A "Global Warming" Weekend

[jbg]

All these stories are in one day. Is this just weaather? Or climate?

Or time for a new panic?

Offshore storm, Arctic cold hit parts of U.S.New England sees more snow;

Midwest sees temps as low as - 37 F

(link)

msnbc.com staff and news service reports

updated 12:11 p.m. ET, Sun., Jan. 3, 2010

CONCORD, N.H. - Parts of New England woke up Sunday to more than a foot of new snow from an offshore storm that also brought winds that made it feel well below zero outside.

The storm off the New England shore is likely to stick around through Sunday, kicking out more heavy snow in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire. In Maine, forecasters said near blizzard conditions were possible during the day due to gusts as high as 45 mph.

(snip)

New England was also getting some of the Arctic blast coming down into the Midwest and as far south as Florida.

In Buffalo, N.Y., the wind chill Sunday was expected to make it feel below zero.

Temperatures were expected to be well below average as far south as the Gulf Coast. The coldest air was expected to hover over the Upper Midwest and Northeast and cause fairly widespread snow.

Some Midwest areas were not expected to get above zero. Atlanta, Ga., was headed for a day in the 30s.

(snip)

Snow snarls air, road travel in Beijing300,000 deployed to shovel unusually heavy snowfall in Chinese capital

(link)

msnbc.com news services

updated 11:23 a.m. ET, Sun., Jan. 3, 2010

BEIJING - Heavy snow hit Beijing on Sunday, stranding thousands of passengers at the main airport and casting an unusual quiet over normally busy streets as people stayed out of the freezing weather.

Hundreds of flights out of Beijing were delayed or canceled and highways closed. Airports in the nearby cities of Tianjin, Hohhot and Dalian closed.

(snip)

Cold spell kills dozens of homeless in north India

(link)

updated 5:38 a.m. ET, Sun., Jan. 3, 2010

NEW DELHI - More than 30 people have died in cold weather-related incidents in northern India in the past 24 hours, including 10 people killed in train accidents caused by dense fog, police said Sunday.

A cold snap left at least two dozen homeless people dead in Uttar Pradesh state since Saturday, taking the death toll from exposure in the region to 40 over the last week, police spokesman Surendra Srivastava said. Last winter the state reported 151 cold-related deaths.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it goes something like this:

1) If temperatures are higher than "normal", then it is disasterous "climate change / global warming"

2) If temps are lower than "normal", then it is just plain 'ol, garden variety weather.

Right now, my neck of the woods is at -11 F, and I am glad we have a domed football stadium!

[BubberMiley]

Anecdotal weather data don't say much in terms of overall climate.

[Wild Bill]

Anecdotal weather data don't say much in terms of overall climate.

Ah, but as BC2004 has pointed out, anecdotes about the weather being unusually warm will always be accepted!

[BubberMiley]

Ah, but as BC2004 has pointed out, anecdotes about the weather being unusually warm will always be accepted!

Not by anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Climate is too complicated for that. The fact that the Pacific Ocean had record high temperatures in summer 2009 resulted in one of the coldest summers here on the eastern prairies. It means more storms, including winter storms, and more extreme weather, including extreme cold.

(http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0818-ocean.html)

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, but as BC2004 has pointed out, anecdotes about the weather being unusually warm will always be accepted!

No they won't. If somebody posts those, then we can point at them and laugh.

[eyeball]

All these stories are in one day. Is this just weaather? Or climate?

Or time for a new panic?

A new panic? Predictions of more extreme weather due to AGW have been around for decades.

[jbg]

A new panic? Predictions of more extreme weather due to AGW have been around for decades.

Then we should have been panicking for decades as well. Panic and pandemonium always help.

[wyly]

All these stories are in one day. Is this just weaather? Or climate?

Or time for a new panic?

Offshore storm, Arctic cold hit parts of U.S.New England sees more snow;

Midwest sees temps as low as - 37 F

(link)

and last week here we had an abnormally warm 12C, today it'll be 9C...it's called weather...

Snow snarls air, road travel in Beijing300,000 deployed to shovel unusually heavy snowfall in Chinese capital (link)

it snows in Beijing in the winter, wow there's a surprise...it's winter weather, blizzards happen...

Cold spell kills dozens of homeless in north India(link)

Uttar Pradesh borders on the Himalayas some parts of the state routinely get 3-5 meters of snow every winter, that homeless people there can die of exposure in winter is a surpise?...and you can die from exposure in mid summer as well... Edited January 15, 2010 by wyly

[eyeball]

Then we should have been panicking for decades as well. Panic and pandemonium always help.

We have been in a panicked state for decades except about things like communism and pot.

In any case there was no need for panic back when AGW was first flagged as an issue we might want to be more concerned about. We've had lots of time to begin acting in a more precautionary way.

Actually population growth is what we should have been most concerned about but look at the panic and pandemonium that suggestion seemed to engender.

[Moonlight Graham]

A weekend, a season, a year of hot or cold weather doesn't suggest an overall global warming or cooling trend. You need years of accurate data to see a trend, and even then current science and lousy computer models can't predict the future 10 years from now. Let alone 50-100 years!

[jbg]

and last week here we had an abnormally warm 12C, today it'll be 9C...it's called weather...

Except the summer heat waves due to La Nina during the summer of 1988 were called "global warming". If it was climate then, the opposite is climate now. Be consistent.

[wyly]

Except the summer heat waves due to La Nina during the summer of 1988 were called "global warming". If it was climate then, the opposite is climate now. Be consistent.

no that's what you call it, you're creating a false arguement...waldo and myself have never made any such claims, no climatologist has made any such claims....it's your ignorance on the subject that clouds your ability to see it for what it is, an anomolly....it's the denier world that repeatedly uses 1998 as a start point to the mythical cooling trend and a la Nina event as an end point...el Nino's and la Nina's anomollys only serve to mask the true trend...wasn't it you that claimed you're an engineer? how is it an engineer doesn't understand data entry and graphs in order to determine trend???

[wyly]

A weekend, a season, a year of hot or cold weather doesn't suggest an overall global warming or cooling trend. You need years of accurate data to see a trend, and even then current science and lousy computer models can't predict the future 10 years from now. Let alone 50-100 years!

B.S as usual you don't know the difference between weather and climate.....I can tell you right now with 100% accuracy and no computer model that Chad will have a desert climate 200yrs from now...

[jbg]

....it's the denier world that repeatedly uses 1998 as a start point to the mythical cooling trend and a la Nina event as an end point...

Can't you read? I used a La Nina event during the summer of 1988, not the 1998 El Nino. This selection was deliberate since the climate panickers came out in full force during an anomolously hot summer in 1988. A La Nina has the effect of stacking up high pressure systems in an area ranging from an area from Tennessee east, and often another bubble around Oklahoma/Kansas, that locks most of the eastern 2/3 of North America in sweltering heat during the summer. This happened during 1988, 1995, 1999, August-September 2001, and August-September 2007. The La Ninas lasted far longer but their peak heat-generating activity is generally their first summer. During second and third years of a multi-year Nina event, the summers are actually rather cool from around the Mason-Dixon line on north (and sometimes from the Virginia - North Carolina border on north) and the heat focuses on a smaller area of the South. During La Nina winters, the east alternates between mild spells, caused by the same factors as create the summer heat in an early La Nina and some serious bitter cold.

When El Ninos create warmth, it's more during the winter. This was the case during 1982-3 and 1997-8, which were super El Ninos. I agree that using 1998 as a start year is deceptive. Most El Ninos, including the present one, are weaker and actually cool large parts of the North American continent, particularly the South.

So no, I did not say 1998, I said 1988. Not only isn't either English or Canadian your first language; you're numerically challenged.

Edited January 16, 2010 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

Yeah, that's what I thought you were referring to.

Edited January 18, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

Interesting week for the AGW true-believers...

UN Panel: Prediction on Himalayan Glaciers was Mistake

A forecast by the United Nations climate science panel that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 has become mired in controversy following revelations that it was not based on scientific studies. The chairman of the panel says the error arose because procedures were not followed properly.

Link

Followed by...

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

Link

I'd like to make a suggestion to all of the forum posters. Maybe we should be posting any and all AGW related discussion in the Political Philosophy part of the board instead of under Health, Science, and Technology. Because, as anyone with a brain can clearly see, AGW is anything but science and technology.

[Riverwind]

Interesting week for the AGW true-believers

It gets worse.

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

It worth remembering that people who have been complaining about these issues for years have be repeatedly dismissed as 'anti-science deniers'. Edited January 23, 2010 by Riverwind

[Shady]

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders

Link

But I'm sure the AGW true-believers will insist that there's nothing to see here, move along. PIC

[eyeball]

I've seen mayflies and other insects and spiders hereabouts all season long. The odd frog can be heard croaking from time to time, I came across a very lively looking salamander the other day and even a couple of slugs. A lot of bears are still out and about too.

Winters just aren't what they used to be.

[Riverwind]

Winters just aren't what they used to be.

So what? The climate has gotten warmer over the last 100 years and that is probably a good thing. The problem with AGW alarmists is their obsession with the idea that warming must be bad. In the last week, two of the main arguments (glaciers melting/more hurricaines) used by alarmists to claim that warming is bad have been exposed as not only false - but as deliberate lies by people who are supposed to be giving us unbiased scientific information. Edited January 24, 2010 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

So what? The climate has gotten warmer over the last 100 years and that is probably a good thing. The problem with AGW alarmists is their obsession with the idea that warming must be bad. In the last week, two of the main arguments used by alarmists to make the case that warming is bad have been exposed as not only false - but as deliberate lies by people who are supposed to be giving us unbiased scientific information.

I think its the rate at which things are warming up that's worrisome to the alarmists.

In any case am I supposed to believe that every single thing economic alarmists have said in the face of AGW alarmism is the result of unbiased scientific information? Please. Weren't we all supposed to be doomed to poverty if CFC's were phased out?

People lie all the time to make a case, even the most trusted people in society are shameless liars. Drawing again from my own local observations, cops still insist on routinely exaggerating the yield of their marijuana seizures to make a case...for more alarmism.

I guess alarmism isn't what it always used to be either...or is it?

Edited January 24, 2010 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I think its the rate at which things are warming up that's worrisome to the alarmists.

The rate of warming is irrelevant too. It is the consequences of warming which we care about.

Weren't we all supposed to be doomed to poverty if CFC's were phased out?

If you believe that then you must believe the scientific consensus in the 70s said that the planet was heading into an ice age. In any case, there is a huge difference between a report that governments use to justify policy and the claims of random individuals.

People lie all the time to make a case, even the most trusted people in society are shameless liars.

Yep. Which is why skepticism is always required - even when dealing with scientists.

[jbg]

Interesting week for the AGW true-believers...

******************

I'd like to make a suggestion to all of the forum posters. Maybe we should be posting any and all AGW related discussion in the Political Philosophy part of the board instead of under Health, Science, and Technology. Because, as anyone with a brain can clearly see, AGW is anything but science and technology.

My vote would be under religion.

[eyeball]

The rate of warming is irrelevant too. It is the consequences of warming which we care about.

Not really, its the consequences of the rate of change being to fast to cope with that we care about. Some biologists where I live think the number of starving bears rooting around in the middle of winter we've seen the last few years is evidence that the rate of change is too fast for bears to cope with.

If you believe that then you must believe the scientific consensus in the 70s said that the planet was heading into an ice age. In any case, there is a huge difference between a report that governments use to justify policy and the claims of random individuals.

I didn't know who to trust in the 70's any more than I do now I'm afraid. In any case what about governments that base economic policies on the claims of individuals in the face of widespread expert sceptical consensus? See Harper's GST cuts for example.

Yep. Which is why skepticism is always required - even when dealing with scientists.

You don't seem to believe the same thing when dealing with economists. In the meantime compare the obstruction of climate change policies due to a minuscule amount of scepticism to the huge amount of scepticism, not to mention rock solid evidence, it takes to even change let alone obstruct some of our most damaging economic policies.