Just an observation about hot and cold!

Now, now, it is officially climate CHANGE. Well, that is perfectly normal - the climate is always in a state of change and geological records prove it. I have been listening to this global warming garbage for years now, and I think the collective they are nuts. They say the science is settled and proves it - science, by it's nature, is not settled for anything or there would be no advances in medicine or anything else for that matter. I think the global warming people should come here in their Birkenstocks, bermuda shorts and hawiian shirts and shovel my 250 feet of driveway in -40 windchills, and see what they think in 5 minutes of being outside.

There's a joke in the statistics community that the singular of 'data' is 'anecdote'. I hear people on the TV all the time making claims like, "Hey, it's 60 degrees in July. Global warming is BS." It's really strange because the following week when it's 105 degrees, they don't come back and say "Record high today, looks like global warming IS real." Instead, they don't mention the weather at all because they ignore data which goes against their preconceived conclusion that global warming is bogus.

For example, it's 60 degrees and sunny here today. We're thinking of going outside and grilling steaks. We also had one of the warmest Novembers on record. Does that prove global warming? Of course not! That's why we use global averages to look at warming patterns. Those records show that all of the 2000's so far have been among the top 10 highest global temperature averages in the last 200 years. 2009 is shaping up to be about #4 or 5 once all the data is in. The odds of that being a random occurrence are astronomical.

I would also point out that snow does not necessarily equal unusual cold. Snow in Dallas (and especially Houston) is unusual this time of year, but certainly not in the Midwest or DC. We had an early snow here as well, but the average December temperature so far has been about average or maybe even a little above average.

To give a serious answer to your last question, two out of three consecutive years with a mean global temperature that's below the average of the last 200 years of weather data would go a long way towards convincing me global warming is not real.


If you go outside and throw a ball in the air, it's going to fall to the ground. That's settled science. To this day, we don't understand exactly how gravity works, but whether it ends up being transmitted by a graviton or just a bending of space caused by mass isn't going to affect whether or not the ball falls to Earth. Similarly, the functioning of the transistors in the computer you typed your message on is settled science. There may be aspects of their function at the quantum level that are still not understood, but the fact that they can build a computer which has millions of them proves that the basic science behind them is well understood.

One last example: cigarette smoking. Do you believe that cigarette smoking causes an increased incidence of lung cancer? The tobacco companies spent billions of dollars trying to deny this. At first they claimed there was no link between smoking and lung cancer and when that failed they claimed that there was no causal link. But the data set is huge and the correlation is extreme, so in the end even the cigarette companies were forced to admit it was true.

I hear people making comments about the climate at a given city and then trying to make an extrapolation somehow (without using any scientific methods or statistics, just making connections in their own mind) about the global climate and it is all so pointless that it almost makes me irritated because you can't do that. A lay person cannot make conclusions about the temperatures of the planet based on how hot or cold it is on a given day, a given season or a given year because the only way they can decide what that means is by comparing it to their own life experiences, and obviously that's not how science is done. So my answer to your question is: it doesn't matter how hot or cold it is for how long, observations about the climate that aren't made by a researcher studying and writing on global warming would not influence my opinion on global warming even in the slightest. I've said this before but the only thing that can influence my opinion is what comes out of peer reviewed scientific journals.

Grogs - while they have proved smoking causes and/or exacebates cancer, there is a lot that isn't proven. If the science is settled, why are they still researching? If science is settled, there is no need to improve or try to improve anything, therefore all research and study should be finished. As to temps being higher in one decade out of 200 years, that proves nothing. 200 years isn't even a blib in geological and climatic time. I have found concretions here, and there have been fossils of ferns found in the Arctic and that should tell you climate is in a constant moving state. Kept records do not go back far enough to tell anything.

ut0pia - I agree about not believing everything that comes across. It is only theories that the collective they are trying to force feed us, and until I get some real evidence, I aint drinking that koolaid.

BTW, I was out removing global warming from a small portion of my yard and emiting carbons, mostly that deadly killer CO2 into the air. Come tomorrow, should get about an acre and a half plowed out and lots more CO2s emitted Said global warming is now heaped into a large arc on one side of the house and into a long heap, measuring roughly 60' long, 8' high and probably 15' thick at the base. Oh and it's bloody cold out too

Another comparison that is not even close to being apples to apples.

Not a word from you regarding Climategate and all the false data, lost data and just plain lies from the scam scientists. And the scientists in Russia, New Zealand and even Australia I believe I read.

And just how has it been working out for the EU? Haven't they had Cap & Trade for years?

This is nothing but the same old, same old, but on a global scale. $$$$$ Income redistribution. As we pour billions of dollars per year into the United Nations who, in turn, will redistribute the billions of dollars of taxpayer money (yes, the same taxpayers, who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet) to third world countries, who, will, in turn, do WHAT with the billions they will be receiving.

Oh yes, the Hugo Chavez's of the world will put that money to good use I'm sure. What a joke. Amazing that people believe this global scam.

I also love how there can be NO debate. Global warming exists and cannot be denied or debated. The scam scientists, along with their resident guru, Al Gore cannot be bothered to debate the issue.

You mean the same scam scientists that fudge data, falsify data and just plain lose data that does not agree with their scam? Oh yeah, they are real reliable.

It is money, it is always money and ALWAYS WILL be money.

Some people put scientists up on such a pedestal like they are infallible, giving them God-like status. News flash, they are NOT infallible. Scientists make mistakes, scientists can be greedy, scientists can be corrupt.

Gee willikers if scientists are so darn smart why can't they even figure out how gravity works?

You are quick to say scientists are corrupt and greedy and can't be trusted- but who is it that saves lives with antibiotics and vaccines and improves quality of life for so many terminally ill people?? If it wasn't for science imagine where we'd be, dying of infection after minor cuts or smallpox...
I am not saying scientists know everything, but I do trust the knowledge that is produced by science because look at where it has taken us, since the Industrial revolution the world has changed so much and almost all because of science.
Most people think that things like how old the earth is, what happens to the climate and how life has evolved are beyond science, and I agree that some questions we may never answer, but I trust the answers that science has provided thus far because I know the method used when discovering a new medicine or vaccine that has been proven to work because we see it in our lifetime is the same as when looking for answers to those abstract questions..
In either case even if you don't believe anything scientists are saying, you still cannot judge whether or not global warming is happening based on your own observations of the weather. If you had some background in science, you would know how silly that seems.

The earth has been warming and cooling for milleniums before man and carbon dioxide.

IMO there are more important issues at hand. If Iran gets nukes, it won't really matter how hot it is, now will it?

Personally, I think we should be far more concerned about pollutants than climate. Pollution we can do something about, but climate is going to do what climate does.

But, that's just me.

And let's not forget that climate is not the same as weather.

The weather at a single point in time is not indicative of climate over a long period of time. The answer to your question about how many times do unusual cold events in Texas have to happen before we question Climate Change would be - thousands and thousands of them over years and years and years, plus averaged with the long term weather in all areas of the world.

Seriously - read the definition of the 2 words.

Wait a second here.

If it would take thousands and thousands of unusual cold events in Texas over years and years and years to question the theory of global warming, how is it that events measured over a few hundred years (and inferences based on indirect "evidence" from other disciplines) are sufficient to promulgate the theory? Or are the people behind this movement allowing themselves the luxury of placing the burden of proof on those who are not convinced, a la the IPCC?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf

In other words, "we'll make a claim, and as far as we're concerned, it stands until someone comes along and disproves it to our satisfaction." That ain't science, not by my standards.

Agreed, I've thought this for a while. We can at least theoretically balance out added carbon by planting enough trees; there are things we don't have ways to pull out of the air, water, and soil.

You're absolutely correct. That's NOT science. Luckily, that's not what that paper is saying either.

Let me ask you a question: If someone comes to you looking for seed money to build his anti-gravity device or perpetual motion machine are you going to give him money for it straight away or would you like to see a little proof that everything scientists say about gravity and conservation of energy is wrong first?

The "theories" being tested aren't wild hypotheses that someone has pulled out of thin air. They explain observations made to date. General relativity is tested every time your GPS updates coordinates. It was developed because there were problems with the old Newtownian system of gravity. For example, it couldn't properly explain the orbit of Mercury. General Relativity was able to solve that problem and it could also solve all of the other gravitational problems that classical mechanics had been doing for years. That last part is key. If you want to develop a new gravitational theory, it has to explain all of the previous data. If it doesn't, it's clearly wrong. In addition, it has to make testable predictions. If, for example, your theory of gravity predicts that free protons decay (as some versions of string theory do) then you or someone else has to go out and find an example of that to provide evidence for your theory. If you can't find any (and they haven't been able to so far) there's no reason to believe that your theory is correct.

Cindy, is it really that hard to cut and paste quote tags around each section you respond to? It makes it much more difficult to reply because I have to manually copy and paste what you write inside my quotes.

And you completely missed (or ducked) the point. If cold weather on Wednesday is proof that global warming is false, then warm weather on Thursday is equally good proof it's not. Equally good meaning no good at all, but I've seen people making that claim - it's cold today, so global warming is false.

You can only work with what you have. The data we have indicates the Earth is warming. The thing about geological climate changes is that they tend to happen on geological time scales. This isn't.

BTW, if you really want to make a lot of money, invest about 10 years of your life going to school and eating ramen noodles and then go to work in the government or academic circles. Yep, tons of money to be made there. I could see why con artists would be lining up to get in on the racket.

The US is what, 3% of the surface area of the Earth? Sure, that's the same as averaging temperatures across the entire Earth. It's colder than average in the US today -OR- it's warmer than average in the world this decade. One holds just a bit more credibility than the other. Even if the US has 10 years of cool weather, it doesn't mean the Earth is cooling if the rest of the world is experiencing unusually hot weather.

They would have said (and still do) that man was responsible for most of the dust. Poor farming techniques left the topsoil exposed and when the drought hit, the dry conditions caused it to be eroded. The drought was a drought. They've happened throughout history and they'll continue to happen.

Man is responsible for the extinction of thousands of species every year. We can convert an entire country from rain forests to parking lots in a few decades. We could easily render large swaths of the Earth uninhabitable radioactive wastelands with our nuclear weapons. Why is it so hard to believe that billions of people wantonly spewing pollutants and carbon into the atmosphere can't raise the temperature a few degrees.

And the climate vs. weather thing has been corrected already. Climate most certainly does not change on a daily or even a yearly basis.

I can't think of a more apt comparison than cigarettes. When the cigarette companies did the research, it confirmed what the doctors were saying, so they did their best to muddy the waters and protect the bottom line. Major oil and coal companies are worth billions of dollars. That's plenty of money to fund their own research and prove global warming is false, especially if scientists are greedy scammers out looking to make a buck. But we're not seeing that. Why not?

The fact that you think Climategate is the final nail in the coffin as opposed to a scientific study proving that global warming is false really says it all. We can't disprove the data, so we'll trash the messengers. And the response from the scientific community seems to be to make as much of the raw data available so people can examine it for themselves. Yes, clearly a massive conspiracy. In fact, I have to remember to go check the mailbox for my disinformation payment from the government after I finish writing this.

Ooh, I love a good conspiracy theory. Only problem is, if you want it to be believable, you have to connect the dots. This is one of those "Give money to the UN ... profit!" kind of deals. How exactly do countries like the US and the EU profit by giving billions of dollars to other countries to spend?

BTW, scientists don't stand up in auditoriums and debate theories. If A thinks B is wrong, he publishes a paper showing showing how B is wrong and presents it at a conference. Why should climate scientist be held to a different standard than two scientists debating different versions of string theory or population genetics?

Funny though. In Northeast Ohio, we have had at most, 3 inches of snow so far this year. That is a couple feet below normal. Our first snow didn't arrive until December which was 2 months behind. Maybe global warming...I mean climate change, is only in Ohio?? I am NOT complaining though, I am so much enjoying this thus far, snowless winter. Last year at this time, I was already shoveling the snow off my roof because there was so much. I normally get 9-10 feet of snow, so I am very pleased this year. Thank you climate change...or should I say, just a normal variance in the weather that happens from time to time.

Why can't we work on both? Nuclear proliferation is a huge problem, but it's not the only one. Are we better off if we stop the loss of trillions of dollars and millions of lives from nuclear weapons only to lose the same amount to rising sea levels?

I know, I was being a little silly. But I did give a serious answer to your question. Global warming is just that - global. I'd have to see a cooling trend (cooler than average) in the overall global temperatures to start seriously questioning the data. A few cold weeks in my backyard aren't going to do it.

BTW, we did end up grilling out on Christmas day. Steaks for Christmas dinner. I'm hoping that's the start of a trend.

Neither.
I'd tell that person "thanks but no thanks." That person would not be able to come up with the proof needed to convince me to fund it. The perpetual motion machine requires that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics be violated (ain't gonna happen) and the anti-gravity device requires an understanding of gravity which we currently are nowhere near.

And as for what that paper is saying, it isn't very much. All they are doing is comparing the results of predictions using simple models (ones that won't choke a supercomputer) with those made by complex models and claiming that because in many cases the predictions are similar, the simpler models are potential substitutes for the more complex ones. Presumably the report shows the best correlations as opposed to the dicier ones, and I have to wonder why they show a predicted "temperature anomaly" as opposed to a "temprature" in Fig. 10. Thats one degree of removal from a direct physical measurement or prediction and it allows for fudging in the defintion of what is "typical" or "normal." And where they DO actually offer an example of how well a subcomponent of simple model does or does not predict actual data (Fig. 5) they point out that That sounds pretty weak to me and hardly something that public policy should be based on.

I never said they were "pulled out of the thin air." And I don't think that the comparison between global warming and general relativity is valid. The theory of general relativity has been tested. The theory of global warming has not. They cannot test it because it requires predictions made into the future, and as already pointed out, there are major uncertainties in the model. As for whether any of these models are capable of predicting past trends, it is standard practice to use past observations as input data, so the fact that a model spits those observations back out again isn't really very impressive.

Like I've said elsewhere, I'm all for energy conservation, reducing pollutants etc., but not on the basis of computer models of global warming and unproven claims that a significant part of the so-called global warming is anthropogenic. I wonder sometimes what climate scientists (and politicians) would have done if they had been around when the earth was headed for the Ice Age.

My disbelief of global warming has, absolutely, nothing to do with my weather observations.

My disbelief of global warming has everything to do with my belief that this is ALL about money.

1. There can be no debate, so says the High Priests of Global Warming

2. We MUST give billions of dollars to 3rd world country's because we use to much energy.

3. Climategate and the Russian scientists and the Australian scientists and the New Zealand scientists, liars and corruption, false data, lost data, suppressed data.

4. The EU has had cap and trade for years, still no one talks much about the fact that their C02 levels are not coming down.

5. We need C02 to live, plants need C02 to live.

6. And last but not least, if MAN is such a huge danger to the Earth, why is there not a global effort to lower the population?

This is all about money.



And I will tell you what those banners said that the protestor's had in Copenhagen during the Global Climate Scam Conference.

Rich Countries Pay Your Climate Debt


Open your eyes to the greed of mankind, don't be duped!

Now, this I agree with. I so believe the air we breathe and food we eat is what is killing us.

The C02 levels is stupid. The hypocrisy of those global warming nuts, as they fly into Copenhagen in their private jets and take their limo's to the conference. I think I read that the Climate Scam Conference caused an extra 450,00 TONS of carbon emissions. And people believe this stuff, it is amazing.

What people do not understand, is that the gas that contributes the most to the warmth of our planet is not CO2, it is WATER vapor. Is there global warming, yes. But is it man made, no. This planet has been much warmer before, long before man was here burning fossil fuels. I also agree, it is about money.

How exactly is the fact that the earth has been cooling and warming for thousands of years comforting??
Yes the earth at some point has been so cold and so warm that no mammals could live....that doesn't make me feel any less concerned about what is happening now and whether or not it can be prevented.
Scientists help save all kinds of animals from extintion, which is something that is a natural process that happens all the time according to evolution...so why not prevent another natural process (I am assuming global warming is a natural process here) which could be destructive to so many animals and humans?
I don't even want to get into the politics of it right now but I do agree that it's about money, companies trying hard not to lose any money over envinronmental policies no matter what happens to the environment because money is more important to them.

Ut0pia, IMO, you give man WAY to much credit.
I do not believe that any man can do anything to change the climate.

Comforting? I don't know about comforting but I do know that the Earth is changing all the time and so is the climate.



The EU has had cap and trade in place for almost a decade, it has done nothing.

In case you haven't noticed, companies are struggling just to keep their heads above water. So, we should slap MORE taxes on them so they just go under? That will be good for this economy?

Rich Countries - PAY YOUR CLIMATE TAX!!!

For whatever it's worth, my understanding of global warming and cooling cycles is that it is dominated by moisture, which is not under our control.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf

Our ability to control or even influence climate is IMO extremely limited - it would be like trying to stop a tidal wave by building a dam.