Remember now, it’s just weather.
Fact: It snowed yesterday and the day before here in Missouri.
US Headed For The Coldest Spring On Record
Arkansas locations experience record snowfall, low temperatures for May
"we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers."
Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year’s tornado drought?
Also remember: it's not "climate" until they tell us it is.
And BTW, the computer models are not wrong, the "weather" is.
And oh yes: The climate, under AGW, is merely predictably more unpredictable (similar in its prediction capability of future events to that of evolution). So predicting the ultra-warm weather for this Spring was, um, well, um...
9 comments:
Global warming does not mean that everything gets warmer. It will be rather like turning the contrast up on an image in Photoshop. Warmer areas get warmer, colder areas get colder, wetter areas get wetter, drier areas get drier. Since wetter areas get wetter, this means actually MORE snowfall in some areas.
Also, the process is not smooth. It's noisy. That means that even areas that are supposed to get warmer will still have their record colds; jut that those will get less and less often.
>"we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers."
David Sirota is a far-left wackaloon, no different than Anne Coulter. He is not science.
>Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year’s tornado drought?
Most of the time it is media hype responsible for this nonsense. Even the article you linked to says as much: "Unfortunately that hasn’t stopped the more zealous environmental media from jumping on most every extreme weather event and screaming climate change."
The media loves drama, and any dramatic hook they can find they will run with. But media is not science.
>Also remember: it's not "climate" until they tell us it is.
Climate is weather averaged over 30 years, per the UK Met Office.
Basically, you need to distinguish between science and partisan wackaloons/dramatic media. The two are not identical.
@Martin: the problem as I see it is that the claims, if wrong, are dismissed as 'wackaloons' and if correct (and they sometimes do jibe - a broken clock is correct at least two times a day) they are held up as part of the 'proof'.
Heads you win, tails I lose. It's a very old game. I tire of the selectiveness of the evolutionists AND the Global Climate Change faithful. They want something, they want it now and they want everyone BUT them to pay for it.
And I say: get stuffed. Live in your fantasy world all you like, feed your ego all day long, but for God's sake, pay the bill your damn self.
Martin,
I like the all new 30 year target. It was originally 7 years, then it was ... 15 years, I believe. Now it's doubled. It might be good to estimate that based on the scientists' time-to-retirement: can't be held to anything after that. Or better still, time-to-lifespan. Even better, it is determined by the infamous UK Met.
"Basically, you need to distinguish between science and partisan wackaloons/dramatic media. The two are not identical."
I follow the culture war: the wackaloons = the media dispersal of their version of facts to the low information public.
And you know the criteria for real science because we discuss that a lot: real science has deductive predictive power, not the prediction of everything and anything can happen, which is the commonality between evolution and AGW. So in three years there are lots of tornados, normal numbers of tornados, and few tornados... all predicted by AGW. Same with hurricanes.
Oh well, I'm thinking of doing a program which predicts anything and everything resulting from politics.
I need lots of government funding to hone the algorithm to cover absolutely all of everything.
Put in a good word for me, OK?
Steven,
>the problem as I see it is that the claims, if wrong, are dismissed as 'wackaloons' and if correct
You mean the media and pundits and such? Sure. But that has nothing to do with science. Science of global warming is always chewing on new ideas and trying to get at the source.
I earlier brought up the example of Michael Mann doing research on 40 year natural oscillations in the climate, and publishing his research.
Stan,
>I like the all new 30 year target.
It's always been 30 years.
>I follow the culture war
OK, but nonetheless, we must distinguish between what is going on in the science of climate change, and what is going on in the media and the pundits. The two rarely coincide.
For example, look at the popular but false claim that "they were predicting an Ice Age in the 1970s." Most climate scientists were saying either that we don't know enough yet, or were predicting warming. But a miniscule number of papers suggested that cooling would occur instead. This sounded more dramatic to the media (a new ice age!) and so they seized on it as their hook and made all the stupid headlines. Time Magazine printed: "ANOTHER ICE AGE?!"
Now everyone thinks that the climate scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970s, even though that claim is false. Negative. Incorrect. Not in line with reality.
It is the media's desire for doom and gloom that led to those headlines, and it is the same that leads to today's headlines screaming "INCREASE IN TORNADOES IS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!1!!"
This comic perfectly captures it.
>real science has deductive predictive power, not the prediction of everything and anything can happen, which is the commonality between evolution and AGW
And so it does. For example, if the planet is warming, we should see more warming at night than during the day. That is a prediction of an observation we should make if global warming is a correct theory. Indeed, that is precisely what they observe (Alexander 2006).
If global warming is correct, then the stratosphere should be cooling. That prediction has been confirmed (Jones 2003).
Another prediction is that the tropopause should be rising. And so it is. Another prediction confirmed (Santer 2003).
That's just a handful of thousands of such evidence.
>So in three years there are lots of tornados, normal numbers of tornados, and few tornados... all predicted by AGW
What you mean is that is what media distortion of scientific evidence predicted.
Martin,
Har.
Last Fall I was in an "antique" shop, and bought a newspaper which had an interview with a "climate scientist" who predicted massive global cooling and possible return of the ice age: the paper was from sometime in the '70's; I guess that means I'll have to clean house until I find it. When I do, I'll scan it for your archives.
I'm in no rush tho. Books and papers are stacked high enough to be dangerous.
The predictions you mentioned are just like the predictions made in evolution: they predict the edges of the phenomenon, not the consequences of the phenomenon.
If gas is heated it expands, unless the volume is restricted, then the pressure increases. Predicting those things says nothing about when the balloon pops or how it tears apart, or the boiler explodes and where the metal will rupture; that requires information which is outside the system parameters.
Another example of consequences outside the phenomenon: The acceleration of gravity G. From the inductive knowledge of G we are able to deduce that trajectories can be calculated. Trajectories are outside the knowledge of just G.
Those are the consequences of concern with both evolution and AGW. Their proponents have pretenses of knowledge which is not actually covered by their models regardless of how much confirmation they find for the models. That's because the models can only look back with any reality (like the stock market).
Evolution cannot predict the next hominid, and AGW cannot predict anything outside itself but non-specific disaster and human suffering and more $ needed urgently.
Your comic is cute but incomplete because it is not grandma but the social messiahs who want to take every crisis possible as a Cause For Crusading For Everyone's Cash And Behavior Control. AKA "watermelons" (green on the outside...).
I know you don't care about that major effect, but that is what I care about. The messiahs are more immediately hazardous to earthlings than AGW, and more predictable than either evolution or AGW.
Oh yes, this:
"Warmer areas get warmer, colder areas get colder, wetter areas get wetter, drier areas get drier. Since wetter areas get wetter, this means actually MORE snowfall in some areas."
But this stuff has gone on for a very long time. There are petrified forests in the high, barren deserts of Arizona and the Sahara, showing that the desertification has progressed for eons, way more than just millenia. Climate changes up and down and so on. We'll cope. Or we'll be hopelessly destitute from trying to prevent it.
>AGW cannot predict anything outside itself but non-specific disaster and human suffering
There are two components here: that AGW is happening, and what effect it will have.
Indeed, there is plenty of science concerning what will happen. See here for example.
>it is not grandma but the social messiahs who want to take every crisis possible as a Cause For Crusading For Everyone's Cash And Behavior Control
OK, nonetheless, it is still incorrect to blame the scientist for the distortions the messiah has made. Just replace gramma with the social messiah. Clearly, the messiah has distorted the research into saying "A causes B ALL the time".
But it would be wrong to then blame the original science on this. That is what seems to most often happen here. There is a mix up between the people using the distortions of the science, and the original science itself.
>But this stuff has gone on for a very long time.
No one says it hasn't. The problem is that our civilization came about during a stable period, and deviation from that will not the hurt the Earth in the long run but may increase suffering for humans. Some of the bigger problems include the shifting of massive amounts of people to other regions when their water dries up, or when their areas get flooded.
Martin,
I just found your last comment in the Spam folder... which obviously I don't check often enough.
Sorry.
Post a Comment