Want to know why global warming alarmists and climate scientists in general have lost credibility with the American public? Consider a new study released today — and the unintentionally hilarious weasel words of its author — as Exhibit A.
As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle today, a meteorologist did a 30-year survey of temperature and precipitation data for most of the largest cities up and down the state of California. Conclusion? In 75% of the sites, the weather has grown colder and rainier than it used to be:

(To see the complete illustration from which this graphic was excerpted, see the SF Chronicle‘s version here.)
Of course, this “inconvenient truth” was not what either the study’s author nor the Chronicle‘s reporter wanted to see, so the spin cycle goes into overdrive right from the headline, which manages to use the word “warmer” first despite there being only two warmer cities in the entire study: “CA climate: inland warmer; coast cooler and wetter.” Uh-huh. But that’s just the aperitif. How does the author, a meteorologist named Jan Null who also happens to be on the global warming bandwagon, explain away the trend he uncovered? Behold:
The data may appear to bolster the arguments of global warming skeptics, but Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon emissions.
“People say, ‘Wait a minute, what about global warming? Shouldn’t it be warmer?’ ” Null said. “Well, if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas. That certainly does not contradict any of the models about global warming. This is what is to be expected.”
They always say that: Whenever evidence of cooling is found in the data, it somehow magically becomes confirming proof of global warming, because cooling is “expected” in the forecasts. Of course, whenever localized warming trends are found, those too are cited as evidence of global warming.
Which leads me to my Global Warming Spin Axiom:
Hot we win, cold you lose!
What’s most astounding is that Null, who claims to be a world-class expert on California meteorology, uncorked the whopper “if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas,” which as anyone who lives in Northern California knows is complete balderdash. Hot days in the Central Valley are generally caused by high-pressure systems settling over the area, which also cause off-shore (i.e. reverse of normal) winds and higher temperature at the coasts. Incoming low-pressure fronts cause cold temperatures at the coasts and cooling inland. To say that warm temperatures inland somehow induce cold and rain on the coast is wrong in more ways than I can count. And Jan Null knows that, so he must be purposely obfuscating to undermine the conclusions of his own unfortunate study.
One thing I will say in Null’s favor, though: At least he released the stats he uncovered, rather than burying them once he realized that they undermined his favored thesis (as other researchers have done, we now know). But he would have been wiser to just release them and make no further comment, because every time a climatologist cites cooler temperatures as proof of global warming, another angel dies in heaven and another thousand Americans lose faith in the global warming mania.






“…Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon emissions.”
Of course they do because these so-called scientists have predicted just about everything to be the result of the Climate Con-game, including the appearance of Godzilla on the Capitol Mall.
(I know Krauthammer said the Godzilla thing but Palin never said she could see Russia from her house, either.)
The true bottom line: Insignificant temperature variations, both up and down, over a 30-year period “prove” absolutely nothing except: The Warmist hypothesis of sudden steep rise in temperature is false. If Warmists had been correct in their original warnings in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it should have been unavoidably obvious by now that they were … correct. But it’s not. Ipso facto, their hypothesis was wrong. But will they ever admit it? Not while Al Gore can still get someone (even if it’s only Rolling Stone) to print his rubbish.
The Talmud has an argumentation method called kal va-homer–simple to complex and back again, or small to great and back again!
So, if in the last 30 years, the time of the greatest growth in the demographics and car-use in California, if in those last 30 years there has been the slightest shift in average temperatures up or down–now that California is LOSING businesses, people and car emissions ain’t what they used to be…
Wow! California may just become livable again!
Exactly. And this leads to the necessary conclusion that the minor cooling was in fact not predicted. And a Google of such predictions between 1998 and 2005 bear that out. What was even less posited was the cessation of drought, something that was given as a permanent state of affairs of academics and bureaucrats who used water rationing to destroy farming and industry.
CA water storage levels.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action
Add to this the study that shows that the lack of warming since 1998 is caused by China burning coal and you have the burning of fossil fuels causes both warming a cooling at the same time, leading to a net change of zero. But the alarmists make that out to be,well alarming.
That’s funny, his name being Null.
The Null Hypothesis: “There is no relationship between two quantities.”
The LA Times featured cold fusion in ’89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!
“It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate Change Denial”)
“Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)
“It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
“Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)
CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann
Here I present A Global Warming Digest:
Denial: http://i.min.us/ibyADs.jpg
Oceans: http://k.min.us/idAw6Y.gif
NASA: http://i.min.us/idFxzI.jpg
Thermometers: http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif
Earth: http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif
Ice: http://k.min.us/ibBgw2.jpg
Authority: http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif
Prophecy: http://i.min.us/idEHdo.jpg
Psychopathy: http://i.min.us/ibubmk.jpg
Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
If it gets any warmer we’ll freeze to death. If it gets warmer, it’s global warming. If it gets colder. it’s global warming. If it gets hotter, it’s the use of coal. If it doesn’t get hotter, it’s the use of coal.
Yup, you’ve got to move fast to keep up with them goalposts!
“Hot we win, cold you lose” is classic.
The best sentence from that article: “The world’s foremost scientists, about 2,500 in all, agree that this increase in global temperatures is responsible for the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, acidification of the ocean, sea level rise and habitat destruction.”
I guess San Francisco Chronicle readers can take writing like that seriously.
And in the late 70′s & early 80′s the world’s foremost scientists agreed we’d all be human popsicles by the year 2000. Anybody feelin’ chilly yet?
AGW isn’t “science”, it’s a “religion”. There’s nothing it can’t do. If we descend into a Little Ice Age, these idiots will be screaming “See, we told you!”.
Absolutely correct. AGW is a religion – a bible thumpin’, Armageddon’s-a-comin’,get on your knees NOW, religion. A pox on all of them – whether they are God believers or Gore believers!
Don’t forget that Al Gore was once a student at Vanderbilt Divinity School–before he flunked out! Guess he’s decided since that it’s easier to start your own religion!
Al “Elmer Gentry” Gore can now stand to be the first preacher billionaire riding the AGW dogma into the land of OZ. By the time it is all over his name will be forever linked with fraud, self-aggrandizement and mass deception. This man was the definition of weird his entire life. It is only fitting that he be identified with AGW since it seems to be a haven for all types of “out there” folks. “An Inconvenient Truth” will in the future be a comedy movie to illustrate how mass media can induce mass hallucination in segments of an otherwise normal population. It will be the “Reefer Madness” movie for future generations to laugh at. An Academy Award what a joke. Nobel Peace Prize for Obama’s possible potential in the future. Liberals are surely unstable when it comes to the latest delusion.
AGW poo.
“Every time a Hummer starts, somewhere in the Arctic a baby polar bear dies.”
–I never actually saw that quote—but, I might as well have, from some Global Warming Expert (seated at his or her favorite spot at Starbuck’s, reading more scientific climate data in Mother Jones).
Here’s MY global weather theory.
For a long time, it was really hot, It became cold for awhile, and then quite hot and wet. It got dry for a while after that; but most recently, it’s been sorta midway, with swings between hottish and coldish. Sometimes there are glaciers, and then all the trees and baby animals get flattened out (at least, the very slow moving ones). Then it melts, and makes for great waterskiing lakes in the Midwest. Eventually, it’ll get cold again: but first, it may be somewhat warm.
There, now. That should be good for a Nobel Prize—or, at a minimum, a $1Million grant from the Feds.
Watch for my next Great Theory entitled “Why Stuff Hits the Floor When You Let Go Of It”. You may be shocked!
Mike this is the wonderful old joke:
Bono: (starting a slow handclap at a concert) Every..time..I..clap..my..hands..a..baby..in..Africa..dies!
Voice from audience: Well stop fooking clapping your fooking hands then!
Gets a rise out of me every single time…
“….reading more scientific climate data in Mother Jones.”
Thanks for the laugh Michael. With that line, I burst out loud. HILARIOUS!!!
The orbital glide path of our planet has for billions of years traversed the boundless and deathly cold temperatures of space, a deadly region existing just a few short miles from the surface sustaining us. Out nearest source of heat is some 93 million miles away with next some four light years away and we’re worried about “WARMING”? WTF?
We do not have man made global warming. We have man made-up global warming. And we have man made-up data confirming global warming. And we have man made-up excuses for why cool weather means that global warming is man made. Is that perfectly clear to all of you troglodyte skeptics out there?
What we actually have is a grand unified theory of paleolithic agrarian socialism, and ways to force it on the (surviving) human populace of the planet.
It’s sort of like the East Anglia climate center computer simulations that resulted in a Mann hockey-stick graph no matter what numbers were put in the front end; real ones, simulated ones, made-up ones, imaginary ones, ones hallucinated while on LSD, or the vital statistics of the Playmate of the Month.
The Seventies “New Ice Age” threat was to be solved by this method. The modern “Global Warming” threat is, too. Which means the only real “threat” out there is… a lack of authoritarian socialism. According to the Green socialists, at least.
This probably explains why the PRC’s emissions are somehow “holding off” AGW. After all, they’re socialist emissions, so they must be a good thing.
Am I the only one who is heartily tired of this load of PC “Death To Civilization/ Save Holy Mother Gaia” BS passing itself off as “science”?
clear ether
eon
The short take: it’s easier to lord it over a reduced population of unarmed, uneducated peasants. Any means to that end, inculding the corruption of the scientific method and falsification and disingenuous manipulation of climate data to aid in the de-industialization of the planet and the extermination of 90% of the world’s population and the impoverishment of the rest is legitimnate.
Cloward-Piven writ large.
Nah. Malthusians (liberals) say we are running out of resources. “There are just too many people.” Really, the folks who embrace this feel there are just too many of “the wrong kinds of people”. These breeders just need to quit breeding so much. Those danged uppity peasants. Abortions. Gays. Non-breeding = good.
It is important to understand that those who think, “the wrong kinds of people”, consider THEMSELVES to be “the right kind of people”. They intimate this to each other, possibly even say it directly. When they do, it is a mutual admiration society, mutual flattery. “You are one of the right kind of people, my friend.” Two asses hitched to the same wagon rub and polish the coats of each other’s butts where they touch.
Liberals are asses.
“Want to know why global warming alarmists and climate scientists in general have lost credibility with the American public?”
They may be losing credibility…but, you have to admit they’re gaining ground as a comedy act.
All I know is the past couple of days here in San Diego have been the warmest, sunniest days we’ve had this year — and it happened after the publication of the Null article. Now THAT’s a cause/effect that seems more likely.
“my waist size doubled. That means I’m getting skinnier”
“I’m sober because I drank all this beer”
In the global warming alternate universe both of your statements make perfect sense.
“That certainly does not contradict any of the models about global warming. This is what is to be expected.”
And since my scales show I’ve gained 11 pounds, that means my diet is working. Just what I expected…
The weather here in, it’s all summer all the time, Kuwait has been a spring like 100 + or – a couple since the begining of June. It actually gets cold here in winter DEC-FEB. I was told I would be melting by now, so far not so much. God is good, and AGW is a crock.
This is one of the funniesr examples of PajamasMedia cherry-picking.
Every decade, under treaty, the nations of the world share their climate data. These data sets are called “climate normals”.
America just released its climate normals. Yes, America’s climate *has* been getting hotter — much hotter.
What PJM posted was a tiny subset of America’s climate normals … a subset that was cherry-picked to deny the reality of AGW.
Which is solid evidence of one thing only … that PJM’s peculiar variety of conservatism is … well … timid and pathetic.
More and more, it’s clear that PJM’s peculiar conservatism is too juvenile to face what Charlie Martin calls “The Cold Equations.”
Aye laddies and lassies … for coverage of this story, yah gotta go to Ireland!
U.S. Climate Normals Updated To Reflect Warming World
Irish Weather Online
URL: http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-news/u-s-climate-normals-updated-to-reflect-warming-world/25183.html
Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance, physic.
Speaking of cherry-picking…
Our resident fraud/troll is at it again.
Sure it worms, but there is no reliable connection (or even positive correlation) between growing average temp. and AGW favorite “greenhouse” gas = CO2. I will start to take all climate models more seriously when:
1. They will start to reliably predict (with errors < 5% on all variables) ElNino/LaNinia cycles and
2. Pull out the CO2 temp. contribution from H2O background for the night/day temp. differential between Sahara and Bangladesh FROM THE FIRST PRINCIPLES with similar (<5% error) accuracy and not by curve-fitting.
Till than I consider all postulated climate-CO2 connections as a political rather than real science.
Hmmmm… Climate normals…. Climate normals…..
That would have had to come from some temperature data somewhere, wouldn’t it? And that data would come from NOAA, wouldn’t it?
Isn’t that the same NOAA that has been caught “cherry picking” (to use your appropriate phrase) which weather measurement stations stay in the body of reported data, and which get thrown out? And haven’t they been caught throwing out rural (colder than urban) and northern (colder than, uh, southern) stations and retaining urban (colder than rural) and southern (warmer than northern – are you still with me?) stations, thus skewing the data toward the warmer?
Not to mention the very high percentage of weather stations which are not installed and maintained correctly, and are giving artificially high temperatures….
Phy, baby, when people have stated their intention to lie about a subject, and have been caught lying about that subject, it’s reasonable to believe they will continue to lie about that subject.
Here’s a little article that documents the amount of veracity to put on these weather stations:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/20491
I know it is four years old, but nothing much has changed in the meantime. In fact, any changes are probably made to skew the data even further toward the “warming hypothesis.” And “hypothesis” it is. An unproved and most likely wrong assumption from people with a vested interest in it. For a comparison of hypothesis and theory, see this:
http://www.mikeblaber.org/oldwine/chm1045/notes/Intro/Theory/Theory.htm
‘Nuff said.
It’s contest time, PJM/Tatler AGW skeptics!
Every summer the Arctic sea ice melts … every year it’s been melting more-and-more …
Challenge: How much Arctic ice will melt *this* year?
Those pesky AGW-believing scientists are getting more-and-more specific in their predictions. The web page below posts nineteen such predictions.
I’ll go on record: my over-under for 2011′s sea ice coverage is 4.7 million kilometers^2 … the same as the scientists.
For comparison, the historical mean is 6.7 million kilometers^2.
Who here on PJM/Tatler has the confidence to predict that the AGW-believing scientists will be proved wrong?
Anyone?
Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate
Summer predictions for Arctic sea ice
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/
We have a base in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, where our crew works year-round (oil/gas well service). They report no warming trend, only colder.
Sure, it MUST be getting warmer. On Venus.
DavidMac, every medical student is taught to respect this clinical pearl (as they are called): “The plural of anecdote is not data.”
This pearl applies to every branch of science (not just medicine) … including climatology.
We are also taught that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY.
Let’s agree that there is global warming.
Is it caused by human industry? Or part of a natural cycle related to sun activity? Only cherry-picked data from scientists with a political agenda or corrupted by ecostatist grant money believe the former. Before the internal combustion engine, there was global warming in Roman times and in the middle ages (the “Medieval Optimum”). Global warming ended the ice age, due to that giant ball of fire in the sky rather than fires and farts from the cavemen.
The AGW hysteria is simply a means by which the ecofascists want to tax the crap out of us, redistribute taxpayer money globally, and have the power to control every aspect of our lives from what light bulb to use, what car to drive and how many children we can have.
“It’s funny” “It’s peculiar” “One wonders” …
… why posters like TrainWreck never mention … and possibly don’t care … that America has bankrupted itself exporting petro-dollars to Muslim and Russian oligarchs … to pay for carbon that’s devastating our planet’s climate.
It appears that situation is OK with TrainWreck.
Oh, I mention it all the time…. right before I mention that the reason this is so is that Copperheads like you prevent us from using our own energy resources through non-scientific tyranny.
Oh yah … David Mac … the satellites are showing that the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea (where Prudhoe bay is located) has melted to be ice-free right now … about one month earlier than normal.
Anyone can verify this by checking the link below. As physicist Richard Feyman famously said “Mother Nature can’t be fooled.”
But as PJM/Tatler editors know, people can be fooled pretty easily. So maybe yah’d better check personally with your Prudhoe Bay teams?
Daily Sea Ice Coverage
URL: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So? You’ve cited a data point but provided no context.
I’ve seen breathless headlines “ARCTIC ICE MELTS MORE THAN IN LAST 50 YEARS!!!” So… what was it about 1960 that made it melt more than this year?
Study the satellite data, Rob … `cuz ignorance *is* curable yah know. It just takes work.
Hint: is there any satellite data for 1960 (or before)?
Care to predict what this line’s gonna be doing in coming years?
URL: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110706_Figure3.png
Dear “physicist:”
Assuming your “facts” are “true,” explain why this is a problem for Earth and humankind?
Please, take your time, and be sure to spew copious blather to “prove” your points.
“Every summer the Arctic sea ice melts … every year it’s been melting more-and-more … ”
Too bad it’s exactly the opposite in the Antarctic, which is why AGW fanatics prefer to discuss ONLY arctic sea ice coverage.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
There isn’t much of an increase…but, it’s there…much to the dismay of AGW religious fanatics. I think it’s estimated to be about 2% per decade (based on a massive dataset which covers a whole 30 years!!!), but frankly I can’t be arsed to look it up, just to show what a jackass A physicist is.
Not worth the effort.
I’ll just say that in the sciences (I’m a doctor of Thinkology and high school dropout myself) we have a term for those who present ONLY the data that might tend to support their theories:
The term is “Liar”.
And the fact that global warming has been exposed as a hoax is also further proof that climate change is happening.
I wonder….if we were to remove any possibility of receiving a climate study grant from NASA, or any not for profit organization, do you think the climate change frauds would disappear? These clowns need to be silenced and stopped! We have real problems to address and climate change is not one of them. My vote goes to cheap energy and clean water. Diverting money from those is madness.
Ago Solvo, with respect, all the climate-change research that is conducted in the entire world, for one full year, is equal to the profits that Big Carbon makes in … wait for it … twenty five minutes.
So you’re absolutely right. It’s madness. It’s madness that America’s deficit-ridden carbon-driven energy economy is bleeding our nation dry financially, at the same time that it is wreaking havoc upon our planetary climate system.
And for this mad policy, PJM/Tatler blames … science?
That’s the stupidest madness of all.
Could I please see your evidence for this? Because there are some “scientists” who claim that in the past 50 years CO2 has doubled, which is 100% disproven by the actual data. Try a rise of roughly 80ppm CO2 in the past 50 years. That has NO effect on the “global climate” (whatever that is supposed to be, there is no “global climate”, there are different climate zones.)
Also please explain this to me:a 0.1% variation in the solar TSI is totaly insignificant, but a 0.01% variation in the atmospheric content (100 ppm) is hitting the ecosystem over the head with a sledgehammer? Sorry, does not compute. Makes no sense at all.
It will get colder. And do you know why? Because the sun is reaching a more silent phase. The end of the current solar maximum is near.
And the most funny thing here is: one day, the sun will burn our planet, because one day our sun will die. In about 1 billion years life on this planet won’t be possible anymore, because the sun is gradually getting “hotter” by 10% every 1 billion years. Hmmm… I think we should rather find a way to get off this planet if we want to survived as a species. Because 1 billion years, that’s like tomorrow in cosmic dimensions.
My, my, what a revealing complaint! This comment proves your real complaint is a free market, technological society.
“Blame science” — ? How can we “blame science” when there is no science behind the claims about anthropogenic global warming?
OK. First, my argument is about motivation not profits. I for one do not believe that the so called scientists are motivated to help the planet, they are in it for the funding! Second, about the data. I have seen some of the data, at least for the US and it tells a different story. I’m an engineer with 34 hours of post calculus math so I believe I also can properly analyze data. Third, in the US there are 2 main sets of ground base date, one from the NWS and the other from NOAA. They show 2 different results. NOAA data shows a decrease while NWS shows an increase. The NOAA data is the accurate data for this analysis because it removes the effect of metro areas. You see when you place your data collection point near an airport you don’t really need to measure to know the outcome! We have serious problems that demand our resources, this is not one of them.
I’m still waiting on this:
Dear “physicist:”
Assuming your “facts” are “true,” explain why this “AGW,” or even just “GW” is a problem for Earth and humankind?
Notice how they base it all on the models. Models which are used to foretell the development of a, now comes the killer, non-linear chaotic system. Which causes me to… facepalm.
“non-linear chaotic system” — are yah talkin’ the financial derivatives market, sonny?
`Cuz heck … at least the Earth’s planetary climate systems has *some* checks and balances.
To the extent that any rational person is skeptical of AGW science … that same person has to be even *more* skeptical of the myth that markets are efficient and rational … more skeptical by factor of 100X of more.
`Cuz the nonlinear chaos of today’s financial markets is far greater than the nonlinearity that planetary scientists contend with.
Even worse, nowadays that financial chaos happens on time-scales of microsecond … chaos that can be tracked and controlled only by vast computers … market chaos that can neither be understood nor controlled by thoughtful responsible citizens.
Folks, that kinda market chaos ain’t what founding conservatives Jefferson had in mind for America … markets are supposed to be a force for moral good … not a source of chaos in folks’ everyday lives.
And the above plain facts ain’t politics: they’re pure math.
The (unfortunate) complexity of the economy
URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0805v1
What a coincidence. You go from arguing global warming to bashing the free market in the same breath.
Thank you for not disputing the facts. Needless to say, political ideologies that cannot face these facts will perish … and will deserve to perish.
Oh, go away you stupid Luddite.
When you provide some facts we’ll dispute them.
Here are a few examples of why “climate modeling” is a flawed basis for extreme changes in government controls on the everyday lives of the people:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/airborne-bacteria-discredit-climate-modeling-dogma
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/tennekes_climate_models.html
While I’m not a “scientist” (although I have been one in my own mind), I do have access to the internet. Which Mr. Physicist does, too. And I doubt that he is a real physicist. More likely a troll paid for by the Obama administration.
Dude, weather and/or climate is the canonical example of a chaotic system, ever since Lorenz’s paper “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?”. Application of chaos theory to finance is at least 5 years more recent.
Helllooooo . . .
Dear “physicist:”
Assuming your “facts” are “true,” explain why this “AGW,” or even just “GW” is a problem for Earth and humankind?
Why won’t you answer me?
Ohhh . . . . Waiiit . . .
You’re “Praetorius,” aren’t you, “Physicist?”
I detected the speech patterns and idisincracies.
So, Folks, this is the self-identified California college kid who trolls in these parts. He’s pretending to be a scientist.
*sigh* Nonlinear chaotic systems can still be modeled.
You know what else is a nonlinear chaotic system? The economy. But we can still model its long-term progression; the simplest models have great qualitative explanatory power, and the more complicated models are proportionally better. We don’t know when the next recession will be or how much GDP will grow next year, and we can’t tell you what direction wages in Muncie, IN will go or what direction wages in Rochester, NY will go in the next six months, but we can tell you that, smoothed over a decade, the total US economy will grow (in real terms) by between 2 and 3%/yr.
The same for the climate. Day-to-day and week-to-week we have little predictive power. I don’t know what the weather’s going to be like in San Francisco, CA over the next six months. But year-to-year and decade-to-decade we have a much greater ability to predict the climate: smoothed out over the next decade, the global temperature will probably grow by (whatever climate scientists predict).
Why? I know you’re not stupid, but let me explain anyway because I’m on a roll: Because even though these systems are locally chaotic, they display global (statistical) uniformity. The climate (the aggregation of weather) is ultimately determined by (aggregations of) solar irradiation and the circulation of greenhouse gases through the ecosystem. (This is a trivial astrophysics exercise.) The economy (the aggregation of market decisions) is ultimately determined by (aggregations of) decisions about consumption, investment in capital, and technology.
In fact, let me push the analogy a little further. Think of CO2 like taxes, in that their effect is ceteris paribus. Higher taxes will, all else equal, depress the economy by some amount. (How much is an empirical question.) More CO2 will, all else equal, raise the global mean temperature. (How much is an empirical question.)
All else isn’t always equal. If the sun is going through a low-activity period of its cycle or there is a period of high volcanic activity injecting dust or sulfur into the troposphere, the temperature might well be cooler even if CO2 is higher.
If the economy is booming because of other reasons, say, high exports, lack of competition, or a major technological innovation, it might well grow even if taxes are higher (c.f. 1950s, 1990s).
Nonetheless, if you inject lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth will be warmer than it otherwise would have been. That’s the fundamental nature of CO2. And it’s like taxes: if you raise taxes significantly, the economy will be less prosperous than it otherwise would have been.
That’s the heart of the reason why global warming is happening. Denying it is like denying that high taxation depresses economic activity.
So how come these marvellous models with their amazing long-term predictive powers never foretold the current flat-lined global temps for the last decade?
Seems they’re not so good after all, doesn’t it?
Andy, the scientists seem pretty confident to me … not shy at all about going on-record with quantitative predictions … as for me, I think they’re right.
Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate
Summer predictions for Arctic sea ice
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/
Whereas, the local AGW sceptics are making no predictions at all.
As for global temperatures being flat, that sure ain’t what NOAA’s been sayin’.
State of the Climate
National Climatic Data Center
URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/#overview
A mathematician, the problem is the equivocation. No one doubts that warming in general is happening. But somehow, we always go from “warming is happening” to “and therefore the magnitude of the forcing from anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the dominant component.” There are several inferential steps there that are much less well supported than the usual AGW proponent will admit.
I deny that warming is happening. In 2008, published data showed that the Earth had cooled by .2 Celsius over the previous decade. suddenly, they are saying AGW is accelerating. BS. These frauds are just cooking the books.
Just look around the world at the last Winter. Records were set all over for the coldest Winter in 100 years. Who can be so ignorant as to believe the world is actually warming? The trends are pointing not to warming, but to an impending mini-Ice Age, because we have hit a solar minim. This past Winter was colder than the previous, and it colder than the previous.
Do you know why they are calling it Climate Change now, instead of AGW? That started in ’08, when it was clear that warming had cease 10 years before. They KNOW it isn’t warming, thus Climate Change (manmade no longer stated, only implied), instead of AGW.
People who believe in AGW need to do us all a favor and just kill themselves. They are just too stupid to live and are a danger to the rest of us.
“Nonetheless, if you inject lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth will be warmer than it otherwise would have been. That’s the fundamental nature of CO2.”
Not true. “Greenhouse gasses” do not trap heat. They do not even reflect it. They redirect its flow. As long as it is not enclosed by a solid, it will continue on its merry way upwards after the minor detour.
Greenhouses only work, because they are enclosed. The heat inside escapes at a rate determined by the convection rate of the enclosing material and the heat coming from outside. A metal toolshed gets much hotter than a greenhouse. An outhouse sitting in the hot sun is a… unique experience.
The Earth is not really an enclosed system. That terrible hole in the ozone is a venting mechanism. The atmosphere acts as a heat sump. Heat turns water to gas. It rises until it reaches the point where it bleeds off the heat, then condenses and falls back to earth. Repeat as necessary. If there were no venting, we would overheat from the solar heat in short order.
The heating and cooling climate is a result of the Sun. The heat sump can only handle so much solar input. Run your car too long, and your radiator cannot handle it on really hot days. The Earth can only vent a certain amount of heat. Greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with it.
People who work with their hands in rural environments understand how machinery and things actually work. It is simple mechanics. City folks have no clue, so these stupid AGW assertions sound plausible. There is no physical experience for them to relate to. The physical world is a complete mystery to most folks. Greenhouse gas sounds good to most folks, but to me, it has always been a ridiculous notion, because I know how a greenhouse actually works.
Personally, I wish the Earth would warm more, back to the medieval warm period. Greenland would be green again and England would grow grapes. And effing Seattle would not be so damned cold! (grumble)
“sigh?”
Not a good start “mathematician,” to sound like Al Gore if you’re trying to persuade people here.
Question, “Sex Poodle:” what sort of computers are these climatic models done on? Are they done on supercomputers? And, if done on supercomputers, are they first modeled as separate sets of climatic phenomena before being compiled into comprehensive models? Also, how large are the data samples? Do they include all (approx. 7000) data stations plus satellite data?
Yes?
No?
Or, are they crude desktop-derived models like those at East Anglia with their skimpy data samplings?
When is the climate rapture supposed to happen now? The alarmists keep moving the date later. The prophecies made 20+ years ago promised dire consequences by now. The IPCC averages all the divinations ranging from minor warming to becoming another Venus, but which believer is truly channeling the voice of sacred Gaia?
TheCork, yer dead-wrong on the facts.
Predictions of AGW were issued by solidly conservative scientists more than 50 years ago. Now those predictions have come true. As anyone can check for themselves.
What’s surprising is some peculiar brands of conservatism are too juvenile to face up to what PJM/Tatler‘s own Charlie Martin likes to call “The Cold Equations.”
Can We Survive Technology? (1955)
URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=HcVS1JCH_4kC&pg=PA33
Not the rapture, the Great Pumpkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pumpkin
@ A physicist –
So, for the sake of the discussion, global warming is actually occurring because of man. What is your solution?
How do you suggest we respond?
Simple. Move America toward a balanced-trade low-carbon economy via similar market-driven checks-and-balances that have already taken us to a low-acid-rain, low-fluorocarbon, low-mercury, low-pesticide-residue economy.
The ideology-first pundits of the left and the right equally will be outraged. None-the-less, the non-ideological check-and-balance strategy that has worked for mercury can work for carbon too.
Minamata disease
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Why just America? Are you aware that there’s more to the world than America?
And please don’t bore me with talking points about per-capita consumption; the ROW still accounts for the vast majority of consumption of everything, and more importantly, ROW consumption is growing substantially, and American consumption is shrinking.
Lying still while oil-rich Muslim petro-leeches suck America dry might appeal to your faction, Snork … but it sure don’t appeal to me.
Non-responsive.
And non-sequitur to boot, since the primary target of the climatstoppo is domestic coal.
drill baby drill
In short — impoverish ourselves over a fake boogeyman cooked up by Marxists and Green religionists.
Yeppers … thanks for reminding us Rob … reminding us of the party line of the oil-rich Muslim states and Russian energy oligarchs … just like Japan’s Chissa, Showa, TEPCO corporations … history teaches us that money finds parrots in every decade, right?
Four Big Pollution Diseases of Japan
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Big_Pollution_Diseases_of_Japan
Praetorius:
May I call you that, instead of your “physicist” handle you’re using here?
Anyway Praetorius, why do you think that this profound tranformation you propose is “simple?”
That’s a great question. How about … nothing? As I recall, global warming will depress world GDP by 4% by 2100. Fixing it will depress world GDP by 5% by 2100. So … nothing looks like it might be a reasonable position.
It makes me laugh when those who assert the global climate is unpredictable turn around and assert that the global economy *is* predictable.
As Eisenhower put it “Plans are useless but planning is indispensable.”
Yet AGW skeptics foolishly deny the feasibility even of planning.
Wait, so we should worry about the 4 percent depression in GDP because economic models can’t be trusted?
What?
Monty Python said it funnier than you, Rob!
“Watery bints shouting meaningless free-market slogans is no substitute for a robust conservatism!”
The Annoying Peasant
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
Global heat-ing is a metaphor for global hate-ing?
Martin, correct. It’s a kind of aimless, scatter gun hatred, unexamined but vicious. Somehow the weather becomes a weapon, and a means to punish all of those nasty Normal People out there. Today, a leftist, whatever the stripe is his hatred.
Johnt, that radical leftist nut-job Bill Gates totally disagrees with you … err … or else …
… maybe it’s the peculiar PJM/Tatler brand of conservatism that’s wrong?
Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero
TED talks
URL: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
Oh, so now Bill Gates is an expert on energy. Isn’t that special! I remember Congress taking testimony from an actress who was in a movie about a farm influencing farm subsidies, too. Experts…a pox on all their houses!
John, Bill gates is a college drop out who made lots of money. If he didn’t happen to be on your side in this, you wouldn’t give him any credit.
Praetorius:
Sorry, I perfer your usual handle to “physicist,” so I hope you don’t mind.
Anyway, outside of how to make zillions from software, Gates is a boob, He’s the nitwit who claimed China had created a “new kind of capitalism,” and was as effusive about it as Charles Lindbergh was about Nazi Germany.
Best quote from the article:
Null said his study should not be used to support either position, given that information from only eight of the thousands of cities in the database was included and snowfall levels and other factors were not analyzed.
“You see these subtle changes – warmer temperatures inland, slightly cooler temperatures along the coast, and an increase in precipitation – but this is such a small sample that it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt.” Null said. “But I think what we’re seeing is probably what we would see if we looked at a bigger sample.”
Oh wait, WHAT?
It’s simple, Mathematician … Null is referring to this month’s release of America’s “climate normals” … data which showed whacking great temperature increases overall.
If PJM/Tatler weren’t committed to ideology-first cherry-picking and slogan-shouting, the simple fact of that heating would have been the main story. Correct?
NOAA ClimateWatch Magazine: the New Climate Normals
URL: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/the-new-climate-normals-gardeners-expect-warmer-nights-2
18. A physicist
Challenge: How much Arctic ice will melt *this* year?”
Who cares? Regional sea ice extent is not global sea ice extent, just as regional climate isn’t global climate. The global sea ice extent has hardly changed, since the Antarctic sea ice extent has increased while the Arctic has decreased.
“TheCork, yer dead-wrong on the facts.”
Really?
“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”
The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986
-
“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen,“global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.
The News and Courier, June 17th 1986
I can produce dozens of such examples. Maybe hundreds.
The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream.
http://blogs.forbes.com/
Since sea level is hardly rising (1.8 mm a year with the rate declining), the facts show nothing to be concerned about so far. The sky isn’t falling.
“The whole art of politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken
Anonymous, skeptics can support any claim by cherry-picking. But the plain fact is, the IPCC consensus statements have consistently has called it much more nearly right than the skeptics.
As for sea-level rise … well … let’s just see whether the on-record prediction that Hansen made this month get’s fulfilled:
Hmmmm … what comparably reasoned, publicly stated, independently verifiable predictions do the skeptics offer?
Well … that’s easy … skeptics make none at all.
Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications
URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1140v1
Wow, while doing my own cherry picking I found this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/
Seems that University of Colorado is adding an unmeasured boost to it’s predictions “just because.” And this article is less than a month old.
Gotcha!!
Hey, we MUST fudge the sea-level rise because the land is also rising. The land is rising as a result of the end of the Ice Age. Still rising, just a bit.
The rising temperature, however, has NOTHING to do with the end of the Ice Age. Got it? NOTHING. The rising temperature is purely a result of America’s over-use of Saudi oil, as well as the use of dirty ol’ coal. Also a result of all those smokestack scrubbers installed to clean up coal’s emissions, which scrubbers made the air TOO clean, so that the sun now heats the earth waaaay too much.
Drat. In our bumbling efforts to improve our air, we have worked to put in motion the mechanisms which will destroy us all, especially Manhattan and California. (If that happens, how will a Democrat ever be elected president again?) If only we’d had the foresight, we could have designed those scrubbers so that we could release just enough particles to keep the globe cool (we could have provided huge grants to scientists to calibrate the release; they WOULD have done it).
Oh well, we’re doomed now. Only by destroying our economy and transferring our wealth — at least whatever wealth we have left — to poorer countries can we be saved.
You posted *your* fantasy Polly … which has zero to do with what scientists actually think. A more realistic appreciation appears in biologist Ed Wilson’s recent Anthill: a Novel:
Wilson’s young 21st century hero ends being … what else? … a real-estate developer/land-use lawyer … while as for the bad guys … well .. don’t ask!
The point is, Polly, if yah don’t read what scientists actually *write*, how’r yah gonna know what they actually *think*?
Another good document — remarkably similar to Wilson’s — is Gen. Petraeus’ COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency Guidance. Both documents are all about practical strategies for winning under difficult circumstances with limited resources. So perhaps it’s not surprising that Wilson and Petraeus ended up thinking so much alike … or that CinC Obama has appointed Gen. Petraeus to be Director of the CIA. Because heck, Mr. Obama is interested in winning with limited resources too.
That’s a topic in which every candidate, in both parties, should take an interest.
COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency Guidance
URL: http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/comisafcoinguidance.pdf
URL:
“Simple. Move America toward a balanced-trade low-carbon economy via similar market-driven checks-and-balances that have already taken us to a low-acid-rain, low-fluorocarbon, low-mercury, low-pesticide-residue economy.”
nevermind that market driven “checks and balances” is simply competition — this economic system is not “created” it is fostered– yet the amount of government intrusion needed to police “green conformity” is nothing more than a collectivists’ nocturnal emission and it is antithetical to a “free market economy”
nevermind that the watermelons want to replace the lightbulb with the mercury spewing low light boondoggle and nevermind that it was an early greenie marxist (rachel carson i believe) who railed against the use of ddt in underdeveloped nations that allowed the deaths of untold millions of people who became afflicted with malaria
shame on you physicist for throwing your lot in with the collectivist vermin plotting to destroy the one example in human history which gives the proverbial “little guy” a fighters’ chance to better himself on his own terms; not to mention, where will you be, physicist, when the defenders of freedom and personal liberty are dead and gone and the totalitarians wish to purge the dead weight of the useful idiot?
with each hysterical yellow smiley you are revealing the true ecomarxist face under the warm and fuzzy gaia worshiping veneer
Remember: Externalities do not exist!
climatologists are to research scientists what witch doctors are to medicine.
Yeah .. me …. Bill Gates … Admiral Titley … we’re one-and-all of us … hmmm … what were your expressions?
Yah know, daxypoo, there’s a certain point beyond which abusive ad hominen attacks become kinda comical …
Hmmmm … could it be … that fact-based reasoning might advance your cause more effectively?
it says much that you take what i said as an ad hominen against the notorious physicist (how smug– which reminds me…)
“my cause” has little to do with trying to persuade a hopeless drone
as to my “style” in commenting i suppose you want me to provide an over abundance of useless and obscure links?
how about this? http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e02-smug-alert
I used to live along the coast near San Francisco. I’m not a weather expert, but I can tell you that when the central valley is hot, there are strong west-to-east winds and fog along the coast. I always took it to be that hot air rises and the rising hot air in the central valley drew in air from the sea. I realize that doesn’t fit with your high pressure model so I don’t have a good explanation, but I know for a fact that hot inland temps cause cooler coastal temps.
Confirm. I lived and surfed that coast for several years. Every surfer appreciates that when the inland gets hot, the breezes turn on-shore and crumble the waves. That’s the heat-related reason why “dawn patrols” are a universal practice among surfers.
Whoever PJM/Tatler‘s “Zombie” might be, (s)he’s obviously no surfer … whereas meteorologist Null called it 100% right!
Cowabunga

URL: http://ianganderton.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/a-reason-to-get-up-in-the-morning-because-the-surf-is-likely-to-be-better/
Real physicists don’t do smilies.
Snork:
This “physicist” is that snotty college kid who usually calls himself “Praetorius.”
I must try this trick with my bank.
If I have less money, it means I have more money.
Let’s see if I understand this: In science–actual science–every hypothesis must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to prove it wrong. If multiple, independent scientists, using the same methods, can prove it correct, it attains the status of a theory. But even a theory must be falsifiable.
Global warming is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It cannot be proven wrong. Every experimental result, every computer model, every observation and measurement, no matter how contradictory, serves only to prove that the Global Warming hypothesis is unassailable. Presumably even an ice age that buried Mexico under feet of snow would prove beyond any doubt to be convincing evidence of Global Warming.
This being the case–and it certainly is–Global Warming cannot be science. Anyone surprised?
MIke McDaniel, did you accidently type “Global Warming” when you meant to type “Reaganomics”?
`Cuz the evidence for the former sure is *far* stronger than for the latter!
Average U.S. temperature increases by 0.5 degrees F
URL: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110629_newnormals.html
Great way to change the subject, there, “physicist.” Your bias is showing; better cover it up before someone notices…
Flyover mike, anyone who clicks the link will find abundant data that confirms AGW theory.
If you want to provide comparably strong data that supports Reaganomic theory, please do so.
Otherwise why disbelieve the former, yet believe the latter?
That would make no sense at all!
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Call him by his usual handle: “Praetorius.” You may have encountered him before. He’s a self-admitted college student, and, therefore has little real-world experience.
There’s no way to make the AGW true believers seem more ridiculous than they make themselves.
Mitt Romney has a different opinion.
PJM/Tatler: Is Mitt confused?
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/07/is-mitt-romney-confused-about-which-primary-hes-running-in
And exhibit “A” just replied to you.
I mean, really. I thought LudwigvanQuixote was a freak show…
Physicist,
You love throwing web-links around.
So, can you give me the link that shows us where the ‘hotspot’ that the models say should be up in the troposphere has gone?
BTW I saw a hilarious article on the laughable ‘Skepticalscience’ blog trying to claim that we can’t see the hotspot because of satellite error, so therefore it must really be there! This is the kind of miserably twisted logic that warmists use to explain away massive holes in the AGW mantra (no, it’s not a theory, just a belief)
Perhaps this is the link you referenced Andy … if so, thanks … it summarize the data and analysis that were notably missing from your post.
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=180
‘A physicist’, PLEASE keep posting ‘data’ sites from taxpayer funded Department of Commerce tentacles and other government teat sucking-only entities.
I look forward to reading more dlicious ‘facts’ from the DoE, PNNL, NCAR and other useful idiots. hahaha
Yep, 130 years after the Industrial Revolution and homo sapien sapiens ‘can and are’ affecting our 4.5 billion year old planet. Riiiight.
You purport to be a ‘physicist’ and believe that bunk?
You OBVIOUSLY work for the G sector and have no respect nor need for the Scientific Method with your nonsensical references and over-the-top fiction of ‘the melting Arctic ice sheets’. Don’t waste your time referencing a NOAA/NBDC tripe, either.
Paul_unalaska, you forgot to mention America’s “teat-sucking” armed services (as you call them) … here’s some of the US Navy’s “tripe” (as you call it):
US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic
Admiral David Titley, PhD
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
Quick, someone throw Admiral Titley a grant!
Yah know, PJM is the very *last* place one would expect to see mockery of America’s armed services … but yes, it happens here pretty often. More evidence that the PJM/Tatler brand of conservatism is “peculiar”.
You know, someone who claims the military is going to use nuclear weapons on Fukushima has absolutely no credibility whatsoever about “mockery” of the military.
LOL … I *love* it when folks go back and read those threads Charlie … here’s a link!
By they way, aren’t we kinda overdue for a PJM/Tatler post describing lessons-learned for conservatism from the TEPCO/Fukushima crisis?
Uhhhh … that’s assuming … there *are* some lessons-learned?
——
I was told there wouldn’t be maaaaath….
by Charlie Martin
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/16/i-was-told-there-wouldnt-be-maaaaath/
Oh yeah … there’s another Charlie Martin “no worries” classic!
Charlie, what’s PJM/Tatler’s present opinion on corporate regulation in the nuclear industry … can we trust those TEPCO executives to be competent, honest, and transparent?
That is a serious question, needless to say.
Because PJM/Tatler’s brand of conservatism *is* serious … right?
——–
Fuel rod fire? Maybe not
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/15/fuel-rod-fire-maybe-not/
Charlie, you just had to poke it, didn’t you?
Wow.. ‘thanks’ for the 411 on Titley. A Penn State grad (hahahaha), ‘leads the Navy’s Task Force Climate Change’ (sounds like some comic book title. I’m thinking the tax dollars for that area SHOULD have gone to far better areas) and a ‘naval deputy to NOAA’ – Yeah, the guy ‘sure’ seems like he answers to ‘no government funding (gimme a break).
I especially loved, ‘After unaccounted for environmental factors caused several military catastrophes..’ note. For apparently environmental factors out of our area of expertise/explanation, it’s attributed to AGW?
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/David_Titley
A physicist, your stock, credentials and username for that matter are an oxymoron.
Call me a denier or what have you, but to give in so gullible-like fashion speaks volumes. And is a shame really if you truly are a science-area individual.
Take a gander where the NMOC, AFWA and other military folks get a VAST majority of their meteorological charts from.. NOAA!!!
You know NOAA. The cherry picking data folk who twist, bend and ‘smooth data’ for their own, not nature’s conclusions.
I worked for NOAA for 2 years following my military stint. The military is LEAPS and BOUNDS above NOAA/NWS and their practices. That ain;t saying much.
As I’ve mentioned before, NOAA colleagues of mine have gotten a 4 year degree, a BS in NOAA completely ONLINE! That’s frightening.
I’m sure you put NASA kook and astronomer James Hansen on sound science footing as well. How Hansen’s taken seriously after his 1988 Nostradomas-like bust is the kicker. Oh, wait. He has a government job.. ACCOUNTABILITY and FACTS BE DAMNED!
BTW, I’m an Aviation Meteorologist, prior U.S. Air Force, B S at UC Davis and have worked in 6 continents. Including Antarctica.
The South Pole had its coldest winter on average in ’09, continually breaking previous records every couple years since taking weather observations there in the late 50′s. You can receive a weekly update by requesting updates at: Met@usap.gov
Snork, IMHO Charlie’s technical judgment is generally sound.
His main mistake in the Fukushima crisis was to believe what TEPCO executives were saying.
As for me, I was far more skeptical about TEPCO than Charlie … when the reactors began exploding, and TEPCO’s radiation numbers didn’t rise, then I knew for sure that TEPCO was lying.
Any brand of conservatism that can’t learn a lesson from this, can’t be trusted with the responsibility of governance.
I wonder how the current climate modelers account for the temp increases on other planets and increasing storms on Jupiter, Saturn… I mean, if you say for certain that any possible temp rise here on earth is due only to man you better be able to separate the variables and account for warming outside the earth NOT affecting the overall earth temp rise. And that will be kind of tricky when climate modelers can’t even model clouds in a meaningful and realistic way. AGW people deny any universe outside the atmosphere.
For the high priests of the AGW Church it’s all about the $76 trillion over the next 40 years. That’s the estimated amount of the boondoggle. In today’s economy of course the
sycophantsso-called scientists are going to go where the money is. No warming? No money! How dare the heretics and non-believers stand in the way of the greatestscamredistribution of wealth in world history!Or let me state it in terms that our amusing little AGW gremlin can understand:
The reason we know that AGW is a scam is because the solutions that are put forth all call for the implementation of collectivist/communist style centrol control of the economy, which will make our nation and our people poorer. Poor nations have more pollution, because they don’t have the wealth to deal with it as effectively as rich ones. You can also tell by the way the alleged scientists respond to criticism and doubt and how they ignore conflicting data, both historical and current, that utterly discredits their climate models. Not to mention all the failed predictions.
AGW alarmists remind me alot of Marxist/Keynesian economists. They never admit error or failure; they just claim that it wasn’t “true” Marxism or that we didn’t spend enough money.
Let’s take a look at the Hansen piece “a physicist” posted
“Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications
Based on our INFERRED planetary energy imbalance, we conclude that the rate of sea level rise is LIKELY to accelerate during the next several years. Reasons for that conclusion are as follows. First, the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level is LIKELY to increase above recent rates. The Pinatubo effect is now essentially spent and solar irradiance change should now work in the opposite sense. … Second, the rate of ice melt is LIKELY to continue to accelerate. Planetary energy imbalance now is positive, substantial, and LIKELY to increase as greenhouse gases and solar irradiance increase.”
It is likely one can infer all manner of things. But rational folk understand that this is akin to guessing. Educated guessing, perhaps, but still guessing(although if past performance is taken into account, Hansen’s guesses appear aimed at keeping his name in the papers–that’s the only thing they ‘predict’ with any accuracy)
“Hmmmm … what comparably reasoned, publicly stated, independently verifiable predictions do the skeptics offer?
Well … that’s easy … skeptics make none at all.”
No they don’t. Why? Could it have something to do with their stance that this issue needs more research before any actions are taken? Could it have something to do with their stance that the models used in predicting future climate can’t even predict past climate–for which we have the hard data, thus the models are useless?
Could it have to do with their understanding that science isn’t the tarot?
Azathoth, scientists stick their necks out and make predictions all the time.
When your predictions are proved right, you gain bragging rights over other scientists. Whenever you’re proved wrong, your status drops, and if you’re proved wrong repeatedly, everyone ignores you.
This competition is ruthless and unending … that’s how science gets stronger … it is the scientific version of Gen. Petraeus’ maxim “Learn and Adapt.”
Hansen has stuck his neck out by predicting that sea-level rise will accelerate. Within the next decade, he will either gain or lose status by this prediction … because a new generation of satellites that is tracking sea-level rise very precisely.
Folks who don’t want to wait a decade can participate in a AGW prediction contest that will conclude this September. Heck, I’m hosting it right here on PJM.
Already nineteen scientific groups have gone on-record with predictions … but it’s funny … not a single AGW skeptic has done so!
PJM’s Ice-Melt Prediction Contest
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/comment/65260/
Tuvalu is drowning! Tuvalu is drowning! Send us your billions ASAP! LMAO!
So now it all boils down to a guessing game? Come on, soul surfer, you can do better than that!
Moira, you ain’t read Mark Twain’s Science vs. Luck … why not give it a try?
Skeptics versus scientists is like preachers playing cards with card sharps … in the long run, the sharps come away with all the money … because they appreciate that in the long run, cards ain’t random and winning ain’t by luck.
Science vs. Luck
URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=Uek3AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA177
SGT Ted, I definitely 100% agree with your assessment of Marxist/Keynesian economists … and I would add to that list Reaganomics and Freemarket Iraq Reconstruction strategies … they are one and all of them simplistic ideologies that have little basis in fact.
To be skeptical of simplistic political ideologies … one-and-all of them … is fundamental to thoughtful conservatism.
Radiation transport theory and the observed anthropogenic warming of the planet are different. As Richard Feynman famously said, “Mother Nature cannot be fooled.”
And what Mother Nature is telling us humans loud-and-clear is simply this: “You folks are heating up your planet and you will *not* like the results.”
To respect Mother Nature’s inarguable laws … despite their ideological inconvenience … this too is fundamental to thoughtful conservatism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto
LOL … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bImBBTaPDY
I would add to that list Reaganomics and Freemarket Iraq Reconstruction strategies … they are one and all of them simplistic ideologies that have little basis in fact.
It took some effort but you finally decided to drop the mask. No more bothering with the pretense that this is about science, huh? But hey, look! More of these!
#Winning!
Moira, a math-hating science-despising Republican Party that has no place for Eisenhower-style conservatism is doomed … right?
This is true, even though many PJM/Tatler regulars disagree.
Perhaps these regulars will change their minds … eventually?
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/comment/66298/
He hasn’t completely dropped his mask. I want him to use his regular handle: “Praetorius.”
I also wnat him to answer the question I posited to him repeatedly in this thread. Problem is, he doesn’t have a book or website from which he can cull a pat answer, I guess.
Don Rodrigo, please let me say that pretty much any PJM/Tatler editor will explain why the terms of service strictly forbid ad hominem attacks.
One reason is, there are a lot of imbalanced folks out there … as Ronald Reagan, John Lennon, and Gabrielle Giffords (to span the political spectrum) all learned the hard way.
Ad hominem attacks inflame these people … PJM/Tatler‘s terms of service are crafted in part to prevent this.
The good news, I guess, is that there does not appear to be a clear link between increased CO2 and the current general warming trend. The bad news is that we have had one of the worst weather years ever for the first half of the year. Between the tornadoes, the flooding, the fires, and the brutal heat wave in the heartland, I feel lucky to live in New England where we have had one rare afternoon of tornadoes in a very limited area, but no flooding, and no brutal heat… yet.
How much does disaster relief contribute to the deficit and higher insurance rates?
Global warming> climate change=weather=an unfalsifiable hypothesis=something other than science.
The web link on my name goes to my treatment of this topic several years ago, and the evidence in favor of the “skeptics” (one needs to read “serious and sincere thinkers”) has only grown stronger since.
He’ll be using ADJUSTED data, of course. This is a method that “adjusts” the trends of the well sited stations upwards so they match the trends of the poorly sited stations. Then they claim that the adjustment process “deals with” the microsite scandal.
Okaaaaaay . . .
NOAA calls this process “homogenization”. The real world calls it “smearing the errors around until they no longer stand out”.
Once one gets elbow-deep in the data, all this becomes painfully obvious, though.
They can’t produce their data. One of the saddest aspects of the Climategate fiasco was the notes of the programmer who was trying to reconstruct their modelling process. Nobody knows how they got to their conclusions.
One of the program lists published showed a series of “fudge factors” used to “adjust” a series of temperatures. No indication of the derivation of the fudge factors. But the factors themselves increased from year to year, so of course the adjusted temperatures would show an increasing trend.
I have no idea whether the climate is warming. I suspect that would be a good thing. The one thing I strongly believe is that when people lie to me, they probably don’t have my best interests at heart. And that goes doubly when they tell me that their cause requires me to send money to Africa.
“This is one of the funniesr examples of PajamasMedia cherry-picking.”–A moron
Take it up with Null. He’s the one who picked the cherries.
I notice that he chose to pick all his cherries in urbanized areas, no doubt hoping to get a nice boost in temperature “data” from the UHI effect.
He must have been bummed out when he still showed a net drop in temperature.
Of course, that’s not going to deter the AGW true believers (aka idiots), because they have the perfect fallback position:
If it gets warmer that’s because of AGW, and if it gets cooler that’s also because of AGW.
“What’s most astounding is that Null, who claims to be a world-class expert on California meteorology, uncorked the whopper “if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas,” which as anyone who lives in Northern California knows is complete balderdash. Hot days in the Central Valley are generally caused by high-pressure systems settling over the area, which also cause off-shore (i.e. reverse of normal) winds and higher temperature at the coasts.”
Something tells me that Null ain’t exactly the sharpest pencil in the box.
LOL … wrong, Dave. Every fisherman, sailor, and surfer in California, Florida, and the Gulf States knows first-hand about land breezes and sea breezes … scientists agree that they’re real … they’re a well-verified part of US Naval science … and so meteorologist Null’s analysis was precisely correct.
Look at Wikipedia’s “sea breeze” page for an introductory account … see the US Navy’s analysis (below) for the full-bore science of it.
LOL … these scientific facts tell us it’s PJM/Tatler‘s “Zombie” who has no clue!
The Nature of the Propagation of Sea Breeze Fronts in California
by Joseph A. Yetter
US Naval Post Graduation School
URL: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA238635
“LOL … wrong, Dave.”
Yes, I know that what Null said is hilariously wrong. The idea that a greater NUMBER of warm days will cause STRONGER sea breezes (which will in turn lower average temperatures along the coast) is fatuous nonsense.
What Zombie says, OTOH, is essentially correct. High pressure systems do indeed cause offshore winds (e.g. Southern California’s famous Santa Ana winds are caused by high pressure systems in the Great Basin, ditto for Diablo Winds in Northern California).
And, if I ever need a pre-schooler to teach me about sea breezes, or any other aspect of meteorology…you can rest assured that you’ll be the first person I call.
You just don’t understand. Warmer or cooler. Wetter or dryer. Stormier or calmer. It is all “consistent” with global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption. In this way, the dogma finally joins astrology in the pantheon of superstitions.
2500 scientists did not take part in the IPCC reports. That figure of 2500 was the number of people who prepared and contributed to the IPCC report. Those 2500 weren’t all scientists with said degrees. They relied on non peer reivewed non science grey literature. You can also check out the names who prepatred the various country regional reports and not all the names listed are acvtyually real scxientists. Much of it prepared by non scientists. Because they had the name in the report they automatically were called a scientist. Typical UN smoke and mirrors trick.
Increased CO2 increases agriculture production. How much more does California produce because of the increase? Let’s show the economic advantages.
How many billions of dollars would government have spent to create programs to increase the water supply by the same amount that the supposed GW figures are causing in the study?
Amazing. A whole site of idiots who can barely rub two brain cells together. Global warming doesn’t mean everything gets warmer, you dumbos, it means that the weather system of the planet is destabilized.
Considerably well executed post
Hey There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. That is a very neatly written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of your useful info. Thank you for the post. I will certainly comeback.
I’ve been looking for this article, thanks! I think all of this info are so great. Bookmarked, i’ll check back later!