Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[Leonhard]

And, as I've frequently pointed out, whoever allowed Al Gore to be the unofficial official spokesperson should be locked in the cooler. All that drama queen chicken little stuff didn't help.

I've long argued that scientists should be better at communicating with the media. I've seen journalists interviewing scientists, and its clear that they've already decided on a story, they're just fishing for this or that quote to fit into the "Amazing breakthrough that will change everything" or "We could soon be wiped out" templates which seems to be all they have.

To some extent though the republicans have a strange tendency to be uneasy with this stuff. Again I don't see why they should. They could propose their own solutions. Perhaps rolling back some of the safety red tape on nuclear power as one solution. Allow nuclear waste disposal inside concrete drums on the surface, which is what the industry wants, instead of spending billions hollowing out a mountain facility.

At any rate though the industry is moving in that direction of clean energy, though the wheels could still use a bit more grease.

[JimL]

And, as I've frequently pointed out, whoever allowed Al Gore to be the unofficial official spokesperson should be locked in the cooler. All that drama queen chicken little stuff didn't help.

I don't think it would matter who it was that was sounding the alarm, you'd be demonizing them just the same. Had you/we all paid more attention and been more agressive in our response, we'd be much better off, in a much better position, with respect to the amount of damage caused to the environment, than we are now in.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think it would matter who it was that was sounding the alarm, you'd be demonizing them just the same. Had you/we all paid more attention and been more agressive in our response, we'd be much better off, in a much better position, with respect to the amount of damage caused to the environment, than we are now in.

Did you hear that whooshing sound, Jim?

[seer]

The proof is in the pudding as they say. Where have you been. Have you not noticed the increase and severity of severe weather conditions, hurricanes, forests fires etc. Puerto Rico was basically destroyed. But here, I'll just leave this for you to peruse, and then deny.

First you guys say that weather events do not disprove or prove global warming, now you say they do prove it? And what do you do with the 10 year low in Atlantic hurricanes before this last season? Not to mention that you have no idea what is normal for these events. So does a lull in Atlantic storms also point to global warming?

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History


https://www.livescience.com/50704-hu...e-drought.html

[Starlight]

And, as I've frequently pointed out, whoever allowed Al Gore to be the unofficial official spokesperson should be locked in the cooler.

Well the problem is that US conservatives are so mindlessly partisan that if a Democrat or liberal says "up" they'll spend the next twenty years yelling "down" at the top of their lungs. So when Al Gore went from being the democratic presidential candidate to promoting awareness of climate change, there was a huge proportion of Americans who instantly were opposed to listening and started screaming that he must be wrong and doing their normal drama queen act because they were anti Al Gore. It wasn't that there was anything wrong with Al Gore per se as a person, the fault lies in the insanity of US conservatives.

[One Bad Pig]

The proof is in the pudding as they say. Where have you been. Have you not noticed the increase and severity of severe weather conditions, hurricanes, forests fires etc. Puerto Rico was basically destroyed.

More damage (in dollars) caused by hurricanes/forest fires is not indicative of an increase and severity of severe weather conditions. It is indicative of humans building more extensively in areas prone to such events. There is no increase in hurricane quantity or severity - just strong hurricanes directly hitting vulnerable areas. You (and the site you linked) are no better than Algore in your climate alarmism.

[Leonhard]

First you guys say that weather events do not disprove or prove global warming,

I was careful to specify "a single weather event locally", which is what your OP is about. The connection between Global Warming and a statistical increase of hurricanes, floods, etc... is more tenuous, and there's room for more of a discussion there, than with the more conservative estimates. The only thing I think that there's consensus on is that we'll see more rain as the atmosphere in general would contain more moisture. The rest I'm less certain of.

[Cow Poke]

Well the problem is that US conservatives are so mindlessly partisan that if a Democrat or liberal says "up" they'll spend the next twenty years yelling "down" at the top of their lungs.

Well, I mention drama queen and look who shows up!

So when Al Gore went from being the democratic presidential candidate to promoting awareness of climate change, there was a huge proportion of Americans who instantly were opposed to listening and started screaming that he must be wrong and doing their normal drama queen act because they were anti Al Gore. It wasn't that there was anything wrong with Al Gore per se as a person, the fault lies in the insanity of US conservatives.

Yeah, had NOTHING to do with the fact that most of his goofy predictions failed to actually happen.

People who are serious about climate science don't seem to spend a whole lot of time defending Al Gore's drama and his plans to get rich off carbon trading.

Do continue, though, it's a bit entertaining.

[seer]

To some extent though the republicans have a strange tendency to be uneasy with this stuff. Again I don't see why they should....

I'll tell you why Leonhard, because the old school Communists moved into the green movement, this is very well documented. If you are really interested try Rupert Darwall's latest work; Green Tyranny. It is meticulously foot noted and referenced.

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Tyranny...=green+tyranny

We are not blind, we see what the greens are saying, they are not shy about it: https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/9/23...munist-agenda/

[seer]

I was careful to specify "a single weather event locally", which is what your OP is about. The connection between Global Warming and a statistical increase of hurricanes, floods, etc... is more tenuous, and there's room for more of a discussion there, than with the more conservative estimates. The only thing I think that there's consensus on is that we'll see more rain as the atmosphere in general would contain more moisture. The rest I'm less certain of.

And when we recently had a ten year lull in Atlantic hurricanes what does that tell us?

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History


https://www.livescience.com/50704-hu...e-drought.html

[Mountain Man]

Its special pleading because what the temperature average was between 1979 and 2000 has nothing to do with whether it was relatively cold in the US, but warm in Russia. As said, it being cold in the US is not in contradiction of the fact that global average temperature has been rising. Therefore what you said amounted to special pleading.


I'm not sure why this is relevant. The "correct" number of extreme weather events? I'm really not sure what you're asking for. You're the one arguing that the US having a cold winter is problematic. Which, agai, I don't see why you claim. The US is only a small percentage of the world's surface.


Why should the adjustments be random?


There are no axis on that graph, and it doesn't appear to have been drawn from actual data, but appears to have been hand drawn by these guys. If you can find the datasets they used that would be nice.

I never said the "adjustments" should be random, but why are they only ever in favor of global warming? Why don't you ever see adjustments going the other way? Just based on simple probability, what are the chances that every error will only ever be in one direction? If your butcher regularly overcharges you then you have good reason to suspect he has his thumb on the scale.

I think my favorite "The dog ate my homework" moment in the climate debate was when the evidence for no warming was becoming impossible to ignore, so NOAA "adjusted" the data until it went away. Of course that's not the first time the butcher put his thumb on the scale (just one of many examples I could have chosen; here's another one; and another; I could go on, but you get the idea), and it certainly won't be the last.

Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-5.45.44-AM-1.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/...ata-tampering/

The short version is that any graphs based on "official" data can not be trusted because organizations like NOAA and NASA have been busy destroying the historical temperature record in order to support the global warming agenda resulting in a "garbage in, garbage out" situation. But I guess that's how "settled science" is done these days.

[Cow Poke]

...So when Al Gore went from being the democratic presidential candidate to promoting awareness of climate change...

Al Gore is probably one of the biggest hypocrites of the climate change narrative...

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

Marketing Climate Alarm:

[Leonhard]

I never said the "adjustments" should be random, but why are they only ever in favor of global warming? Why don't you ever see adjustments going the other way?

I'm still not sure what you're asking for... that evidence to randomly swing between something favoring global warming, or not global warming?

I think, if I have spare time in the next month I'll try to reconstruct that graph you've got there from the GHCN raw data, and then add in the corrections which the author you linked to agreed were fine enough adjustments, he just wasn't able to reproduce the results and therefore argued that they were cheated with the data.

I'm not convinced they're cheating, but I'll see if I can't replicate what they've got. It'll give me an excuse to play with python scripts.

[Jedidiah]

After several threads on this very topic I find your continual use of this absurd strawman to be fascinating.

The information has been presented to you in several varied forms in this very forum, yet you obtusely persist with (I can only assume) purposefully misrepresenting it.

Its very interesting.

Yes, after nearly 40 years in Alaska I can see the clear warming trends here over that time.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

It is pretty cold right now so maybe I should change my view

[shunyadragon]

And when we recently had a ten year lull in Atlantic hurricanes what does that tell us?

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History


https://www.livescience.com/50704-hu...e-drought.html

First, old source and I do not believe it mentions climate change. I will check sources with longer statistical records.

Second, the source qualifies the nature of the 'recent' trend, and yes the drought appears to have ended since 2015.

From your source.

Source: https://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html

"But a hurricane drought can end at any time, the researchers said, reminding people that, just because there hasn't been a strong hurricane in a while, that doesn't mean the risk is any lower."

© Copyright Original Source

Third, This has been addressed in detail in the past concerning the trends of tropical storm occurrences and strength over time. I well get the sources, but in summary it is the trends in Pacific and Indian Ocean tropical storms that show a trend in relationship to climate change, and less so with Atlantic hurricanes.

Fourth, when longer trends in the history of Atlantic hurricanes are included the results may be different. Sources to follow.