Climate change announcement delayed by blizzard

[DarrinS]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/08/noaa-blizzard-rearranges-climate-change-announcement/

[DarrinS]

Time lapse AGW

EMhUZAq5IxQ

[Wild Cobra]

When will these Climate Change twits learn that God shows the might of nature's force each time they try to say Man is more powerful than God?

[baseline bum]

When will these Climate Change twits learn that God shows the might of nature's force each time they try to say Man is more powerful than God?

Can you post a graph showing God did it?

[DarrinS]

Can you post a graph showing God did it?


There's a graph that shows random noise did it. It's called the Hockey Stick graph. Two Canadian researchers showed you could plug a random signal into Michael Mann's algorithm, and it would consistently produce hockey stick shaped graphs.

:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Can you post a graph showing God did it?
Hey, I'm just having fun evoking God because most you liberals are soulless.

[boutons_deux]

"you liberals are soulless"

you "conservatives" are brainless

Extremely erratic climatic swings were predicted long ago as part of global warming.

[coyotes_geek]

Extremely erratic climatic swings were predicted long ago as part of global warming.

:lol Some predicition. Way to go out on a limb and predict that the weather would be unpredictable.

[DarrinS]

"you liberals are soulless"

you "conservatives" are brainless

Extremely erratic climatic swings were predicted long ago as part of global warming.


Extremely erratic climatic swings existed before humans.

Sincerely,

Dinosaurs and extinct animals from the Ice Age

[EmptyMan]

Keep up the good work mother nature.


Wearing shorts today btw.

[baseline bum]

Hey, I'm just having fun evoking God because most you liberals are soulless.

Do you have a graph to support that?

[jack sommerset]

It's only so cold because it's so hot!

[Kermit]

When Wild Cobra, or Ray, or Yoni, or DarrinS posts, does anyone else picture this?

KLni3wbndls

[jack sommerset]

When Wild Cobra, or Ray, or Yoni, or DarrinS posts, does anyone else picture this?

KLni3wbndls

No

[DarrinS]

Gotta love Contessa.


I give the A-mess-NBC meteorologist credit for attempting neutrality.


ExlvbOcLLOg

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey, I'm just having fun evoking God because most you liberals are soulless.

i thought God was our judge... oh wait you're a pseudo christian never mind..

[Yonivore]

Extremely erratic climatic swings were predicted long ago as part of global warming.
I would imagine it was about the time they started "hiding the decline" that they had to cough up another theory that was alarmist enough to continue the ruse.

[Yonivore]

You know what amazes me. The Global Climate Religionists in this forum are clinging to their bankrupt "consensus" theory even after it's framers have been caught in a bold-faced conspiracy to conceal their deceit.

A-m-a-z-i-n-g.

[Yonivore]

And, one other thing, while I'm thinking about it.

The Northeast is having it's worst blizzards in nearly a century. "NEARLY A CENTURY!"

In other words, about a century ago, this happened; and, I would imagine, the historical records would support the assertion that it's happened before that...before, even, the industrial age raised the level of greenhouse gases to where they started causing these crazy climate shifts.

What caused those weather extremes?

I'll tell you what caused it and I'm not even a meteorologist, climatologist, or astronomist; nor do I sit on the IPCC.

A complex interaction between our star (the sun), our oceans (the largest absorbers and expellers of greenhouse gases), and our volcanoes (the largest spasmodic emitters of greenhouse gases and toxins on the planet -- exponentially higher emitters than man ever even hoped to be).

[Shastafarian]

So a climate change announcement was delayed by a change in climate. I see what you did there! Oh wait, you were trying to show how blizzards mean "global warming" doesn't exist. My bad. You should ask people in Virginia, where they have had record snowfall, if the climate seems to be changing.

[Yonivore]

So a climate change announcement was delayed by a change in climate. I see what you did there! Oh wait, you were trying to show how blizzards mean "global warming" doesn't exist. My bad. You should ask people in Virginia, where they have had record snowfall, if the climate seems to be changing.
So, they've never had this much snowfall in Virginia? Ever?

[Shastafarian]

So, they've never had this much snowfall in Virginia? Ever?

In parts there has never been this much recorded no. I would imagine there was a lot during the last ice age. But we're not in an ice age are we?

[Yonivore]

In parts there has never been this much recorded no.
Recorded being the operative term.


I would imagine there was a lot during the last ice age. But we're not in an ice age are we?
I don't know, are we? Onsets of ice ages and warming periods are measured in the 10's of thousands of years. Meteorologists have trouble with tomorrow's weather and you want to hang your hat on IPCC liars and "recorded" history?

[Yonivore]

You know, it's pretty egocentric to think that just because we happened upon this planet and eventually "learned" to record history that extraordinary occurrences recorded during our relatively brief existence are either abnormal or extraordinary for a planet that has cycled through several climate extremes in the 4 billion or so years it's been around.

Tell me, Shastafarian, what is ideal climate for planet earth? What is normal?

[ElNono]

Actually, the snowstorm here in Jersey wasn't that bad. I gotta go to work tomorrow.
But I'm close to the coast, so maybe it's just my area.

[Shastafarian]

Recorded being the operative term.So there has been a change with respect to numbers in recorded history. Thanks.



I don't know, are we? Onsets of ice ages and warming periods are measured in the 10's of thousands of years. Meteorologists have trouble with tomorrow's weather and you want to hang your hat on IPCC liars and "recorded" history?Another person who has trouble distinguishing weather from climate.


You know, it's pretty egocentric to think that just because we happened upon this planet and eventually "learned" to record history that extraordinary occurrences recorded during our relatively brief existence are either abnormal or extraordinary for a planet that has cycled through several climate extremes in the 4 billion or so years it's been around.

Tell me, Shastafarian, what is ideal climate for planet earth? What is normal?
:lol What's ideal or normal? It's all irrelevant. This whole debate is about how this climate change will affect human populations. I find it hilarious you guys continue to ignore this simple fact.

[Yonivore]

So there has been a change with respect to numbers in recorded history. Thanks.
A very short period of time in climatological terms.


Another person who has trouble distinguishing weather from climate.
Actually, weather and climate are inextricably related. Cause and effect and all that.

You want to see someone clueless on the debate...

Brilliant: 'Vagina Monologues' Creator Tells Palin to Look at 'Earthquakes and Tsunamis' for Global Warming Proof (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/02/09/brilliant-vagina-monologues-creator-tells-palin-look-earthquakes-and-tsun)


ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn't believe in global warming is bizarre.

BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn't believe in it.

ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.
BEHAR: Right.

ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn't believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.

BEHAR: It's unbelievable. It does seem insane and the fact that she has not negated the possibility of running in 2012.

ENSLER: But we have. We have negated the possibility of her winning.
Earthquakes and Tsunamis? Those two are on your team. And, oh the irony of their stupidity while proclaiming Sarah Palin stupid.


:lol What's ideal or normal? It's all irrelevant. This whole debate is about how this climate change will affect human populations. I find it hilarious you guys continue to ignore this simple fact.
Actually, the debate is about whether or not man is contributing to climate change and if we can intentionally alter it to "rectify" said anthropogenic climate affects.

[Shastafarian]

A very short period of time in climatological terms.Which gives more credence to it being significant.


Actually, weather and climate are inextricably related. Cause and effect and all that.They're not the same. Something you seemed to be unable to distinguish earlier


You want to see someone clueless on the debate...I've already seen jack in the political forum





Actually, the debate is about whether or not man is contributing to climate change and if we can intentionally alter it to "rectify" said anthropogenic climate affects.Determining the cause is implied in what I said.

[Yonivore]

Which gives more credence to it being significant.
Why?


They're not the same. Something you seemed to be unable to distinguish earlier
I'm not the one blaming blizzards on global warming.


Determining the cause is implied in what I said.
I've already told you the cause. Major player - The Sun. Next; biosphere. Finally, geology.

Can we affect the Sun? Don't think so.

The biosphere? That seems to be the crux of the debate. I say no. IPCC consensus says yes. I haven't spent decades hiding data that refutes my claim. IPCC yahoos can't make that claim.

I think we both know the answer to whether or not we can affect volcanic activity. Yeah, neither could the Pompeiians...Pompeiites?

[Winehole23]

Pompeiians.

[Phenomanul]

The Solar Cycle has always been the primary driver behind Earth's weather patterns and our subsequent climate. Major disturbances to this pattern occur in the event of volcanic eruptions - but this effect is governed by the release of ash (soot), and SO2 into the atmosphere moreso than the release of CO2.

Those who suggest that human industrialization is to blame for climatic shifts simply don't understand the massive forces that we would have to overcome to do just that.

Minimization of CO2 emissions is probably a good idea long term, but hardly a cause to go "chicken little" on global politics. The "alarmist" :dramaquee attitute is what truly bothers me. They take a known, solid, principle like the "green-house effect" and extrapolate its effects beyond relevance. They don't understand that other far more dominant forces regulate CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere (sea temperatures, again driven by the sun and not the other way around; by CO2 concentrations :shootme). They don't even mention that water vapor (H2O) has a forcing factor on the greenhouse effect that's 50x more potent than that of CO2 (that's right FIFTY times greater!). Because ultimately, the moment that this realization hits you, the notion that CO2 is the root cause behind climatic shifts becomes all the more ridiculous. Are they going to regulate the formation of clouds as being anti-green? Clouds are composed from water crystals are they not? If GW proponents were consistent with their stance they would have to start pushing that ridiculous notion as well. It's all a scam intended to levy more taxes - it's always been about the money. That's also why academic institutions have followed suit - otherwise their research grants dry up and disappear...

Furthermore, anthropomorphic-climate-change proponents downplay the amounts of CO2 that are released by nature and willfully downplay the effects of volcanic emissions, forest fires, and global bio-respiration. The fact that several organizations have recurred to meddling with the data in order to push their veiwpoint on the masses is utterly reprehensible. I would arrive at higher average global temperatures too if I kept removing high altitude and high latitude measurements from the array-pool year after year.

Banning of CFCs? That was good legislation based on solid science and reproducible lab experiments. The same can't be said for the dogma behind the effects of 'carbon-footprints'... and how that relates to our climate.

The solar cycle began to recede from it's crest in late 2008... it's no wonder that our global temperatures have followed, or that Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow this year (/sarcasm)...

[Wild Cobra]

Phenomanul, we will be 10 years into this current cooling, and the libtards will still be invoking "Global Warming." I've just about given up on them. They seem to be lost causes.

[DarrinS]

You ever notice how board AGW fear puppies always get pissed when you post anecdotal evidence like the recent record-breaking snowfall in DC as a case for skepticism?


Isn't the entire AGW theory based on anecdotal evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?


I think climate change is real, I just think it is the norm, rather than something unusual. If climate stopped changing, wouldn't it be for the first time in the history of the Earth?

[Wild Cobra]

You ever notice how board AGW fear puppies always get pissed when you post anecdotal evidence like the recent record-breaking snowfall in DC as a case for skepticism?


Isn't the entire AGW theory based on anecdotal evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?


I think climate change is real, I just think it is the norm, rather than something unusual. If climate stopped changing, wouldn't it be for the first time in the history of the Earth?
Yep, it is mostly natural cycles. Funny how the increase in CO2 starting 7,000 years ago didn't seem to change the temperature fluctuation at all:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg

[jack sommerset]

They should blame Bush one more time.

[Wild Cobra]

They should blame Bush one more time.
I agree. That way they can stay true to form.

[Banzai]

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/snowman_dees.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

I didn't realize there were so many resident meteorologists and climatologists here.

[Marcus Bryant]

And, yes, I'm generally a skeptic. So you can dispense with your standard rebuttal.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

[DarrinS]

Can anyone tell me what the ideal/steady-state/optimal temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

I can't seem to find this in the literature.

Thanks.

[Shastafarian]

Can anyone tell me what the ideal/steady-state/optimal temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

I can't seem to find this in the literature.

Thanks.

We've already established it's irrelevant and likely doesn't exist.

Thanks.

[DarrinS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html


Interesting article. Did the author intend to insult old people?





Dyson’s books display such masterly control of complex matters that smart young people read him and want to be scientists; older citizens finish his books and feel smart.

[DarrinS]

We've already established it's irrelevant and likely doesn't exist.

Thanks.


Well, if something is changing or warming, doesn't it have to be changing or moving away from something?

[Shastafarian]

Well, if something is changing or warming, doesn't it have to be changing or moving away from something?

Doesn't mean that something is an ideal with respect to the planet. Now if you want to discuss an ideal climate with respect to humans, then you'd have a conversation.

[DarrinS]

From the NYT article posted by MB:


And I thought all along that climate-change "deniers" were a bunch of radical right-wing oil company shills.





Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus.

[DarrinS]

Doesn't mean that something is an ideal with respect to the planet. Now if you want to discuss an ideal climate with respect to humans, then you'd have a conversation.


Ok. You brought it up. What is that ideal climate?

[Shastafarian]

Ok. You brought it up.
No, I didn't.


What is that ideal climate?For humans to survive?

[DarrinS]

No, I didn't.

For humans to survive?


Since you seem to be a true believer, let me ask you a question.


Say the average global temperature had a downward trend for a 30-year period, while at the same time, CO2 conentration had an upward linear trend. How would you reconcile that?

[Shastafarian]

Since you seem to be a true believer, let me ask you a question.


Say the average global temperature had a downward trend for a 30-year period, while at the same time, CO2 conentration had an upward linear trend. How would you reconcile that?

I wouldn't since I'm not a scientist.

[DarrinS]

I wouldn't since I'm not a scientist.


What if there was a concensus among scientists that global cooling was inevitable? Would you believe them?

[Shastafarian]

What if there was a concensus among scientists that global cooling was inevitable? Would you believe them?

Dunno. Most of the articles I read are based on observed evidence and don't attempt to predict events in the future.

[DarrinS]

Dunno. Most of the articles I read are based on observed evidence and don't attempt to predict events in the future.


Srsly? What articles are those?


FYI...


Temperatures declined from the late 1930's to mid 1970's (observed evidence). Many scientists in the 1970's were predicting catastrophic global cooling, just as many today are predicting catastrophic global warming.

[DarrinS]

Climate scientists say the darndest things.





...if anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers, Phil








I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.




Why do you think there is pressure to present this nice, tidy story? And who is applying this pressure.

[DarrinS]

Wow. Evidently, in addition to being a scientific heretic, you're also unpatriotic if you don't believe in anthropogenic catastrophic climate change.


Keep in mind, Bill Nye the "science guy" is a mechanical engineer, as am I.


sm05Mcah0i8



From http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/11/video-new-test-of-patriotism-agw-belief/





So now he’s Bill Nye, the Judge-Your-Patriotism Guy, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially since Rachel Maddow got the renowned climatologist as a guest. Wait, Nye isn’t a climatologist? He’s a mechanical engineer? Well, then, asking him to verify anthropogenic global warming is as silly as hiring a railroad engineer to chair a panel on climate change, isn’t it, or in passing unpublished student dissertations as reliable peer-reviewed studies in scientific presentations. Maybe Nye is an expert on patriotism? Er, no (also at Townhall and Story Balloon):


This is the worst possible time to claim that AGW is settled science, as even the IPCC has decided to dramatically revamp its processes after a series of embarrassing disclosures on how they conducted that “settled science.” Does Nye insist that a sufficient test of patriotism is belief in the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035? Until a few weeks ago, that was “settled science,” too, according to the same authorities on which Nye bases his “patriotism.”
Questioning scientific claims is not unpatriotic.


In fact, refusing to question and test scientific claims is itself unscientific, as was many of the actions of the IPCC in building its claims in the first place. Demanding unquestioning acceptance of recent scientific claims as gospel amounts to a forced belief system, and our Constitution actually has an explicit prohibition against religious tests for office. Is the Constitution unpatriotic as well? Maybe Nye should stick to classroom demonstrations of basic science and leave AGW and the measurement of patriotism to those more intellectually capable of discernment.

[DarrinS]

I love what he says about 1:50 into that video:





It's mostly generational. Seems to be. This is anecdotal for me. Older people just have a much harder time graping the idea that you have many billons of people on the planet with a very very thin atmosphere -- you're able to affect its climate. Younger people are sort of able to embrace it, understand the evidence, and move forward.




Or, maybe younger people have been pumped full of this BS their entire lives and now just take is as a given. Brainwashed.


He then goes on to say





Like making a one-armed full court shot happens now and then, there are snow storms in D.C. now and then.





Really? A snow storm in D.C. is as rare as a one-armed full court basketball shot? Color me skeptical.

[Yonivore]

qJUFTm6cJXM

[Yonivore]

Where is our media?

Dzb8FljvGGI

[DarrinS]

I know, I know, snow doesn't disprove AGW.


I'm curious, does lack of snow PROVE AGW?


These Dems seem to think so.



d70iXVN5EVM

[Yonivore]

C'mon Shastafarian.

The Religion of Global Climate Change, until just a few years ago, was preaching a gospel of Global Warming, swearing on a stack of IPCC reports that it would continue to warm until, in 2100, it was somewhere between 2 and 6 degrees hotter than it was in the year 2000.

No one ever spoke of Global Warming also causing extreme cold conditions with record precipitation...not then. No, they talked about Hurricanes and what not. But, the Hurricane seasons didn't get any more violent than others over the past century so, they were wrong about that, too.

Now, we're finding out they "hid the decline" and jiggered the data, lied about glaciers and polar ice caps; all to show it was still getting warmer when, in fact, it was cooling and we all knew it because, well, we're not stupid. It was only after they couldn't deny the falling temperatures any longer that they changed the name of their religion to the Church of Global Climate Change and started making crap up about how every severe weather event is caused by man's affect on the climate.

You really still have confidence in their findings?

Seriously? Less than ten years ago they couldn't predict that anthropogenic climate change would actually cause the planet to cool and produce record blizzards across vast swaths of our great nation.

They would have us spend trillions of dollars, retard some of our most productive industries, and shift a huge percentage of GNP around the planet to control a problem that they can't prove exists and the results of which they continue to misjudge over just a few years, never mind the next century.

Are you really still married to this whole nonsense? Did Phenomaul's post yesterday not resonate with you at all?

By the way, well said, Phenomaul.

[Wild Cobra]

I know, I know, snow doesn't disprove AGW.


I'm curious, does lack of snow PROVE AGW?


These Dems seem to think so.



d70iXVN5EVM
The lengths democrats will go to, to control more and more of our resources.

Appalling.

[Yonivore]

Well? I've been waiting for some forum enviro-religionist to man up and admit they've been duped by Al Gore and the rest of the Enviro-whackos but, I guess you're too embarrassed by the revelations of the past couple of days.

That's alright, I understand.

You know, when I was a child, we were taught -- by our science teachers -- that nature was an immense force and that humans were puny, by comparison. I guess some of you are just now learning that.