Weather is not climate
Unless it’s convenient.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 13th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Now if only these snows could last the rest of the winter. It would be fiscally cheaper for the tax payers in years. Dc is shut down and on costs 100 million per day to run in this form.(Shutdown) No billion dollar days. Woohoo. I could easily believe in climate change. All they have to do is show me the blizzards in florida this summer and I will be a believer. Alternately the 90 degree days they are currently enjoying in DC would work to.
February 13th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I don’t see where the “unless it’s convenient” comes in. If you read the story, it explicitly discredits the idea of pointing to an unusual weather event as “proof” for OR against global warming.
February 13th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Heat waves were conclusive proof of Global Warming, to listen to the AGW people. They’ll just have to suck it in and take it now that it’s snowing.
February 13th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
tgirsch – “it’s convenient” comes into play simply because the weather proves normal variation in long-term weather cycles which have been determined to be the real cause of the climatic shifts, along with solar cycles. Faux AGW arguments have cooked the books and falsified findings to “prove” otherwise.
Do your homework.
February 13th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
tgirsch, you are correct that the article itself refutes the connection of “weather” and “climate”, tho they do try to slip in some of the “well, if it’s bad (snow, rain, hurricanes, etc.) it’s quite likely caused by Global Warming” mantra. I have NEVER seen any of these article even mention the potential good that elevated temperatures might produce.
What Uncle was commenting on, however, was not the article, it was the extremely dubious (and just as quickly changed) HEADLINE.
February 13th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I do wish people would quit conflating weather and climate, though 99% of that seems to happen on the denialist side. Denialists complaining about people on the reality accepting side conflating the two are kinda like men complaining about women raping them. Gimme a break.
Hartley I haven’t seen anyone saying the storms were caused by AGW. What is being pointed out is that, because colder air is generally dryer and warmer air is generally wetter and that increased water vapor feedback because of warming atmosphere is reality, we can expect to see more winters like this going forward.
Not sure what’s hard about that.
February 13th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
‘denialist’. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
February 13th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Pathfinder…not sure what you’re getting at, but it sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean but it sounds like you’re saying recent Wx patterns indicate some sort of natural variability.
Impossible to prove. But natural variability won’t account for warming trends observed.
No. A million times no. Natural variability (ENSO, el Nino, etc) has NOT been able to empirically account for what science has observed re: climate.
Frankly the very nature of Uncle’s post seems to intimate otherwise, as though climate science is somehow having it both ways. Unfortunate and incorrect.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Err…no, I think it means exactly what it sounds like. Empirical observations are what they are. Ignoring or downplaying them to suit your political reality is what it is.
Can you think of a better word for pretending that the science isn’t what it is?
February 13th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
skeptic. but that’s too sciency for glowball wormening people to get through peer review. you know, unless they stack the panel and threaten not to publish work. skepticism is good in science unless it’s ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
and the science isn’t what you think it is. you can be a ‘denialist’ all you want but the whole is under question now.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
A skeptic is someone who has a rational basis for questioning something taken for granted.
People casting aspersions at the AGW reality aren’t skeptics because nothing’s taken for granted in re: science, and there’s no rational basis for not accepting the consensus view as reality; they’re denying that the overwhelming majority of people engaged in the physical sciences have accepted that the likelihood that AGW is correct approaches the likelihood that germs cause disease or HIV causes AIDS.
Sorry…that means you’re denying reality. Which would make you a denialist.
I would presume you’re referring to the Soon/Baliunas garbage. I suppose mathematicians objecting to publishing work that argues 2+2=5 and biologists objecting to the publication of work that evolution works by little green goblins modifying genetic code when we’re not looking are also suppressing dissent?
Garbage. Utter garbage. Not all ideas are equally worthy.
The “whole” is less under question every day. The counter AGW camp had its chance. They haven’t come up with much beyond personal attacks and email thievery.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Like I said, you keep using that word . . .
February 13th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
If the shoe fits…
At some point, you simply have to choose. On one side you have every major physical sciences body on the planet.
On the other, Worldnetdaily and Glenn Beck.
Is it really that hard to see why it’s denialism and not legit skepticism?
February 13th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
Dude, I love ya and not in that gay way…but AGW denialism is NOT skepticism. The claims that science makes aren’t strange or unusual. The planet is behaving exactly as climate science says it should. There’s nothing outside mainstream scientific inquiry in AGW theory. It IS the majority view widely aaccepted by experts in the field across the board.
There’s no rational basis for not accepting reality.
It ain’t like they’re claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. They’re pointing out that the empirical data is hard to interpret any other way.
February 14th, 2010 at 12:08 am
In case you’re wondering if Soon and Baliunas are boobs…yup, they are.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:44 am
The number of climatologists who say either, “man caused global warming is a myth” or “there is no scientific proof of man caused global warming” far outnumber the “consensus” scientists who claim otherwise, especially telling is that most of those pushing man caused global warming are not climatologists.
Add in the decline in average global temperature over the last 10+ years and their claims appear spurious at best. A ten year period cannot be considered transitory weather.
I am a “denialist”. I admit it. I deny the falsehoods perpetrated by phony science put forth for political purposes. I deny that the sun revolves around Earth. I deny that the earth is the center of the universe. I deny that the Himalayan glaciers are melting. I deny that Antarctic ice is melting. I deny that Arctic ice is melting. I deny that the polar bear is endangered. I deny that Pinnochio was a real boy, though he has many imitators, especially in the area of global warming. I deny the existence of unicorns.
Why do I deny these things? Because every one of them has been proven to be false.
Now, PGP, if you wish to worship at this altar of fantasy, go ahead. Nobody wants to stop you from doing that. But do not try to influence how I live based on your grasp of unreality. I have a very low level of tolerance for crap.
February 14th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), sort of sounds like a whipped puppy here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
I wonder why? (snark)
February 14th, 2010 at 9:44 am
And the sky is red. Actually I think the sky being red is closer to the truth than anything in that paragraph.
Ibid, your honor. You might as well claim F=1/2ma. 2005 was the hottest year on record, but its looking like 2009 will beat it. Oh well…if you wanna keep repeating tired old canards long since debunked like the “GW stopped in 1998” nonsense that even hardcore denialists like Lindzen don’t pimp anymore…that’s cool. But I’ll keep pointing out that it’s not even close to true.
How does trying to get us to use more nuclear power instead coal and oil for the grid and reducing the amount of deforestation in the tropics and the amount of fuel we buy from people that want to blow us up influence how you live exactly? Just curious.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Climate Change, how do you invent something that was here before the human race?
Side note, PGP, pack it in. The automobile does not make the climate change. The Sun and the Earth do. Seriously, you couldn’t convert people to the cult before the “Great Moment of the Fucking Obvious” occurred.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
B…B…But don’t you see?
Progressives need Global warming.
I mean how else are we gonna ‘progress’ if the correct people can’t seize and centralize control of expensive power?
February 14th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
PG:: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
and:::http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
and::::http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213
Now, I know you won’t read these and even if you did, you won’t change your mind. I just want everybody else to know you’re full of shit and are egomaniacally clinging to something that allows you to feel more “nuanced” and morally superior, because you live in the lie that you “care more”.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Sebastian,
I have one simple comment, one that I borrowed from a computer geek and history buff. (see here for entire blogpost).
This is the kind of question that skeptics ask. There is non-temperature historical data that suggests that as recently as 1000 years ago, the climate was vastly warmer than it is now.
Can it be quantified into something the modelers can use? If not, how much trust can be placed in the models?
February 14th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
The global warmistas will be equating hot weather, droughts and sunshine with their AGW hoax this summer.
The sun is shining! It didn’t rain today! It’s ninety degrees out! The sky is falling! It’s anthropogenic global warming! We must raise taxes immediately! Give us total control over your lives or you’ll burn up!
Love this song from Minnesotans for Global Warming:
February 14th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“Great Moment of the Fucking Obvious”
GMOTFO
It looks like this:
http://www.intellicast.com/Travel/Weather/Snow/Cover.aspx
February 14th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
From the comments of another blog: “So far, I have survived the population bomb, acid rain, the ozone hole and countless other instances of falling sky. Perhaps I’ll survive this one as well. -Arni”
And he left off Global COOLING.
Anthropogenic Global Warming?! ZOMGWAGD!!!
@karrde – Reality is not relevant to PGP, he’s a true believer. I’m in software, MS in Computer Science, focus in complex systems. AGW models are $h1t, and I knew that even with access to the data or the code. It’s like trying to build a computer model of an economy – I know, I worked on this as a project – and slight changes in your inputs completely hose your outputs even in a highly simplified version. Sometimes you can get errors coverge to 0, usually they just diverge and fubar everything. So the model is crap. Data: I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine how long we have had good, accurate, and thorough records of climate data. 2 hints – 1) if your number is greater than 50 years, then you do not comprehend Good, Accurate, or Thorough. 2) ponder the interval of time necessary to obtain good data about a climate (100 years? 1000 years? 15000 years?)
And given the level of politicizing and money involved to achieve certain results to stay funded, I’d recommend just throwing out the last decade of “data”.
February 14th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
“even with access to the data or the code”
That should be “even without access to the data or the code”
February 15th, 2010 at 12:02 am
I’ve done some MS-level work in math, and I know enough about modeling to know that the model is not the world, and it is laughably easy to make a bad model.
I also know that if someone else can’t reproduce similar results with the same input data and flow-chart, then the model was implemented poorly.
So far, the CRU team fails on not making it easy for anyone to try to reproduce their work.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Oh PGP,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
It was a nice religion while it lasted. Scientology is still an option.