs, ...) seems to be WAY beyond your understanding.

We're not talking about what happens when you set your icebox a degree higher.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2012
From your article - "both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this warming period." So is Giaever arguing that we cannot measure the temperature of the earth, or that we can, and the earth is warming, and health and happiness have improved?

Except for AGW Again you demonstrate childlike inability to grasp basic science - and yet you spam a science web site with your total rubbish. Some things can be measured with certainty. What is the temperature of this object? What is the frequency of this sound wave? things that can be measured with certainty. If you do not accept that the earth is warming - you need to present data that supports your position - and it needs to be long term, global data - none of Parkers rubbish about how it was cool in Washington state on July 4th this year. A .8 degree increase in 150 years may or may not be stable. That is 8 degrees in 1,500 years, or 80 degrees in 15,000 years. Comparitively - that is not remarkably stable.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
A second opinion with the data to support it:

"So, all things considered (including unresolved issues about urban heat island effects and other large corrections made to the USHCN data), I would say July was unusually warm. But the long-term integrity of the USHCN dataset depends upon so many uncertain factors, I would say its a stretch to to call July 2012 a record. "
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

And this chart...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/July-temps-US-1913-2012-max-5yr-running-mean.gif

has more detail and support the earlier quick look the 24 state high temperature records were set in the 30s.
The chart in the link tells the whole story AGWites and AP chose to ignore.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
From your own article - "AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936." and then this zinger - "I would say its a stretch to to call July 2012 a record." Oh yeah - your referenced article really contributed a lot to this debate. Maybe Dr. Spencer needs to buy a dictionary - and look up the word record. You two clearly have a comparable level of comprehension of basic science.....
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Some things can be measured with certainty.

What certainty?
ALL measurements have some uncertainty associated with it and it should be documented to be honest.
Look up NIST's GUM.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
From your own article - "AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936." and then this zinger - "I would say its a stretch to to call July 2012 a record." Oh yeah - your referenced article really contributed a lot to this debate. Maybe Dr. Spencer needs to buy a dictionary - and look up the word record. You two clearly have a comparable level of comprehension of basic science.....

It all depends upon what is compared. The 5 year running averages clearly shows 2012 NOT to have broken any records.
http://www.drroys...mean.gif

Were the data reported in the AP adjusted for urban heat island effects?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
This explains it all:

"Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent" (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders."
http://en.wikiped..._science

How do you 'scientists' like 'post normal science'?

This supports Billy Koen's book that science is just another heuristic in The Method.
http://www.me.ute...OUP.html
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2012
How do you 'scientists' like 'post normal science'?

Sounds like a lot of hogwash, to me.
It certainly doesn't seem very well thought out since the people making the decisions he cites are "experts such as surgeons or senior engineers on unusual projects" - which aren't scientists.

Science isn't result driven (it can't be because you never know what your data will be - otherwise it wouldn't be science). Scientists don't set policy. They just do the experiments and give you the facts.

The graph on the wikipedia page also makes no sense. How does the urgency of a decision move something that is very certain out of the area of applied science to post normal science?

In the case of global warmin the certainties are high. The data is there. Ignore it at your own peril, but don't expect all of us to die because of your ignorance.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
hey just do the experiments and give you the facts.


The facts they know are a limited subset of reality.

So what about the AGWite 'scientists' who advocate policies based upon the results of abstracted models of an emergent climate system.

According to anti, Mann, Hansen and other AGWites are not scientists?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
In the case of global warmin the certainties are high.

If so there would not be scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic causes of 'global climate change'.

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
If so there would not be scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic causes of 'global climate change'.

You'll always find the odd guy who won't accept something despite the evidence. But if you're talking about people in the actual field of climate science: then those who don't accept the facts are few and far between.

At some point it's just more than coincidence when people all over the world come to the same conclusions based on independent work.

The facts they know are a limited subset of reality.

Falling back into your tired black/white comparisons? The world isn't black/white. That you don't know everything doesn't mean you don't know anything. That's why scientists work with sigma values and statistics. But until you take my advice and at least spend some hours looking at the most basic statistics sites you won't understand this, ever, because it's not intuitive.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
But if you're talking about people in the actual field of climate science: then those who don't accept the facts are few and far between.


Given the small number of 'real' climate scientists in the field, the percentage who don't all agree is pretty high.
That was one of the problems cited be Wegeman. The climate science field is quite incestuous.

The world isn't balck/white.


Aren't facts black and white? You said scientists do the experiments and produce facts, black and white facts.

Didn't I say science can only describe a subset of reality?

"This supports Billy Koen's book that science is just another heuristic in The Method. http://www.me.ute...OUP.html

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
Given the small number of 'real' climate scientists in the field, the percentage who don't all agree is pretty high.

You mean apart from multiple institutes in every country all around the globe? Yeah. Right.

And notice that those who are 'sceptical' are usually
a) not climate scientists themselves
b) exlusively american

You said scientists do the experiments and produce facts, black and white facts.

Sigh. Staistics. Look it up. Please. Do. This is getting rather tedious. Until you understand what that is there's no real point indiscussing this with you.

Go back to prayer. That is something you do understand (and probably can comment on with authority). if you want to comment on more complex things (like science) then I suggest you go away, get some basic education and then come back.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
All you're saying is, "I'm a hypocrite cherry-picker."

Yes
Then you have no valid argument to make.

your confirmation bias gets in the way.
As you just admitted, it's your bias which gets in the way.

Please look at the big picture.
I am, you self-admittedly are not.

this graphic includes the last 10 years - correct?
Your graph is so rigged, it's ridiculous. Here's the combined data from the last 10 years (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS):

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

The straight lines on the graphs represent the trends. Do you see how there is warming in the past 10 years?
You're misinterpreting your own graph. The trend lines in your graph are 33 year trends, having little to say about the last ten years. But you've already admitted you're a hypocrite cherry-picker, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised you'd deliberately obscure the relevant data.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
So in a debate about an issue of science
If it's about science, why are you deliberately obscuring the truth?

It is rubbish to just keep repeating "but there has been no significant warming in the past 10 years."
The truth of it isn't "rubbish."

It shows your illiteracy of fairly fundamental science.
Ha!

You cannot look at the above referenced data and conclude that the earth is not warming.
You can, but it's difficult as you've rigged it so.

You can comb the data for noise - that reinforces your narrative. The question for me is - "why would you need to do that?"
You're the one putting up noise ...noise used to obscure the fact the world hasn't warmed in at least the last 10 years.

Well I am interested in progress.
By AGW alarmist definition, isn't a sustained cooling trend progress? Why are you hiding it?

I am interested in what resists progress.
Obviously, as you're resisting "progress."

Cont...

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2012
I see ideology as the main problem
Right. The Chicken Little alarmist ideology is the problem.

and science as the main solution.
Then why are you denying the science?

So when I see high levels of anti science ignorant ideology - I understand this is anti progress - and try to do a little to point it out.
My Mom taught me it's not polite to point, but since you're apparently pointing at yourself, I guess it's okay.

I don't understand this Chicken Little alarmist ideology. Even if warming resumes, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Going into a sustained ice age would be far worse. With the temperatures falling, why aren't you afraid of this?

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Statistics are not facts anti.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
And notice that those who are 'sceptical' are usually a) not climate scientists themselves b) exlusively american


Dyson, British physicist
Ivar Giaever, German, physics
Ian Palmer, Australia, geologist
Claude Allegre, French, Geo-physicist
Nir Shariv, Israel, astrophysicist
Jan Veizer, Canada, geologist
Henrik Svensmark, Dane, solar system physics

BTW, the AGWite Mann is a geophysicist.
Hansen is a physicist as well.

From what I have observed, there appears to be more research challenging AGW from scientists outside the USA.

djr
4.3 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
By AGW alarmist definition, isn't a sustained cooling trend progress? Why are you hiding it?

That is not the progress I speak of. I am speaking of the development of our technology, and our knowledge of the universe. But perhaps your are right Uba et al - perhaps the ice sheets, and the glaciers are not melting. Perhaps the ocean is not becoming more acidic. Perhaps the land, ocean, atmospheric temperatures are not rising. Perhaps the climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie to the world for some bizarre reason. Time will tell right?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2012
The facts they know are a limited subset of reality.
Every outlier measurement merits an explanation.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2012
Dyson, British physicist
Ivar Giaever, German, physics
Ian Palmer, Australia, geologist...

And you may note: not one meteorologist or climatologist among the bunch.

Statistics are not facts anti.

In science a certain statistical significance is deemed a fact you can go on (until it turns out to be false because e.g. of systemic error in a study). But until then it is a fact and is treated as such.
The days when we could say "we have X therefore we're 100% sure Y follows)" are over. That only worked in very simple cases. And with the Uncertainty principle/QM in the mix it has been shown to be downright impossible to make such a statement for anything.

That is why we require a couple of sigmas in the statistics to claim that something is there and not just a statistical fluke. We act on BEST knowledge.

Unless you are saying we should not act on best knowledge but on worst knowledge... ?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2012
By AGW alarmist definition, isn't a sustained cooling trend progress? Why are you hiding it?


That is not the progress I speak of.
So now, by implication, you're admitting to hiding the cooling! And, by implication, admitting the AGW alarmist ideology is not about global warming at all.

I am speaking of the development of our technology, and our knowledge of the universe.
How is hiding the data a benefit to technology and knowledge?

But perhaps your are right Uba et al
Perhaps

perhaps the ice sheets, and the glaciers are not melting.
Some are melting, some are stable, some are growing.

Perhaps the ocean is not becoming more acidic.
The PH is decreasing, would be the proper terminology, as saying it's becoming more acidic, implies it's already acidic.

And, there's scant evidence it poses any catastrophic threat. Seawater pH naturally varies widely, anyway.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2012
Perhaps the land, ocean, atmospheric temperatures are not rising.
Currently, this appears to be the case.

Perhaps the climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie to the world for some bizarre reason.
Although this has proven to be true to some extent, I think a large part of the problem is systemic, relating to institutional expectations.

Time will tell right?
Indeed.

peter09
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2012
For all you skeptics out there - here is a primer on how to cherry pick climate information.

http://www.skepti..._500.gif
djr
4.3 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
So now, by implication, you're admitting to hiding the cooling! And, by implication, admitting the AGW alarmist ideology is not about global warming at all.

I don't understand your logic there at all - no I am not admitting to hiding the cooling. I do not believe there is cooling. But I do understand that the discussion is futile - it just becomes a childish exchange. I believe the data supports a long term warming trend - the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the temperatures are rising, the ocean ph is decreasing - and the scientists are genuinely concerned that we my have a very serious problem - with potentially serious consequences for our species. I believe that your are the one who cherry picks the data to support your agenda - and the understanding that we have a serious problem is consistent with current science and data. As we agree - time will tell.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2012
meteorologist or climatologist among the bunch.

Mann and Hansen are not meteorologists or climatologists either. Their PhDs are in physics.

By anti's 'logic', the APS and the AGU have no qualification for making any comment on climate. They are NOT meteorological or climate societies.
The head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer and has no qualification to be running the IPCC.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2012
""Climatologists" were rarer than "Classicists" until the global warming movement came about. The theory may yet prove out - but to deny that unlike most of science, in this case the conclusion drives the search for evidence rather than the other way around, is nothing an honest man can do.

And by the way before the climate became a political issue, the "consensus" was universal that the MWP was globally warmer than today.

EDIT - "there are climate scientists that are meteorologists" - thanks to the man with the mine for this. I don't know how many times I've read D or B insist that because someone is a meteorologist, his or her position on AGW should simply be ignored."
http://answers.ya...1AALt1jk
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2012
Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
EDUCATION:
A.B.(mcl) in Physics, l960, Harvard University.
S.M. in Applied Mathematics, l96l, Harvard University.
Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, l964, Harvard University. Thesis title: Radiative and
photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2012
I don't understand your logic there at all
What's so hard to understand about it? If global warming is bad, then shouldn't temperature stability and/or cooling be great news? Why would you intentionally hide it, rather than being excited by it?

- no I am not admitting to hiding the cooling. I do not believe there is cooling.
So now you don't believe in the data?

But I do understand that the discussion is futile - it just becomes a childish exchange.
So avoid resorting to ad hominems and stick to the facts and the data.

I believe the data supports a long term warming trend
Given the global temperature did rise in the 20th century, is not proof it will resume rising in the 21st.

scientists are genuinely concerned that we my have a very serious problem - with potentially serious consequences for our species.
What consequences? Many more people die from cold weather shock, than heat.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
I believe that your are the one who cherry picks the data to support your agenda
What "agenda?" I have no agenda beyond learning about and exposing the truth. I simply posed the question to myself, "Is the earth currently warming?" I then did a little research and found out it's not, and it hasn't been warming for more than a decade.

and the understanding that we have a serious problem is consistent with current science and data.
Again, what "serious" problem? A warmer earth is, historically, a more hospitable earth. Do you hate humanity and nature so, that you would desire to diminish life by cooling the globe? Why?

As we agree - time will tell.
Certainly, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
A warmer earth is, historically, a more hospitable earth

More deserts, less fresh water, larger storm systems and flooded coastal cities (as well as inundated island nations) mean 'more hospitable'...exactly how?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
A warmer earth is, historically, a more hospitable earth

More deserts, less fresh water, larger storm systems and flooded coastal cities (as well as inundated island nations) mean 'more hospitable'...exactly how?
Don't you mean: less deserts, more fresh water, and more arable land?

And to what "larger storm systems" do you refer?

Coastal flooding is normal (anyone living along the coast can tell you that).

And any islands being inundated are being inundated by longterm sea level rise, having nothing to do with global warming (actually, sea level rise has recently slowed).

Do a litte research, why dontcha'?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
"I simply posed the question to myself, "Is the earth currently warming?" I then did a little research and found out it's not"

And your research just happens to contradict the vast majority of climate scientists around the wolrd - but that does not occur to you as maybe a problem. It is like saying "does the sun orbit around the earth? - and I did some research and found that it does" Here is the data that I have shown you so many times - http://www.woodfo...om:1979/ So now you - the lone holder of the truth - must spam the internet with your new found knowledge. And no - your ten year graph does not trump my 120 year graph - but that will not bother you - as you are actually not interested in the truth as you pretend. cont.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
You see - when asking the question "is the earth warming?" - the longer the data trend we look at - the more valid the answer. If it is cooler today than it was yesterday - that does not prove the earth is cooling. If it is cooler this week/month/year/ than it was last-same conclusion. So - I understand that you are not interested in the truth - but there could be several reasons for that - perhaps you are delusional, or have an overwhelming pre agenda - or are getting paid for your activities - whatever - as we agree - time will tell.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2012
A warmer earth is, historically, a more hospitable earth

More deserts, less fresh water, larger storm systems and flooded coastal cities (as well as inundated island nations) mean 'more hospitable'...exactly how?

Historically, every time the climate warmed civilizations prospered as a direct result of longer growing seasons, more food and milder winters. How else could Scandinavians have prospered enough to create the manpower and ships if their climate had not warmed for a significant period?
Any worries today are the result of those who support command and control economies (socialism) which cannot and will not readily adapt to change.
Longer growing seasons mean more corn and soybeans can be pushed further north and small grain can be pushed further or double cropped.
Not many plants we can eat grow well when frozen.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2012
Don't you mean: less deserts, more fresh water, and more arable land?
And don't forget West Nile virus, which apparently rotted your brain.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
"Longer growing seasons mean more corn and soybeans" Guess you have not checked the price of corn and soy recently. We have a wonderful long growing season here in Oklahoma - but it has also been a hideous drought - so the longer season only helps if you have good irrigation. Have you checked in to the situation with the Ogallala reservoir recently? You are very sure of yourself Rygg - that is a problem.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2012
"Longer growing seasons mean more corn and soybeans" Guess you have not checked the price of corn and soy recently. We have a wonderful long growing season here in Oklahoma - but it has also been a hideous drought - so the longer season only helps if you have good irrigation. Have you checked in to the situation with the Ogallala reservoir recently? You are very sure of yourself Rygg - that is a problem.

If water is the only problem, there is an app for that. If frost is the problem the app is much more expensive.
Deserts can be turned into productive cropland with the proper technologies.
Just look at the proliferation of indoor greenhouse technology being sold around the country to grow pot indoors. Imagine that ingenuity applied to food.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
We have a wonderful long growing season here in Oklahoma - but it has also been a hideous drought -

What do you expect?
Why do you think OK was the one of the last places in the US homesteaded?
The Mormons turned the UT desert into productive farmland by building dams and irrigation in the Wasatch range.
The 30's drought was worse.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
your research just happens to contradict the vast majority of climate scientists around the wolrd - but that does not occur to you as maybe a problem.
Not at all. They have the same access to the data I have, and also conjecture as to the cause.

Skeptical websites have a lot of information on this, but you'll probably prefer the alarmist point of view.

Alarmists generally attribute it to being temporary (as if they know):

http://www.southw...og/14420

It is like saying "does the sun orbit around the earth? - and I did some research and found that it does"
Now you're just outright lying.

Here is the data that I have shown you so many times
Which is irrelevant to the time base in question.

Here's the relevant data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Cont...

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
So now you - the lone holder of the truth - must spam the internet with your new found knowledge.
Obviously, I'm not the only one to make this observation:

http://worldnews....nge?lite

And no - your ten year graph does not trump my 120 year graph
That's like saying my Google map directions aren't trumped by a whole earth Google image. One will get me to my destination, the other just looks pretty. Your graph is pretty, but worthless for the data parameters in question.

but that will not bother you - as you are actually not interested in the truth as you pretend.
Starting in with the ad hominems now?

Actually, it is you who have made it clear you're not interested in the current data.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
You see - when asking the question "is the earth warming?" - the longer the data trend we look at - the more valid the answer.
This is a red herring argument. The question is: "Is the earth currently warming?" It isn't, and it hasn't for at least the last 10 years (seriously, why aren't you happy about this?).

If it is cooler today than it was yesterday - that does not prove the earth is cooling. If it is cooler this week/month/year/ than it was last-same conclusion.
Watch it. That argument goes both ways.

The trend is clear. Warming stopped at least 10 years ago.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

So - I understand that you are not interested in the truth - but there could be several reasons for that - perhaps you are delusional, or have an overwhelming pre agenda - or are getting paid for your activities - whatever
So since the facts are against you, it's time to resort to the childish ad hominems now?

Cont>
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
as we agree - time will tell.
It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

If you deny it, you're calling all those scientists who've risked their reputations (and sometimes their very lives) to collect this data, liars. Is that what you want to do? ...be anti-science?

Grow up, quit making it a personal argument, stick to the data, and learn something.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2012
Then why have you been using a ranking ROBOT to vote down hundreds of responses that you don't like with a ZERO (when 1 is the only value allowed by the convention of this system).

"I have no agenda beyond learning about and exposing the truth." - UbVonTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
R2 says
Historically, every time the climate warmed civilizations prospered as a direct result of longer growing seasons, more food and milder winters.


Historically when there are climate disasters civilizations disband and move to other locations too. At one time, the Sahara desert was lush with vegetation. Yet 4000 year ago, a permanent change in weather patterns (climate change) from a shift in the earth's axis left it desert. The point being that Earth's weather can be effected by simple things, and that change in weather can have very lasting consequences.

So to much CO2 can have lasting consequences on the weather too, and the 2012 mid-west drought could be a preview of what is to come.

Based on climate models, it is a preview of what will come.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2012
But has been going gangbusters for the last 4 years.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

"It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago:" - UbVontard

Astonishing isn't it?
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2012
"Is the earth currently warming?" It isn't, and it hasn't for at least the last 10 years (seriously, why aren't you happy about this?).


I, for one, would kiss my overlords butt if it was true. Given the ever increasing amounts of crap dumped into the empty spaces that an ever growing population continues to fill, CO2 from fossil fuels will continue to increase in density in atmosphere and continue to trap more and more heat.

Astonishing isn't it?
It's amazing how clueless some folks really are.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2012
It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago:


No warming in the last ten years? Lets see: (
(from the Australian Academy of Science)

http://www.scienc..._3.2.pdf

http://www.scienc..._3.1.pdf

http://www.scienc..._3.3.pdf

http://www.scienc..._3.4.pdf

There are many more. I'll leave it at these four. all clearly measuring significant and accelerating temperature rises since the 80's.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
"Which is irrelevant to the time base in question." No it is not - it is highly relevant - like I said - the longer the time scale we can look at - the more valid the data. Did you look at Vendi's graph? Now - when answering the question - is the globe currently warming? What does Vendi's graph tell you? Oh right - it is fine for you to select the data that supports your narrative - but not OK for someone else. I maintain the position - the longer the time scale - the more relevant the data.
"That's like saying my Google map directions aren't trumped by a whole earth Google image" - that is a really stupid analogy - it is more like you saying - "it is cooler today than yesterday - so the globe is cooling" - and me arguing "no - you need to look at long term data trends"

"Grow up, quit making it a personal argument, stick to the data, and learn something." That is pretty funny - you have just put up 4 long responses to my post - who is making it personal? cont.

djr
4.2 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2012
I do stick to the data - need me to repost it? This is a long term data trend - http://www.woodfo...ah/trend

showing how closely about 7 different data sets agree on the fact that the globe is warming - and continues to warm - you old cherry picking hypocrite you....
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
Historically when there are climate disasters civilizations disband and move to other locations too.


And now we have technology to adapt.

Why are the AGWites afraid of technology to adapt to changing climates?
Maybe because on order to unleash such technology the AGWite/socialists must give up power and central command and control economics?

BTW, Chinese companies fabricating solar cells are going bankrupt.
rubberman
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2012
Rygg: We use statistics when discussing climate in order to make factual statements about the direction a particular aspect of climate is trending. Whether it is global avg. temperature, sea level rise/fall or sea/glacial ice, the timescales are far to large to argue a trend based on a miniscule time frame. If you are imbecillic enough to make a statement like "The earth is cooling because it hasn't warmed in 10 years", the next warm year sends your argument into the toilet (where it belongs). Therefore time will eventually flush UBtard's argument....unless you live in the US bread basket and your toilet tank has no water in it.


"It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago" - This statement is not grounded in reality.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2012
"BTW, Chinese companies fabricating solar cells are going bankrupt."
This has nothing to do with the current discussion - just baiting on your part. Yes many solar companies are going bankrupt - it is a highly competitive industry - and there are winners and losers - that is part of the theory of the free market - you may want to read about it some time. Also governments around the world (most notable China) are interfering big time into the process - and really skewing things. You would only be concerned about some companies going bankrupt if you were a socialist Rygg.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2012
Chinese companies fabricating solar cells are going bankrupt

So?

Do you know how many automobile manufacturers went bankrupt when that boom started? A lot. And we still have automobile manufacturers.
Do you know how many airplane manufacturers went bankrupt when hat boom started? A lot. And we still have airplane manufacturers.
If you're old enough:
Do you remember how many computer manufacturers went bankrupt when that boom started? A lot. And we still computer manufacturers.
Do you remember how many startups went bust during the dotCom bubble? A lot. And we still have internet businesses.

That companies go bust lefta nd right during a time of rapid development in a field is not really a particularly unusual event.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
Most of the records set this July were set in stations that did not exist in the 1930s.

http://www.drroys...t-i-usa/

"Another way to look at the now diminishing heat wave is to analyze stations with long records for the occurrence of daily extremes. For USA48 there are 970 USHCN stations with records at least 80 years long.

In Fig. 1.1 is the number of record hot days set in each year by these 970 stations (gray). The 1930s dominate the establishment of daily TMax record highs

But for climatologists, the more interesting result is the average of the total number of records in ten-year periods to see the longer-term character. The smooth curve shows that 10-year periods in the 1930s generated about twice as many hot-day records as the most recent decades."
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2012
Then why have you been using a ranking ROBOT to vote down hundreds of responses that you don't like with a ZERO (when 1 is the only value allowed by the convention of this system).
This is a lie. I do not have any sockpuppets. Any downranking from me will be from this single account (but I'd like to know for certain whose using "Lite" and "Pluton").

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
I don't think they lie on purpose. I think their ideals and convictions are so strong, the facts don't matter.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2012
It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago: - Uba
But has been going gangbusters for the last 4 years.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Astonishing isn't it?
What's astonishing is that you can't even count! That graph only shows 2.5 of the last four years. Let's look at the full dataset, shall we?

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Astonishing, isn't it?
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
"Is the earth currently warming?" It isn't, and it hasn't for at least the last 10 years (seriously, why aren't you happy about this?).


I, for one, would kiss my overlords butt if it was true. Given the ever increasing amounts of crap dumped into the empty spaces that an ever growing population continues to fill, CO2 from fossil fuels will continue to increase in density in atmosphere and continue to trap more and more heat.
Really? What would it take to convince you? Do the facts matter? Or, are your ideals so strong that the facts simply don't matter (making you one of VendiTard's "congenital and perpetual liars")?

Astonishing isn't it?
It's amazing how clueless some folks really are. Indeed.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago:


No warming in the last ten years? Lets see: (
(from the Australian Academy of Science)

http://www.scienc..._3.2.pdf

There are many more. I'll leave it at these four. all clearly measuring significant and accelerating temperature rises since the 80's.
"Since the 80's." Seriously? You can't even count. Some of your data goes back to 1850!

Apparently, there is some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years."
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
Did you look at Vendi's graph?
I did, but apparently you didn't! LOL

Now - when answering the question - is the globe currently warming? What does Vendi's graph tell you?
That Venditard and you can't even count to four!

it is fine for you to select the data that supports your narrative - but not OK for someone else.
Choose what ever data you want. Just be sure to match your data to the claim under discussion. It wouldn't due, for instance, to talk about AGW with a dataset which precedes the industrial revolution, now would it?

I maintain the position - the longer the time scale - the more relevant the data.
Really? You do know the world has been much warmer than today, right? So you now admit the world is cooling? LOL. What an idiot.

Cont...
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
that is a really stupid analogy - it is more like you saying - "it is cooler today than yesterday - so the globe is cooling" - and me arguing "no - you need to look at long term data trends"
That's a really stupid analogy. You're essentially saying today MUST be warmer than yesterday, because the long term trends are rising! LOL Again, what an idiot.

I do stick to the data - need me to repost it? This is a long term data trend -
Which is irrelevant to the claim.

showing how closely about 7 different data sets agree on the fact that the globe is warming - and continues to warm -
No it doesn't. Your graph is a red herring. You've deliberately manipulated it to hide the current cooling. Here's the relevant data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

you old cherry picking hypocrite you....
You've already openly admitted, you're the cherry-picking hypocrite.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2012
"It's already telling. Global warming stopped at least 10 years ago" - This statement is not grounded in reality.
You said it yourself: "We use statistics when discussing climate in order to make factual statements about the direction a particular aspect of climate is trending."

Here's the data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

time will eventually flush Uba's argument
It would have to be an awfully warm year! Why can't you simply admit that, as of this moment, global temperatures have been stagnate for more than 10 years? Why aren't you happy about this?
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2012
Hey Rygg
I just accidently gave you 5 stars! Please disregard! Actually, I consider you to be a monumental fool!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2012
Hey Rygg
I just accidently gave you 5 stars! Please disregard! Actually, I consider you to be a monumental fool!

Why do you think I care?
Is this how real science is conducted, a rating scale?
Fortunately there are those in science who don't care what is said of them proceed to pursue the truth, much to the annoyance of the AGWites.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2012
I think their ideals and convictions are so strong, the facts don't matter.

Look what conservative ideals and convictions have done in Canada:

"Free Markets, Not Socialism, Has Enabled Canada To Surpass The U.S. In Wealth"
http://news.inves...m?p=full
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
Ubatuba says:
It would have to be an awfully warm year! Why can't you simply admit that, as of this moment, global temperatures have been stagnate for more than 10 years? Why aren't you happy about this?

Global AVERAGE temperatures have risen exactly 1.3C in the past 100 years. That is a very accelerated rate and it correlates perfectly with CO2 level rise. If you follow trends, this one follows an exponential path, so we should see another 8C global average temperature rise in just a 100 year more.

Best of luck with that kids!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2012
Global AVERAGE temperatures have risen exactly 1.3C in the past 100 years. That is a very accelerated rate and it correlates perfectly with CO2 level rise. If you follow trends, this one follows an exponential path, so we should see another 8C global average temperature rise in just a 100 year more.
Apparently, there is some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years." That's a one, followed by a single zero, not two zeroes. (10, as in how many digits the typical human has on both hands, combined). Why is this so hard for you?

Global temperatures for the last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

CO2 for the last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Funny, I don't see an "exponential increase in temperatures," or a "rising correlation between temperatures and CO2." Maybe you're looking at one or the other graphs backwards?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2012
Global AVERAGE temperatures have risen exactly 1.3C in the past 100 years. And this is incorrect. It seems you've confused Centigrade with Fahrenheit. Global average temperatures have risen 0.74ºC (1.33°F) in the last 100 years.

http://en.wikiped...e_record
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2012
Global AVERAGE temperatures have risen exactly 1.3C in the past 100 years.
And this is incorrect. It seems you've confused Centigrade with Fahrenheit. Global average temperatures have risen 0.74ºC (1.33°F) in the last 100 years.

http://en.wikiped...e_record
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
Gosh. How many times do you denialist morons need to be told.

The 30's weren't warm globally. The warming was pretty much regional.

"And the 30s were hot because of global warming, too?" - RyggTard

Do you intend to be a liar for the rest of your life RyggTard?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
But up for the last 12 years.

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

And up over the last 4 years.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

"Global temperatures for the last 10 years" - UbVonTard

But of course, climate is defined over 30 year intervals. So here is the trend over the last 30 years...

http://www.woodfo...rom:1982
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2012
That is because you are looking at weather. Not climate.

"Funny, I don't see an "exponential increase in temperatures,"" - UbVonTard

You have been told the difference dozens of times. Your failure to learn is nothing but personal failure on your part.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
RyggTard provides a link to an article titled...

""Free Markets, Not Socialism, Has Enabled Canada To Surpass The U.S. In Wealth"" - RyggTard

The article claims among other things that the Obama Administrtion has claimed that "deficits don't matter," when in fact it was Dick Cheney during the Bush Administration that made that claim.

In the article IBD also claims that deficit reduction is one of the reasons for Canada's good economic position, but tells a lie of omission when it fails to say that the tax surplus that produced those reductions was produced under a Liberal Government, and strongly opposed by Canadian Conservatives who claimed that a government surplus was evidence of excessive taxation, even when it was being used to pay down Canada's national debt.

Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
RyggTards's article also goes on to claim that a reduction in corporate taxation enacted in Jan of this year, has reduced Canada's unemployment rate, but in fact, right after the tax cut, Canada's unemployment rate increased from 7.5 to 7.6 percent.

Although the unemployment rate has subsequently fallen to 7.3 percent - Not the 7.2 percent claimed in RyggTards article - this represents an increase of only 15,000 jobs.

In addition RyggTard's article claims that the tax rate was "slashed to 15 percent". In fact the previous tax rate was 16.5 percent, and no reasonable person would refer to a difference of 1.5 percent a dramatic "slash" in rates.

Further the article claims that Canada's debt to GDP ratio is 36% but fails to mention that due to Conservative tax cuts, that GDP ratio has risen from a low of 29% achieved by the former Liberal Government against the wishes of the current Conservative government.

Cont
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
According to Canada's own budget...

"Revenue measures announced in this budget will lower revenues by
$0.1 billion in 201112, by $0.4 billion in 201213 and 201314, and by $0.2 billion in 201415."

So, those corporate tax cuts which might have produced 15,000 jobs have cost the government 400 million. A cost of $27,000 per job - presuming - as no rational person does - that those cuts created those jobs.

IBD - RyggTard's source of information is wrong or misleading in virtually every way imaginable in it's article on Canada, but the most laughable error the article makes is in it's claim that Canada's Free Market has made it's economy great.

In fact Canada is a socialist state, and it was potent banking regulation that kept Canada's nose clean while Bush was creating America's current Depression. And it was Socialist Liberal Values that had the former Liberal government reverse the basket case borrow and spend policies of the former Conservative Mulroney government and CONT...
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2012
Convert that deficit into a yearly surplus that the Liberals used to pay down Canada's national debt.

In the U.S., the Clinton Administration was well on it's way to do the same thing...

Until Bush Jr. was elected.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2012
You aren't engaged in science, Tard Boy.

You are just another perpetually lying Libertarian.

"Is this how real science is conducted, a rating scale?" - RyggTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2012
Gosh. How many times do you denialist morons need to be told.

The 30's weren't warm globally. The warming was pretty much regional.
Gosh. How many times do you warming alarmist morons need to be told.

The recent U.S. warmth isn't warm globally. The warming is pretty much regional.

"And the 30s were hot because of global warming, too?" - Rygg
VendiTard is a moronic chatbot that can't recognize sarcasm.

Do you intend to be a moronic liar for the rest of your service life?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2012
But up for the last 12 years.
Apparently, there is some confusion on your part as to what constitutes "the last 10 years." That's a one, followed by a single zero, not a 2. (10, as in how many digits the typical human has on both hands, combined). Why is this so hard for you?

But then you can't even count to four, so why should I be surprised.

Global temperatures for the last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

And up over the last 4 years.
LOL. You still can't count to four. That's four and a half!

Even though it's irrelevant to my claim, just for kicks and giggles, here's the last four years of available GISSTEMP data:

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

Cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2012
But of course, climate is defined over 30 year intervals.
No it's not:

"Climate ...is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period. The standard averaging period is 30 years, but other periods may be used depending on the purpose."

And:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) glossary definition is:

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years."

http://en.wikiped...finition

One wonders why warming alarmists aren't happy about the recent cooling. If they don't care about global cooling, just what are they REALLY after?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2012
That is because you are looking at weather. Not climate.
No, that would be you in claiming the recent warmth in a single region was due to global warming.

You have been told the difference dozens of times. Your failure to learn is nothing but personal failure on your part.
You have been given the diffinition dozens of times. Your failure to learn is nothing but personal failure on your part.

And seriously, explain to us why you're not happy the globe has been cooling for at least the last 10 years.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2012

Global AVERAGE temperatures have risen exactly 1.3C in the past 100 years.


About 3.5C since 1760.

About .5C measured from 1775 to 2000

About .25C measured from 1775 to 2011.

http://berkeleyea...ison.pdf

The 1.3C figure is just cherry picking.

The really interesting point is the graph shows tiny .5C fluctuations from year to year on the right and huge 4C fluctuations on the left .

1) Either climate has become exceptionally stable since the end of the LIA

2) Or the data on right just leaves out the wild fluctuations.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2012
Sorry, I have not made that claim.

You are simply a congenital, and perpetual liar.

"No, that would be you in claiming the recent warmth in a single region was due to global warming." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2012
Oh, probably it is because you are a congenital and perpetual liar.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

"And seriously, explain to us why you're not happy the globe has been cooling for at least the last 10 years." - UbVonTard

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2012
With an error of about 3.5'C

"About 3.5C since 1760." - ParkerTard

Poor, mentally diseased ParkerTard. He just can't stop lying.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2012
With an error of about 3.5'C

"About 3.5C since 1760." - ParkerTard

Poor, mentally diseased ParkerTard. He just can't stop lying.


The anomalies for May, June and July of 1761 versus 2011.

1761 5 1.178
1761 6 2.070
1761 7 1.783

2011 5 0.842
2011 6 1.014
2011 7 1.245

http://berkeleyea...lete.txt

Definitely warmer in 1761 than 2011.

But I still think the interesting part is the lack of extreme changes in temperature in modern times versus the 1700s and 1800s.

If the data is right, we are lucky to be living in a period of calm weather compared to the past.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2012
NP: You seem to have left out a column:
Date......Month,,,,..Anomoly.....Uncertainty
1761.......5 ........1.178.........1.262
1761.......6.........2.070.........1.066
1761.......7.........1.783..........1.910

2011.......5.......0.842.......0.083
2011.......6.......1.014.......0.090
2011.......7.......1.245.......0.160

Hmmmmm.... It looks as though you have left out the uncertainty of the measurements. Why would you do that? (sarcasm intended).
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2012
NP: You seem to have left out a column:
Date......Month,,,,..Anomoly.....Uncertainty
1761.......5 ........1.178.........1.262
1761.......6.........2.070.........1.066
1761.......7.........1.783..........1.910

2011.......5.......0.842.......0.083
2011.......6.......1.014.......0.090
2011.......7.......1.245.......0.160

Hmmmmm.... It looks as though you have left out the uncertainty of the measurements. Why would you do that? (sarcasm intended).


Do you have better numbers?

HADCET summers were a lot warmer even in the 1700s.

http://sunshineho...-decade/

June and July 2012 were ridiculously cold in the UK.

http://www.metoff...sort.txt

1762 was 7th warmest June
1760 was 6th warmest September.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2012
No, that would be you in claiming the recent warmth in a single region was due to global warming. - Uba
Sorry, I have not made that claim. - VendiTard
This is a lie. You've made that claim, repeatedly.

You are simply a congenital, and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2012
And seriously, explain to us why you're not happy the globe has been cooling for at least the last 10 years. - Uba
Oh, probably it is because you are a congenital and perpetual liar. - Venditard.
A persoanl attack is not an explanation. So again: Why aren't you happy the world has been cooling for at least the last 10 years?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend