patrick.net

No, not another gullible idiot.

Meanwhile it was 136 degrees in Iraq the other day and (globally) last winter was the warmest winter on record. 2015 will surely be either one of the warmest if not the warmest year on record for both average global air temperatures and average global ocean temperatures. And yet somehow these bs isolated stories are meaningful to you ?

Global warming even predicts unusual weather patterns, which are quite independent from the big picture.

http://time.com/3750660/winter-warm-climate-change-noaa/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198954#.VcD4d_m6e70

marcus - I'm not saying it's right or that it's wrong. I just find it interesting that so many are crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling and not to worry about the odd things happening because it's all explained, even if it isn't. The climate has changed since before man was on this rock and will continue to change long after man is no longer on this rock. We have little effect and no matter what you do, you (all of us) will have very little effect.

Read. Learn. You have a choice.

You can believe what you want to believe, just like the stupid propagandist that wrote that opinion piece for Investors Business Daily (or does he even believe it ? Maybe he's just a dishonest hack, making a few bucks from the Koch brothers).

I like his title. "Global Warming Alarmists Run Into Brick Wall Of Facts"

When in fact to any objective person with an IQ over 70, he is the one that's running from the facts.

mmmarvel says

not to worry about the odd things happening because it's all explained, even if it isn't

What odd things ? Local weather aberrations ? What the fuck ?

Are there really people who think that global warming means every day in every single location has to be warmer than it ever was before on that date ? If that's what global warming meant, life on earth would have been over decades ago.

Just last week it came out that the Climate change models are more accurate than previously thought.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

We have highlighted the fact that the planet does not warm uniformly. Air temperatures warm faster than the oceans, air temperatures over land warm faster than global air temperatures. When you put a number on global warming, that number always depends on what you are measuring. And when you do a comparison, you need to ensure you are comparing the same things.

The model projections have generally reported global air temperatures. That’s quite helpful, because we generally live in the air rather than the water. The observations, by mixing air and water temperatures, are expected to slightly underestimate the warming of the atmosphere.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

As for the skepticalScience website, it's an educational site, and is not intended for morons like CIC who are incapable of even the most basic learning.

The quality of a source of information should be judged by the soundness of the arguments they make and by the quality of the sources they cite. If you are like CIC, and operate only on hate and other emotions, then this won't work for you. In that case you will only find sources that support your hateful and ignorant view. In the case of CIC or captain dimbulb this will mostly limit you to something owned by Rupert Murdoch and or manged by Roger Ailles.

More about John Cook(the author of the skeptical science site)

About John Cook
Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.

He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

He is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. He is also developing a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, to be released in April 2015.

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

I guess in CIC's world, long term meta data from sources such as NASA and NOAA is "cherry picking" data.

Also in his world, I guess the fact that Wikepedia is funded by donations is proof that it's corrupt and worthless as a source of information.

As for his stupidest argument of all, that "durrr, it's less than one degree over decades !" Yes, but that's an increase in average temperature over the entire planet and includes ocean warming. The projections that it will be 2 degrees or more by 2050, put it greater than anyhthng that's happened in 100s of thousands of years, and we really don't know how much more warming that could lead to because of feedback.

Typical selfish right winger: "Ill be dead by then, so who cares ? And besides, we're predicting Armageddon before then anyway."

Back in the days when true conservatives existed instead of the current right wing screwballs, avoiding the implicit risks of global warming would be a conservative issue. That is, even the reasonable chance that it's as bad as it seems to most scientists, would be enough to motivate action. But these days, when money controls everything, including the opinions of about 30% of the electorate, true conservatism is over.

IIRC the world was just comming out of a mini "Ice Age" around that time as well.

marcus says

Back in the days when true conservatives existed instead of the current right wing screwballs, avoiding the implicit risks of global warming would be a conservative issue. That is, even the reasonable chance that it's as bad as it seems to most scientists, would be enough to motivate action.

There is nothing "Conservative" about de-industrializing our economies and dooming millions of 3rd world people to more poverty and hunger and run around like a Liberal Chicken-Little with their hair on fire over less than 1 degree of warming.

socal2 says

There is nothing "Conservative" about de-industrializing our economies

Moving in an expedited way towards inevitable and more sustainable forms of energy is not de-industrializing.

And bedisdes, yes, enduring short term sacrifices (for merely a few decades) for the future benefit of the the planet and our species for tens of thousands of years to come is what I consider a perfect example of true conservatism.

socal2 says

run around like a Liberal Chicken-Little with their hair on fire over less than 1 degree of warming

So in other words "believe what you want to believe, weeeeeeeeeeeee !" It's funny really. We put babies in secial car seats, and wear seat belts, and we have disaster insurance. But take action against what our best scientists say is happening. Hell, no, those are just the stupid idiots running around "like a Liberal Chicken-Little with their hair on fire. "

Isn't propaganda amazing ?

marcus says

Just last week it came out that the Climate change models are more accurate than previously thought

Gee, do the climate change models account for the ice age that is predicted by 2030???
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/new_ice_age_is_coming_by_2030_says_analysis-156558

marcus says

And bedisdes, yes, enduring short term sacrifices (for merely a few decades) for the future benefit of the the planet and our species for tens of thousands of years to come is what I consider a perfect example of true conservatism.

You and I won't be suffering too much (for merely a few decades) but billions of 3rd world people who are burning carbon trying to scrape their way to 2nd and 1st world living conditions will suffer greatly.

Why do you suppose China and India were exempted from Kyoto?

marcus says

But take action against what our best scientists say is happening. Hell, no, those are just the stupid idiots running around "like a Liberal Chicken-Little with their hair on fire. "

Now you are moving the goal posts. I don't think there is any scientific consensus as to what the worst case scenario could be to earth based on a degree or two of warming over the next few hundred years.

You don't believe there is going to be a big giant freeze ray like they portrayed in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" - do you?

socal2 says

I don't think there is any scientific consensus as to what the worst case scenario could be to earth based on a degree or two of warming over the next few hundred years.

Actually, you're moving the goal posts if you're talking about a degree or two over the next couple of centuries.
https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+projections&rlz=1C1FDUM_en___US475&espv=2&biw=1297&bih=855&tbm=isch&imgil=QoLkBfzeWXcCLM%253A%253BPpI_EqCeSGLofM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.globalwarmingart.com%25252Fwiki%25252FFile%25253ASea_Level_Projections_png&source=iu&pf=m&fir=QoLkBfzeWXcCLM%253A%252CPpI_EqCeSGLofM%252C_&usg=__YUoF31GOqN3I8xoz2FOt1M835C0%3D&ved=0CDQQyjdqFQoTCIb6w6uskMcCFc9-iAodjqkEXA&ei=MyvBVcaUGM_9oQSO05LgBQ#imgrc=lNBX8ygLwV4rdM%3A&usg=__YUoF31GOqN3I8xoz2FOt1M835C0%3D

There is not scientific consensus of what another degree in the next few decades will mean for what follows. That's true. We just have models. And the the most conservative models which don't even include most of the potential for feedback are really scary.

Yes, you are right we don't know exactly how bad it will be. But risk analysis doesn't have to be perfect to be worth acting upon.

marcus says

Yes, you are right we don't know exactly how bad it will be. But risk analysis doesn't have to be perfect to be worth acting upon.

Frankly - we don't even know if a warmer planet will be *BAD* for humanity. It could serve as a good buffer to retain heat if scientists are right and solar activity diminishes over the next 30 years - staving off another ice age.

I'm much more worried about freezing to death than dying from heat exposure.

I think humanity can outrun and adapt to the worst of climate change.

Not saying we shouldn't try to reduce burning carbon or look for alternative energy. Just not buying the chicken-little hysteria that we need to do something DRASTIC RIGHT NOW or we are all going to die.

socal2 says

Just not buying the chicken-little hysteria that we need to do something DRASTIC RIGHT NOW or we are all going to die.

I know of nobody that's saying that.

I would just like it if the right wing press could acknowledge that it's very real, and if we could agree to move steadily and reasonably towards sustainable energy policies. Hey maybe we could even have governments subsidize new energy technologies and research more, and fossil fuel industries less.

It's also true that other countries such as major countries of Asia, need to see that we in the U.S. are in relative agreement with eachother and that we are setting an example and competing with them toward solutions and moving in the right direction as fast as we reasonably can.

Speaking of which, this is a good summary video on Thorium reactors.

https://www.uK367T7h6ZY

Is Bill Gates still investing in one ?

Why can't this move a little faster ? Could it be because of entrenched interests that lose if nuclear wins ? OR is it just that the science moves so fast and nobody wants to commit when there will be better ways to do it out there by the time a plant is finished. It's this type of issue where inefficient central planning is potentially better than the private sector. That's why socialist France is mostly nuclear. Imagine how much better it could be done now, than what France did 40 or 50 years ago.

Call it Crazy says

Marcus, why did you run away and not answer the temperature data question?

I was just ignoring you, not running. You mean this ?

Call it Crazy says

Here Marcus, since you tell us you're a math teacher. Here is the annual temperature trends for my area through 12 months:

*



*

Can you please point out in the chart how I would measure a change of 0.007 degrees C for the year? Since you should be an analytical person, teaching math, do you think that 0.007/year makes ANY difference when the temps swing at least 60 degrees F per year, every year?

I also didn't answer because I'm all about understanding the question. I always tell students that understanding what a question is asking by far the most important task in problem solving.

Your question is so beautifully stupid that I don't know where to begin. I would rather just admire the question. It's almost like a work of art.

You take a graph of local seasonal variation (in FARENHEIT) and then pose the question how would I reflect a global average increase for one year on that graph ? I guess you think that in comparison it obviously makes the .007 degree centigrade annual avg change seem insignificant.

You know what would have been even better ? You could have shown a graph of one day swing in say Chicago or Minnesota of 60 degrees F, and then posed the question of how am I going to show a .000034 degree F avg change in the daily temperature due to climate change on that graph ?

Awesome question though CIC. I'm sure there are one or two intellectually challenged folks out there that will be really moved by your deep common sense, no nonsense, approach to understanding climate change.

marcus',
Global warming leading to Climate Change leading to severe weather events & Near Term Human Extinction will take out the Deniers,too.

DOH! This wasn't supposed to happen.