Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[seer]

Umm... yes, there is an average temperature. It can be measured every year, and it is rising. There is no "absolutely ought to be" average temperature. What the average temperature "ought to be" is a function of the outcomes we want.

Well I'm glad you admit it is subjective.

As far as I know, when Antarctica was a topic zone, we were not dealing with warmig as a result of extensive CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming (or cooling) can be impacted by multiple factors. Not all of them are prone to "runaway" warming (or cooling). If the atmosphere crosses a particular CO2 boundary, the math and climate science says we can (not will) enter a feedback loop. As I carefully noted, the probability of this is small - and the theme is exagerrated by climate-change pundits. It certainly does not have a short-term risk. The risk increases, however, the longer the CO2 issue remains unaddressed. On that the science is fairly clear. It does not become "probable" in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes under ANY model. BUt if the trajectory of CO2 build-up does not change, it does eventually shift from "possible" to "probable."

Carp, you do know that C02 levels were once much higher than today, levels that we probably could never reach, yet we did not turn into Venus. As a matter of fact Co2 levels were five times higher in the distant past - no Venus.

[carpedm9587]

Grow up Carp, these third would countries won't give up their possible advantage no matter what we do. Renewables are fine, but China still needs coal, and lots of it. And will for a very long time. And the US Co2 levels are back to mid 90s levels. This is largely due to natural gas and fracking, with Renewables.

What IS it with you folks and your incessant need to phrase things in the most insulting terms possible? Grow up? Do you folks have ANY idea how poorly such discourse reflects on you? Would you ever have this kind of discussion with people face-to-face?

Anyway - be that as it may - nothing you have said here in any way seems to run counter to what I posted. Yes, China has enormous coal reserves and is tapping them. The arc, however, is a depressed one. They have not crested the top, but they are moving that direction - while their renewables industry is on a powerful ascent curve. If you look at the corresponding U.S. statistics, they do not even compare.

More alarmist talk, we are already moving forward, the US has about 18% of electrical generation coming from wind and solar. The evil conservative state of Texas has 37%. So I'm not worried.

Which ranks us 111th in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ewable_sources), and we are doing so primarily as a customer. Where the U.S. has 260K people employeed in the renewable sector, China has 2.5 million (http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/18/tech...arm/index.html). Yes - they have more people than we, so we expect more. So let's look at it as a function of that difference: China has a population 4.3 times the size of ours. They have 9.6 times as many people working in this sector.

We're getting buried in an industry that shows every sign of LONG term roots - because we have our eyes squarely focused on the past. Chinas has been in existence for 3500 years - the U.S. for 250+. You think maybe they know something about survival?

[seer]

What IS it with you folks and your incessant need to phrase things in the most insulting terms possible? Grow up? Do you folks have ANY idea how poorly such discourse reflects on you?

Anyway - be that as it may - nothing you have said here in any way seems to run counter to what I posted. Yes, China has enormous coal reserves and is tapping them. The arc, however, is a depressed one. They have not crested the top, but they are moving that direction - while their renewables industry is on a powerful ascent curve. If you look at the corresponding U.S. statistics, they do not even compare.

Which ranks us 111th in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ewable_sources), and we are doing so primarily as a customer. Where the U.S. has 260K people employeed in the renewable sector, China has 2.5 million (http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/18/tech...arm/index.html). Yes - they have more people than we, so we expect more. So let's look at it as a function of that difference: China has a population 4.3 times the size of ours. They have 9.6 times as many people working in this sector.

We're getting buried in an industry that shows every sign of LONG term roots - because we have our eyes squarely focused on the past. Chinas has been in existence for 3500 years - the U.S. for 250+. You think maybe they know something about survival?

Sheesh, China is a Communist country, they force their people or industries to do A or B. The point is however is that we are moving that way and as technology gets better and cheaper we will have more and renewables - long before fossil fuels run out.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh, China is a Communist country, they force their people or industries to do A or B. The point is however is that we are moving that way and as technology gets better and cheaper we will have more and renewables - long before fossil fuels run out.

I never argued otherwise, Seer. What I noted is that we, and the rest of the world, will mostly turn to China for these. Instead of leading in an emerging market, we are consigning ourselves to a distant second, at best.

[shunyadragon]

The following is a more comprehensive source concerning the question of the influence of tropical storms and climate change.

Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html

Observed trends in hurricanes

A hurricane is a rotating, organized system of thunderstorms and clouds originating in tropical or subtropical waters. Hurricanes are classified according to wind speed. The number and strength of storms is highly variable from year to year, which makes it challenging to detect trends in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes over time.

The advent of satellite technology in the 1970s made it possible to more consistently track hurricanes. Storm counts and strength measurements from before to the 1970s are less consistent, further complicating the study of long-term trends.

To help address these challenges, scientists run hurricane models calibrated with observations over the historical period to project future trends and understand the major factors driving these trends.

Recent research in this area suggests that there has been an increase in intense hurricane activity over the past 40 years.

The National Weather Service added new colors to its rainfall maps to effectively map Hurricane Harvey, which dropped unprecedented amounts of rainfall over Texas.

The category system classifies the strength of Hurricanes on a scale from 1 to 5 according to wind speed. Since the mid-1970s, the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength has roughly doubled. Indices for hurricane activity based on storm surge data from tide gauges further indicate an increase in intensity.

In 2017, Hurricane Harvey produced unprecedented levels of precipitation. The National Weather Service added two more shades of purple to its rainfall maps to effectively map Hurricane Harvey's rainfall amounts.

There is some evidence that in the western North Pacific Ocean, hurricanes—known as typhoons in this region—are also intensifying. Whether hurricanes are intensifying in other regions is less clear, though other recent evidence suggests that the trend toward more intense hurricanes may extend globally.

There has been little change, however, in the frequency of hurricanes globally. Roughly 90 hurricanes occur each year around the world, with by far the greatest number occurring in the largest ocean basin on Earth–the Pacific.

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

Likewise, when you look at ALL dates of the year, across ALL countries, the overwhelming trend is towards warming.

At least that's what the "adjusted" data shows.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...cious-makeover

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#70bdd4321714

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/...y-scale-trend/

There are literally dozens more examples of data being blatantly manipulated to fit the global warming agenda. The official data can not be trusted.

[seer]

I never argued otherwise, Seer. What I noted is that we, and the rest of the world, will mostly turn to China for these. Instead of leading in an emerging market, we are consigning ourselves to a distant second, at best.

Carp, that has little to do with it. We have the technology, but it is difficult to compete with a country that has in essence slave labor and near zero environmental regulations on their industry, no worker rights, low pay, etc... Low production costs is the real reason why China may win.

[seer]

The following is a more comprehensive source concerning the question of the influence of tropical storms and climate change.

Recent research in this area suggests that there has been an increase in intense hurricane activity over the past 40 years.

As compared to what? How can such a short time line, 40 years, set a base line for anything? Are hurricanes more intense today than 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 1,000 years ago?

[tabibito]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ra...26-gwyu52.html
Overall, the study found that "while the rate of ocean thermal expansion has remained steady since 1993, contributions from ice sheets and glaciers have increased from about half of the total rise in 1993 to around 70 per cent in 2014."

Argument about temperature gauges is one thing, argument about land ice turning into ocean water is quite another. Sea levels are rising at an increased rate, and that water is not coming from water borne ice (the arctic), it's coming from land - primarily Greenland, but tundra generally.

[Mountain Man]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ra...26-gwyu52.html
Overall, the study found that "while the rate of ocean thermal expansion has remained steady since 1993, contributions from ice sheets and glaciers have increased from about half of the total rise in 1993 to around 70 per cent in 2014."

Argument about temperature gauges is one thing, argument about land ice turning into ocean water is quite another. Sea levels are rising at an increased rate, and that water is not coming from water borne ice (the arctic), it's coming from land - primarily Greenland, but tundra generally.

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now, the rest of the story..."

----------

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.

[...]

The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”

That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ea-level-rise/

[seer]

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now, the rest of the story..."

They only lie to save us from ourselves...

[carpedm9587]

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now, the rest of the story..."

----------

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.

[...]

The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”

That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ea-level-rise/

No - the authors certainly don't. Here is a slightly different perspective, from one of the scientists Fox interviewed for a story on this topic - related to this paper: https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/...sea-level-rise

This is one of the reasons I don't read Brietbart anymore - and Fox is becoming increasingly difficult to read. I also did some poking around about these two authors. I cannot find their papers anywhere except on right-wing or client denial websites, and I cannot locate a single peer review of these papers. They have published several papers supposedly "debunking" climate science.

If anyone knows of some peer reviews, I would like to find them and read them.

P.S. I LOVED Paul Harvey...

[carpedm9587]

At least that's what the "adjusted" data shows.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...cious-makeover

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#70bdd4321714

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/...y-scale-trend/

There are literally dozens more examples of data being blatantly manipulated to fit the global warming agenda. The official data can not be trusted.

I am fairly comfortable with the scientific research and both the rationality and methodology behind data adjustment. I realize it gives the climate-change-diniers a talking point, but if someone takes the time to look into the science, the reasons and methodology are well documented and sound. Unfortunately, for the lay person, the idea that the "raw data" would be "adjusted" is ghastly, and smacks of conspiracy (which has been seriously leveraged). However, for someone with a background in analytics and data integrity, this is common practice across MANY disciplines - not just climatology.

[Cow Poke]

Just so you know: http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/

The "ice age" cover for Time Magazine is a fake cover that has been circulating online for some time.

No, didn't know that. I DO remember the "coming ice age", but didn't know that was a fake cover. Thanks - I'll be more diligent in the future.

[Cow Poke]

When you have an opportunity to pop your head out of your backside and actually read what I wrote....

Shuny - I apologize - this was uncalled for, and you didn't deserve this.