100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: more from "global warming" (cough) | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Igloo Australia's Coldest August Night on Record Robert IceAgeNow.info Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:36 CDT A blast of polar air from a cold-front in southern Australia last week managed to push all the way up to the tropics. Darwin shivered through it's coldest August night on record Monday after the temperature dropped to just 13.1C Monday, more than seven degrees below the August average minimum of 20.4C. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-21z0BTLvM&feature=player_embedded Other areas to also record cold minimums overnight in the Darwin-Daly forecast district include Middle Point (5C), Tindal (6.1C), Noonamah (8.6C) Batchelor (10.8C) and Dum Inn Mirrie (12.9C) This comes after the coldest month of May on record and the coldest June day on record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poles shift.
No big deal unless you're Al Gore and can make billions with the scam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poles shift? Where did that come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is called Axial precession.
Just takes a little reading and common sense, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is called Axial precession. Just takes a little reading and common sense, no? Although axial precession is an interesting topic to read about, you haven't cited any scientific study that links current weather patterns to axial precession. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating. sorry, not buying it... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating. Ah, the old "non-falsifiable hypothesis" gimmick. I will quote from the written testimony that climatologist John Christy gave to the U.S. Senate: My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html).
The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating. Ah, the old "non-falsifiable hypothesis" gimmick. I will quote from the written testimony that climatologist John Christy gave to the U.S. Senate: My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html).
The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science. Your post describes the OP argument that extreme cold events disprove global warming. This is not science, it is statistics. A few events make for poor statistics. Many events make for better statistics. The only thing that "proves" global warming is whether the average temperature of the whole planet (the average temperature everywhere) goes up or not. It is a proven fact that it has gone up so any debate is usually centered around whether or not it was caused by man. Hanson's latest report. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sat 08/18/12 08:09 PM
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating. Ah, the old "non-falsifiable hypothesis" gimmick. I will quote from the written testimony that climatologist John Christy gave to the U.S. Senate: My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html).
The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science. Your post describes the OP argument that extreme cold events disprove global warming. This is not science, it is statistics. A few events make for poor statistics. Many events make for better statistics. The only thing that "proves" global warming is whether the average temperature of the whole planet (the average temperature everywhere) goes up or not. It is a proven fact that it has gone up so any debate is usually centered around whether or not it was caused by man. Hanson's latest report. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html And here is the rebuttal of Hansen's report given by University of Washington meteorologist Cliff Mass: This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:
" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small." This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups. The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best. Dr. Mass also states, "I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind. So if anyone wants to call me a denier or some other ad hominem name, please refrain from such remarks." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating. Ah, the old "non-falsifiable hypothesis" gimmick. I will quote from the written testimony that climatologist John Christy gave to the U.S. Senate: My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html).
The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science. Your post describes the OP argument that extreme cold events disprove global warming. This is not science, it is statistics. A few events make for poor statistics. Many events make for better statistics. The only thing that "proves" global warming is whether the average temperature of the whole planet (the average temperature everywhere) goes up or not. It is a proven fact that it has gone up so any debate is usually centered around whether or not it was caused by man. Hanson's latest report. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html And here is the rebuttal of Hansen's report given by University of Washington meteorologist Cliff Mass: This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:
" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small." This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups. The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best. Dr. Mass also states, "I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind. So if anyone wants to call me a denier or some other ad hominem name, please refrain from such remarks." Ok, but what kind of ad hominem name can we use? What is a denier? and I reserve the right to call you a denier later. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isolated cold records are predicted by global warming. Only the global average temperature indicates or refutes global warming. It has gone up and is accelerating. Ah, the old "non-falsifiable hypothesis" gimmick. I will quote from the written testimony that climatologist John Christy gave to the U.S. Senate: My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html).
The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science. Your post describes the OP argument that extreme cold events disprove global warming. This is not science, it is statistics. A few events make for poor statistics. Many events make for better statistics. The only thing that "proves" global warming is whether the average temperature of the whole planet (the average temperature everywhere) goes up or not. It is a proven fact that it has gone up so any debate is usually centered around whether or not it was caused by man. Hanson's latest report. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html And here is the rebuttal of Hansen's report given by University of Washington meteorologist Cliff Mass: This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:
" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small." This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups. The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best. Dr. Mass also states, "I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind. So if anyone wants to call me a denier or some other ad hominem name, please refrain from such remarks." Statistics work both ways. The areas of Texas and Oklahoma described by Hanson set an incredible number of "All time highs" and "worst droughts". As individual events ... like the cold snaps quoted by Mo, they do not "prove" global warming. But taken as parts of the overall planetary temperature increase and expected heat based events like drought, they prove a lot to a lot of scientists. Even the naysayers have mostly come around. The proof is simply overwhelming. It is hotter than it should be and the heat is accelerating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics work both ways. The areas of Texas and Oklahoma described by Hanson set an incredible number of "All time highs" and "worst droughts". As individual events ... like the cold snaps quoted by Mo, they do not "prove" global warming. But taken as parts of the overall planetary temperature increase and expected heat based events like drought, they prove a lot to a lot of scientists. Even the naysayers have mostly come around. The proof is simply overwhelming. It is hotter than it should be and the heat is accelerating. Here is more from Dr. Mass's blog post: Unfortunately, a very limited, but highly visible, group of scientists like Hansen are choosing to tell a story that is not supported by the facts, with a media that is happy to amplify such claims. Global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions of mankind is a very serious issue...one which our civilization is not dealing with in an effective way. But scientists must give society the straight facts and not shade or exaggerate the facts based on our personal views on what should be done.
Dr. Mass believes in the existence of anthropogenic global warming, but he says that Hansen is wrong to claim that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for the high temperatures that have recently occurred in Texas and Oklahoma. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics work both ways. The areas of Texas and Oklahoma described by Hanson set an incredible number of "All time highs" and "worst droughts". As individual events ... like the cold snaps quoted by Mo, they do not "prove" global warming. But taken as parts of the overall planetary temperature increase and expected heat based events like drought, they prove a lot to a lot of scientists. Even the naysayers have mostly come around. The proof is simply overwhelming. It is hotter than it should be and the heat is accelerating. Here is more from Dr. Mass's blog post: Unfortunately, a very limited, but highly visible, group of scientists like Hansen are choosing to tell a story that is not supported by the facts, with a media that is happy to amplify such claims. Global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions of mankind is a very serious issue...one which our civilization is not dealing with in an effective way. But scientists must give society the straight facts and not shade or exaggerate the facts based on our personal views on what should be done.
Dr. Mass believes in the existence of anthropogenic global warming, but he says that Hansen is wrong to claim that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for the high temperatures that have recently occurred in Texas and Oklahoma. I got that. Hansen used a statistical approach as a new way of looking at what could cause that many "over temp" days. He was applauded by many and is considered a top (if not the top) expert in the field. If you read his paper you will see why this particular approach was so different from the usual "weather model" approach. Dr. Mass is simply saying that isolated events do not make for proof of climate. Please note that I said the same thing several times. I have seen the research data in volume and have observed the process first hand. Global warming, like Dr. Mass says, is real. It is real from any approach. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mass is contradicting Dr. Hansen's claim that the heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma were caused by man-made global warming. Climatologist John Christy also contradicted Dr. Hansen in Dr. Christy's 1 August 2012 testimony before the U.S. Senate's Environment & Public Works Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mass is contradicting Dr. Hansen's claim that the heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma were caused by man-made global warming. Climatologist John Christy also contradicted Dr. Hansen in Dr. Christy's 1 August 2012 testimony before the U.S. Senate's Environment & Public Works Committee. That is not true. Dr. Mass is stating that, in his opinion, the mathematical technique used by Hansen does not prove the drought in Texas in Oklahoma was caused by man made global warming, but he made clear that he believed man made global warming was real. Hanson attempts to prove his case by offering climate data to support the "possibility" that the drought could simply be caused by a stuck high pressure zone within the expected variation of climate norms. Hanson's unique approach was to examine the odds of such freak weather happening without the help of global warming and found the odds against it to be very high, thus offering statistical proof of the event. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mass is contradicting Dr. Hansen's claim that the heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma were caused by man-made global warming. Climatologist John Christy also contradicted Dr. Hansen in Dr. Christy's 1 August 2012 testimony before the U.S. Senate's Environment & Public Works Committee. That is not true. Dr. Mass is stating that, in his opinion, the mathematical technique used by Hansen does not prove the drought in Texas in Oklahoma was caused by man made global warming, but he made clear that he believed man made global warming was real. Hanson attempts to prove his case by offering climate data to support the "possibility" that the drought could simply be caused by a stuck high pressure zone within the expected variation of climate norms. Hanson's unique approach was to examine the odds of such freak weather happening without the help of global warming and found the odds against it to be very high, thus offering statistical proof of the event.  Dr. Mass is indeed rebuking Dr. Hansen. Dr. Christy is doing the same thing. Dr. Christy states, "There will certainly be events in this coming century that exceed the magnitude of extremes measured in the past 130 years in many locations. To put it another way, a large percentage of the worst extremes over the period 1880 to 2100 will occur after 2011 simply by statistical probability without any appeal to human forcing at all." (Quote Source)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mass is contradicting Dr. Hansen's claim that the heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma were caused by man-made global warming. Climatologist John Christy also contradicted Dr. Hansen in Dr. Christy's 1 August 2012 testimony before the U.S. Senate's Environment & Public Works Committee. That is not true. Dr. Mass is stating that, in his opinion, the mathematical technique used by Hansen does not prove the drought in Texas in Oklahoma was caused by man made global warming, but he made clear that he believed man made global warming was real. Hanson attempts to prove his case by offering climate data to support the "possibility" that the drought could simply be caused by a stuck high pressure zone within the expected variation of climate norms. Hanson's unique approach was to examine the odds of such freak weather happening without the help of global warming and found the odds against it to be very high, thus offering statistical proof of the event. Dr. Mass is indeed rebuking Dr. Hansen. Dr. Christy is doing the same thing. Dr. Christy states, "There will certainly be events in this coming century that exceed the magnitude of extremes measured in the past 130 years in many locations. To put it another way, a large percentage of the worst extremes over the period 1880 to 2100 will occur after 2011 simply by statistical probability without any appeal to human forcing at all." (Quote Source)
You are twisting the meaning. You and Mo both posted unique events in the context of using unique events of cold weather to debunk man made global warming (cough). I stated that unique events cannot be used to prove or disproved global warming, only average global temperatures matter. I posted Hansen's work as "state of the art" science by the top people in the field even though his latest paper uses statistical math to prove global warming instead of the the usual temp data and climate models. The guys you quote are climate modelers, not statisticians, who refute the model, not the result. From every legitimate angle, science has proven man made global warming. You are posting false "examples", then proving they are false. Now you attack the top people in the field by finding someone who disagrees with a recent unique method but agrees with the results? What do YOU believe? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what i believe is that it is a natural occurring thing. The earth is estimated to be over 4 billion years old, and we have about 200 years of weather record keeping. that simply is not enough data to make any kind of claims by anyone saying they know any of this for a fact. the earths average has been increasing, but since 1950, it has not reached 1 degree yet. but for anyone to say it is man made would be wrong, just for the facts are simply not there.
http://deepclimate.org/2012/08/15/berkeley-earth-part-1-divergences-and-discrepancies/ |
|
|
|
|
