Fox News is all over it.
It’s even cropped up on my comment threads.
Antarctica is cold, so no global warming.
It’s a favorite ploy of denialists to crib a story from NASA or other legit group, distort it, and pretend it says what it does not.
It is all part of their desperate attempt to steal what they do not have – credibilty.
In this case, quoting National Snow and Ice Data Center Lead Scientist, Ted Scambos, about a new measured temp at the south pole.
I did not speak to Dr. Scambos at AGU this year, although I saw him briefly in the press room – but I did interview him in 2012 – above. In it, he gives a wider overview of north and south polar changes. That is, ice loss, warming temperatures, and more rapid sea level rise.
Baby, it’s cold outside. But if you think this is bad, picture spending your summer months in Antarctica: a new data set shows that the South Pole set a world record for low temperature in 2010, and came within fractions of a degree of the same temperature this July.
According to new NASA satellite data, the mercury dipped to -135.8 degrees Fahrenheit in August 2010, and -135.3 degrees on July 31, 2013.
Researchers called it “soul-crushing” cold. It’s so cold that most of the time researchers actually need to breathe through a snorkel that brings air into the coat through a sleeve and warms it up “so you don’t inhale by accident” the cold air, said ice scientist Ted Scambos, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
–While the reading is interesting, it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA’s former chief scientist.
Both Abdalati, who wasn’t part of the measurement team, and Scambos said this is likely an unusual random reading in a place that hasn’t been measured much before and could have been colder or hotter in the past and we wouldn’t know.
“It does speak to the range of conditions on this Earth, some of which we haven’t been able to observe,” Abdalati said.
The Earth has turned the temp corner (naturally). Let’s quit the denial.
Yes you’re right this last November was the hottest on record. Also every year starting in the 80s we are always in the top twelve hottest years with a new recorded years about every 7 to 8 years or so.
Because all the scientists who are actually ON the ice say… nothing of the sort.
It’s funny how deniers accept the cherry-picked pieces of data provided by the climate scientists they can use to deny those very same scientists’ warnings.
That’s the WHOLE point of today’s blog.
indeed. this is one of the most popular ploys.
that’s why I rely on the strong cadre of posters here to
shut things like this down convincingly, so that the
many lurkers can understand how the game works.
Ice cubes are cold, stuff melts, stuff rolls down hill, and payday is Friday. I forgot to mention. Dube forgets. The earth turned the corner. Deja vu.
Ya well…The Earth has turned the temp corner (naturally). Let’s quit the denial.
Yes you’re right this last November was the hottest on record. Also every year starting in the 80s we are always in the top twelve hottest years with a new recorded year about every 7 to 8 years or so.
In 1973 was globally the hottest year on record (GISS O&L).
In 1987 that record was broken
In 1988 that record was broken.
In 1990 we broke it yet again.
In 1995 we broke it yet again.
In 1997 we broke it yet again.
in 1998 we broke it yet again.
In 2002 we broke it yet again.
In 2005 we broke it yet again.
And finally in 2010 is now the hottest year on record.
If we’re in a cooling, it’s funny that we are continuously breaking records high temperatures every 7 to 8 years.
From the 19th century the hottest year on record is 1889 and that was broken in 1926
The Passenger need to catch a ride with the truth and show why these records still stand in his earth with a fever. “If we’re in a cooling, it’s funny that we are continuously breaking records high temperatures every 7 to 8 years.” Show me what records have been broken where I can verify what you are saying..
I find these FACTS to be of great interest considering how this desire of the alarmist to purport that the earth is burning up and has a bad fever. If that is true, then why do these temperatures, some of which were set 131 years ago, still stand?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
This link shows the same temperatures except for what I present below:
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weather_extremes.php
This is interesting, at least to me because it shows that even temperature records can be changed after standing for years but note that none have been broken recently.
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
ocean heat content is increasing. Planetary warming is unequivocal. aside from sharing anecdotes, what is your point?
Just as the answer to the old question “What’s the plan? Who’s in charge?” is “There is no plan and no one’s in charge”, The Stonehead has no point.
I’m a little bit confused that you would take extreme local highs or lows and tried to use it to generate a trend.
You chose death Valley which is extremely unique. It’s maximum high and maximum low was the same year which was 1913. I mean if you want to play with unique locations allow me to assist you.
2010 globally was the warmest year on record to date, and the following countries broke all new record highs:
Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Sudan, Niger, Chad, Miramar, Bolivia, Cyprus, Nigeria, Russia, Zambia, Columbia, Ukraine, Brussels, France, Solomon Islands and the Ascension Islands.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1701
That’s 20 all-time record highs for the whole country just for that year alone. But by itself this really doesn’t say too much that’s why we have to sum up the global temperatures. Not only that but you need to sum up the entire climate system which includes all of the oceans, atmosphere, Cryoshere, and so on. Get a better representation of how the climate is changing
If you miss my link above for the temperature records from a earlier post is located here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
A meteorological snafu: maximum low is not the same thing as the record low which is what I meant to say.
Anthropogenic climate change passenger Says: “I’m a little bit confused that you would take extreme local highs or lows and tried to use it to generate a trend.” and one could ask if that is not you are attempting to do with “2010 globally was the warmest year on record to date, and the following countries broke all new record highs”?
I could have also chosen North and South Dakota for extremes in the same year.
North Dakota: Maximum Temperature, 121°F July 6, 1936
North Dakota: Minimum Temperature, -60°F February 15, 1936
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
An area I’m interested in is Dubois, WY, the town near where I grew up, and also Moran, WY. The annual mean of monthly mean max. temperature-RAW(F) 1895-2013 clearly shows that 1934 was the hottest year and the end of the graph shows a decidedly down turn trend. Moran, WY is another area of interest to me and obviously it shows the same trends with 1932 being the highest since the record began in 1895.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network – Monthly Data
You have chosen site 486440, MORAN 5 WNW, Wyoming
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=486440
It shows basically the same information that Hadley shows but since it doesn’t show what some desire, then they claim that it should be disregarded.
Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
If I choose Yellowstone mammoth Wyoming 489905
I see a distinct trend line as well as several record-breaking temperatures after the 1930s. The Yellowstone station has every year records whereas Dubois is missing a noticeable amount of data points.
If I move across the country and choose Acadya National Park in Maine 170100.
I see a very distinct trend line and several record-breaking temperatures after 1930.
All of them are national parks relatively pristine and show a trend line in almost all data sets comparable to the global trend (more or less).
So looking at the national Park in Maine the 1930s were not the hottest years on record. It has a much more distinct trend line greater than the global average.
Similarly true for Yellowstone only one anomalous data point during the 1930s But several at are near record-breaking points between 1980 and today.
Note I could’ve picked more extreme cherry picked locations as well.
So are you beginning to see the problem here.
This is why it is a nontrivial thing to generate a global temperature graph. First off altitude would be a big problem one of the reasons why we use anomalies as opposed to actual temperatures; also, station moves, missing data, time of the day measurements, urban developmen,t and so on need to be considered for a accurate reading.
So the take away is this if you are assuming a monotonic temperature change everywhere then you have the wrong assumption.
If you’re assuming that only record-breaking high temperatures are a representation of a trend that for the most part that is wrong.
Any one particular area as a representation of global warming is also wrong. For example if I use all of the 48 states we would only be looking at slightly less than 2% of the planet. That’s an extremely poor representation considering almost all of the surface is oceans.
So the entire point of the post is not to cherry pick any one location as a representation and say because it’s cold or hot outside a conclusion can be reached.
Australia’s been having increasing heat over almost the entire island continent, not just one small area and had to create a new color for the top range of their temperature maps.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/australia-warmest-ever-calendar-year
http://www.livescience.com/27589-australia-summer-sets-record.html
Thanks for the link I love the quote:
“Wherever you sit in politics, denying the science isn’t an intelligent way to go forward,” he said [Prof. Will Steffen ]. “The data is out there, the peer reviewed science is out there, the scientific reality is out there. It’s infantile to say you don’t believe in it – it’s not about belief.”
the new color was in fact unnecessary and never really used.
it always amazes me that warming is an established fact but there is always a twat in some newspaper or meteorological organization ready to spice it up for propaganda purposes, with pornified details that wouldn’t resist a five-second review (but make for “great” titles).
I wish people trusted their science more.
Apparently, that’s not completely accurate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9787084/Australian-weather-bureau-introduces-new-colours-for-heatwave.html
“The colours have come in for immediate use, with large purple blotches appearing on the weather map for next Sunday and Monday. Temperatures in parts of the state of South Australia are tipped to exceed 122F (50C).”
and more about the heat wave – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
MorinMoss: Below is some more irrefutable facts for you to look into and decide how you want to deal with them regarding Australia.
Australia
Oodnadatta, South Australia
Jan. 2, 1960
123.0
50.7
“Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24
The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.”
[…]
“This may sometimes be associated with a tropical cyclone or a monsoon low. In the record year of 1923-24 the monsoon trough stayed well north, and the season was notable for its lack of cyclone activity. (In fact, the entire Australian continent was untouched by tropical cyclones throughout the season, a rare event in the 20th Century).”
[…]
“The highest temperature recorded during the record spell was 47.5°C on 18 January 1924. There have been higher temperatures at Marble Bar, with the highest recorded being 49.2°C, on 11 January 1905 and again on 3 January 1922.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
Perhaps you overlooked this bit of info in your link:
Temperatures above 100°F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of northwestern Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year.
The town is far enough inland that, during the summer months, the only mechanisms likely to prevent the air from reaching such a temperature involve a southward excursion of humid air associated with the monsoon trough, or heavy cloud, and/or rain, in the immediate area.
So while this is quite the record, it’s an area that gets baked every year.
And it’s a very, very, very small part of a very, very, very large country called Australia. What was the temps like across the entire country or say just all of Western Australia’s 2,500,000 sq km during this time?
I think you and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott would get along famously
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXjq_4SCIAAi8UC.jpg
and
“And the thing is that at some point in the future, every record will be broken, but that doesn’t prove anything about climate change.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt-tackles-the-pm-on-the-big-issues/story-fni0ffxg-1226746273889
I’m not sure why sometimes the buttons here act like wickets in the Alice-in-Wonderland croquet game, jumping away every time I try to click on them, but consider this another down vote on this moronic post. Yet another morally reprehensible insane person who doesn’t know the difference between the dire problem of local warming that we all have nightmares about, tossing and turning and sweating at night, and that merely 1 or 2…or I guess, 5 or 9 degree global warming thing. So John, repeat after me: local, global. Local, Global. L-O-C-A-L, G-L-O-B-A-L. See the difference?
Try upsizing the page until it’s wider than the screen.
In most browsers, you can do this with by holding the CTRL key and tapping the + or – keys to zoom in or out.
deja vu
Amundsen-Scott has been warming considerably, although wisely none talks about it.
Another MEME: I live in southern Ontario were it is currently snowing like crazy (more so than in previous years) which has caused some people in our community to question climate change. The sad truth is this: these people either “never learned” or “have forgotten” the facts behind “the water cycle” which is causally taught in grade 4. They assumed that a warming climate would be blissful while forgetting that snow fall increases the closer you get to either side of freezing. The truth is this: a warmer world means more water in the system and this will have unpredictable results, like increased snowfall.
That’s exactly what I told the clowns last year who said “I just shoveled 2 feet of your global warming”: unless the air was warmer, it never could have carried the water to make all that snow.
It all comes down to physics. Ideology and “green purity” mean exactly squat either way.
Any word on Jason Box’s research?
in a nutshell, there is some compelling evidence that black carbon may have played a role in the record 2012 melt season on Greenland i.e., there were elevated levels of carbon in that layer in the core samples we collected.
Not all of the analysis has been completed as to exactly the source of that carbon.
We hope there will be opportunities to collect further samples, including more investigations of the microbiological component, and some discussions on that are underway.
stay tuned.
Is there a reliable way of tracking the source of the black carbon & particulates?
Over 40% of all this type of emissions are from forest & savanna fires but that doesn’t mean it’s reaching Greenland.
Greenman is the expert, but I do remember photos of the smoke from the forest fires in the American west drifting over Greenland. Peter, did you post a video showing that?
Our colleague McKenzie Skiles is using some specialized instruments at Jet Propulsion Lab that we hope will give us answers. Results not ready yet.
I thought it was in large part from the Russian wildfires, but then I found this EPA link that suggests it may also be from diesel engines.
http://www.epa.gov/oia/io/arcticblackcarbon.html
MorinMoss, I think the answer to your question is likely yes, at least with respect to burning coal or diesel fuel versus forest fires. The carbon from buried coal and gas has a different isotope ratio than that from the active carbon cycle. Whether it comes from Chinese smog or Russian smog might be harder, but not impossible, assuming the carbon retains some of the other pollutants that can be separated and measured, (maybe using GC-MS?).
So you naively believe that the winter weather in the Americans and in the middle east is confined to those areas only. Why don’t you produce a phony video about this that is happening now here in Thailand?
“Twenty provinces in grip of chill weather
The Sunday Nation December 22, 2013 1:00 am
With upper Thailand expected to experience chilly weather beyond the New Year holidays and the lower South more rains and strong winds and waves, the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Department yesterday reported that 155 districts of 20 provinces had been declared cold spell disaster zones.
Department chief Chatchai Promlert said 6.7 million people were affected by the cold spell that ravaged 20 provinces, including nine in the Northeast, 10 in the North and Ratchaburi’s Suan Pheung district. Chatchai also cited a Thai Meteorological Department report that the chilly weather would last until mid-February 2014 and said the department, while tackling the cold spell, was also planning to tackle the drought particularly in the North and Northeast.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Twenty-provinces-in-grip-of-chill-weather-30222670.html>
Weather whiplash / crazy Jet Stream patterns – we’ll see more of this unfortunately.
November 2013 – warmest on record globally
A few high & lowlights:
According to Roshydromet, Russia observed its warmest November since national records began in 1891. Some areas of the Urals, Siberia, south of the Far East region, and on the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea had temperatures that were more than 8°C (14°F) higher than the monthly average.
Spain was 0.5°C (0.9°F) below the 1971–2000 average temperature for the month, although the first half was 2°–3°C (4°–5°F) above average while the second half was 3°–4°C (5°–7°F) below average, the coolest such period since 1985
The average November temperature across Norway was 1.5°C (2.7°F) higher than the 1981–2010 average, with some regions 2°–3°C (4°–5°F) above average.
I think that you do seek the truth, MorinMoss; so, you can judge for yourself it you want to believe what is presented below.
But, according to satellite temperatures, the ranking claimed by NCDC isn’t anywhere near to “record warmest”. Dr. John Christy gives these values for the satellite data sources of global temperature and their ranks:
UAH Nov 2013 9th warmest Nov (0.20 C cooler than warmest Nov.)
RSS Nov 2013 16th warmest Nov (0.22 C cooler than warmest Nov.)
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Wasn’t it Fred Singer himself who said “how do you argue with thermometers”?
Given that Christy’a satellite data has needed adjustments in one direction or another about 10 times in 20 years, I’ll stick with direct measurements for now and wait for Christy to determine whether he needs to make yet another correction.
Morin Moss: You stick with what ever method you desire and I’ll believe who ever I know is telling the truth as best they know it and that would be “John R. Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record. ( Please note the “first successful development ” mentioned in this out line of who Dr. Christy is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Some one that I do not trust who has shown since the 1980s that he has an agenda and will do everything to advance that agenda is James Hansen. I care not what you may think of Steven Goddard, but if you were to take off the blinders for a brief moment even you might learn something by looking into this site.
“Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record.” http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/
S-Head says to Morin Moss: “You stick with what ever method you desire and I’ll believe who ever I know is telling the truth as best they know it”. He proceeds to tell us that he worships at the feet of Christy and Goddard, who are known AGW deniers. I say “worships” because S-head speaks about relying on “truth” twisted to support “belief”, and that’s religion, not science.
S-Head also says: “Some one who has shown since the 1980s that he has an agenda and will do everything to advance that agenda is James Hansen”. Yes, Hansen has an “agenda”, and it appears to be to keep the human race from destroying the planet and turning it into another Venus, which is a much more admirable thing than the “agenda” of S-head and the deniers, who would have us ignore all the SCIENCE and just BELIEVE that AGW is not a problem.
Sorry, S-Head, but I’m with Morin Moss and EVERYONE else on this site that isn’t deluded like you, and will stick with the “method” of science rather than the “beliefs” of crackpots.
To accuse Hansen of having an agenda and then pointing to Steve GODDARD???
He’s not even a real person. There could be a dozen unqualified denialist cranks behind that persona.
Say what you will about Hansen but he’s been putting himself out there, in the lab, in peer-review & the real world for decades.
But thanks for my laugh of the day.
Happy Holidays.
Don’t be too starstruck John Christy or Roy Spencer they took over a decade of failing to account for a number of errors that were found later. They took over a decade including the first part of the 2000s before resolving most of the problems.
In 1998 Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel who identify the orbital decay problem forcing Christy and Spencer to create a version D changing it from a cooling trend to a distinct warming trend.
2005 Meaes et al identified the diurnal correction which led to a 40% jump in the reconstruction data forcing Christy and Spencer to create version 5.2
At this point the satellite data of the lower troposphere is started to agree with the radiosonde’s measurement of actual temperatures.
To John’s credit he is working in an area where there is an extreme amount of error that must be corrected to get a relatively good reconstruction. Not only the list above but they have to account for decay of instrumentation over time which is nonlinear. He does great work but the problem is you are too ignorant to realize what you’re talking about. So here is a little information that may help you.
First off satellites do not measure surface temperature nor do they measure temperature at all. They use microwave radiation from rotating oxygen molecules not the vibration by the way. It measures approximately 5 to 8 km thick of atmosphere (this is why it’s called the lower troposphere as opposed to surface temperature) so it’s really only good in comparison to itself. Plus you also have to subtract out the stratosphere as well.
It does appear that even, on occasion, James Hansen, is found telling the truth.
“Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.”
[…]”Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2).”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
S-Head again shows how mindless he is by trying to make something of what Hansen said in 1999, 14+ years ago and BEFORE the past decade and a third in which so many RECORD HIGH temperatures of all kinds were reached. So it appears that he is time challenged as well as spatially challenged—-not only can he not stop focusing on that one speck if land in the central UK, he can’t seem to look at the “global” time scale either, and keeps cherry picking time windows for us to look at.
In another comment on this thread, he does the same thing by taking a comment made by Trenberth four years ago and tries to assign more significance to it than to a remark Trenberth made only two weeks ago, in which Trenberth said that heavier snows in winter are likely a result of AGW. I know S-head is stupid, and he can’t help that, but he displays willful ignorance here, and that’s something he could control.. Can someone explain to me why someone would intentionally try to appear ignorant?
As always you neglect to read some very salient paragraphs.
object lesson here.
It’s a mistake to think that learning to deal with climate denial is learning about more and more sophisticated deceptions, although that is part of it. It’s important to understand that climate denialists don’t depend on being right to succeed. As we can see here, stupidity works. The stupider the better. In fact, clouded reasoning is preferred, with a certain target audience, because the goal is confusion.
And since, well, half the population has IQs lower than 100, and most of those above average don’t pay attention, it pays to expose yourself to some of the bonehead stuff that floats around at the average tea party meeting or country club locker room.
Climate opinion leaders are going to spend a lot of time clearing up misinformation that does not even rise to the level of “wrong”.
Obviously, it would not occur to Stonehead to connect up the “chilly weather” with the “drought in the North and Northeast” in Thailand. No, because he thinks “local” rather than “global” as others have pointed out to him many times.
Hua Hin is apparently so cold the balls are freezing off the brass penguins at the same time that Stonehead’s brain cells are solidifying. Here on the East Coast of the U.S., we have been having some pretty chilly weather too—-But wait!—-There have been record late December HIGHS in New York City! Whatever can be going on? (I get so confused sometimes, since I’m a dumb old guy).
PS—-forgot to ask S-head just exactly what “tackling cold spells and droughts” means in Thailand. Perhaps we are headed for a “Hua Hai Katrina Moment” in which the president of Thailand will say on national TV………
“You’re doing a helluva job, Chatchai”
“Perhaps you overlooked this bit of info in your link” No, I did not over look anything. I stated to you this:
“Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24: The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia.” If you can not understand that, then I do not know how to make it more clear for you.
“So while this is quite the record, it’s an area that gets baked every year.” and in 1923-24 it set the record that still stands TODAY in Australia, if not, show me another newer record in this “very, very, very large country called Australia. What was the temps like across the entire country or say just all of Western Australia’s 2,500,000 sq km during this time? You are the one wanting to tell the story, so you, Morin Moss, tell me, with proof.
the stupid. it burns.
And never even notices or feels any pain.
What kind of bait-and-switch bullshit is this?
You brought a Marble Bar heatwave cherrypick into a discussion about warming over ALL Australia.
Bake that cherry pie and stuff yourself with it but don’t expect us to Swallow it.
LOL And “SSBSBS” can become a new parlor game. First one to puke wins. (The SSBSBS standing for “Swallowing Swallow’s Bait and Switch Bull Shit”)
To imitate Swallow, I will throw out a link (except that mine makes sense and is relevant) An excerpt from a Rolling Stone article about climate change—-RS is a surprisingly good source of info about AGW, economic issues, and politics for those who aren’t aware.
“If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven’t convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June 2012 broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe”.
“Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the “largest temperature departure from average of any season on record.” The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet’s history”.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz2n4UzEh7u
Swallow is allowed to post here, if he can keep it short, because he represents denialist stupidity and insanity in a relatively pure form, and as such, is a useful specimen for study and analysis.
So don’t take him too personally.
I don’t take anyone on Crock “too personally” or seriously, not even myself. I WILL say that reading “denialist stupidity and insanity” in its purest form is like drinking undiluted 190 proof moonshine. It can make you real stupid real fast if you’re not careful.
I do agree that “useful specimens for study and analysis” are needed and can be instructive. Heck, back in the day I thought planarians, frogs, and turtles were “pretty” to look at, although Swallow brings to mind such things as tapeworms and liver flukes, which are decidedly not very attractive.
Greenman3610: What am I allowed to post on here? Not much! is the answer. When I present facts, you choose not to give light to them. Why are you afraid of facts? I know it is your site and you can run it how you choose; but, you should throw in some honesty for a change and see how that works out for you.
How have you shown that any of my ideas lack reason and are stupid? Is name calling and attempts at intimidation how your brand of “science” works?
Too bad stupidity is allowed. It’s more confusing than deception. And way more disturbing and frustrating. Like Ralph Wiggums, He’s a dumb kid, but an above average dog? How do you explain stupidity to someone? Reason?
This is very enlightening, now I see where dumboldguy gets his “scientific” information from.
The Washington Post had this to say:
“Half the U.S. is already covered with snow
By Douglas Main and Live Science, Published: December 24
Last week, snow covered more than half of the continental United States, the highest this measure has reached by this date in a decade, according to government scientists.”
[…]
While the large snowpack in the continental United States was largely the result of typical fluctuation in weather unrelated to climate change, it’s possible that snowfalls in the United States might increase in the future with global warming, said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
“If you warm up the atmosphere, you can actually get heavier snowfalls in winter” because warmer air can hold more moisture, Trenberth said. “That’s one of the ironic things about global warming.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/half-the-us-is-already-covered-with-snow/2013/12/20/84203c36-682d-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_print.html
Could this be the same Kevin Trenberth who said this on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600?
“[…]The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” (which I assume means to come up with some song and dance lie to cover the discrepancies)
According to the very knowledgable and experienced Paul Douglas over at Weather Nation, 2009 saw 63% snow coverage for the L48.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jUqLIo1XQI
Have a look at the weather records for the past week:
Total Records: 2273
Rainfall: 726
Snowfall: 317
High Temp: 681
Low Temp: 30
Low Max Temp: 18
High Min Temp: 501
Which of these are indicative of greater warming and which of cooling?
What’s the ratio?
Here’s a Christmas present for you – decadal trends maps for all Australia
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=tmean&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=1202&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1920
The one linked above is the Summer trend from 1920-present. It shows a mild cooling trend for the area encompassing Marble Bar and various warming trends for almost all other areas of Australia except for 2 very small spots.
I’d say for about 1/2 the country the trend is insignificant to mild and for the rest it’s moderate to strong.
But, there are 3 other seasons.
Only Autumn shows an area of mild cooling and a large are of insignificant warming. Winter and especially Spring, show VERY different trends.
Flipping through the seasons and decades show lots of variation for Summer & Autumn, especially for areas of cooling.
But Winter (except for a significant chunk of the Northern Territory) and, again, Spring?? Very significant warming over almost the entire country, regardless of the decade.
“Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24
The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia.”
What you are saying may suit your narrative; but, until you produce something verifiable that the Marble Bar heat wave of 1923-24 is not a world wide record, then all you are doing is beating a broken drum. Facts are hell, aren’t they?
Yes, they are. Still smarting from your stupid challenge? That was kindergarten. Hadcet England data as a substitute for global temperatures? Tell me, are all the world’s temperatures the same as central England? Guess money is wasted on a thermometer. Well, for you anyway. More like Does not rise to the level of stupid than wrong.
We have been trying to tell S-Head that it matters not that Marble had a record string of either high or low temperatures now or in 1924. Why do we keep repeating this and similar things about the central UK and keep hoping that he will finally understand. Don’t we fit Einstein’s definition of insanity by doing that?
Facts are simply facts. The twisted uses to which denialists & cooligans put them are another matter. And their ability to ignore a preponderance of evidence and refutation strikes me as being some weird form of disassociative disorder.
My “narrative”?? Is there a way to indicate WTF with a single keystroke?
I’ve provided links to the Australian data going back to 1910. The trends are there and are all very much indicative of mostly very significant warming over an area of 3,000,000 sq miles all year round, with some exceptions on 2 of the 4 seasons.
There’s also more variation wrt to cooling trends since the 70s but it’s still overall significant warming and a very small amount of effort on your part would have turned up statements from the Aussie BOM that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.
And that was also the warmest decade on record for the globe, and with very significant declines in Arctic ice coverage and volume.
It takes a lot of energy to melt ice.
So how does that one prolonged heatwave in a place that known to very hot most of the year overturn global warming?
Better still, what will be your next cherrypicked point when that record falls?
Does every longstanding heat record have to fall before you’ll admit the world is warming? Do they all have to fall in the same year / decade / denier-specified period?
If all the records of choice are surpassed, will a single new cold record anywhere overturn global warming? If so, why does that not hold true for heat records?
“Does every longstanding heat record have to fall before you’ll admit the world is warming? Do they all have to fall in the same year / decade / denier-specified period?” Why would I admit to something that is not happening?
Please explain, MorinMoss, why there have been basically none of these records fall on your earth with a fever. Answer that question and maybe you can move on to something else to billow your skirt. You alarmist were sure hanging by the thermometers out at Greenland Ranch in Death Valley in 2012 because you just knew that 100 year record would be broken. Make up your own records if it will make you feel better because the truth seems to not matter with you.
In the spirit of the season of goodwill, I’ll give you another chance and try to explain using smaller words.
First off, I must congratulate you. Even Omnologos isn’t nearly this tedious to deal with.
Let’s assume that, by 2020, all those “highest recorded temps” AND the Marble Bar heatwave were surpassed.
Would that be enough for you to accept AGW? If not, what would it take?
None of us here started out believing in AGW; I think we’re all old enough to remember the ’60s and ’70s.
But time, temps and evidence marched onwards and upwards and we finally accepted the conclusions and their uncertainties.
So what’s your threshold for accepting the evidence? Or does it even exist?
“Let’s assume that, by 2020, all those “highest recorded temps” AND the Marble Bar heatwave were surpassed.
Would that be enough for you to accept AGW? If not, what would it take?” Certainly, if what you are saying came about, I would believe in anthropogenic global warming because I would have irrefutable proof that the climate was in fact changing to the hot side, but that is not happening and you have provided no evidence to show that it has. You can naively believe that a trace gas that makes up a paltry .039% of the atmosphere is responsible for your earth with a fever but you can show me no experiment that shows that CO2 has anything to do with the climate in its present amount of 400ppm. Incidentally, 1ppm is the same as one drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car, one inch in 16 miles, About one minute in two years or one penny in $10,000. Just supply the link that shows what experiment demonstrates that CO2 does what you want me to believe it does and that will also cause me to be an alarmist.
You and others on here want to compress the 4.5 billion years of earth’s climatic history into the concept that a small mind can understand and that is something occurring in the last one hundred years or so and you can’t even make that work for you as the dilemma you seem to be having over the temperature records not being broken in your burning up world shows. What would you have thought if you had witnessed these occurrences?
This applies to the dire warnings regarding melting glaciers: Keep in mind that Geo. Vancouver’s ships were wind powered; therefore, he wasn’t spewing out any diesel smoke to start this massive retreat of these glaciers.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. http://www.glacierbay.org/geography.html
And do not forget the Raina report;
http://gbpihed.gov.in/MoEF%20Dissussion%20Paper%20on%20Himalayan%20Glaciers.pdf