Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[Darth Executor]

If science is liberal, then reality has a liberal bias.

Science doesn't seem to be very liberal when it comes to differences in attributes between the sexes, or human populations. You know, things central to the progressive mythos. And that's with the average scientist being well to the left.

[Juvenal]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25717[/ATTACH]

Top dead center: Why we can't beat the Soviets.

I'm thinking 1977 was not a good year for Time.

[Juvenal]

After chilly forecast, Trump tweets U.S. ‘could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming’

Right now, the jet stream is crashing south in the eastern half of the continent while surging northward in the west half. That phenomenon, called the North American Winter Dipole, is strangely enough simultaneously responsible for freezing temperatures in the East and the roasting temperatures in the West, which are fueling recent forest fires in California.

Because even a thread trolling science should expect some science to show up.

[Tassman]

Yes, it makes total sense that an average increase in global temperature would cause record extreme bitter cold.

Global warming amplifies the risk factors for all extreme weather events. The record extreme bitter cold is an example of this.

[Starlight]

The weather here has been breaking a few records for heat this summer so far. Good for swimming at the beach :)

[Zymologist]

The weather here has been breaking a few records for heat this summer so far. Good for swimming at the beach :)

Yeah, yeah...brag it up. I drove to and from work today through some 8 inches of snow in 2-degree weather.

[demi-conservative]

Top dead center: Why we can't beat the Soviets.

I'm thinking 1977 was not a good year for Time.

Full of prog propaganda like always, I see!!!

[Starlight]

Weather channel tweeted out this map of global temperatures currently compared to average for this time of year:

(Blue = colder than average, Red = warmer than average)


Obviously anyone can see there's an ice age currently sweeping the globe... /s

[Mountain Man]

If science is liberal, then reality has a liberal bias.

Science doesn't lie, but scientists do.

[Mountain Man]

After chilly forecast, Trump tweets U.S. ‘could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming’

Right now, the jet stream is crashing south in the eastern half of the continent while surging northward in the west half. That phenomenon, called the North American Winter Dipole, is strangely enough simultaneously responsible for freezing temperatures in the East and the roasting temperatures in the West, which are fueling recent forest fires in California.

Because even a thread trolling science should expect some science to show up.

So I ask again, who was predicting that "global warming" would lead to bitter cold, increased snowfall, and record levels of Antarctic sea ice? What's scientific about ignoring the fact that the global warming hypothesis has repeatedly failed to make accurate predictions?

[Mountain Man]

Weather channel tweeted out this map of global temperatures currently compared to average for this time of year:

(Blue = colder than average, Red = warmer than average)


Obviously anyone can see there's an ice age currently sweeping the globe... /s

This is like the extreme weather BS. Their baseline is 1979 to 2000. On what basis do they declare that to be "average"? That seems like an awfully narrow window when talking about the Earth's climatic history, and funny how they've carefully ignored the last 17-years which has exhibited a slight cooling trend.

[Leonhard]

So I ask again, who was predicting that "global warming" would lead to bitter cold, increased snowfall,

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about the cold in the US? Which represents only a few percent of the Earth's surface?

Its about the average temperature of the Earth.

and record levels of Antarctic sea ice?

Are you talking about the extent of the ice or its volume? The latter is still a bit unknown. Though I do agree that the Antarctic ice sheet has been relatively stable these past thirty years. However the Artic ice sheet has been decreasing. The combined ice sheet extent of either pole has been steadily going down on average.


Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IO...w.php?id=85246

[Leonhard]

This is like the extreme weather BS. Their baseline is 1979 to 2000. On what basis do they declare that to be "average"? That seems like an awfully narrow window when talking about the Earth's climatic history,

Special pleading fallacy on your part. The point is that while it was cold in the US, it was a lot warmer in other places. A baseline of that timeline is more than sufficient to show that. Heck, all it would do is change the baseline, not the fact that it was relatively colder in the US than in Russia, China and the Poles.

and funny how they've carefully ignored the last 17-years which has exhibited a slight cooling trend.

The data is in. There is no pause its back on track. The 17-year (actually 15-year but it inflates each time a climate change dissenter talks about it) pause was well within in the wiggle room of statistical uncertainty, and is only found by setting a baseline right at an El Nino year in 1998.

[seer]

Special pleading fallacy on your part. The point is that while it was cold in the US, it was a lot warmer in other places. A baseline of that timeline is more than sufficient to show that. Heck, all it would do is change the baseline, not the fact that it was relatively colder in the US than in Russia, China and the Poles.

See Leonard many of us remember the scientific consensus around acid rain, that it was a planetary crisis leading to an uninhabitable earth. Never mind the fact that no one has demonstrated that over all a warmer planet would be worse or less beneficial than a cooler planet.

Have you even heard of the "acid rain" scare? By the mid-1990s it had almost entirely dissipated, so it's likely to mean nothing to you if you are under 30. But in the 1980s it was big -- far bigger at the time than the global warming scare, that was then just getting under way. The idea was that burning coal and other fossil fuels in power plants to generate electricity put chemicals into the atmosphere (e.g., sulfur dioxide) that then caused the rain to turn acidic. If allowed to continue, the acid rain would kill off the forests, wipe out the fish in lakes, destroy ecosystems, and more generally render the earth uninhabitable. This was indeed a planetary crisis. The proposed solution? Eliminate fossil fuels!

Among many activist groups pushing acid rain hysteria at the time, Darwall focuses on a 1981 Report put out by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. (You will recognize the NAS as a big player in pushing the global warming scare today.) The Report was titled "Atmosphere-Biosphere Interactions: Toward a Better Understanding of the Ecological Consequences of Fossil Fuel Combustion." It asserted great scientific certainty as to the imminent ecological crisis to be caused by the acid rain. Excerpt:

"Perhaps the first well-demonstrated widespread effect of burning fossil fuel is the destruction of soft-water ecosystems by 'acid rain.' . . . Owing to the concentrated efforts of scientists in the Northern Hemisphere, most notably in Scandinavia during the past decade, we have a much more complete knowledge of the causes and consequences of acid deposition than we have for other pollutants. . . ." Long-term [acidic] precipitation "is likely to accelerate natural processes of soil leaching that lead to impoverishment in plant nutrients. When freshwater effects are considered, the positive effects are greatly outweighed by the negative."

Obviously then, government directives to the populace to decrease the use of fossil fuels would be imperative to save the planet! From the Report:

Strong measures are necessary if we are to prevent further degradation of natural ecosystems, which together support life on this planet. . . . In the long run, only decreased reliance on fussil fuel or improved control of a wide spectrum of pollutants can reduce the risk that our descendants will suffer food shortages, impaired health, and a damaged environment.

As you undoubtedly know, governmental restrictions on the use of fossil fuels did not start at all in the 1980s, and only barely got under way with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Surely, then, the acid-rain-induced ecological catastrophe must have been upon us by the mid-1990s? Actually not. Not only did the evidence of catastrophe fail to emerge as predicted, but in addition the government funded a big study called NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program) to the tune of some $570 million (!). NAPAP released an interim Report in 1987, and a final version in 1991. Some of the conclusions of the NAPAP Reports (in Darwall's paraphrase except the part in quotes):

[T]he effects of acid rain were neither widespread nor serious and less than had been anticipated ten years before. There was sufficient uncertainty to preclude determination of the need for, or the nature of, abatement strategies such as emissions reductions. . . . "The vast majority of forests in the United States and Canada are not affected by [acid-rain-induced] decline."

So what happened to the people who had demanded a transformation of the economy and a vast loss of freedom in order to avert the coming ecological catastrophe? Did they lose their reputations and jobs, and become subject to ridicule and scorn? Of course not! Instead, the whole acid rain thing just faded away as if it had never happened:

The world had moved on. . . . Acid rain had not been "solved." It faded away. . . . Scientists claimed trees were being damaged and forests would die. The evidence showed that they weren't. . . . At no point did any environmental regulator or any of their political masters acknowledge that the scientific basis for policies against acid rain had gone.

Indeed, Darwall states that as of the time of his writing the book, EPA's website still falsely proclaimed that "acid rain is a serious environmental problem that affects large parts of the United States and Canada."

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/...onmental-scare

[Mountain Man]

]Special pleading fallacy on your part.

How is it "special pleading" to ask their criteria for declaring that such a narrow range of data to be "average" for the Earth's climate as a whole? Tell me, what is the "correct" temperature of the Earth, and what are the "correct" number of extreme weather events per year?

The data is in.

Is that actual data or "adjusted" data which is only ever adjusted in favor of warming?

At any rate, the story is much more complicated than global warming alarmists want to admit:

gtemps.jpg
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Makes you wonder what man was doing in 1100 BC to cause global warming! Maybe too many campfires and cow farts.