34th Coldest Summer on Record

[I Am Right]

34th Coldest Summer on Record---On Record.

Biggest myth in history, global warming. The wackos are currently wanting to regulate carbon dixiode, we exhale the stuff people. Spill 55 gals of fossel fuel on the ground and hear the sirens and red lights come a running. People in hasmat suits trying to clean up some fossel fuels and charging you half a million dollars. don't do a thing and wait a couple of months and where the spill was, green grass grows. Fossel fuels a natural substance and guess what bio-degradable. We went on a northern expedition, 30 days, and NO---wait for it--shrinking of glaciers, the glaciers are growing, you won't hear that on CNN or NBC, doesn't fit their narrative. Left up to the wackos we will all be driving cars with jibs on them and sending money to Washington to cover the DEC, Dept of Environmental Communisum. You are entillied to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[My Opinion Matters]

In related news, I pissed all over my bathroom floor this morning. It just seems so effiminate to sit down and pee.

[Rogue]

My secretary gifted me with some sweet pepper relish. This stuff is like crack!

[I Am Right]

In related news, I pissed all over my bathroom floor this morning. It just seems so effiminate to sit down and pee.

Didn't you just win a race or something like that?

[picasso]

I know it's cold right now. Nipply even.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I love how some people can't understand Global Climate Change. :rolleyes:

[I Am Right]

I know it's cold right now. Nipply even.

Crude.

[picasso]

Agreed. And even worse if there was significant shrinkage.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You are entillied to your own opinion but not your own facts.And all the facts are resoundingly against you.

Moving on...

You guys should try the Afghani food down here. It's AMAZING.

[My Opinion Matters]

Didn't you just win a race or something like that?

It was target practice, and I lost miserably.

[My Opinion Matters]

LAS, quit derailing the thread. We're talking about nipples and boners here.

[I Am Right]

I love how some people can't understand Global Climate Change. :rolleyes:

34th Coldest Summer on Record

[Curly Bill]

34th Coldest Summer on Record

You're supposed to argue with him -- he likes that. :D

[Boarder]

I say it's the 34th coldest summer on cd. And you know that my clarity will be much better.

[Boarder]

http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-The-Beach-Boys-Endless-Summer.jpg

[LosAngelesSooner]

34th Coldest Summer on Record


I love how some people can't understand Global Climate Change. :rolleyes:Thank you for proving my point so easily.

Now, back to boners and nipples.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Not cold here, that's for sure. Most of June was 10 degrees warmer than average with a drought. The rest of the summer was no colder than usual...about 103-105 average heat index.
Not nipply, that's for sure. Can't say about shrinkage, however. :D

[KABOOKIE]

LAS must think we've been keeping records for 35 years.

[StoopTroup]

You guys should try the Afghani food down here. It's AMAZING.

Satan has Afghani Food?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Kabookie must think I find him interesting and insightful.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Sauron has Afghani Food?Fixed since I'm in New Zealand. :D

[KABOOKIE]

LAS must think he's all that.

[LosAngelesSooner]

*thinking to himself*

Man...I really AM all that.

[StoopTroup]

*thinking to himself*

Man...I really AM all that.

and a bag of chips!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mni7XKwXykY/SWUFhlsdAAI/AAAAAAAAASY/8uPLgMgaG0s/s400/MooMesaCowChips.jpg

[KABOOKIE]

It's too easy sometimes.

[tommieharris91]

34th Coldest Summer on Record---On Record.

Biggest myth in history, global warming. The wackos are currently wanting to regulate carbon dixiode, we exhale the stuff people. Spill 55 gals of fossel fuel on the ground and hear the sirens and red lights come a running. People in hasmat suits trying to clean up some fossel fuels and charging you half a million dollars. don't do a thing and wait a couple of months and where the spill was, green grass grows. Fossel fuels a natural substance and guess what bio-degradable. We went on a northern expedition, 30 days, and NO---wait for it--shrinking of glaciers, the glaciers are growing, you won't hear that on CNN or NBC, doesn't fit their narrative. Left up to the wackos we will all be driving cars with jibs on them and sending money to Washington to cover the DEC, Dept of Environmental Communisum. You are entillied to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Link please.

[LosAngelesSooner]

It's too easy sometimes.Yeah. Gorsh...I don't know HOW I fell for that one! :rolleyes:

[Condescending Sooner]

I love how some people can't understand Global Climate Change. :rolleyes:


That's the term they invented when "global warming" blew up in their face, right?

What do I win?

[Hot Rod]

I know a girl named Summer who is 34, and this is the coldest she's acted towards me in years, so that's probably what he's talking about.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Next up on stage at Valley Brook's finest...

SUMMER!

[Fraggle145]

34th Coldest Summer on Record---On Record.

Biggest myth in history, global warming. The wackos are currently wanting to regulate carbon dixiode, we exhale the stuff people. Spill 55 gals of fossel fuel on the ground and hear the sirens and red lights come a running. People in hasmat suits trying to clean up some fossel fuels and charging you half a million dollars. don't do a thing and wait a couple of months and where the spill was, green grass grows. Fossel fuels a natural substance and guess what bio-degradable. We went on a northern expedition, 30 days, and NO---wait for it--shrinking of glaciers, the glaciers are growing, you won't hear that on CNN or NBC, doesn't fit their narrative. Left up to the wackos we will all be driving cars with jibs on them and sending money to Washington to cover the DEC, Dept of Environmental Communisum. You are entillied to your own opinion but not your own facts.

This statement proves you dont understand global climate change.

Edit: Oh yeah, I like nipples...

Edit 2: Chips too.

[OklahomaTuba]

I guess its officially not global warming anymore???

Since its now Global Climate Change, does that mean the weather changes all over the earth now???

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I guess its officially not global warming anymore???

Since its now Global Climate Change, does that mean the weather changes all over the earth now???All it means is "eff-you, naysayers! Mankind, and especially the USA, is polluting the earth with its new-fangled way of life, and needs to pay the govt. until too broke to carry on with the prosperous lifestyle"...or, something to that effect.

[Fraggle145]

I guess its officially not global warming anymore???

Since its now Global Climate Change, does that mean the weather changes all over the earth now???

Its always been climate change in the scientific community.

Read a book.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Its always been climate change in the scientific community.

Read a book....and, BAH! HUMBUG! STOP POLLUTING, you Capitalist P*g!

(Sorry Fraggle. You teed it up too good!)

[Fraggle145]

...and, BAH! HUMBUG! STOP POLLUTING, you Capitalist P*g!

Stuff it you socialist nazi bastard.

If you knew anything about climate change you would know that the effects overall are not the same as localized effects that have extreme variability depending on all sorts of factors. Also you would know one of the predictions is with more variability comes more extremes in temperature, precipitation, etc...

[Half a Hundred]

That's the term they invented when "global warning" blew up in their face, right?

What do I win?

The logistics of warning the whole globe are a little more difficult than you'd think. I mean, there are 6.8 billion people on the planet - you'd have to warn ALL of them

[hellogoodbye]

The upcoming ice age sure is going to be fun. Now, what can we do to make it get here quicker? hmm

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The upcoming ice age sure is going to be fun. Now, what can we do to make it get here quicker? hmmThe main problem is emissions from human activity are blocking the warming rays of the sun(now, given that the earth is cooling), and we must pay a tax to the govt. to compensate.

[Fraggle145]

(Sorry Fraggle. You teed it up too good!)

I guess I didnt get the intention/inflection with the first post. :O

I wasn't saying that one way or another (i.e., whether or not it was bad)... And I dont see that capitalism necessarily has to go hand in hand with pollution. :confused:

I was just saying its always been termed climate change and/or anthropogenic climate change in the scientific community.

[hellogoodbye]

ahhh so if i pay half my paycheck to the guvment, that scary, unpredictable, climate thing, that we are only just beginning to scratch the surface in understanding - it will go away?

freaking awsome great jorb

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

ahhh so if i pay half my paycheck to the guvment, that scary, unpredictable, climate thing, that we are only just beginning to scratch the surface in understanding - it will go away?

freaking awsome great jorbYou now have a grasp of the Global Warmers. Corngrats!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That's not global warming, I farted.

[Jello Biafra]

Not cold here, that's for sure. Most of June was 10 degrees warmer than average with a drought. The rest of the summer was no colder than usual...about 103-105 average heat index.
Not nipply, that's for sure. Can't say about shrinkage, however. :D

because you live in a cursed state. try living somewhere that god cares about.

[PDXsooner]

are uneducated people aware of the fact that they're uneducated?

[Jello Biafra]

are uneducated people aware of the fact that they're uneducated?

some are, some aren't. i are.

[hellogoodbye]

are uneducated people aware of the fact that they're uneducated?


Better tell me to read a book quick! oh wait...

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't know if I'd read a book because PDX told me to. I might if a doctoral candidate in a related subject told me to.

[Fraggle145]

I don't know if I'd read a book because PDX told me to. I might if a doctoral candidate in a related subject told me to.

Who could that be? :confused:

[Frozen Sooner]

Who could that be? :confused:

Did they end up giving you the degree? If so, congratulations. Thought you were still collecting data for your dissertation.

[Fraggle145]

Did they end up giving you the degree? If so, congratulations. Thought you were still collecting data for your dissertation.

Ya I still am. Probably got about a year left (maybe 2 :(). Working on some grants for NSF right now and trying to get two papers out if I can just get my genetics stuff completely figured out. I also have at least 3-4 more potential projects on my plate (i need to get 2 of em finished too!).

[Jello Biafra]

trying to get two papers out if I can just get my genetics stuff completely figured out.



yeh you saw that thread yesterday about jamie lee curtis too? still trying to find out if that meat hangin in the trousers is a penii or roast beef curtains?









[jerkey boys]no no. i am just kidding.[/jerky boys]

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Working on some grants for NSF righT now...

H'ain't the bank supposed to CHARGE you, instead of GRANT you, for NSF's?

[OklahomaTuba]

I was just saying its always been termed climate change and/or anthropogenic climate change in the scientific community.James Hansen might disagree with you on this.

but then again, he's been wrong. a lot.

[Fraggle145]

H'ain't the bank supposed to CHARGE you, instead of GRANT you, for NSF's?

I dont think we are talking about the same NSF.

[LosAngelesSooner]

...and, BAH! HUMBUG! STOP POLLUTING, you Capitalist P*g!

(Sorry Fraggle. You teed it up too good!)Teed WHAT up?

Was that supposed to be a punchline?

Man...I wish you were at LEAST funny.

[LosAngelesSooner]

are uneducated people aware of the fact that they're uneducated?As evidenced in this very thread: NO.

But they think if they scream and are really sarcastic that it'll make them look like they're right and smart, instead of wrong and stupid, which it doesn't.

[Fraggle145]

James Hansen might disagree with you on this.

but then again, he's been wrong. a lot.

Reading some of his papers along with others from the early-mid 1980's tends to make me disagree with you. I dont think he even uses the term global warming in the title of a paper until 2002.

Although a warming trend is beginning to be mentioned in titles around 1986-87ish (I mean with a lot of support) the general terms associated with climate, temperature, and CO2 are impact, change, greenhouse and variability.

The reason it was coined global warming was that was the direction of the trends found on several different continents, by several different authors, in several global datasets, taken by several different methods (again this is in papers since like 1981).

Again however, let me say again, that just because the overall trend is for warming it is also for increased variability and the shifting of climate zones.

[Boarder]

Now, now, that dude may end up posting the link. Just hold on.

[Fraggle145]

Now, now, that dude may end up posting the link. Just hold on.

Heh. :D

[Fraggle145]

Teed WHAT up?

Was that supposed to be a punchline?

Man...I wish you were at LEAST funny.

I didnt get it either. :confused:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Now, now, that dude may end up posting the link. Just hold on.Which will TOTALLY prove it's a myth!!!1!1!!!1!!!!1

[LosAngelesSooner]

I didnt get it either. :confused:If he was at least funny, occasionally, even on accident (ala Sic'em) then all of his completely insane drivel might be tolerable.

[Fraggle145]

If he was at least funny, occasionally, even on accident (ala Sic'em) then all of his completely insane drivel might be tolerable.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif

;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSooner
"Teed WHAT up?

Was that supposed to be a punchline?

Man...I wish you were at LEAST funny."


You don't like being put on ignore very much, do you? haha

[Fraggle145]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSooner
"Teed WHAT up?

Was that supposed to be a punchline?

Man...I wish you were at LEAST funny."


You don't like being put on ignore very much, do you? haha

For ignoring somebody, you sure seem to enjoy tracking his posts whenever possible.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

For ignoring somebody, you sure seem to enjoy tracking his posts whenever possible.When he's quoted by you, who I don't have on ignore, I continue to see why he's on ignore. Complicated, haha.

[Jacie]

I still want to know about the "34th coldest summer on record". How many summers are on record total? Are you talking about since global weather statistics have been kept, which would make it 34th out of what, 150 or so, or is it 34th coldest over the last 500 years, which would then include the data set that encompasses the Little Ice Age that occurred around 1650? 1000 years? 10,000 years? Was it the 34th coldest summer in a particular spot on Earth or just generally colder all over the planet (except for the Southern Hemisphere, because it is winter there and you'd expect it to be cold)? Until you qualify exactly what 34 is in relation to, it kinda doesn't mean anything.

Just so we are all on the same page when discussing climate versus weather, I include this:

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You don't like being put on ignore very much, do you? haha

When he's quoted by you, who I don't have on ignore, I continue to see why he's on ignore. Complicated, haha.
I love when someone says, "haha" after their posts in an effort to pretend that the are funny.




ha





ha

[KABOOKIE]

Oh noes! Man made climate change?

[mikeelikee]

But, but, but......the science is settled! Just ask that noted climatologist, Algore! :rolleyes:

[Ike]

I have little to add...


except this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_Sampling

[tommieharris91]

I love when someone says, "haha" after their posts in an effort to pretend that the are funny.




ha





ha

When you quote RLIMC, I have to read his posts. Stop responding to his posts and maybe he'll go away.

[LosAngelesSooner]

He'll never go away.

He's like herpes.

[hellogoodbye]

As evidenced in this very thread: NO.

But they think if they scream and are really sarcastic that it'll make them look like they're right and smart, instead of wrong and stupid, which it doesn't.

Or perhaps, LAS, that some of us who are skeptical (read=not deniers, ywia) of AGW, find that sarcasm is the only response to give to the smarm oozing out of those who hold a different opinion.

Maybe its just me... or mabye there are others who find the knowitall condensending tone... less than appropriate of an environment for an honest discussion (one in which folks like me who are not convinced one way or the other might gain some enlightenment from others who have different backgrounds\fields of scholorship\life experiences, etc).

eh?

but wait - i should read a book... classy

[Fraggle145]

Or perhaps, LAS, that some of us who are skeptical (read=not deniers, ywia) of AGW, find that sarcasm is the only response to give to the smarm oozing out of those who hold a different opinion.

Maybe its just me... or mabye there are others who find the knowitall condensending tone... less than appropriate of an environment for an honest discussion (one in which folks like me who are not convinced one way or the other might gain some enlightenment from others who have different backgrounds\fields of scholorship\life experiences, etc).

eh?

but wait - i should read a book... classy

You should. The reason why I say that is because it is evident by what you bring to the table for discussion. The majority of so called skeptics have no background in the field and show no depth of knowledge on the subject. Similar to what you have shown throughout this thread. So it is misclassified as skepticism, when in fact it is ignorance, pure and simple. If it seems like people are being condescending its because we (or at least I) are tired of hearing that people are skeptical when you can tell they haven't read any of the papers or the research and are instead taking sound bites from the biased news source of their choice rather than listening to people with lifetimes of experience, knowledge, and training in the field because they don't like what they have to say and it isnt what they want to hear.

[OklahomaTuba]

The majority of so called skeptics have no background in the field and show no depth of knowledge on the subject.And the majority of AGW believers do????

Even with your vast and glorious intellect (way beyond the scope of anything us simpletons can't even begin to comprehend) you can understand how dumb that argument is.

[My Opinion Matters]

And the majority of AGW believers do????

Even with your vast and glorious intellect (way beyond the scope of anything us simpletons can't even begin to comprehend) you can understand how dumb that argument is.

Tuba, his point was that if you're going to argue on a subject with an individual that has actually education/experience relevant to that subject, prepared to get schooled if you come armed with little more than heresy and conjecture.

For example, if I were to engage you in an argument on the most effective way to copy-and-paste articles that support my partisan shill persona, you would likely take me to task.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba, his point was that if you're going to argue on a subject with an individual that has actually education/experience relevant to that subject, prepared to get schooled if you come armed with little more than heresy and conjecture.What's interesting is that most of the "heresy and conjecture" is actually more factual than the "scientific data" that is often thrown out by the AGW fear mongerers.

But Algore, James Hansen, etc would never do such a thing though.

Now excuse me, its cold and I need to turn the heat up in my office.

[My Opinion Matters]

What's interesting is that most of the "heresy and conjecture" is actually more factual than the "scientific data" that is often thrown out by the AGW fear mongerers.

But Algore, James Hansen, etc would never do such a thing though.

Now excuse me, its cold and I need to turn the heat up in my office.

You're probably not the most qualified or impartial person to designate what's factual and what isn't.

[Fraggle145]

And the majority of AGW believers do????

Even with your vast and glorious intellect (way beyond the scope of anything us simpletons can't even begin to comprehend) you can understand how dumb that argument is.

If they are "believers" then they are just as retarded. If they accept this conclusion because that is what they get after looking at the data and the extent of knowledge of the field then that is totally different and has nothing to do with belief. They should also be ready to have this point and its prediction they have accepted completely disproved and thus the hypothesis behind it rejected.

And for the record my "intellect" has nothing to do with the discussion. I happen to have a greater depth of knowledge on the subject than say someone who gets their information from TV or the newspaper because I have read it in the primary literature.

Hence the depth of knowledge of the researchers actually working in the subject and doing climate experiments and modeling would be (MUCH) greater than mine. It has nothing to do with how smart I may or may not be.

[Fraggle145]

What's interesting is that most of the "heresy and conjecture" is actually more factual than the "scientific data" that is often thrown out by the AGW fear mongerers.

But Algore, James Hansen, etc would never do such a thing though.

Now excuse me, its cold and I need to turn the heat up in my office.

Have you actually read anything that James Hansen has published in the research literature?

[1890MilesToNorman]

Actual data and media coverage of the data are worlds apart.

[OklahomaTuba]

Have you actually ready anything that James Hansen has published in the research literature?Being in the pollution control (CO2, NOx, SOx, VOx, etc) business for many years, yes.

I remember seeing a nice little book with global warming on the title. Think it was written back in the 80's. Long before they found out the temperature & pressure sensors were f'ked up.

The climatologist from OU that we used as a consultant there was very interesting to talk to about the subject.

[I Am Right]

You guys just send em your money,not mine!

[Fraggle145]

Being in the pollution control (CO2, NOx, SOx, VOx, etc) business for many years, yes.

I remember seeing a nice little book with global warming on the title. Think it was written back in the 80's. Long before they found out the temperature & pressure sensors were f'ked up.

The climatologist from OU that we used as a consultant there was very interesting to talk to about the subject.

After looking at Hansen's CV I dont see what book you are talking about.

And which temperature and pressure sensors were ****ed up? all of them? The entire dataset of every temperature sensor in the entire world?

Which climatologist? Should I guess? And regardless I am sure they would be considering they are a climatologist.

[Fraggle145]

You guys just send em your money,not mine!

Oh you are back? Did you find a link for us yet?

[OklahomaTuba]

After looking at Hansen's CV I dont see what book you are talking about.

And which temperature and pressure sensors were ****ed up? all of them? The entire dataset of every temperature sensor in the entire world?

Which climatologist? Should I guess? And regardless I am sure they would be considering they are a climatologist.He may not have been the primary author of the book, but I remember our R&D department had it, and it did say global warming, not global climate change. If I have time I will look it up.

And since that fraud greatly influenced the regulations that drove our product development for refineries, chemical plants, etc, he was someone who we and our customers had to watch very closely.

[I Am Right]

Oh you are back? Did you find a link for us yet?

Look it up, or are you to fraggled.

[tommieharris91]

Look it up, or are you to fraggled.

So in other words you don't have a link and just pulled this information and conclusion out of your ***...

[SCOUT]

Have you actually read anything that James Hansen has published in the research literature?
About 30 seconds on google and...


Flannery concludes, as I have, that we have only a short time to address global warming before it runs out of control. However, his call for people to reduce their CO2 emissions, while appropriate, oversimplifies and diverts attention from the essential requirement: government leadership.

He mentions global warming about 50 times, but this quote captures the he not only agrees with global warming, not just climate change, but that government is the way to fix it.

From:
Volume 53, Number 12 · July 13, 2006
The Threat to the Planet
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131

[Condescending Sooner]

About 30 seconds on google and...



He mentions global warming about 50 times, but this quote captures the he not only agrees with global warming, not just climate change, but that government is the way to fix it.

From:
Volume 53, Number 12 · July 13, 2006
The Threat to the Planet
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131


Fraggle??? Owned much?

[I Am Right]

So in other words you don't have a link and just pulled this information and conclusion out of your ***...

Wow, that furthers your argument. In other words, LOOK IT UP.

[tommieharris91]

Wow, that furthers your argument. In other words, LOOK IT UP.

I'm just doing what you've already done, which is throw something out lazily and attribute a conclusion (which may or may not actually be your own) to yourself. For all I know, you've copied and pasted a piece of someone else's article in your OP and called it your own.

ADD: It's as simple as copy/paste. All ya gotta do is paste the URL into the text box and post it.

[I Am Right]

I'm just doing what you've already done, which is throw something out lazily and attribute a conclusion (which may or may not actually be your own) to yourself. For all I know, you've copied and pasted a piece of someone else's article in your OP and called it your own.

ADD: It's as simple as copy/paste. All ya gotta do is paste the URL into the text box and post it.

It is called projection, don't know what it means, look it, oh well never mind.

[tommieharris91]

It is called projection, don't know what it means, look it, oh well never mind.

All I'm asking for is a link to your info. I asked nicely for a link to you OP on the 2nd page of this thread without an answer. Others here have asked for a link to where you found this information as soon as you came back to this thread, yet you haven't provided anything. So I'll ask what I asked 70 posts ago (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2703570&postcount=26):


Link please.

[Fraggle145]

About 30 seconds on google and...



He mentions global warming about 50 times, but this quote captures the he not only agrees with global warming, not just climate change, but that government is the way to fix it.

From:
Volume 53, Number 12 · July 13, 2006
The Threat to the Planet
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131

If you would have read my posts in the thread (here let me get those for you)

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2703972&postcount=34

Its always been climate change in the scientific community.

Read a book.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2703990&postcount=40

I guess I didnt get the intention/inflection with the first post. :O

I wasn't saying that one way or another (i.e., whether or not it was bad)... And I dont see that capitalism necessarily has to go hand in hand with pollution. :confused:

I was just saying its always been termed climate change and/or anthropogenic climate change in the scientific community.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2704092&postcount=58


Reading some of his papers along with others from the early-mid 1980's tends to make me disagree with you. I dont think he even uses the term global warming in the title of a paper until 2002.

Although a warming trend is beginning to be mentioned in titles around 1986-87ish (I mean with a lot of support) the general terms associated with climate, temperature, and CO2 are impact, change, greenhouse and variability.

The reason it was coined global warming was that was the direction of the trends found on several different continents, by several different authors, in several global datasets, taken by several different methods (again this is in papers since like 1981).

Again however, let me say again, that just because the overall trend is for warming it is also for increased variability and the shifting of climate zones.


you would have seen where I said ALWAYS and IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE that the term is global climate change. Go read his papers starting in 1981 in Science, then we can talk about how much he uses the term global warming. That (article that you cited) is a popular article, huge difference.

He is also only one of thousands of scientists that research climate change. And like I said if you check his papers and his CV you would know he doesnt use the term global warming in the title of a paper until 2002 - 20 YEARS after this topic first started to be addressed due to the warming trend found in essentially every dataset that had been analyzed to that point. I also said in my second post in the thread I was staying out of whether or not it was bad in my second post. However, you quoted:


Flannery concludes, as I have, that we have only a short time to address global warming before it runs out of control. However, his call for people to reduce their CO2 emissions, while appropriate, oversimplifies and diverts attention from the essential requirement: government leadership.

IMO he doesnt say its the governments job to "fix it" he says that they need to lead in addressing the problem. Big difference there too.

Overall, I would just appreciate it if you dont take me out of context anymore and actually read my posts before you try to refute them with something that doesnt even apply.

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle??? Owned much?

No.

Again, read a book. :D

Or perhaps read what I actually post would be more appropriate. :eek:

[SCOUT]

If you would have read my posts in the thread (here let me get those for you)

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2703972&postcount=34


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2703990&postcount=40


http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2704092&postcount=58




you would have seen where I said ALWAYS and IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE that the term is global climate change. Go read his papers starting in 1981 in Science, then we can talk about how much he uses the term global warming. That is a popular article, huge difference.

He is also only one of thousands of scientists that research climate change. And like I said if you check his papers and his CV you would know he doesnt use the term global warming in the title of a paper until 2002 - 20 YEARS after this topic first started to be addressed due to the warming trend found in essentially every dataset that had been analyzed to that point. I also said in my second post in the thread I was staying out of whether or not it was bad in my second post. However, you quoted:



IMO he doesnt say its the governments job to "fix it" he says that they need to lead in addressing the problem. Big difference there too.

Overall, I would just appreciate it if you dont take me out of context anymore and actually read my posts before you try to refute them with something that doesnt even apply.

Ummm... OK. You said

Its always been climate change in the scientific community.

Read a book.
So I posted a link to an article where the person you recommended we read is reviewing three books on the subject of global warming. It seemed straight forward to me. Were those books or his commentary not in the realm of the scientific community?

[Fraggle145]

Ummm... OK. You said

So I posted a link to an article where the person you recommended we read is reviewing three books on the subject of global warming. It seemed straight forward to me. Were those books or his commentary not in the realm of the scientific community?

They are book reviews, and although about the scientific community (I think Flannery is the only author that is a scientist, besides Hansen and these arent his books... Al Gore sure as hell isnt one, he is a politician :() are not the same thing as the scientific literature. Also I said (granted indirectly) that the term has always been global climate change that doesnt mean that it isnt also referred to as global warming. But I also said that is because that is the way all of the datasets are trending.

here are some links to some examples of what I am talking about. they are .pdf files... I am not sure if they will work.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf

[abOUtwinning]

In the first Earth Day in 1970, UC Davis's Kenneth Watt said, "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." International Wildlife warned "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war" as a threat to mankind. Science Digest said "we must prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor noted that armadillos had moved out of Nebraska because it was too cold, glaciers had begun to advance, and growing seasons had shortened around the world. Newsweek reported "ominous signs" of a "fundamental change in the world's weather."
But in fact, every one of these statements was wrong. Fears of an ice age had vanished within five years, to be replaced by fears of global warming.
Michael Crichton

[Fraggle145]

In the first Earth Day in 1970, UC Davis's Kenneth Watt said, "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." International Wildlife warned "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war" as a threat to mankind. Science Digest said "we must prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor noted that armadillos had moved out of Nebraska because it was too cold, glaciers had begun to advance, and growing seasons had shortened around the world. Newsweek reported "ominous signs" of a "fundamental change in the world's weather."
But in fact, every one of these statements was wrong. Fears of an ice age had vanished within five years, to be replaced by fears of global warming.
Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton is not a scientist. Also technology changed a lot since 1970 to 1980. I mean dont you want your scientists to stay current and use the best technology available?

If you read the second paper that I posted from Hansen during which time the GISS first really published you can see that cooling trend. however in the in later years it goes back up. And the overall trend since 1890 is still up.

[SCOUT]

They are book reviews, and although about the scientific community (I think Flannery is the only author that is a scientist, besides Hansen and these arent his books... Al Gore sure as hell isnt one, he is a politician :() are not the same thing as the scientific literature. Also I said (granted indirectly) that the term has always been global climate change that doesnt mean that it isnt also referred to as global warming. But I also said that is because that is the way all of the datasets are trending.

here are some links to some examples of what I am talking about. they are .pdf files... I am not sure if they will work.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf

Your advice was to read a book so I found some books. You mentioned a particular person so I found some of his writings about those books.

I would never consider Al Gore a member of the scientific community but he sure as hell has been paraded in front of us as the beacon of truth regarding this topic. He won the freakin Nobel Peace Prize for it. The IPCC is part of the scientific community, no?

Anyway, I really didn't intend for this to become a major point in this thread. You made a claim that I thought was untrue, or are least partially untrue, so I posted some information about it. That about sums up my involvement.

Carry on.

[Curly Bill]

Your advice was to read a book so I found some books. You mentioned a particular person so I found some of his writings about those books.

I would never consider Al Gore a member of the scientific community but he sure as hell has been paraded in front of us as the beacon of truth regarding this topic. He won the freakin Nobel Peace Prize for it. The IPCC is part of the scientific community, no?

Anyway, I really didn't intend for this to become a major point in this thread. You made a claim that I thought was untrue, or are least partially untrue, so I posted some information about it. That about sums up my involvement.

Carry on.

Let me sum it up for you SCOUT: you're not a scientist, so you know nothing!!! :D

[SCOUT]

Let me sum it up for you SCOUT: you're not a scientist, so you know nothing!!! :D

You don't know that. I could be rocket surgeon for all you know ;)

[Curly Bill]

You don't know that. I could be rocket surgeon for all you know ;)

Cool, I bet that pays pretty well. Am I right? :D

[Fraggle145]

Your advice was to read a book so I found some books. You mentioned a particular person so I found some of his writings about those books.

I would never consider Al Gore a member of the scientific community but he sure as hell has been paraded in front of us as the beacon of truth regarding this topic. He won the freakin Nobel Peace Prize for it. The IPCC is part of the scientific community, no?

Anyway, I really didn't intend for this to become a major point in this thread. You made a claim that I thought was untrue, or are least partially untrue, so I posted some information about it. That about sums up my involvement.

Carry on.

The IPCC is made up like half and half members of the community and politicians. Their report when they made it was a good summary of the data to that point.

I wasnt trying to say if you arent a scientist you dont get an opinion. I was just trying to say people need to be informed. I probably should have said read the literature. Point taken.

[Fraggle145]

Look it up, or are you to fraggled.

Is this the link you were talking about?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html (http://smouch.net/lol/)

[abOUtwinning]

Michael Crichton is not a scientist. Also technology changed a lot since 1970 to 1980. I mean dont you want your scientists to stay current and use the best technology available?

If you read the second paper that I posted from Hansen during which time the GISS first really published you can see that cooling trend. however in the in later years it goes back up. And the overall trend since 1890 is still up.

I posted the Crichton quote as an example of what is wrong with the environmental movement. I think scientists should do all the research, recording, analysis that they want, but don't mix these findings with politics and try to pass legislation based on the findings. Too many predictions and findings are found to be off the mark or just plain wrong.

[OklahomaTuba]

Let me sum it up for you SCOUT: you're not a scientist, so you know nothing!!! :DHa! Probably the best post on this entire thread.

[1890MilesToNorman]

The only prediction science is capable of is the 5 day weather forecast and they get that wrong a lot of the time. Do you really want to believe their 5yr, 10yr, 50yr forecasts? That's putting a lot of FAITH in to something that is impossible.

[I Am Right]

Summer 2009 colder than normal, NOAA says
Posted by Michael Scott, The Plain Dealer September 10, 2009 16:11PM
Categories: Breaking News, Environment, Real Time News, Weather

John Kuntz/The Plain Dealer
You'd scream too, if the summer of 2009 were any colder across the United States. U.S. climate scientists Thursday announced that this June-August was among the coldest on record. (Actually, Alexandra Rice, 8, of Olmsted Falls was screaming because she thought the gulls she was feeding cheese puffs at Huntington Beach in early August were coming after her, but you get the point.) You just knew it was cool this summer -- and you were right. Well, at least across most of the country.
For the second day in a row, the nation's top weather and climate agency released a report sure to stoke the fires of debate among climate change believers and non-believers.

On Wednesday, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a new report that said there was greater certainty that aerosols -- the material more commonly known as "haze," the tiny airborne particles from pollution and burning of biomass -- are leading to a net cooling of the atmosphere that is in competition the green house gases causing warming.

Today, NOAA's climate arm, the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced that the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average -- the 34th coolest on record.

The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.

NOAA's climate officials said a "a recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states," where a number of states came near their record low for the three-month summer: Michigan (5th coldest), Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota (all 7th coldest), Nebraska (8th coldest) and Iowa (9th coldest).

There were more than 300 low temperature records (counting daily highs and lows) set across states in the Midwest during the last two days of August.

In Northeast Ohio, however, despite an impression that we were colder than normal - we really weren't.

We actually finished nearly a degree (0.8) above normal on average for the three months of summer.

On the other hand, we had high temperatures below normal on 61 of the 100 days between Memorial Day and Labor Day, which is why it felt so cool.

Generally, that means that a handful of very warm days brought the average up, but there were still many more days that were actually colder than normal this summer.

Elsewhere, Florida had its fourth warmest summer, while Washington and Texas experienced their eighth and ninth warmest, respectively.

In August alone, the average 2009 August temperature of 72.2 degrees F was 0.6 degree F below the 20th Century average. Last year's August temperature was 73.2 degrees F.

The rest of the report said:

• Temperatures were below normal in the Midwest, Plains, and parts of the south. Above-normal temperatures dominated the eastern seaboard, areas in the southwest, and in the extreme northwest.

• Several northeastern states were much above normal for August, including Delaware and New Jersey (eighth warmest), Maine (ninth), and Rhode Island and Connecticut (10th). In contrast, below-normal temperatures were recorded for Missouri and Kansas.

Regarding rainfall:

• The Northeast region had its eighth wettest June-August summer on record. By contrast, the South, Southeast and Southwest regions, were drier than average. Arizona had its third driest summer, while both South Carolina and Georgia had their sixth driest.


• In August, precipitation across the contiguous United States averaged 2.34 inches, which is 0.26 inch below the 1901-2000 average.

• Above-normal averages were generally recorded across the northern United States, west of the Great Lakes. The South and Southeast regions experienced below-normal precipitation.

• Precipitation across the Southwest region averaged 0.85 inches, which is 1.10 inches below normal and ranks as the 4th driest August on record. Arizona had its fourth driest, New Mexico its fifth, and it was the eighth driest August on record for Colorado, Utah and Texas.

• By the end of August, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 14 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought intensified in parts of the Pacific Northwest and new drought areas emerged in Arizona and the Carolinas. Montana, Wisconsin and Oklahoma saw minor improvements in their drought conditions.

• About 27 percent of the contiguous United States had moderately-to-extremely wet conditions at the end of August, according to the Palmer Index (a well-known index that measures both drought intensity and wet spell intensity).


NCDC's preliminary reports, which assess the current state of the climate, are released soon after the end of each month. These analyses are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC's
processing algorithms.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Maine shattered rainfall records this year for June and July by a couple inches in each month. Jes saying.

[OklahomaTuba]

Wonder how old those records are though...

[1890MilesToNorman]

I wouldn't know, I'm just relaying what the newscasters told me after 6 or 7 weeks of rain every day. :D

[mdklatt]

NOAA: Warmest Global Sea-Surface Temperatures for August and Summer

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html


The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August


[T]he combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998. For the June-August 2009 season, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was third warmest on record.



* The June-August worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the warmest on record at 62.5 degrees F, 1.04 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F.

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the June-August season was 61.2 degrees F, which is the third warmest on record and 1.06 degrees F above the 20th century average of 60.1 degrees F.




* The worldwide ocean surface temperature of 62.4 degrees F was the warmest on record for any August, and 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.4 degrees F.

* Separately, the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record.

...

* The Southern Hemisphere average temperatures for land and ocean surface combined were the warmest on record for August.

[OklahomaTuba]

Again, I wonder how old those records are...

[Fraggle145]

The only prediction science is capable of is the 5 day weather forecast and they get that wrong a lot of the time. Do you really want to believe their 5yr, 10yr, 50yr forecasts? That's putting a lot of FAITH in to something that is impossible.

Weather and climate are different and predicting them is totally different.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Weather and climate are different and predicting them is totally different.

I wonder which predictions have been more accurate over the years? :D

[mdklatt]

Again, I wonder how old those records are...

Click on the link and see for yourself. I think they're using 1880 as the first year.

[OklahomaTuba]

Click on the link and see for yourself. I think they're using 1880 as the first year.So you think 130 years is really long enough to determine if any warming or cooling trends of the oceans is significant??? I don't.

Not to mention geophysical sensors weren't invented until the 1920s or so.

[I Am Right]

So you think 130 years is really long enough to determine if any warming or cooling trends of the oceans is significant??? I don't.

Not to mention geophysical sensors weren't invented until the 1920s or so.

Gosh, how many cars were on the road 130 yrs ago? aaaaah- I know, horse gas.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fraggle, I can't believe that you think your years of formal scientific training somehow makes you more qualified to discuss scientific matters than the guy working the Fryolater during the noon rush. You're obviously trying to suppress the marketplace of ideas.

[Jello Biafra]

Fraggle, I can't believe that you think your years of formal scientific training somehow makes you more qualified to discuss scientific matters than the guy working the Fryolater during the noon rush. You're obviously trying to suppress the marketplace of ideas.

werd ta big bird.....

im just trying to figure out who is the pic in freaking i am right's avatar lol...

all i know is im doing my part to get rid of the methane gas. i (my family) eat at LEAST 10lbs of beef per week.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fraggle, I can't believe that you think your years of formal scientific training somehow makes you more qualified to discuss scientific matters than the guy working the Fryolater during the noon rush. You're obviously trying to suppress the marketplace of ideas.

Tuba, I can't believe that you think your work experience with weather patterns and climate makes you think you're more qualified to discuss matters pertaining to weather patterns and climate than (say) a pet rock. What, only people who work with these matters get to have an opinion?

[mdklatt]

So you think 130 years is really long enough to determine if any warming or cooling trends of the oceans is significant??? I don't.


Show your work, then. I mean you've obviously done a statistical analysis of what is and isn't a significant period of record for deducing climatological trends, right?


Not to mention geophysical sensors weren't invented until the 1920s or so.

WTF are you talking about now? The thermometer was invented almost 1000 years ago. Meteorological observations have been taken for over 300 years. Marine observations go back to the 18th Century or earlier.

[49r]

Trees and ice cores can give us very accurate data that goes back eons, too. Naturally not daily highs and lows but you can get a pretty decent feel for trends.

[KABOOKIE]

Trees and ice cores can give us very accurate data that goes back eons, too. Naturally not daily highs and lows but you can get a pretty decent feel for trends.

Down to the tenth of a degree!!! Right.

[Curly Bill]

Well, I just finished diving this past weekend at Poor Knight's Island, here in New Zealand off the coast of the North Island in the South Pacific Ocean, and the water temp was 63 degrees Fahrenheit. Take it for what it's worth.

Good thing for global warming, or you'd have froze your *** off. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

63 degrees AIN'T eggzaktly WARM. ;)

[Curly Bill]

63 degrees AIN'T eggzaktly WARM. ;)

Indeed...

...and I deduce from this that the earth is in a cooling mode, and thus global warming is a buncha crap. :D

[Curly Bill]

Unless you check how close I am to Antarctica and then ask yourself if the water coming directly off the Arctic Shelf should be 63 degrees. ;)

Hey, did you see those Whale Wars peeps while out there? :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Plus the fact that it's winter in Ennzedd.

[Fraggle145]

Plus the fact that it's winter in Ennzedd.

Guess you could say its a titty bit nippley.

And we have come full circle. :P

[Frozen Sooner]

Not to be a pedantic ***, but:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224052008AADGV8d

First day of Spring in the Southern Hemisphere is September 21. ;)

And who'm I kidding? I love being a pedantic ***. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't hate the player, hate the calendar. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

And not to be a pedantic ***, but the seasons on land do not correspond directly with the seasons beneath the surface of the world's oceans.

For instance, the water off the coast of Southern California is warmest and most clear during the fall and winter months of September - January. ;)

[I Am Right]

Did I step on the wacko lefts third rail with facts about global cooling?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Did I step on the intelligent and educated people's third rail with facts about global climate change?Considering how incredibly and unbelievably wrong you are in your conclusions, nah.

We're just having a good chuckle at your expense. ;)

[Curly Bill]

I'm not chuckling...

...I tend to be dead serious when I'm on this here board.

[Fraggle145]

Did I step on the wacko lefts third rail with facts about global cooling?

Yay! we got another crazy right wing nutjob on the board. :D

More divisive partisan rhetoric please!!

Hurray for the assault on intellectualism!!

You, Tuba, and RLIMC should go make a love child.

[LosAngelesSooner]

He, Tuba and RLiMC ARE love children. How else could you explain the birth defects? ;)

[Curly Bill]

Yay! we got another crazy right wing nutjob on the board. :D

More divisive partisan rhetoric please!!

Hurray for the assault on intellectualism!!

You, Tuba, and RLIMC should go make a love child.


Cause everyone knows we don't have any crazies on the other side.

[Fraggle145]

I was just saying another one makes me ****ing ecstatic! :D

[SteelCitySooner]

So when is 'climate change' new? wimps.. ;)

[mdklatt]

Did I step on the wacko lefts third rail with facts about global cooling?

You think that a three-month period in the US proves anything about global climate?

[mdklatt]

Gosh, how many cars were on the road 130 yrs ago? aaaaah- I know, horse gas.

While we're at it, please explain what you think this means.

[mdklatt]

Not to mention geophysical sensors weren't invented until the 1920s or so.

And I really want Tuba to explain this.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The first part of the thread makes me think of the USC sweater girls in the cold. And that makes me happy.

The rest of this thread just sucks.

[mdklatt]

The first part of the thread makes me think of the USC sweater girls in the cold. And that makes me happy.

The rest of this thread just sucks.

Sweater Girls = overrated

EDIT: Aren't they called Song Girls?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Sweater Girls = overrated

EDIT: Aren't they called Song Girls?

Spoken like a girl!

I don't know what they're called. I'm just all about the tight sweaters and cold weather.

[mdklatt]

Spoken like a girl!

I don't know what they're called. I'm just all about the tight sweaters and cold weather.

I could walk outside right now and find a dozen hotter girls in 10 minutes. The SoCal plastic look doesn't do it for me. And it gets a lot colder here in Oklahoma than it does in LA. :texan:

[PDXsooner]

this debate has no potential for success as long as the partisan divide continues to infect the topic. the fact that the climate has become divided along party lines should make all americans (and earthlings, for that matter) want to vomit.

[NormanPride]

As long as it costs about the same, why wouldn't you want to be cleaner and more efficient?

[mdklatt]

As long as it costs about the same, why wouldn't you want to be cleaner and more efficient?

AGDS

[49r]

Down to the tenth of a degree!!! Right.

Yep, and not only that ice cores can provide plenty of other useful measurements:

http://nicl.usgs.gov/why.htm

Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information --more so than any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or sediment layers. Although their record is short (in geologic terms), it can be highly detailed. An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record extending back hundreds of thousands of years. This record can include temperature, precipitation , chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity and a variety of other climate indicators. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.

But yeah, hundreds of thousands of years of detailed data are certainly trumped by a single news article declaring that one summer is a tad chilly therefore global climate change or warming or whatever you wanna call it is a total hoax. :rolleyes:

[Frozen Sooner]

AGDS

Dude, they may not be the best house on campus, but that's no reason to call them dirty and inefficient. I liked those girls.

[Fraggle145]

Anybody got a donut?

[Pricetag]

As long as it costs about the same, why wouldn't you want to be cleaner and more efficient?
Because it isn't as bad ***.

[OklahomaTuba]

And I really want Tuba to explain this.Explain what? Common sense?? I'm not sure that's possible with you.

[KABOOKIE]

Yep, and not only that ice cores can provide plenty of other useful measurements:

http://nicl.usgs.gov/why.htm


But yeah, hundreds of thousands of years of detailed data are certainly trumped by a single news article declaring that one summer is a tad chilly therefore global climate change or warming or whatever you wanna call it is a total hoax. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know what they're trying to do. I'm saying there's some BS involved with it. I can take two PhD climatologist and give them the same tools. Put on in my backyard and the other in my front yard and ask them to measure the average temperature for an 8 hour period. I'll bet any money these two PhD's would be off from each other by more than a tenth of a degree. yet they want to tell me they can accurately measure the temperature 400 years ago to within one tenth. Right.

[OklahomaTuba]

I remember an article from a few years back discussing how using tiny air bubbles in ice cores to measure CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't all that accurate. I'll try to find, as it seemed pretty devastating to the whole fear mongering crowd trying to scare us into giving them tax-supported grant money to pay for their totally unbiased research.

[49r]

Yeah, I know what they're trying to do. I'm saying there's some BS involved with it. I can take two PhD climatologist and give them the same tools. Put on in my backyard and the other in my front yard and ask them to measure the average temperature for an 8 hour period. I'll bet any money these two PhD's would be off from each other by more than a tenth of a degree. yet they want to tell me they can accurately measure the temperature 400 years ago to within one tenth. Right.

So going by that logic, you can safely assume that science is, well, inexact right?

For example, using the methods we use now to measure oh say, the distance from the earth to the moon, or how fast they are both traveling in relation to each other, or their sizes and the force of gravity that each exerts - you could gather a bunch of PhD's in say, Houston and you'd bet any money they wouldn't be able to measure any of that stuff with any accuracy. Even using the most modern of tools.

However, we still managed to land a man there, and without incredibly accurate measurements we wouldn't have been able to even get close. So how do you explain that away? Or was the moon landing a hoax too?

[OklahomaTuba]

So going by that logic, you can safely assume that science is, well, inexact right?

For example, using the methods we use now to measure oh say, the distance from the earth to the moon, or how fast they are both traveling in relation to each other, or their sizes and the force of gravity that each exerts - you could gather a bunch of PhD's in say, Houston and you'd bet any money they wouldn't be able to measure any of that stuff with any accuracy. Even using the most modern of tools.

However, we still managed to land a man there, and without incredibly accurate measurements we wouldn't have been able to even get close. So how do you explain that away? Or was the moon landing a hoax too?Wow, really having to stretch there, aren't ya?? HAHA!

[49r]

I remember an article from a few years back discussing how using tiny air bubbles in ice cores to measure CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't all that accurate. I'll try to find, as it seemed pretty devastating to the whole fear mongering crowd trying to scare us into giving them tax-supported grant money to pay for their totally unbiased research.

You could read an article that explains how tax supported grant money is funding research for finding ways to make unicorns fly out of your *** and you'd believe it if the article helped you promote your agenda.

Doesn't necessarily make what you read true. Doesn't necessarily make it not true either, but I'm just sayin'

[49r]

Wow, really having to stretch there, aren't ya?? HAHA!

Heh, no more than anyone else around here...

[I Am Right]

While we're at it, please explain what you think this means.

Read the thread Klatt.

[mdklatt]

Explain what?

You said "geophysical sensors weren't invented until the 1920s". Since this is demonstrably false, I'm trying to figure out if you're a liar or you don't know WTF you're talking about.

[mdklatt]

Read the thread Klatt.

I have read the thread. You didn't, or else you wouldn't still be going on about "the facts of global cooling" when data from NCDC--the place you got the "34th coolest summer" bit in the first place--bitch slaps that argument.

You went off about horse gas in the 1880s as if you had a point, so I'm just trying to figure out what that is. I guess it can't be warmer now than it was in the 1880s because there weren't a lot of cars in the 1880s? Or something?

[mdklatt]

yet they want to tell me they can accurately measure the temperature 400 years ago to within one tenth. Right.

1880 is 400 years ago? Aren't you an engineer or something? Surely you took at least one stats class and learned about accuracy vs. precision, random error, bias, and all that jazz.

[OklahomaTuba]

You said "geophysical sensors weren't invented until the 1920s". Since this is demonstrably false, I'm trying to figure out if you're a liar or you don't know WTF you're talking about.Well, considering I currently work for the company that invented them..

By the way, the guy that did invent them also founded what became Texas Instruments and was an OU grad.

[mdklatt]

Well, considering I currently work for the company that invented them..


Invented what? WTF is a "geophysical sensor" in Tuba World, and how does its existence invalidate temperature records from the 1880s?

[OklahomaTuba]

Invented what? WTF is a "geophysical sensor" in Tuba World, and how does its existence invalidate temperature records from the 1880s?Are you asking cause you think you know? You could just go look it up, they are pretty-common in oil exploration on-shore and off-shore to get pressure and temperature data.

The original 1920's design is still very common place overseas, as it can stand up to over 200C and 20K psi. The new stuff with circuit boards and memory can't even come close for less than $100,000 a pop. And then you only get about 24-28 hours worth of data.

[mdklatt]

Are you asking cause you think you know? You could just go look it up, they are pretty-common in oil exploration on-shore and off-shore to get pressure and temperature data.

Yes, I think I know what barometers and thermometers are. And they existed in various forms long before 1920. So whatever your company makes is completely irrelevant to ocean temperature measurements in the 1880s. So are you a liar or just completely uninformed on the subject of climate data?

[mikeelikee]

Yes, I think I know what barometers and thermometers are. And they existed in various forms long before 1920. So whatever your company makes is completely irrelevant to ocean temperature measurements in the 1880s. So are you a liar or just completely uninformed on the subject of climate data?

Klatt, if you were in Congress, you couldn't call him a liar. Get with the program, man--we're living in the PC Age of Obama.

[mdklatt]

Klatt, if you were in Congress, you couldn't call him a liar. Get with the program, man--we're living in the PC Age of Obama.

I didn't call him a liar, I'm asking him if he's lying. Unlike Joe Wilson, I know what Tuba is saying is in fact wrong. I just don't know if he knows it.

[I Am Right]

I have read the thread. You didn't, or else you wouldn't still be going on about "the facts of global cooling" when data from NCDC--the place you got the "34th coolest summer" bit in the first place--bitch slaps that argument.

You went off about horse gas in the 1880s as if you had a point, so I'm just trying to figure out what that is. I guess it can't be warmer now than it was in the 1880s because there weren't a lot of cars in the 1880s? Or something?

Really!

[KABOOKIE]

1880 is 400 years ago? Aren't you an engineer or something? Surely you took at least one stats class and learned about accuracy vs. precision, random error, bias, and all that jazz.

Ha. Didn't you take reading comp? :D

1880 =recorded data.

Ice core samples = 400 year old data.

[KABOOKIE]

So going by that logic, you can safely assume that science is, well, inexact right?

For example, using the methods we use now to measure oh say, the distance from the earth to the moon, or how fast they are both traveling in relation to each other, or their sizes and the force of gravity that each exerts - you could gather a bunch of PhD's in say, Houston and you'd bet any money they wouldn't be able to measure any of that stuff with any accuracy. Even using the most modern of tools.

However, we still managed to land a man there, and without incredibly accurate measurements we wouldn't have been able to even get close. So how do you explain that away? Or was the moon landing a hoax too?

Um, yeah. Orbital mechanics have some pretty easy and predcitable formulas. You're really not even close. ice core data to a tenth of a degree. I'm pretty sure klatt couldn't accurately measure the current temperature to within a tenth without a digital thermometer.

[49r]

Um, yeah. Orbital mechanics have some pretty easy and predcitable formulas. You're really not even close. ice core data to a tenth of a degree. I'm pretty sure klatt couldn't accurately measure the current temperature to within a tenth without a digital thermometer.

Temperature and pressure are pretty easily measured as well. Water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F (at sea level). That stuff doesn't change and is accurate to the tenth of a degree too.

Ice core samples, while not able to give you a temperature reading on a specific day of a specific year have the advantage of carrying a ridiculous amount of information in them, so much so in fact that statistically speaking you can get climate information that is quite reliable. To the tenth of a degree even. More than enough to recognize trends in climate change over a very long period of time. It is well known that the earth has gone through cycles of extremely warm and extremely cold periods - because we have this data - so while the current trend towards warming in and of itself isn't all that alarming, what is something to be considered is that the current trend we are seeing is showing an interesting correlation to a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

The question is are these CO2 levels a direct result of human activity (industrialization) or just a natural cycle? And do they actually show causation? Or is it an effect? Do we need to do something? Is the ecosystem on our planet a much more efficient machine than some alarmists giving it credit for? What we know is that the current trend at the very least could indicate problems such as drought and famine are a real possibility. Things could get quite unpleasant for humans in the not so distant future - yes even those of us in the good ole USA.

What is the answer? Are we causing climate change from our activities? Can we do something about it? Do we need to? I don't know, but I for one am of the belief that it certainly wouldn't hurt to try. If you think that cap and trade would have disastrous effects on the US economy, imagine what worldwide famine would do. Remember what the little ice age did for the Irish? How about the dust bowl? Those events were relatively small and yet caused immeasurable suffering and financial hardship. Not to mention, we are depending on our enemies far too much for the *limited* carbon resources available worldwide and will only invite more problems from them if we continue to provide them with ample funding to support their antagonistic stance towards us.

Of course I'm so wrong it's not even close. And to tell you the truth I would really hope I am because being right - even a little bit - on this issue would mean that things are going to be very ****ty very soon. I am unconvinced that's the case, and no doubting thomases have come up with a compelling enough argument so far to change my mind. So, change my mind. I'll be keeping an eye out for the most compelling argument in this debate.

[Harry Beanbag]

Temperature and pressure are pretty easily measured as well.

Sure they are, accuracy however can vary greatly.



Water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F (at sea level). That stuff doesn't change and is accurate to the tenth of a degree too.

Really? There are quite a few variables involved in those processes.

[mdklatt]

Sure they are, accuracy however can vary greatly.


Accuracy isn't important when you're talking about trends in the data. As long as you account for any changing biases in your measurements (that's the tricky part with climate data), it doesn't matter how far off the initial measurements are. Three degrees of warming is three degrees of warming whether or not you start at x degrees or x + 5 degrees.

[KABOOKIE]

Accuracy isn't important when you're talking about trends in the data. As long as you account for any changing biases in your measurements (that's the tricky part with climate data), it doesn't matter how far off the initial measurements are. Three degrees of warming is three degrees of warming whether or not you start at x degrees or x + 5 degrees.

so how does one track change in data if the initial measurement is off +3 degrees...

[LosAngelesSooner]

What is the answer? Are we causing climate change from our activities? Can we do something about it? Do we need to? I don't know, but I for one am of the belief that it certainly wouldn't hurt to try.Great point.

I love how willingly some people espouse Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) with regards to religion but are against applying the same basic principle of belief towards the argument for green energy vs. petroleum and coal based energy.

Why is that?

Simple...blind stupid political loyalties. If the right wing leadership suddenly embraced the green movement and changed their entire tack (because someone else started lining their pockets, which is the only reason they AREN'T for the Green Movement, btw) then those on here who are doing logical and intellectual backflips and contortions to make any discoverable data conform to their pre-determined results would suddenly change their tune and "believe" in the fact of global climate change.

Just...'cause...they...were...told.

[KABOOKIE]

and speaking of orbital mechanics....

[Frozen Sooner]

Can't really apply Pascal's Wager here. There's high costs associated with the positive in this one.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why? You stand to lose nothing if you shift your economy to a Green economy. The jobs lost from the Coal and Petroleum industries would be replaced by new jobs in the Green industry.

And since the output of Green Industry "cannot be bad" for the environment, why not do that regardless? After all, it can't HURT the environment to use Green tech and industry...and it "may" hurt the industry to use Coal and Petroleum (even though the facts show that it DOES hurt the environment, I'm just saying "may" in order to apply it to Pascal's Wager).

[LosAngelesSooner]

and speaking of orbital mechanics....
It's good to know you can admit I'm operating on a higher plane...far...far above you. :cool:

[Frozen Sooner]

Why? You stand to lose nothing if you shift your economy to a Green economy. The jobs lost from the Coal and Petroleum industries would be replaced by new jobs in the Green industry.

And since the output of Green Industry "cannot be bad" for the environment, why not do that regardless? After all, it can't HURT the environment to use Green tech and industry...and it "may" hurt the industry to use Coal and Petroleum (even though the facts show that it DOES hurt the environment, I'm just saying "may" in order to apply it to Pascal's Wager).

Because 1) there's significant sunk costs in the old technology, so abandoning it before the end of its economic life is a cost and 2) because it's going to cost money to build "clean" power plants.

I'm not saying that a cost/benefit analysis isn't appropriate and in favor of a switch to clean energy. I'm saying that you can't claim the game sets up like Pascal's Wager, which posits a minimal cost/large benefit positive position.

[LosAngelesSooner]

But what about the economic benefit in jobs created in the building of the new "clean" power plants? And the discoveries and new jobs created involved in researching and generating clean energy advancements? I believe that would significantly outweigh the loss in "old tech" especially since most of the old tech power plants, infrastructure and energy transport devices (power lines, etc) are (as EVERYONE readily admits) extremely inefficient.

I think they negate each other leaving simply the debate of risk/reward vs. no risk/no reward.

Also, who's to say that the economic life hasn't REACHED its end and that what we're witnessing are the death throws of that industry? And the growing pains of people who are stuck in their ways having to adjust to a new way of life and a new industry?

[Frozen Sooner]

Again, I'm not disputing cost/benefit analysis might weigh in favor of clean energy. This just isn't analogous to Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a specific cost-benefit analysis (with faulty assumptions, I might add) that posits 0 (or very low) costs in both decision trees and high expected benefits in only one decision tree with high expected negatives in the other.

Simply making the benefits higher on one decision tree doesn't negate the fact that there's high costs associated with that decision.

Let me demonstrate using symbols so you can see what I'm talking about. No, this isn't formal.

P(0)=0-(Pr(G)*(B(H))
P(1)=0+(Pr(G)*(B(H))

Where P(0) is the expected benefit of disbelief and P(1) is the expected benefit of belief, Pr(G) is the probability that God exists and B(H) is the benefit of going to heaven.

If you change this to the clean energy debate, you get:

P(0)=0-(P(AGCC)*B(NBD))
P(1)=-B(RT)+(P(AGCC)*B(NBD))

Where P(AGCC) is probability of anthropogenic climate change, B(NBD) is the benefit of not being dead, and B(RT) is the price to retool everything plus the cost of scrapping old machinery that's still usable. The B(RT) is the major difference between the two. Pascal's Wager says "It doesn't cost you anything to believe and you get a huge benefit to believing." "Belief" in AGCC requires enormous outlays of cash.

[Frozen Sooner]

Also, who's to say that the economic life hasn't REACHED its end??

The definition of economic life, that's who. If it's less expensive to keep operating it than to scrap it and build something else, it still has economic life.

[PDXsooner]

Simple...blind stupid political loyalties. If the right wing leadership suddenly embraced the green movement and changed their entire tack (because someone else started lining their pockets, which is the only reason they AREN'T for the Green Movement, btw) then those on here who are doing logical and intellectual backflips and contortions to make any discoverable data conform to their pre-determined results would suddenly change their tune and "believe" in the fact of global climate change.

Just...'cause...they...were...told.

AMEN!! the fact that climate change has become politicized is ridiculous. (and throw abortion, the death penalty, and many other issues on that pile)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Then what if I said the argument for Green Energy could be made, "In the spirit of Pascal's Wager," while acknowledging that it doesn't hold completely along the defined lines of that argument?

Because, while I think there are subtle differences in the absolute definition that you have clearly pointed out, the general argument COULD be made along those lines that they are similar and easy to postulate.

Can you agree to that?

[Petro-Sooner]

Fossil fuels are our friend! :texan:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Fossil fuels are the friend of our enemies (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

The enemy of my enemy would be my friend? right?

[Petro-Sooner]

The "in" thing now is natural gas because its better on the earth than oil. The US has plenty of it waiting to be drilled. Earth friendly or not it keeps me employed and doing what I love.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Im not a big fan of having gas

[Harry Beanbag]

so how does one track change in data if the initial measurement is off +3 degrees...

Silly boy, it doesn't matter what the initial measurement was, you must be slow or something. :)

[Curly Bill]

So...LAS is Van Jones?

I shoulda know all along. :O

[LosAngelesSooner]

So...LAS is Van Jones?

I shoulda know all along. :O
http://ponytone.com/Images/VanJonesFront.jpg

Fear the stache...

[mdklatt]

so how does one track change in data if the initial measurement is off +3 degrees...

If my watch if 10 minutes off, I still know when an hour has passed.

[KABOOKIE]

If my watch if 10 minutes off, I still know when an hour has passed.

Ha. So, if I ask you to tell me when it's 5:00 o'clock and you're 10 minutes off are you going to explain to me it's because of a man made time warp?

Wow! Again, how can one tell there is a shift in the data if the original data had a collection error...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Jesus Christ.

I guess we're gonna have to break out the crayons to essplain simple math to you. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Wow! Again, how can one tell there is a shift in the data if the original data had a collection error...

Holy ****. I guess I have to break it down into baby steps for you.

Step 1:

f(t) = 2t + 5

f'(t) = ?

[KABOOKIE]

Holy ****. I guess I have to break it down into baby steps for you.

Step 1:

f(t) = 2t + 5

f'(t) = ?

OMG! You solved it. Who knew 3rd order PDE's could be reduced to a linear formula so easily? I wish all of my data collection was that easy. If it doesn't fit the model, hell just make it fit by applying this here simple correction.


Jesus Christ.

I guess we're gonna have to break out the crayons to essplain simple math to you. :rolleyes:

The day you teach me something about math is the day I write a hollywood blockbuster. :rolleyes: ^(X/0)

[mdklatt]

Who knew 3rd order PDE's could be reduced to a linear formula so easily? I wish all of my data collection was that easy.

How would you apply a third-order PDE to a temperature data time series, then?

[KABOOKIE]

How would you apply a third-order PDE to a temperature data time series, then?

Application? Oh heck, I'd use a BAC to run the model for a fortnight to come up with some SLF's to use against the mathematically stupid populace. Of course it would all be a bunch of BS because the data was invalid. After I applied the necessary correction of (X + 5) the model compiled and we were able to propagate fear with push of the ENTER key!

[mdklatt]

Application? Oh heck, I'd use a BAC to run the model for a fortnight to come up with some SLF's to use against the mathematically stupid populace.

No, I'm wondering what specific algorithm you'd use to find a trend in historical temperature data. There aren't a lot of 3rd order PDEs in statistics. It sounds like you're trying to fit a model to the data or something. Why would you need to do that to show the significance of a trend? Or are you talking about a spectrum analysis? If so, why?

Anyway, since you obviously know more about this than a bunch of silly climatologists, you should really tell somebody important rather than complaining on the internet. You missed the abstract deadline for the 2010 AMS annual meeting, but you'd be sure to draw a crowd in 2011. If January in Boston isn't your cup of tea, I'd suggest you start by submitting a comment to JGR or BAMS to get some buzz going. I'm sure they'd invite you to do submit a full follow-up article.

I'll start you off with your first reference: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf

[Tulsa_Fireman]

My 3rd order PDE has a 1st tier TIA in the 4th quad, homina homina homina.

Seckshy mafs.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The day you teach me something about math is the day I write a hollywood blockbuster. :rolleyes: ^(X/0)
To "teach you" something you'd have to admit that you LEARNED something.

Which, as we all know, is not something your ego is capable of.


No, I'm wondering what specific algorithm you'd use to find a trend in historical temperature data. There aren't a lot of 3rd order PDEs in statistics. It sounds like you're trying to fit a model to the data or something. Why would you need to do that to show the significance of a trend? Or are you talking about a spectrum analysis? If so, why?

Anyway, since you obviously know more about this than a bunch of silly climatologists, you should really tell somebody important rather than complaining on the internet. You missed the abstract deadline for the 2010 AMS annual meeting, but you'd be sure to draw a crowd in 2011. If January in Boston isn't your cup of tea, I'd suggest you start by submitting a comment to JGR or BAMS to get some buzz going. I'm sure they'd invite you to do submit a full follow-up article.

I'll start you off with your first reference: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
*snicker* :D

[KABOOKIE]

To "teach you" something you'd have to admit that you LEARNED something.

Which, as we all know, is not something your ego is capable of.


I'm sure you think rounding fractions is upper level mathematics.

Now where's my script?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Keep workin' on those comebacks, Kabookie. ;)

[olevetonahill]

Jesus Christ.

I guess we're gonna have to break out the crayons to essplain simple math to you. :rolleyes:

Leave my crayons outta this :eek:

[LosAngelesSooner]

OVJ STRIKES AGAIN!!!! :D

[I Am Right]

Oil Dashboard
September, Monday 21 2009 - 20:39:09
Crude Oil
$70.08
▲0.15 0.21%
20:39 PM EDT - 2009.09.21

Woop, Woop!

[PDXsooner]

No, I'm wondering what specific algorithm you'd use to find a trend in historical temperature data. There aren't a lot of 3rd order PDEs in statistics. It sounds like you're trying to fit a model to the data or something. Why would you need to do that to show the significance of a trend? Or are you talking about a spectrum analysis? If so, why?

Anyway, since you obviously know more about this than a bunch of silly climatologists, you should really tell somebody important rather than complaining on the internet. You missed the abstract deadline for the 2010 AMS annual meeting, but you'd be sure to draw a crowd in 2011. If January in Boston isn't your cup of tea, I'd suggest you start by submitting a comment to JGR or BAMS to get some buzz going. I'm sure they'd invite you to do submit a full follow-up article.

I'll start you off with your first reference: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf

that is what's known as a message board beatdown...:pop:

[I Am Right]

It was colder this morning in Port Huron than it has been in more than seven decades.


The Port Huron waste water treatment plant recorded a temperature of 32 degrees at 8 a.m., one degree colder than the record low set Oct. 1, 1935, according to information from the National Weather Service in Oakland County’s White Lake Township.


Amos Dodson, a weather service meteorologist, said no records were broken elsewhere, including at Detroit Metro Airport in Romulus and in Flint.


It currently is 39 degrees at the St. Clair County International Airport.


Today’s temperature is expected to reach 59 degrees. The average high for Oct. 1 is 67 degrees in Port Huron.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It was colder this morning in Port Huron than it has been in more than seven decades.


The Port Huron waste water treatment plant recorded a temperature of 32 degrees at 8 a.m., one degree colder than the record low set Oct. 1, 1935, according to information from the National Weather Service in Oakland County’s White Lake Township.


Amos Dodson, a weather service meteorologist, said no records were broken elsewhere, including at Detroit Metro Airport in Romulus and in Flint.


It currently is 39 degrees at the St. Clair County International Airport.


Today’s temperature is expected to reach 59 degrees. The average high for Oct. 1 is 67 degrees in Port Huron.Climate Change dammit, Climate Change!!!!!! NOT Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Global Warming throws a damn boot in the cog!!!!

[49r]

Large volcanic eruptions in each of the past two springs - one in Alaska and another in Chile have helped keep temps cooler.

Remember the Pinatubo effect?


The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi river and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992.

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

Yeah, it's been a cool summer, and you can expect the fall and winter to be cooler than average too.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Large volcanic eruptions in each of the past two springs - one in Alaska and another in Chile have helped keep temps cooler.

Remember the Pinatubo effect?

Yeah, it's been a cool summer, and you can expect the fall and winter to be cooler than average too."WHEW"-Algore

[49r]

Yeah, except we can't make volcanoes erupt with enough predictability to keep warming in check.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, except we can't make volcanoes erupt with enough predictability to keep warming in check.There ya go.

[hellogoodbye]

Pinatubo? Co2 emissions? wha?
:)

[Jacie]

Yeah, except we can't make volcanoes erupt with enough predictability to keep warming in check.

How about we drill a hole in an active volcano, shove an atom bomb in there and detonate it. If we can pierce the rock that is plugging the magma chamber it might trigger an eruption. Did I see this in a movie?

[abOUtwinning]

Yeah, except we can't make volcanoes erupt with enough predictability to keep warming in check.

49r you missed the memo about not emphasizing warming... it's called climate change now not global warming...

I like this article about the affects of sunspots on the earths temperatures... of course the author had to stay politically correct and added an argument for global warming...

http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-09-20/earth_approaching_sunspot_records#

[Jacie]

The climate change doubters don't read their own posts. An example is the title of this thread. If the title of the thread is to try and show that "global warming" is not happening, I guess it kinda works in that way, but at the same time, it is an argument for climate change.

Look, we (as in scientists in general and the entire meteorological community in particular) are still trying to understand certain phenomena that affect regional and global weather patterns. An example would be the jet stream. People have been aware of it at least since World War II. Understanding why it shifts in latitude is something else and when it does, it affects the movement of air masses, which are weather here at ground level.

The previously mentioned Pinatubo effect is fairly easy to grasp. A volcanic eruption of large enough magnitude will spew enough particulate matter high enough into the atmosphere, reflecting a percentage of the solar energy striking Earth back into space before it can penetrate very far into the atmosphere and heat it, causing a reduction in atmospheric temperature on a global scale. Temperature measurements worldwide following the Pinatubo eruption confirmed this effect lasted about two years.

The point of all this is, climate change as as we are seeing it today over what is an alarmingly short period of time (i.e. on a time scale accessible to humans) is unprecedented. Such change will lead to often unpredictable and atypical weather on a local scale. Hence an area may experience a summer that is cooler or wetter than normal. However, if you are trying to explain a trend using a data set of 1, you aren't going to be very accurate. That is why scientists collect data all over the world, not just your backyard, and compare it to measurements for as far back as measurements go, to see what the overall trends are and predict what will happen not next year but next decade to next century. What those comparisons are telling us that globally, climate is indeed changing.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Every summer is cold in Maine, would you guys hurry up and warm the climate so I can have some Miami weather ever now and again.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Da humans done it, yep, da humans done it.

I assume you have a stake in the billions of dollars being dished out for the sake of climate change reversal? And if you think you can reverse it then you are a lot nuttier than I am.

[PDXsooner]

However, if you are trying to explain a trend using a data set of 1, you aren't going to be very accurate. That is why scientists collect data all over the world, not just your backyard, and compare it to measurements for as far back as measurements go, to see what the overall trends are and predict what will happen not next year but next decade to next century. What those comparisons are telling us that globally, climate is indeed changing.

you are attempting to explain something to a group of people that will never listen to you, mainly because they don't WANT climate change to be true. you're wasting your time.

no matter how many independent groups of climatologists and scientists show them data contrary to what sean hannity is telling them, it goes against the outcome that they're hoping for. so they reject it.

it's an amazing view into denial and the ability of the human mind to rationalize the world around them to fit their belief systems. it must be some sort of primitive survival technique -- the refusal of facts even in the face of danger to themselves. i don't know, i don't get it.

[hellogoodbye]

The climate change doubters don't read their own posts.

Thoughtful reasoning, and very polite to use the word doubt instead of denial. Be careful, you might encourage reasoned debate (at least from those who think the debate isnt over).

[1890MilesToNorman]

Okay, a question for you climate change believers? What do you want to do exactly, how long will it take and how much will it cost to reverse climate change world wide?

[abOUtwinning]

I just wish we could ask someone living during the ice age what they did to warm things up... probably radical tax reform

[Frozen Sooner]

Da humans done it, yep, da humans done it.

I assume you have a stake in the billions of dollars being dished out for the sake of climate change reversal? And if you think you can reverse it then you are a lot nuttier than I am.

Wow, that's an incredibly rude thing to say.

[PDXsooner]

Okay, a question for you climate change believers? What do you want to do exactly, how long will it take and how much will it cost to reverse climate change world wide?

i do not know. you can address me as a "earth is round believer" if you want. or "earth revolves around the sun" believer too.

[KABOOKIE]

i do not know. you can address me as a "earth is round believer" if you want. or "earth revolves around the sun" believer too.

Man made earth round? Man made earth revolving around the sun? GTFOOH!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Okay, a question for you climate change believers? What do you want to do exactly, how long will it take and how much will it cost to reverse climate change world wide?What's the latest "best answer" to what the experts believe is the nature of climate change? Is it still Warming, or is it now Cooling? and, how much should govts. charge the private sector to make everything okay?

[PDXsooner]

What's the latest "best answer" to what the experts believe is the nature of climate change? Is it still Warming, or is it now Cooling? and, how much should govts. charge the private sector to make everything okay?

ha ha ha. wow.

[I Am Right]

you are attempting to explain something to a group of people that will never listen to you, mainly because they don't WANT climate change to be true. you're wasting your time.

no matter how many independent groups of climatologists and scientists show them data contrary to what sean hannity is telling them, it goes against the outcome that they're hoping for. so they reject it.

it's an amazing view into denial and the ability of the human mind to rationalize the world around them to fit their belief systems. it must be some sort of primitive survival technique -- the refusal of facts even in the face of danger to themselves. i don't know, i don't get it.

Its not climate change dang it, its GLOBAL WARMING.

[I Am Right]

you are attempting to explain something to a group of people that will never listen to you, mainly because they don't WANT climate change to be true. you're wasting your time.

no matter how many independent groups of climatologists and scientists show them data contrary to what sean hannity is telling them, it goes against the outcome that they're hoping for. so they reject it.

it's an amazing view into denial and the ability of the human mind to rationalize the world around them to fit their belief systems. it must be some sort of primitive survival technique -- the refusal of facts even in the face of danger to themselves. i don't know, i don't get it.

You are entitled to your own opinion, however, you are not entitled to your own facts, "34TH COLDEST SUMMER ON RECORD" Geees.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

ha ha ha. wow.Best answer?....verrrry convincing, haha.

[I Am Right]

you are attempting to explain something to a group of people that will never listen to you, mainly because they don't WANT climate change to be true. you're wasting your time.

no matter how many independent groups of climatologists and scientists show them data contrary to what sean hannity is telling them, it goes against the outcome that they're hoping for. so they reject it.

it's an amazing view into denial and the ability of the human mind to rationalize the world around them to fit their belief systems. it must be some sort of primitive survival technique -- the refusal of facts even in the face of danger to themselves. i don't know, i don't get it.

Southeast Drought Study Ties Water Shortage to Population, Not Global Warming
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy CORNELIA DEAN
Published: October 1, 2009
The drought that gripped the Southeast from 2005 to 2007 was not unprecedented and resulted from random weather events, not global warming, Columbia University researchers have concluded. They say its severe water shortages resulted from population growth more than rainfall patterns.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
River Basin Fight Pits Atlanta Against Neighbors (August 16, 2009)
Times Topics: Drought
Documents: Drought in the Southeastern United States (pdf)The researchers, who report their findings in an article in Thursday’s issue of The Journal of Climate, cite census figures showing that in Georgia alone the population rose to 9.54 million in 2007 from 6.48 million in 1990.

“At the root of the water supply problem in the Southeast is a growing population,” they wrote.

Richard Seager, a climate expert at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the study, said in an interview that when the drought struck, “people were wondering” whether climate change linked to a global increase in heat-trapping gases could be a cause.

But after studying data from weather instruments, computer models and measurements of tree rings, which reflect yearly rainfall, “our conclusion was this drought was pretty normal and pretty typical by standards of what has happened in the region over the century,” Mr. Seager said.

Similar droughts unfolded over the last thousand years, the researchers wrote. Regardless of climate change, they added, similar weather patterns can be expected regularly in the future, with similar results.

In an interview, Douglas LeComte, a drought specialist at the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, said the new report “makes sense.” Although Weather Service records suggest the 2005-7 drought was the worst in the region since the 1950s, Mr. LeComte said, “we have had worse droughts before.”

Some climate models developed by scientists predict that the Southeast will be wetter in a warming world. But the Columbia researchers said it would be unwise to view climate change as a potential solution to future water shortages.

As the region’s temperature rises, there may be more rain, they wrote, but evaporation will increase, possibly leaving the area drier than ever.

Mr. LeComte said that creating greater water storage capacity — say, in reservoirs — could mitigate drought effects in areas where population was rising.

“I am not going to criticize any governments for what they did or did not do,” he said. “But if you have more people and the same amount of water storage, you are going to increase the impact of droughts.”

The researchers said rainfall patterns in the Southeast were linked only weakly to weather patterns like La Niña and El Niño, the oscillating warm and cold conditions in the eastern Pacific linked to precipitation rates in the Southwestern United States.

Instead, they wrote, any variation in rainfall in the Southeast commonly “arises from internal atmospheric processes and is essentially unpredictable.”

Remember, "the refusal of facts"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Here's some money, Algore. Gimme some golldarned Carbon Credits, sos I can pay someone to turn on the heat.

[I Am Right]

RUSH: Hey, Axelrod, hey, Rahm, hey, you people in the White House, you better get moving fast on cap and tax. Listen to this: "Michigan, record low temperatures breaks 1935 cold." "Record low tide at Daytona Beach, Florida." "Cold snap fills up homeless shelters in Idaho." And we're worried whether Obama is going to go to the global warming conference back in Copenhagen. It all depends on whether there is a Denmark left.

[mdklatt]

RUSH: Hey, Axelrod, hey, Rahm, hey, you people in the White House, you better get moving fast on cap and tax. Listen to this: "Michigan, record low temperatures breaks 1935 cold." "Record low tide at Daytona Beach, Florida." "Cold snap fills up homeless shelters in Idaho." And we're worried whether Obama is going to go to the global warming conference back in Copenhagen. It all depends on whether there is a Denmark left.

If I start posting random high temperature records will you admit that daily weather events at isolated locations have jack **** to do with climate?

[mdklatt]

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PHOENIX AZ
300 AM MST MON SEP 28 2009

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES SET AT PHOENIX AZ AND IMPERIAL CA
YESTERDAY...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 107 DEGREES WAS SET AT PHOENIX AZ
YESTERDAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 106 SET IN 2001.

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 111 DEGREES WAS SET AT IMPERIAL CA
YESTERDAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 109 SET IN 1963.

THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 108 DEGREES AT BLYTHE CA YESTERDAY TIED THE
RECORD SET IN 1994 AND 1963.




RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LAS VEGAS NV
900 AM PDT WED SEP 30 2009

...RECORD NUMBER OF DAYS IN SEPTEMBER WITH LOW TEMPERATURES 70
DEGREES OR HIGHS IN LAS VEGAS...

THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 27 DAYS IN SEPTEMBER WITH LOW TEMPERATURES OF
70 DEGREES OR WARMER. THIS BROKE THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 26 DAYS SET
SEPTEMBER 2008.



RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA
520 PM PDT SAT SEP 26 2009

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES IN THE SOUTHLAND TODAY CORRECTION...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 100 DEGREES WAS SET AT LANCASTER
CA TODAY. THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 100 SET IN 2003.

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 91 DEGREES WAS SET AT SANDBERG
CA TODAY. THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 91 DEGREES SET IN 2003.

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 107 DEGREES WAS SET AT PASO ROBLES
CA TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 105 DEGREES SET IN 1963.

..

[olevetonahill]

:confused:

[PDXsooner]

ha ha ha, unbelievable!

[Fraggle145]

Southeast Drought Study Ties Water Shortage to Population, Not Global Warming
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy CORNELIA DEAN
Published: October 1, 2009
The drought that gripped the Southeast from 2005 to 2007 was not unprecedented and resulted from random weather events, not global warming, Columbia University researchers have concluded. They say its severe water shortages resulted from population growth more than rainfall patterns.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
River Basin Fight Pits Atlanta Against Neighbors (August 16, 2009)
Times Topics: Drought
Documents: Drought in the Southeastern United States (pdf)The researchers, who report their findings in an article in Thursday’s issue of The Journal of Climate, cite census figures showing that in Georgia alone the population rose to 9.54 million in 2007 from 6.48 million in 1990.

“At the root of the water supply problem in the Southeast is a growing population,” they wrote.

Richard Seager, a climate expert at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the study, said in an interview that when the drought struck, “people were wondering” whether climate change linked to a global increase in heat-trapping gases could be a cause.

But after studying data from weather instruments, computer models and measurements of tree rings, which reflect yearly rainfall, “our conclusion was this drought was pretty normal and pretty typical by standards of what has happened in the region over the century,” Mr. Seager said.

Similar droughts unfolded over the last thousand years, the researchers wrote. Regardless of climate change, they added, similar weather patterns can be expected regularly in the future, with similar results.

In an interview, Douglas LeComte, a drought specialist at the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, said the new report “makes sense.” Although Weather Service records suggest the 2005-7 drought was the worst in the region since the 1950s, Mr. LeComte said, “we have had worse droughts before.”

Some climate models developed by scientists predict that the Southeast will be wetter in a warming world. But the Columbia researchers said it would be unwise to view climate change as a potential solution to future water shortages.

As the region’s temperature rises, there may be more rain, they wrote, but evaporation will increase, possibly leaving the area drier than ever.

Mr. LeComte said that creating greater water storage capacity — say, in reservoirs — could mitigate drought effects in areas where population was rising.

“I am not going to criticize any governments for what they did or did not do,” he said. “But if you have more people and the same amount of water storage, you are going to increase the impact of droughts.”

The researchers said rainfall patterns in the Southeast were linked only weakly to weather patterns like La Niña and El Niño, the oscillating warm and cold conditions in the eastern Pacific linked to precipitation rates in the Southwestern United States.

Instead, they wrote, any variation in rainfall in the Southeast commonly “arises from internal atmospheric processes and is essentially unpredictable.”

Remember, "the refusal of facts"

That and... oh **** it hasnt rained there like normal in **** 8 years now?

Global climate change isnt all about temperature, it is also about shifts in patterns of who gets the rain etc...