Chance of Heat Wave being random, 1 in 16 million

[InRareForm]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/09/513425/us-sees-hottest-12-months-and-hottest-half-year-on-record-noaa-calls-record-heat-a-one-in-16-million-event/

[boutons_deux]

think progress :lol

:)

[boutons_deux]

think progress :lol

:)

George Will, in all his towering, unbiased intellectual honesty, says about 4000+ heat records being broken recently: "It's just summer. Get over it"

[TeyshaBlue]

In the off chance that they forego their own analysis and instead, use actual qualified studies, then they can produce a quality article. It's about 1 in 16 million tho.:lol

[DarrinS]

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it's probably shit.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/one-in-1594323-chance-heat-wave-not/

[DarrinS]

Manny already bit hard on this yesterday

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6016355&postcount=1072

[MannyIsGod]

Good link, Darrin. Those are some valid points about how the unlikelyhood is overestimated through those methods.

That being said, the new numbers still show how incredibly unlikely the situation is so when taken in the proper context I think every point that was made about how anomalous the recent string of hot months is will stand.


Update Wow! I didn’t realize the US temperatures had such low serial auto-correlation! I obtained data for the lower 48 states here:

http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp

Based on this, the lag 1 autocorrelation is R=.150, which is much lower than R=0.936. So ‘white noise’ isn’t such a bad model. I am getting a probability less than 1 in 100,000. I have to run the script longer to get the correct value!

[MannyIsGod]

So yeah, while less than 1 in 100,000 isn't exactly 1 in 16 million, it still is a very very very rare event and really still makes every point that was being made based on the previous number. The chances of Darrin pointing that out? Probably lower than both of those figures.

[MannyIsGod]

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it's probably shit.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/one-in-1594323-chance-heat-wave-not/


Manny already bit hard on this yesterday

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6016355&postcount=1072

:lol

Who bit on what, Darrin?

Update: I said if I found temperature for the lower 48 I’d run them. I did and it totally revised my conclusions. It seems white noise isn’t such a bad assumption for temperatures in the lower 48, and the probability of the recent event really is quite low. I revised at the end!

:lmao

[Jacob1983]

Bring it on!

[Wild Cobra]

I wish it was warmer here in the Willamette Valley and less humid. We have has far too much rain, far less heat, but the humidity from the rain is rough to deal with.

[DarrinS]

Interesting analysis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/hell-and-high-histogramming-an-interesting-heat-wave-puzzle/#more-67235




Finally, the sting in the end of the tale. With 1374 contiguous 13-month periods and a Poisson distribution, the number of periods with 13 winners that we would expect to find is 2.6 … so in fact, far from Jeff Masters claim that finding 13 in the top third is a one in a million chance, my results show finding only one case with all thirteen in the top third is actually below the number that we would expect given the size and the nature of the dataset …

[mouse]

Lets wait for Agloco to post how heat helps the immune system fight Cancer before we comment further.

[mouse]

Good link, Darrin. Those are some valid points about how the unlikelyhood is overestimated through those methods.

That being said, the new numbers still show how incredibly unlikely the situation is so when taken in the proper context I think every point that was made about how anomalous the recent string of hot months is will stand.

Good point.

[hater]

chance of dumb rednecks giving a shit, zero

[MannyIsGod]

Interesting analysis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/hell-and-high-histogramming-an-interesting-heat-wave-puzzle/#more-67235

Jesus you couldn't be more of a hack if you tried. You post some "good analysis" then you just ignore it when she all of a sudden comes to a similar conclusion as the original conclusion you were against and instead go find something new to hang your hat on.

Its about the science and not the outcome, right? Righhhhhhhhhhhhhht

[boutons_deux]

chance of dumb rednecks giving a shit, zero

the dumb rednecks on corn, soy, rice, cattle farms should give a shit, but they are low-information Repug voters.

[DarrinS]

Jesus you couldn't be more of a hack if you tried. You post some "good analysis" then you just ignore it when she all of a sudden comes to a similar conclusion as the original conclusion you were against and instead go find something new to hang your hat on.

Its about the science and not the outcome, right? Righhhhhhhhhhhhhht


Can you point out what is flawed in his analysis?

You can go on thinking the odds are 1 in 16 million if you want.

[MannyIsGod]

Can you point out what is flawed in his analysis?

You can go on thinking the odds are 1 in 16 million if you want.



Of course i can point out the falws in his logic. How do you know hes got the proper distrobution model and the proper value for lambda? What makes this a pisson process?

[MannyIsGod]

Why didnt this distrobution show up when the previous blogger modeled the situation, in a far more robust manner, Darrin?

[101A]

Global warming is certainly going to make the World different. It is also, by producing more arable, tillable, land - as well as more Fresh water freed up in the Water Cycle - going to make the World better.

[MannyIsGod]

However, theres a really is a huge error in using observation data to guage the validity off the odds. That you have missed.

[MannyIsGod]

Global warming is certainly going to make the World different. It is also, by producing more arable, tillable, land - as well as more Fresh water freed up in the Water Cycle - going to make the World better.

The litetature does not support this view.

[boutons_deux]

Global warming is certainly going to make the World different. It is also, by producing more arable, tillable, land - as well as more Fresh water freed up in the Water Cycle - going to make the World better.

more fresh water? where does it come from?

Seems like the aquifers in the US mid/southwest and Rocky Mtns snow melt are way down. When/how will they go up as global warming continues?

and of course carbon extractors are using/poisoning Bs of gallons water for minig, fracking, coal, electrical plant cooling, etc.

[101A]

more fresh water? where does it come from?

Seems like the aquifers in the US mid/southwest and Rocky Mtns snow melt are way down. When/how will they go up as global warming continues?

and of course carbon extractors are using/poisoning Bs of gallons water for minig, fracking, coal, electrical plant cooling, etc.

Melting ice caps - more water; more evaporation; more rain.

Water is NEVER created or destroyed; there is always the same amount of it; just in one stage of the cycle; right now a WHOLE bunch is tied up in ice. If the ice melts, there is more either as liquid, or in the atmosphere. "Literature" notwithstanding, Manny.

[DarrinS]

Lol

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/last-ice-age-was-a-one-in-a-google-event/





During the last ice age, temperatures were below normal for 1,200,000 months in a row. The odds of this happening randomly are 2 raised to the 1200000 power, or some phenomenally large number.

Thank you climate experts for opening up a whole new world of junk statistics.

[101A]

It used to be warmer here; and the Earth supported much more life than it does now:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/13/science/near-polar-finds-offer-new-look-at-dinosaurs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Ostensibly, all of the hydrocarbons that we are now releasing USED to be free in the air (before being buried, and turning to oil/gas). All that C02 = warmer Earth = great herds of dinosaurs roaming the North Pole because of all the plants there were to eat!

[DarrinS]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/heatwaves-were-much-worse-through-most-of-us-history/




We are bombarded with statistics comparing the number of record lows to record highs, the number of record highs, etc. So I decided to look at what the actual numbers are in the USHCN database.

The graph below shows the number of daily record highs set per year for all USHCN stations (through 2011) which have records going back at least to 1930. The results are astonishing. 1934 and 1936 both set nearly five times as many record daily highs as 2011 did. It appears that the entire period from 1910 until 1960 was hotter than recent decades.

There have been 372,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature records in the US since 1895. 84% of them were set when CO2 was below 350ppm.

[DarrinS]

I wonder how warm it was back when Greenland was green?

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin posts two contradictory statistical analysis and calls them both interesting when they agree with him but ignores them completely when they're either corrected or the flaws are pointed out.

Who's surprised?

[MannyIsGod]

It used to be warmer here; and the Earth supported much more life than it does now:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/13/science/near-polar-finds-offer-new-look-at-dinosaurs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Ostensibly, all of the hydrocarbons that we are now releasing USED to be free in the air (before being buried, and turning to oil/gas). All that C02 = warmer Earth = great herds of dinosaurs roaming the North Pole because of all the plants there were to eat!

You're not asking the right question. Can life flourish with much higher temps? Absolutely. Can the current life on Earth flourish through a geologically quick change in climate? Probably not. The issue is not one of whether or not life will be around in a much warmer world but one on what the costs (both ecological and economical) of a changing the climate anthropologically are.

Also, Dinosaurs didn't rely on agriculture. Your initial post in this thread pointed to an increase in agricultural production but the best information we have does not support that idea at all.

[MannyIsGod]

101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.

[CosmicCowboy]

Interesting article


Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.
It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.
Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.
'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.
Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.

The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20LD9x4HD

[Wild Cobra]

What they don't say is that the current short term warming we see may be nothing more than a normal Bond Event.

[101A]

101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.


I am not a denier of AGW - I'm a proponent.

[101A]

You're not asking the right question. Can life flourish with much higher temps? Absolutely. Can the current life on Earth flourish through a geologically quick change in climate? Probably not. The issue is not one of whether or not life will be around in a much warmer world but one on what the costs (both ecological and economical) of a changing the climate anthropologically are.

Also, Dinosaurs didn't rely on agriculture. Your initial post in this thread pointed to an increase in agricultural production but the best information we have does not support that idea at all.

Agriculture = Plants

[MannyIsGod]

Interesting article


Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.
It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.
Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.
'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.
Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.

The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20LD9x4HD


I read the study a few days ago (posted on another forum and comented on through RealClimate) and it is interesting but the authors make some really poor leaps, IMO. The main one being that at high latitudes you see greater change in incoming solar energy through orbital change than you do at other places at the globe. You can't simply extrapolate the energy change at high latitudes to the rest of the world and thats what they are doing to get that really high figure of energy change.

[MannyIsGod]

Agriculture = Plants

Agriculture is not merely plants. We can't grow plants everywhere and changes in climate that change these zones will facilitate changes in our infrastructure that supports it.

I'll give you an example. If changes in precipitation patterns make it more expensive to grow crops in the California central valley due to water issues then all of a sudden food in the United States gets much more expensive. If the optimal area to grow grain in the United States shifts further north then it wastes infrastructure in place further south and necessitates building new infrastructure.

Even if for every piece of land that was no inhospitable due to climate change you got a new piece of land that was now attractive, it would still be at quite a large economic cost and there would be lag as we adapted which would further the cost. And honestly, indications are that a 1:1 switch is a pipe dream.

Quite honestly, I don't look at climate change from an economic perspective very often and when I do its a very shallow analysis like the above because thats not my interest and not my strong suit but nothing I read indicates its going to be a smooth transition that we'll enjoy.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you guys fear change?

The earth's climate will change with or without us. If we want to mitigate AGW, the quickest way is to stop Asia from releasing all the soot they do. Until then, everything else is just a SWAG.

[DarrinS]

101, at least you're not arguing against CO2 actually causing climate change.


The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.

[Wild Cobra]

The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.
These AGW alarmists seem to never keep that strait, do they?

[MannyIsGod]

The argument is not whether CO2 contributes to climate change, but, whether CO2 is THE cause.

Pretty sure that the IPCC has not said CO2 is the only cause. Pretty sure that you don't know what the argument is considering how you contradicted yourself in this very thread.

[Wild Cobra]

Pretty sure that the IPCC has not said CO2 is the only cause. Pretty sure that you don't know what the argument is considering how you contradicted yourself in this very thread.
Except that the IPCC AR4 attributes 1.66 watts/m^2 of the 1.6 watts/m^2 of warming during their reviewed time frame as from CO2.

My contention is that CO2 warming is not nearly that strong. I believe Darrin's contention is the same.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, its a shame your contention isn't back up by the appropriate math.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, its a shame your contention isn't back up by the appropriate math.
I think it's a shame that you are pursuing such a politicized field.

[MannyIsGod]

The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.

[DarrinS]

The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.

1 in 16 million

[Wild Cobra]

The policy is politicized but the science is not. Scientists can typically do math.1 in 16 million
LOL....

They politicize the climate math too.

[MannyIsGod]

1 in 16 million

LOL!

I walked right into that one.

Oh and Masters or the NCDC said 1 in 1.6 million, not 16. Still wrong, but not nearly as much as some of the stuff that was posted after.

I actually really respect the first blogger you posted because she went back and fixed her post when it became obvious to her it was wrong. The 2nd blogger is a hack who didn't bother to revise anything when its obvious that his analysis is severely flawed.

[DarrinS]

LOL!

I walked right into that one.

Oh and Masters or the NCDC said 1 in 1.6 million, not 16. Still wrong, but not nearly as much as some of the stuff that was posted after.

I actually really respect the first blogger you posted because she went back and fixed her post when it became obvious to her it was wrong. The 2nd blogger is a hack who didn't bother to revise anything when its obvious that his analysis is severely flawed.

I don't see what is flawed about the 2nd analysis. He simply used a 13-month moving window and counted how many months in that span ranked in the top third of the historical record. He did conclude that it is a rare event, but nowhere near lotto odds.

[Thompson]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...

[MannyIsGod]

There's errors everywhere in what he did. First of all, Master's comments were that if the climate wasn't warming, the odds for the 13 months in a row in the upper 3rd would be 1 in 1.6 million.

So how can you use the dataset of a warming climate and then judge by a distribution on what the odds would be for a situation that isn't represented by the dataset? Its like me saying that days with lows below freezing are common in the winter therefor re not rare in the summer.

But, lets assume that's not an issue. Then there's the issue of whether or not the distribution is valid. Poisson processes require event independence. In other words, a month being in the upper third of its distribution cannot affect the next month. The blog you linked yesterday used the very fact that there is an correlation between each month's temp to show why the initial calculation (simply 1/3 raised to the 13th power) was wrong because there WAS a correlation between the events. That immediately disqualifies this type of distribution.

Furthermore, if we disregard THAT error, then there's the issue of his lambda value. In the equation, lambda represents the mean of the function. The mean of the number of events in a group of 13 being in their top third is 4.33 (simply 13/3) so why is his lambda value 5.xx ( can't remember the exact amount).

I also have issues with the way he came up with everything, but by this point I'm just being redundant. Its pretty shitty statistical analysis.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...

That article is 5 years old. Now google "BEST Decadal Variations" or "Royal Society Solar Climate" and get back to us.

[Kidd K]

The fact that idiots are still arguing that there's no climate change happening is just embarrassing. (by climate change I mean the new name for "global warming").

I'm just 27, but having lived in the same general area my whole life (within about 30 miles), I can say with certainty that the seasons are changing, and are getting hotter.

It used to actually be cold in October here (I live in northeastern Illinois, near Chicago). Now it almost never is.

It used to ALWAYS snow before the end of the year. The latest I remember it snowing was Christmas Eve. Last year, it didn't even snow until February. And it only snowed enough to where I had to shovel, just 3 times, the fewest I can recall.

It fuckin RAINED in March. . .I've never seen it rain in March before.

It was over 70 degrees for a whole week in March, the month where usually there's snow on the ground for all 31 days of the month.

It got so hot this summer with my thermometer maxed out at 120 for days back to back to back to back, my house's AC barely seems adequate anymore. I'm going to buy an additional air conditioner for next summer, because it's probably going to be even worse.


Yeah, I'm just remembering about 23 years of weather, but it's sure as hell changed a LOT. Science is also, you know, your friend. It tells you stuff, when they're not funded by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome being that there is no global warming (i.e. the ones mainly causing it, and wanting more deregulations from the government so they can retain or increase their gigantic profit margin).



chance of dumb rednecks giving a shit, zero

Sad but true. Too bad rednecks have been taught to vote. Someone needs to teach them to start voting in their own interests too.

[MannyIsGod]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Dang rich people and their Martian SUV excursions...

The solar output is measured from satellites and has been dropping relative to previous solar cycles. I have yet to see evidence that Mars is actually warming but even if it was that doesn't mean there's an increase in solar output. Orbital variation can change the amount of insolation on any planet independent of any actual change in solar output.

But yeah, thanks for posting a 2007 article 5 years later because this shit hasn't been debunked quite a bit in that time.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_chang e


Despite the absence of a time series for Martian global temperatures, K. I. Abdusamatov has proposed that "parallel global warmings" observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth can only be a consequence of the same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[73] While some climate change skeptics take this as proof that humans are not causing climate change, Abdusamatov's hypothesis has not been accepted by the scientific community. His assertions have not been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and have been dismissed by other scientists, who have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[74] Other scientists have proposed that the observed variations are caused by irregularities in the orbit of Mars or a possible combination of solar and orbital effects.[75]

[DarrinS]

The fact that idiots are still arguing that there's no climate change happening is just embarrassing


Indeed. That would be embarrassing if people were arguing that.

[Wild Cobra]

There's errors everywhere in what he did. First of all, Master's comments were that if the climate wasn't warming, the odds for the 13 months in a row in the upper 3rd would be 1 in 1.6 million.

But almost every one agrees the climate has been warming over our recorded history, so why even do such an analysis?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Indeed. That would be embarrassing if people were arguing that.

Dude you have been arguing that there has been no warming in the pst 15 years. Your sophistry is deplorable.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Good link, Darrin. Those are some valid points about how the unlikelyhood is overestimated through those methods.

That being said, the new numbers still show how incredibly unlikely the situation is so when taken in the proper context I think every point that was made about how anomalous the recent string of hot months is will stand.


So yeah, while less than 1 in 100,000 isn't exactly 1 in 16 million, it still is a very very very rare event and really still makes every point that was being made based on the previous number. The chances of Darrin pointing that out? Probably lower than both of those figures.


This is the truth. It's finally getting blatantly obvious.

Should never have reached this point. Greenhouse gas = hotter, period. Venus is a shitload hotter than it should be because of greenhouse gasses.

We knew about this already. Stupid people like WC are dumbing down society.

The noble thing for any person conflicted would be to say, well we're addicted to oil and we need to figure that out first.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Sad but true. Too bad rednecks have been taught to vote. Someone needs to teach them to start voting in their own interests too.

Not likely

What it comes down to is that they are just vile beasts that should be kept in cages. All the know are guns and looting resources in the name of white pigmented Jesus.

You can't fix stupid.
:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Should never have reached this point. Greenhouse gas = hotter, period. Venus is a shitload hotter than it should be because of greenhouse gasses.

We knew about this already. Stupid people like WC are dumbing down society.

Me? Dumbing down society, yet you make such a dumb statement about Venus...

Those of us who disagree with the extent of CO2 warming are not saying CO2 does not warm. We are only saying it doesn't warm as much as stated by the alarmists.

Do you even have a clue why your statement of Venus is wrong, in trying to imply CO2 on earth is the same?

Three huge reasons.

Care to examine them?

[MannyIsGod]

He's right bout Venus. The greenhouse affect is what keeps it so hot. Its closer to the sun , but it also has a much higher albedo. The temp can't be explained (much like on earth) without the greenhouse contributions.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and he never implied CO2 on the earth was the same. He merely pointed out that Venus is an example of a runaway greenhouse effect. It is.

[Wild Cobra]

You forgot a two very critical differences of it Manny, that separate examples from earth.

[MannyIsGod]

Nothing you bring up is going to change that Venus is a runaway greenhouse effect which is the point made. Nothing.

[DarrinS]

Manny,

What do you think about this guy's take?


http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/was-the-heat-wave-an-unprecedented-event/

[MannyIsGod]

I agree, there have been heat waves before. Which one is worse really depends on the metric you use, but in reality there have been many severe heat waves on par with the most recent one so saying that it was unprecedented is always going to stir up controversy.

The problem is that people keep talking quotes and statistics out of context. Look at the thread title. Aside from being an incorrect quote (Masters or the NCDC - whom ever came up with that stat - said 1 in 1.6 million) it also attributes the statistic to the heat wave and not the most recent consecutive month period. That period was unprecedented even if the individual heat wave was not.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing you bring up is going to change that Venus is a runaway greenhouse effect which is the point made. Nothing.
No shit Sherlock. I'm saying there are two other key reasons, and these added reason do not apply to earth.

[MannyIsGod]

It doesn't matter. You missed his point because you're a moron. He didn't say Earth was going to turn into Venus, genius.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't matter. You missed his point because you're a moron. He didn't say Earth was going to turn into Venus, genius.
I didn't miss anything. I just want to make sure people know there are key differences.

Please stop assuming.

These key two differences:

1) Venus' atmosphere over 100 times more massive than Earth's.

2) Venus' atmosphere is about 96.5% CO2 vs. the Earth's 0.04%.

3) Venus receives about 91% more watts/sq meter of solar irradiation than the Earth.

The first two factors make dramatic differences, more than the distance differences from the sun. It not only means that Venus has much more than 20,000 times more CO2 than earth. With CO2 the primary gas, for a lack of better terminology, the spectra absorbed by CO2 resonates in the atmosphere.

Yes, it's a true runaway effect.

Every time someone brings up Venus, I wonder how many people don't understand the key difference, and am afraid they will think the earth can become like Venus.

Comparing greenhouse gas differences from between a fraction of a percent, to more than 90% is simply asinine.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Yes, it's a true runaway effect.
...
Comparing greenhouse gas differences from between a fraction of a percent, to more than 90% is simply asinine.

No it's not. I'll explain it in a dumb hick dialect so you understand.

If I'm trying to run across a field, it's a lot harder if there are corn stalks (co2) growing than if there was nothing. The more corn stalks (co2) the more I get held up, until it's impossible to get through without resting. Additional Corn stalks (co2) past that point don't add more effectiveness to stopping me in the same instance.

Extra cornstalks (co2) do not create a runaway effect, they do nothing if marginally anything.

Infrared light (IR), a primary component of the greenhouse effect is heavily absorbed by Co2. The more light directly incident on Co2, the more it catches. As infrared light is absorbed, subsequent co2 molecules do not get a chance to absorb it.

If all the Co2 on venus had direct sunlight incidence, it would be MUCH MUCH hotter. Much of the atmosphere on Venus simply doesn't get as much sunlight since it is blocked out at upper layers. Earths Co2 is used far more efficiently at catching IR.

Since I'm sure you don't care and this is just a waste of time, I think a hands on experiment would be better. To try it yourself, first find a cornfield and run backwards, ass leading as "far" as you can go. You'll get some enlightenment.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Obstructed_View]

I'm just 27, but having lived in the same general area my whole life (within about 30 miles), I can say with certainty that the seasons are changing, and are getting hotter.

There's your scientific proof, folks. It just feels hotter these last few years.

[DarrinS]

There's your scientific proof, folks. It just feels hotter these last few years.


I'm actually hoping it warms up this weekend. I'm going to camping on the Frio river and that water is damn cold when it's only 88-90 degrees out. It's a little below normal for this time of year. This doesn't mean a damn thing about climate change, just thought I'd share.

[MannyIsGod]

I wish I was going to the Frio

[DarrinS]

I wish I was going to the Frio

It's supposed to rain on and off for the next few days, but I'll lose a pretty substantial deposit if I cancel. Oh well, we'll just have to make the best of it. At least there will be plenty of water -- unlike last year, when my tube was scraping the bottom.

[MannyIsGod]

There's no place to go tubing here in NM. Well, there's no god damn water.

[DarrinS]

There's no place to go tubing here in NM. Well, there's no god damn water.

You sir, need a road trip.

[Borat Sagyidev]

There's no place to go tubing here in NM. Well, there's no god damn water.

Stop whining and go to Taos.

[MannyIsGod]

Taos sucks. Bunch of god damn hippies with their earth ships and shitty art galleries. Its like a worse version of Santa Fe. Colorado is where its at.

[baseline bum]

I'm actually hoping it warms up this weekend. I'm going to camping on the Frio river and that water is damn cold when it's only 88-90 degrees out. It's a little below normal for this time of year. This doesn't mean a damn thing about climate change, just thought I'd share.

Is there good hiking out there?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
No shit.

:lmao

:lmao

:lmao

That's too simplistic. Much more than that happens.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm actually hoping it warms up this weekend. I'm going to camping on the Frio river and that water is damn cold when it's only 88-90 degrees out. It's a little below normal for this time of year. This doesn't mean a damn thing about climate change, just thought I'd share.
Funny thing is here in Oregon, as many cold wet days we had, and an average temperature far lower than past summers in recent decades, we had three record hot days.

I attribute it to the fact we had so much more rain than normal, that after a couple sunny days, the added humidity increased the greenhouse effect substantially.

It's the water people. Not the CO2, that causes these real hot swings.

Average water will give average results. Under really wet conditions, the humidity causes the strongest greenhouse gas to show it's fury. Under severe drought conditions, there is little or no moisture to temper the heat, and water requires energy to evaporate, thus causes cooling when enough moisture for evaporation is available.

[Wild Cobra]

There's no place to go tubing here in NM. Well, there's no god damn water.You sir, need a road trip.
New Mexico?

Interesting place. Only been there once for a week, but I liked it. Went to solve problems at Intel's fab 11.

[DarrinS]

Is there good hiking out there?

Probably, but the wife is kind of an "indoor girl". That's why I'm getting a cabin with cable tv, instead of a tent.

[DarrinS]

Funny thing is here in Oregon, as many cold wet days we had, and an average temperature far lower than past summers in recent decades, we had three record hot days.



I don't think I could live somewhere where it rains constantly.

[leemajors]

There's no place to go tubing here in NM. Well, there's no god damn water.

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/13/cnn-reporter-tells-bill-nye-th.html

:lol

[101A]

Now this thread has taken a turn - I'm jumping in

Love the Frio, never been to Taos, but heard it's grea, and Colorado is one of my favorite places...however...

next week me and family jet off for a week at a Villa in Tuscany; followed by 3 days in Venice....then some B&B's along the Alpine road around Munich, 4 nights in a castle near Berlin, and finally sharing some beers with friends in a town near Hamburg for a few nights....

Only drawback is the whole clan is going, so my time on the Autobahn will be spent driving a mini-van (VW Caravelle Diesel)

Hope it doesn't rain.

see you in Mid August.

(It's a tough life, but somebody's gotta do it)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think I could live somewhere where it rains constantly.
I used to hate it in the Willamette valley, then lived on the other side of the Cascade (Sierra) mountains for almost a decade where it seldom rains, snows like crazy in the winter, and is hot as hell in the summer. Had 122F in the shade in my back yard one summer. Nicer weather for me, but not very green. Then I spent more than a decade in the military living in different states and countries. I grew an appreciation for home, where the rain keeps things so green.

[TeyshaBlue]

Taos sucks. Bunch of god damn hippies with their earth ships and shitty art galleries. Its like a worse version of Santa Fe. Colorado is where its at.

Red River?

[DarrinS]

Now this thread has taken a turn - I'm jumping in

Love the Frio, never been to Taos, but heard it's grea, and Colorado is one of my favorite places...however...

next week me and family jet off for a week at a Villa in Tuscany; followed by 3 days in Venice....then some B&B's along the Alpine road around Munich, 4 nights in a castle near Berlin, and finally sharing some beers with friends in a town near Hamburg for a few nights....

Only drawback is the whole clan is going, so my time on the Autobahn will be spent driving a mini-van (VW Caravelle Diesel)

Hope it doesn't rain.

see you in Mid August.

(It's a tough life, but somebody's gotta do it)


Damn one-upper! :lol

[baseline bum]

I liked Taos, but I thought it was some garbage that they wanted to charge me to use my own camera. Can't one-up 101A, but headed to the high Sierra in a couple of weeks. I guess I'd have to echo the hope for no rain since I'll be right at the edge of the Sierra crest and above treeline for about 3 weeks, but my tent is really good with rain and wind and the Sierras aren't known for having the nasty weather you always see in places like the Beartooths.

Gotta echo the thoughts on Colorado. As soon as you cross over into the state from New Mexico or Wyoming the scenery jumps about a 100-fold. When passing through the state I was wondering why the hell I was going on to Yellowstone instead of staying there the whole time, lol. Shame on Manny for not including Utah as another badass state. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I hate all of you vacationing bastards.

[baseline bum]

I hate all of you vacationing bastards.

I invite you to come come and carry my pack, teysha.

[TeyshaBlue]

I invite you to come come and carry my pack, teysha.

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I hate all of you vacationing bastards.:ihit

[Wild Cobra]

I hate all of you vacationing bastards.
LOL...

Why?

I have 345 hrs of accrued vacation time I can take. I have a week scheduled later next month I'm taking off. I'm thinking of extending that to 3 or 4 weeks. just haven't decided yet.