Watch out for flying biological debris as we get closer to making it official. As an arctic blast envelopes the eastern US, 2014 becomes, more and more obviously, the warmest year, globally, in the instrumental record.
Despite a bitter cold snap in parts of North America, the globe is rushing hell-bent toward its warmest year on record with last month setting the fifth monthly heat record of the year.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday that last month was the hottest October on record worldwide. The 14.74 Celsius (58.43 degrees Fahrenheit) beat out October 2003.
“It is becoming pretty clear that 2014 will end up as the warmest year on record,” said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina. “The remaining question is: How much?”
With only two months left in the year, 2014 has now surged ahead as the globe’s warmest year so far, beating 2010 and 1998. So far this year, the world is averaging 14.78 degrees Celsius (58.62 degrees Fahrenheit). If the last two months of the year are only average for the 21st century, it will still be the warmest year ever, Arndt said.
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said in an email he hopes the new data will put to rest “the silly ongoing claims that global warming has ‘stopped’ or that there is a ‘hiatus’ in global warming.”
The world is approaching the warmest year “in spite of the U.S. being pretty cold,” Arndt said. That’s because the United States is only 2 per cent of the world’s area and the part that’s unusually cold is about 1.5 per cent of the entire globe, he said.
The CPC predicts a 60% chance for an El Niño to develop across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean in the next few months. El Niño, a climate pattern marked by warmer-than-average ocean water, typically brings wetter conditions to parts of the western and southern USA.
This will make global warming an even more alien issue to the average American voter than before.
Ps Nature.com mentions the hiatus, eg as in “global warming [has] stalled”. What’s Mann talking about?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. An alien issue? Dream on.
Global warming, local snow and cold. If you don’t get that.
maurizio,
A small region of the northeastern US does not represent the average American voter.
If you don’t get that.
Every news channel is saturated with pictures of the snow. By talking of global warming at this time, it’ll look like something un – American 8)
And in a week or so, when all that snow melts?
Short term thinking is all you have. It isn’t pretty.
“Global warming isn’t real because I was cold today! Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate.” – Stephen Colbert
I believe the following has been pointed out to you before but, if that’s not the case, here you go. A little gem from Tamino.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
Join the club. No one knows what Omno is talking about most of the time, and that includes Omno.
I THINK he is trying to say that the record “local” snow and cold that covers nearly the ENTIRE lower 48 states (an area ~33 times as large as that piddly little country he lives in) is somehow NOT going to convince the average American voter that strange things are happening with the weather. Perhaps so, because the average American voter can be pretty dumb (but not as dumb as Omno).
What hurts is that the media refuses to really explore why the weather is so weird, and therefore does not explore AGW very much as the cause.
The average American tunes into freak weather. Now the recent snowstorm might get their attention, so will a freak warm spell in the middle of winter along with destructive freak storms.
I sent my sister-in-law a picture of my garden full of blooming flowers and lush plants. After she responded, I noted the picture was taken in the middle of November (in New England) last year. As a climate denier, I noticed that she immediately clammed up, only making a comment that I was rubbing her nose in it.
maurizio,
The so-called ‘hiatus’ is a statistically non-significant short term fluctuation in surface temperatures more than adequately explained by normal natural variation and reduced natural forcings. That’s what Mann and Nature are talking about.
Believing it is meaningful evidence against climate change is a cognitive illusion grasped at by those, like yourself, in a vain effort to deny and/or minimize the seriousness of the underlying inexorable increase in global heat content as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s what you’re talking about. It’s all in your head, and your head has been cheating on you.
Dang, jpc! Too many multi-syllabic words again. When the relative denseness of such words meets the complete denseness of maurizio’s cluelessness, nothing gets through. Dumb it down if you want him to understand, although I doubt that anyone who is still talking about the “hiatus” will ever get it (or even try to).
That’s why I added the last paragraph. I have no illusions that even such a simple explanation can penetrate the denseness of Omno’s confused mental process. He’ll just dismiss it as an insult without serious consideration, unlike a genuine skeptic.
Well, this is terrible news.
All those global temperature graphs will have to be updated with those jarring, ugly, shrill red lines and in such an uncouth near-vertical orientation which is so last millennial.
I blame all the beard-growing.
Always discussing the person and never the topic. You wouldn’t be trolls would you. Anyway, as just reported by Yale’s CCC
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climate-Change-American-Mind-October-2014.pdf
“Most Americans think global warming is a relatively distant threat” (p13)
They mean, in time. With the massive snowstorm, the same people might as well see global warming as a distant threat in space as well. To talk about it right now sounds very counterproductive. This has been recognized years ago in Britain and nobody tries to link any one event to global warming any longer, not even in archwarmist BBC land.
ps I have never claimed the hiatus disproves anything
pps You guys are too quick to dismiss a topic, the hiatus, that has seen many papers written about it (at least 66). As I said, Nature magazine is interested about it too. Please follow what the scientists say and do.
Omno gets it wrong again. The “you guys” that he whines about are not the trolls but the troll-hunters, and we don’t have to “hunt” Omno the Troll because he stands right up, waves flags, makes noises, and simply begs to be “shot”. If he were a species, he’d be long extinct.
Another meaningless comment about me.
If that’s true, it’s certainly fitting. A meaningless comment about a meaningless entity does have a certain symmetry to it.
“the same people might as well see global warming as a distant threat in space as well.” What’s hitting the NorthEast IS global warming. Most people know that. That goes double for the NE.
Ubrew12 -most people who? In a fantasy world perhaps.
1. Somebodies got to pay for shirt-sleeve weather in Alaska
2. “An unusually warm bubble of water for November at the eastern end of Lake Erie helped fuel this extreme lake-effect event.”
This is breaking records. The word ‘unprecedented’ is being used. Totally smacks of AGW. Not the event itself. The EXTENT of the event. And honestly, this is just getting started. You should get used to records falling now. It’s going to be a long century.
“…nobody tries to link any one event to global warming any longer, not even in archwarmist BBC land.”
Which is an even more stupid an idea as saying every single one them (weather event) is proof of AGW.
I take that back. It is a colossally more stupid idea. Because we KNOW that AGW is real, that it is melting the icecaps, that it is therefore and demonstrably affecting weather and the incidence of weather abnormalities. We know that AGW means adding energy to our weather systems, warming the oceans, heating the air and increasing total humidity.
It is likely that every single weather event is, in fact, affected by these changes to at least some degree. And that idea is infinitely more reasonable than the contrary and unsupportable notion that any particular weather event is somehow absolutely and completely independent of AGW, which is, after all global in nature.
And KABOOM! Omno takes a huge hit center-body-mass from another troll hunter. And in spite of the likely presence of a huge exit wound, Omno is not likely to notice. He will undoubtedly come back with “prove it” or again talk about “the hiatus”.
I know how this ends. If I try to reply to Gingerbaker you’ll jump in claiming I’m trying to get a monopoly on the discussion.
It’s still a mystery why you are so afraid of debate, any time there is one you HAVE to intervene with remote telepathopsychologizations of anybody who disagrees with you. I wish wordpress had a feature to hide you up, and I am not just referring to the topics where I am in the discussion myself.
Uh, Omno? Hate to tell you, but there’s no ‘debate” going on here except between you and those addled voices in your head, and that’s what brings on the “telepathopsychologizations” that you so fear and try to ignore. And it’s not because you disagree with everyone, it’s simply that you are in need of help and we are your friends.
“I wish wordpress had a feature to hide you up, and I am not just referring to the topics where I am in the discussion myself”, you say? Hmmmmm—-that could be interpreted to mean that ANYTHING I may say on ANY topic on Crock should be suppressed, even though you are not even involved or mentioned? It’s good that you don’t have that power, you little closet fascist. The world suffered through one Mussolini and doesn’t need another.
I’ve already talked with the denier-on-the-street. They don’t care 2014 is the hottest on record. Why? Because when you put a regression line on 1998 to 2014, there is still no warming at the 95% confidence interval for the land/sea surface temp record. Their veneration for 1998 is on par with that for Reagan.
To me, the most frightening thing is that everybody thinks the surface temp record IS the globe. A high school Physics textbooks description of thermal capacitance should have disabused anyone of THAT silly notion. The rate of warming of the ACTUAL globe has doubled since 1998. Fraction of Americans who know this? 0%.
One expects fossil propaganda to enable a certain level of hypnosis.
But, presto-chango, for most Americans they’ve made the Earth disappear!
Yeah, when you show them the 3+mm/yr. of sea level rise from volume expansion they start referring to tidal gauges and try to downplay argo floats and Trenberth, etc. There’s always an excuse with them. Here’s a recent excerpt from from me accidentally engaging a troll after i mentioned some casual things about climate on TYT’s channel:
Troll: “….Your entire spiel on SLR has one flaw, satellite altimetry cannot accurately gauge vertical velocity of the continuously oscillating sea surface. This is why instrumental data is far superior, and what does it say, GLOSS-LTT tide gauges show a 2.35 +/- 0.24 mm/yr since 1931 with no increase in rate. You warmists/socialists say you want to save the children of tomorrow, what about the children of today? +Cassy Munoz is the perfect example of what your fear mongering is doing to today’s children. I hope you’re proud of yourself……..”
Me: “….I’m sure everyone following the conversation already knew what HADCRUT4 implied – that it measures the temps of a very thin plane right above the earth’s surface.
And I’m sure if we rewind the clock a decade + or so, to before University of Huntsville corrected their satellite temp series, you’d be the one cheering how accurate the satellite data was compared to those ‘silly, silly’ ground thermometers. But now what do we have? By the mere function of the tidal gauges reporting a lower magnitude of expansion, you’ve defaulted to praising the ‘silly, silly’ ground gauges and sticking your nose up at the ‘horrible, horrible’ satellite series.
When one looks at the literature, it’s clear these tidal gauge series are all over the place depending on which sites are taken, how they adjust for vertical crustal movement, record length, different computational techniques, etc. Note that these gauges have a fairly poor global distribution, offer small sample sizes, and not all have geodetic data attached to them (i.e. accounting for vertical land movement). Though you will note the studies closer to home seem to start to converge toward the satellite series: Church and White (2011) used ~200 gauges to look at 1993 to 2009 and found 2.8 +/-0.8mm.
There is an entire body of literature devoted to getting the most accurate measurement of volume expansion with the satellites. They calibrate the things with the tidal gauges; they do research on quantifying errors in their computational techniques; they subtract the satellite series from the gauges series to remove the ocean signal and further subtract out the land movement series to isolate and quantify the drift; etc. They freak out over (robustly quantified and isolated) biases they can’t account for. The end result is we have five different teams using roughly two different methods for calculating global mean sea level using the satellites and all of them independently coming up with [3.2, 3.3, 3.2, 3.2, and 3.2] +/- [0.4, 0.6] millimeters for the last decade+. Note the limited variance compared with tidal studies.
These guys live and breath this junk. They account for glacial isostatic adjustment (which is something like -0.3mm/yr), El Nino oscillation, local subsidence, gravitational attraction of the sea to the large bodies of ice at the poles, local atmospheric pressure, local winds pushing up the water, land and ocean tidal forces, etc. and they can tell you where the non-expansional volume (melt water) is coming from just from looking at which regions of the globe are seeing the most sea level rise (I think they call it fingerprinting). When they are freaking out over the GIA still having a 50% error attached to it (again we’re talking a magnitude of 0.3mm), and when five independent bodies all converge on 3.3mm/yr, you can bet they’ve already long figured out your B.S. about wave oscillation.
Same ol’ denier BS – trying to sew doubt about what is known. ”
“you can bet they’ve already long figured out your B.S. about wave oscillation”
Love it. Well put!!
I don’t quite understand the andrefez post. The temperature record is a record. the regression line involves a lot more years than 1998. If you’re saying that one year doesn’t make a trend, it doesn’t matter if that one year is outside or inside the 95 percent confidence interval for the regression line. We expect rare events to occur, well, rarely!
And why are we even talking statistics. The average bozo didn’t think that statistical evidence that cigarette smoking caused cancer was anything more than “statistics”. The anti smoking crowd should have concentrated on what’s important to the bozos: bad breath, yellow teeth, and looking stupid smoking!
John,
It’s not just 1998 by itself; it’s [98,99,00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07, 08,09,10,11,12,13,14]. Folks add on an ordinary least squares line as an easy way to communicate the rate of warming for a defined interval.
They use 1998 specifically to ‘game’ the regression line, so that it is of such low magnitude, the variance outweighs its slope and thus some probability exists that the trend could be negative (the probability is still higher for a positive trend).
I can game the line too: between 2008 and 2010 + 5 months, the trend is 1.5C/decade with 1.597 in variance, so then all I would do is close my confidence interval down to 90%. Then I just have to attach some subjective stuff to the interval: ‘Between 2008 and 2010 we’re witnessing a catastrophic amount of warming – in 3 and 1/2 decades the earth will be 6C above the preindustrial baseline. We better start taxing the rich and use the money to start the Solyndra factory back up to give away solar panels to third world countries…’
You folks are reminding me of why statistics was not among my favorite courses. I much prefer to apply the “Use your eyeballs and do the mental smell-the-flowers test” of validity. If your common sense says it looks good and smells more like roses than skunk cabbage, it’s probably “statistically significant” as well.
” and which occurs seemingly identically today is NOT the same ”
“I much prefer to apply the “Use your eyeballs and do the mental smell-the-flowers test” of validity”
Oh! The gift that keeps on giving!
A lot of the time it is easier just to look at something visually and get information out of it. Take a vector field in three dimensions: if you would just look at the partial derivatives that define it, you’d be missing out on what it really means; it’s only after you look at the graph does it become clear what is going on. The eyes are often better trend spotters than some math/statistical test.
To andrewfez.
I obviously didn’t mean to take one year to create a regression line but as the beginning of a line. That obviously would take more years. The use of picking 1998 as the beginning was an attempt to create a line that didn’t have enough statistical significance to show a trend.
I am more and more convinced the whole issue with lack of action on climate change stems from the inability of its supporters to have a proper debate or line of reasoning on much of anything.
This thread is very telling:
1. (ubrew12) Complete lack of awareness on how the general public reacts when spoken about global warming as record snowfall blankets the media.
2. (dumboldguy and jpcowdrey) Immediate attempt to talk about the person and not the topic. This goes on for several comments, absolutely off topic, including the usual bullying and psychologizing.
But who cares about saving the world when there are a few pats in the back to exchange.
3. (Gingerbaker) Attempt to rationalize anything and everything by claiming anything and everything is affected by climate change. This is obviously meaningless if used to convince more and more people to do anything about it: it presumes what it wants to demonstrate. One might as well say we need become ISIS supporters, just because the Caliph says his particular interpretation of God affects everything.
Not so fast: the most reasonable explanation when somebody tries to link something to anything and everything, is that the same somebody has no strong argument on his side and needs to grasp literally at every straw he can grab.
4. (andrewfez) Classic whining about people not finding one’s weak argument convincing, including puerile name calling (twice) and “there’s always an excuse with them”.
In a normal democratic and/or scientific exchange, such a finding would be seen as a challenge to find finally some strong argument, providing there is any. Alas, for climate stuff it only elicits an absurd diving into Scientific Authority, that will do nothing to push the case ahead because it does not address any of the points made by any skeptic. For example, the parading of the ridiculous 3.3mm/year value, that’s stuff for a nerdy metrological joke or something.
Good luck, indeed.
Omno does it again! He begins with the premise that “…lack of action on climate change stems from the inability of its supporters to have a proper debate or line of reasoning on much of anything…”, and proceeds to name FIVE Crockers and apply his awesome logic to their comments (along with his usual whining about being bullied and psychologized, of course).
He fails to see that this comment best describes HIM rather than the legions pf Crockers who have attempted to help him over the years…..”The most reasonable explanation when somebody tries to link something to anything and everything, is that the same somebody has no strong argument on his side and needs to grasp literally at every straw he can grab”. Yep, that’s our Omno. Always trying to link “anything and everything” to his demented denialism because he has no no strong arguments on his side.
Since Omno (the classic demented rooster strutting in the barnyard) thinks he has struck some telling blows with his opening non-arguments, he feels free to hurl the devastating accusation of “peurile namecalling” and “classic whining” at Andrew, who did neither.
Putting aside the fact that is is ludicrous for someone as abnormal as Omno to speak of “normal democratic and/or scientific exchange”, one could almost agree with what he says in closing, except that EVERYONE on Crock DOES present strong arguments against Omno’s weak ones, both the scientific ones about AGW and those devoted to his personal failings.
The only “Scientific Authority” that Omno provides is that from Omnoland, where the all-seeing and all-knowing live, best example here being “….the parading of the ridiculous 3.3mm/year value, that’s stuff for a nerdy metrological joke or something”. Am I the only one that fails to catch the metrological (or meteorological) significance of that inanity? What’s the “joke or something”, Omno? Enlighten us.
And Omno wants us to “….address the points made by any skeptic” in order to “push the case ahead”? What does he think Crock is all about but that? (Except in his case, of course, where it is just a forum for him to indulge his narcissism). And that ignores the fact that skeptics have no “points” to make anyway (See Words of Omno re: “Not so fast” above)
Here is the kind of thoughtful analysis maurizio thinks we should be debating:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2-47d6IMAAXnmo.jpg
One cannot have a rational debate with stupid people. Only ridicule of people saying stupid things is of any use.
I cannot help but wonder in awe at the amount of mental energy maurizio expends defending the stupid.
Jp -that sounds particularly stupid. When did I claim we should be debating weather instead of climate?
I simply suggested that to talk global warming for the millionth time when the news is heavy snow, won’t help in the propaganda war. It’s a simple concept very easily understood by everyone in the UK warmists included.
I disagree. This is when you MUST talk about it. The average person doesn’t have a good grasp of the global scale and they’re just trying to get through the day.
When they’re under their breath about “where’s global warming; my goddamn taxes are going up and I gotta shovel my own snow”, that’s when you’re losing them and when they MOST need to be shown what’s happening in places where it is NOT winter.
Or where it SHOULD be winter but is unseasonably warm. We’re all in this together and we need them to understand what will likely happen if we stay on the track we’re on.
If all you do is keep quiet when the Snow/pocalyspe/vember/icaine, whatever, hits and then only start talking up climate change when the heat rolls in and the AC drives up the electric bill, they’re going to feel like they’re being played with and will be that much harder to convince.
And the Fox & Friends crowd and their ilk are NOT going to let any opportunity slip to make their case and every cold weather event or below average spring or summer they’ll be trotting out the deniers-in-chief or bring up Solyndra or Die kalte Sonne or some such nonsense.
MorinMoss – I have framed the question as a matter of distance from the electorate (as in Yale’s CCC results).
Global Warming is at the moment a Distant Risk, both in time and in space – not even a threat (AFAIK not even Kerry has added AGW to the Iran nuke negotiations). This doesn’t mean one has to keep quiet about it, but it does mean one should try to present in some other way than ex-post-facto explanations of whatever happened the night before, Nostradamus-style.
Speaking of “inane contributions”, Omno makes yet another one.
Global Warming is at the moment NOT a Distant Risk in time and in space. It is happening NOW and in EVERY “space” on the planet. Omnofool denies that, of course.
Anyone who does not perceive the threat it poses is delusional. Omno proves that he is generally delusional by speaking of…..”Kerry adding AGW to the Iran nuke negotiations” (WHAT??????).
And speaking of “ex-post-facto explanations of whatever happened the night before, Nostradamus-style” is a whopper. Does Omno not know that Nostradamus is known for the direct opposite of that? Making predictions of things that will happen in the far future, not explaining what happened the night before? Lord love a duck! (BTW, I’m surprised that the great English history scholar Omno has not mentioned the origins of that saying).
Omno needs to take a serious break from trying to argue with his intellectual betters. HIS brain is overheating here, and his mother’s basement will be destroyed if his head explodes. Doesn’t he love his mother? Why is he endangering her basement?
I doubt that the people doing the research and trying to establish timelines would agree.
Perhaps we haven’t yet reached “Interstellar” crisis levels but a great many places are already feeling the effects of a warming world and it’s already cost a great deal in both dollars & lives.
For example, “unprecedented” flooding in Europe appears to have become a yearly event, with Germany and western Hungary very much underwater at the moment.
I’ll admit, there are fewer things thicker than the average commenter here, in the whole universe.
For the third time: we’re talking about the average American voter.
Yale figured out the average American voter sees global warming as a risk for the faraway future.
I surmise that (*) by presenting global warming in the midst of heavy snowfall, the same perception will apply in space, that is, voters will see global warming as a risk for faraway places.
This has nothing to do with the reality of global warming. So there is no point to discuss that.
This has nothing to do with what we think of global warming. I am not American, and voters just 3 weeks ago showed they don’t care on average about global warming the way commenters here do.
Likewise for what scientists think of global warming. And least of all this has anything to do with dumbo’s rubbish.
Now, if anybody has any argument or data showing the my surmising (*) is wrong, please speak now or keep quiet and do something useful.
WHOA! Omno has just declared war on the 1652 amazing people that visit Crock (or at least on those that comment while here).
“I’ll admit, there are fewer things thicker than the average commenter here, in the whole universe”.
I am gobsmacked, flabbergasted, astounded, perplexed, amazed, and struck speechless (almost) by that. In the WHOLE UNIVERSE? WOW!
I am going to take Umbrage (my dog) for a walk down nearby High Dudgeon Street and let him poop on the lawn of a an ex-pat who lives there. Since Omno lives an ocean away, and this ex-pat often makes comments about Americans and America that are as ignorant and ill-informed as what Omno says, the symbolism there will have to serve as a substitute for what Omno really deserves—–an “ass-whuppin”, which he WILL get if he ever visits America and runs his mouth in front of REAL “average” Americans.
“….if anybody has any argument or data showing the my surmising (*) is wrong, please speak now or keep quiet and do something useful”, directs Lord Omno to his serfs? What do you think we spend most of our time doing when we reply to you, Lord Omno? ALL of your “-ings” are wrong, not just your surmising—the issue is your failure to recognize the truth of what we say.
And may I suggest that talking about “dumbo’s rubbish” just proves my point? If you can’t argue against my “rubbish”, you really ought to just shut up and not prove it’s true. Example—-you have not mentioned your huge screwup with Nostradamus—-you shouldn’t—-ever—-you can’t redeem your stupidity there. (I will be sure to bring it up on appropriate occasions in the future, however, because it IS priceless and should not be forgotten. It has become part of the Legend of Omno).
All your Yale studies show, if accurate, is that the work of educating must continue without letup. Would you have us stay silent EXCEPT during heat waves or wait until the ENTIRE USA has a North African climate?
Can you give us an estimate for when the magical confluence of perfect timing to harp on global warming will be?
When the US debt is erased AND the terrorists are defeated AND no more out-of-season winter events AND all the high temp records have been surpassed?
What year or century do you project that will be?
Kerry may not be talking about it but a certain boss of his went to a “faraway place” to convince Beijing to seriously consider emissions reduction – on the cusp of the Snow-i-caine and the devastating midterm elections.
Let’s face it – the “average American voter” is, on his best day, a blithering idiot.
We’re talking about millions who won’t take a few hours on one day in November to go vote in their own best interests because of long lineups but just a few weeks later on Black Friday, will line up at 6am to save $100 on a TV that’s a few inches bigger than the 3 they already own.
“Can you give us an estimate for when the magical confluence of perfect timing to harp on global warming will be?”
That brings to mind another title we can bestow on his all-knowingness in addition to Typhoid Mauri (glad you caught that).
How about Maurizio the Magnificent? (Magicians and prestidigitators are often termed “XXXX the Magnificent”). A small problem with that might be that Maurizio’s “magic” never works, and a magician whose magic never works becomes merely a clown and quickly gets boring. Oh well—-forget it, it’s too late for that title—-Maurizio will have to settle for just the clown part.
I do need repeat myself. There has to be an alternative to remaining silent and to pushing the tired its-all-global-warming-even-when-cold bandwagon – a bandwagon that has brought no noticeable result.
The whole climate change issue is a matter of risk. it’s not “pandas are dying now”, it’s “pandas may be dying in the future if we don’t do something now”. To accept this would mean to stop looking for pandas dying right now, but then, it’d be much more difficult, I suspect.
“He’ll just dismiss it as an insult without serious consideration, unlike a genuine skeptic.”
“2. (dumboldguy and jpcowdrey) Immediate attempt to talk about the person and not the topic. This goes on for several comments, absolutely off topic, including the usual bullying and psychologizing.”
Check.
” (Gingerbaker) Attempt to rationalize anything and everything by claiming anything and everything is affected by climate change. This is obviously meaningless if used to convince more and more people to do anything about it: it presumes what it wants to demonstrate. One might as well say we need become ISIS supporters, just because the Caliph says his particular interpretation of God affects everything. “
That’s a terrible analogy. Allah is a figment of the religious imagination. AGW is a physical reality, determined by what the laws of physics have to say about atmospheric CO2 concentrations and infrared energy. AGW is based on observable measurements from a wide variety of disciplines. It is a verifiable fact, and its effects are seen on a daily basis everywhere on the globe.
And those measurements say that there is a lot more energy in the weather system and a lot more moisture in the weather cycle than in previous eras. And those measurements show that the Jet Stream has changed, become unstable; that the incidence of unusual weather events is increasing, that the temperature of the air and seas are rising, that sea level is rising exponentially; that the albedo of the planet is changing.
And all those things affect our weather system. Therefore even a storm that would seem within normal parameters fifty years ago and which occurs seemingly identically today is NOT the same event as experienced sixty years ago – it MUST be interpreted through the lens of the NEW parameters of our AGW-influenced weather system.
A baseball analogy works well: Let’s say that the 1960’s very few players used steroids. In the 2000’s, all of them use steroids. We see that in the 2000’s, the distribution of the lengths of fly balls has shifted to the right compared to the 1960′, ie, balls are being batted further in the 1960’s because the steroid-using players are bigger and stronger.
You can not look at any particular fly ball and say “Well, THAT one was not influenced by steroids, because it was only hit 290 feet. There were plenty of balls hit 290 feet in the 1960’s, therefore we can’t say that particular 290 ft ball in the 2000’s is any different than a 290 foot ball hit in 1965.
Such a statement is sophistry – the shift to the right of baseball flights caused by steroid use affects the entire population of fly balls hit in the 2000’s. Therefore, saying that any particular ball’s flight in the 2000’s was influenced by steroid use is a much more rational statement than saying that particular ball’s flight was NOT influenced by steroids.
This seems to me to be pretty straight-forward. And I can not for the life of me see how arguing against that interpretation, when it comes to AGW, demonstrates intellectual rigor.
should be “balls are being batted further than in the 1960′s…
Dumbold – you write (tucked away in your usual personalistic vomit)
“a lot more moisture in the weather cycle than in previous eras”
I looked in AR5 WG1 chapter 2 pp205-208. Usual ipcc impenetrable text but far more nuanced than your “summary”. Give it a try.
Uh, Omno? I am not the one who wrote about “a lot more moisture in the weather cycle than in previous eras”. That was perhaps another Crocker or one of those many confused voices in your head that said that.
And is “personalistic vomit” anything like the out-of-control mandibular and mental diarrhea that you suffer from? Please tell me I haven’t caught it by replying to your messages on Crock! I come to Crock to remain healthy, not catch weird illnesses from the Typhoid Maurizios of the denier world.
PS If it is proven that Maurizio is a “carrier” will we all be like travelers from West Africa and have our temperatures taken and get asked questions as we log in?
“Have you had close contact with anyone suffering from mental and mandibular diarrhea….”
“As in visiting the same blogs….?”
(and does anyone besides me see the irony in Omno talking about “nuance”?)
“Typhoid Mauri” – LOL
it was gingerbaker, not you. it felt funny in fact to see anything of substance in a comment of yours
ps in case you haven’t noticed…your world has got nearer the brink of collapse another day, whilst you waste time in inane “contributions” to what you admit is not a debate
OOOPS and double OOOOOPS! Omno was wrong again and admitted it with “it was gingerbaker, not you”. And then he quickly moved on.
Rather than bask briefly in the small amount of respect that admission might have earned him among Crockers, Omno doggedly returns to his feeble attempts at self-justification and “one-upping” with “it felt funny in fact to see anything of substance in a comment of yours”, and fails to see that he has once again shot himself in the foot with that one.
Everyone here will see that, but for Omno’s sake I will explain why—-the all time record holder on Crock for making comments that lack substance is Omno—-what “feels funny” is when OMNO manages to include anything of substance in HIS comments. Oh, the irony!
And I am disappointed in Omno’s inability to see that my “contributions” to the NON debate about what a fool he is are anything but “inane”. I fear that we will be unable to help him as he negotiates the Kubler-Ross continuum if he refuses to come out of the denial and anger stages that seem to be his only “tricks”. Will he ever work his way through to acceptance of the idea that he is wrong about climate change (and so much else?). Stay tuned!
” whilst you waste time in inane “contributions” to what you admit is not a debate”
A debate? What is it about lukewarmers/deniers/cranks and debates? This isn’t parliament or high school or a university debating society. It rarely is a “debate” outside those environments unless it’s one of those comedy set-ups using a debate format to allow some comedians a slightly different presentation on a set topic.
I can see no value in a traditional debate (with or without parliamentary rules of conduct) when discussing scientific or technical matters. I _do_ see the value of a discussion panel of experts from various fields batting around their various ideas and seeing how they do and don’t work. If we’re lucky, sometimes a real expert does enter into a discussion online. Most of the time we simply have their papers and lectures to refer to.
But I really can’t understand the desire for, let alone the insistence on, a debate on climate change or any other scientific topic. Even if we move entirely onto policy requirements for dealing with the implications of a scientific matter, I still don’t see the value of traditional debating. Who’s going to act as moderator or speaker? Who has the right to demand that someone should be silenced because they’ve gone over their allotted time or that they’ve already spoken? It’s just silly.
We all know that it’s not about any of those realities of conducting real debates. The real problem is that only the “debate” notion allows the possibility of someone/ anyone/ anything declaring that someone has won and someone else has lost. Without the possibility of winning (and crowing over someone else losing) discussion seems pointless to people of that mindset.
If you want a debate, join a debating/ public speaking club. Otherwise, just participate in discussions without pretending they are, or should be, or could be, anything else.
IMO, You misconstrue what the deniers mean by “debate”. They are not talking about the types of debates that are conducted in school settings but simply about exchanging arguments on a topic. What they want is the appearance of legitimacy for their “side” in the “discussion” that they want to keep having. There is no truth on their side and they can never “win”, but that’s not the goal.
They seek to promote confusion, uncertainty, and doubt about AGW in the minds of the people and the policy makers, and plant the idea that the science of AGW is not “settled”. What they really want to “win” is the freedom for their masters to continue to burn fossil fuels and delay renewables as far into the future as possible.
We make the grave logical error of “false equivalency” any time we allow the deniers to present their lying and false “arguments” in any kind of forum that gives them any semblance of legitimacy, and should protest mightily whenever any media outlet or government body does so.
One person one vote, that’s all the legitimacy required. And that’s why so many warmists try to dehumanize skeptics.
As for no debate possible, it’s called technofascism. How quaint.