Whoops, I got that title a bit wrong. There are record low temperatures in Los Angeles, below 70 degrees in several places.
Read about it here.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conservative Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
Angry Democrats22 hours ago
Blogs That Fight & Condemn Islamic Evil
-
-
-
Gates of Vienna News Feed 11/9/202414 hours ago
-
-
-
Support the Abbeville Institute
Southern-Leaning Blogs & Websites
-
Blue City Blues - Photo Credit: *Image via Picryl.* Picryl It’s understandable to want to live in a big city, but there are drawbacks.14 hours ago
-
Federal Judge Throws Out Biden Admin Program to Legalize Illegal Immigrant Spouses of US Citizens - The program would have benefited more than 1.3 million illegals. The post Federal Judge Throws Out Biden Admin Program to Legalize Illegal Immigrant Spou...1 day ago
-
A Knotty Nodus - I have ever championed the view that the hallmark of good history or philosophy, especially for young scholars, is for a scholar to take what might be cons...2 days ago
31 comments:
It never looks good for an accountant to ignore mathematics.
Global warming has to do with the average global temperature. One datum is not an average.
When a cloud passes over your own head, that doesn't mean the entire planet is getting cooler. On the contrary, the existence and movement of that cloud is visible evidence of the fact that discrete masses of air of differing temperatures form randomly within larger climate systems. And that is why L.A. ends up experiencing a record low temperature for a single day during a global warming event that spans many years.
Sustained higher average temperature is what is visibly shrinking the polar ice caps and glaciers around the world. NOAA's records show average global temperature for the first six months of 2010 was the warmest in the 120 years that NOAA has been meticulously writing down what all the thermometers say -- including on the coldest days in L.A. -- and dividing the sum of the temperatures by the number of thermometers.
NOAA is not the Illuminati. Science is not a conspiracy. Facts are not political enemies.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong, my friend (about the Illuminati). I really don't believe in the "Illuminati" and I think those who peddle such notions are nuts. However, I do believe that leftist politicians and scientists have conspired to doctor climate data and create a bogus notion of AGW so they can seize power over industry and the means of production -- in other words, socialism by other means than class warfare.
Yes, temperatures should be averaged, but first the temperatures have to be accurate and representative. Many measurement stations are in urban areas where the temperatures are higher than normal. Also, global ice advances and retreats with the seasons, and no, it isn't in any short supply. Polar bears are thriving.
There have been many books written on the subject, and I have read some of them, including "Green Hell." Most scientists do not support the theory of APG; those who do are in the minority and generally dependent on government grants, so they have a vested interest in advancing the theory.
AGW is far from proved, and no, I don't believe it.
<span>"Yes, temperatures should be averaged"</span>
Translation: Yes, it was total crock to tag a story about one brief cool moment in one tiny part of the globe as "debunking global warming.
You mean, like the way AGW nutjobs crow about how boiling hot it is on the east coast in early July, and don't mention the cooler than usual temperatures in late July?
And then there are the extemely cold temperatures in South America that killed 175 people last week. And the huge snowstorms in Japan and even Baghdad in the last couple of years?
Face it, the globe is cooling, not heating. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crock, a lie, a fraud, a hoax. We win, you lose.
Furthermore, there's a reason why Al Gore refuses all offers of debate. He knows he would lose.
<span>When you went as far as to admit that temperatures "should" be averaged when discussing global temperature, I thought you got it. But you continue to cherry-pick pinpoint low-temp weather events and claim they prove the globe is cooling. The same day as LA's cool snap, Moscow had a record high. Neither event proves anything about the trend of global temperature. </span><span>You're arguing with a fundamental mathematical reality: no individual datum or subset of data determines the average. </span>
<span><span>There are record highs and lows recorded every day. Saying that one transitory local air mass proves the trend in global temperature is like scooping up a cup of sand at the beach and saying your sample proves the whole world is a desert.</span></span>
<span><span>
</span></span>
Sven, you warmists do plenty of cherry-picking yourselves, so I guess you are an expert on the subject. Remember the "hide the decline" controversy? Warmists have been sternly noting that 2010 is the "hottest year on record" when there is much evidence that it is a mild, cool year. Warmists continually make absurd claims that are obviously wrong and easily observable.
In any case, the point is this: there is NO credible evidence that man made carbon emissions are having anything but a negligible effect (if that) on climate and you warmists haven't begun to make your case. You simply state that it is a fact, with nothing but flawed and inadequate computer models on which to base your argument, and then you shout down the great majority who disagree.
Before I will go along with draconian efforts to curb industry and production and substantially lower my standard of living, I will need a lot more than the say-so of the intellectually dishonest Global Warming crowd.
Go play in a snowbank.
This is pointless. You don't cite any evidence for your global cooling theory except pinpoint local weather events, which you admitted is bunk. I link to some of the best scientific measurement available, which shows 2010 is (so far) the hottest year in 120 years, and you pretend "there is much evidence to the contrary." You keep putting other people's words in my mouth to avoid talking about the problems with what you said. You are not interested in science or facts or even a conversation.
You cannot change physical reality by putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "we win, you lose."
And that is the difference between you and I. I'm willing to consider the evidence on which way global temperature is trending, and you are afraid to.
Horse manure, I never said local weather conditions are bunk. When local weather conditions are considered worldwide (and they are), the evidence is clear: the earth has been cooling for at least the past eight years. In spite of your claim to "an open mind," you clearly do not have one.
I am not trying to "change reality"; your theories about climate change and your computer models are not "reality," but merely leftwing propaganda for seizing the means of production and "redistributing" wealth, through the scam of "carbon credits."
If you had bothered to Google "global cooling," you'd find the information that supports it handily (unlike the global warming theory, which has no basis for it).
Check out this site, for example: http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
The author lists a number of facts to show the earth is currently in a cooling period, IN SPITE OF the terrible man made carbon emissions.
Now I can continue to spank your butt for all the world to see, but you may as well face it. you've lost the argument.
I haven't written a word about computer models or AWG. I have, however, pointed to NOAA's actual measurements showing that 2010 has recorded the hottest global average temperature for Jan-June since NOAA started keeping such records 120 years ago.
You have asserted that there is "much evidence" that NOAA is wrong about this, that 2010 is, in fact, "<span>a mild, cool year." I'm more than happy to discuss your evidence, but until you can come up with it, </span>the only thing you're spanking is your monkey.
Try me. Show me some evidence that average global temperature is below normal this year.
Sven, you're the only monkey I've been spanking. When your butt gets too blistered to continue, just let me know, I have all day and all week. I gave you a link in my last response that has a ton of data supporting the current cooling phase we are in, but obviously you didn't want to read anything that might disabuse you of your warmist illusions. Let me spell it out for you:
<span>*According to the U.S. National Climate Data Center 2008 temperatures in the USA were below the 115 year average for most of the country <span>link</span>. U.S. 2009 summer temperatures were also very cool, the 34th coolest since 1895. <span> link</span>*October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month. <span>link</span> October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.*Germany recorded its lowest October temperature in history <span>link</span>. New Zealand had record low October temperatures and record late snows <span>link </span>China had the worst October snowstorms in recorded history, 40 people died and over 9,000 buildings collapsed <span>link</span>Siberia may have had its coldest winter in history in 2009-2010 <span>link</span> European and Asian temperatures in the winter 2009-2010 were well below normal <span>link</span>Etc, etc, etc.</span>
A Yeti expert? You can't be serious.
Looking at the links you linked to, the first one I clicked goes to a March 2009 newspaper story from the Daily Mail of London, quoting Professor Arkady Tishkov of the Geography Institute of the Russian Academy of Science as saying that the planet is cooling. That sounds really good. But the Daily Mail is a tabloid that just paid out a big settlement last week for a completely fabricated story, so the question arises: is the information in this story real? U.S. supermarket tabloids constantly attribute their alien and lizard-boy stories to "Russian scientists."
Oddly enough, when I google Arkady Tishkov, one of the first things that comes up is an article attributed to him titled, "Observation of a Yeti in the Himalayas of Tibet." That doesn't sound reassuring.
<span><span>
</span></span>
I couldn't find an official web page for Tishkov (most academics are listed on their institution's web site). I did find a 2003 book he contributed to that says he studies biological diversity and conservation. His research interests are listed, and they don't include anything closely related to climate science.
So there is a Russian scientist named Arkady Tishkov. But has he ever published anything about climate science? Apparently not. I can't find anything online in that vein except the original Daily Mail story and bloggers who linked to it.
So...two big initial questions here: 1) did Arkady Tishkov really say the planet is cooling? and 2) if he did, is he credible?
If you can get anywhere on those two issues, let me know and we'll continue the discussion about that web page you linked to. Or you could identify a specific authorative source, instead of throwing up a link to an anonymous website and telling me to do the research for your position. I don't have as much free time as you.
<p><span></span></p>
Sven, it's obvious you are looking for "faults" in the website I referred you to, because your mind is already made up. A lot of the links are to the NOAA, which you have cited yourself, cherry-picking only the data that reinforces your preconceived beliefs. Other links are to the National Climactic Data Center. Yet you try to debunk the website because the Daily Mail got sued for relying on a source that proved erroneous? (A story about a hunger striker? And the Mail reported that he had secretly eaten hamburgers when he claims he didn't? DEVASTATING!) WOW, that is a really shocking story that will destroy the Mail's credibility for all time. They should just shut down right now.
And just how does that completely unrelated story rebut the Russian scientist that the Mail quotes about the earth cooling? Typical liberal strategy, you can't rebut the facts so just malign the source ("shoot the messenger").
And that's the extent of your rebuttal? Pretty damn weak, Sven. You embarrass yourself.
Fiction is weak, stogie. Fact is strong.
Please remember that the question is this: is the entire planet getting warmer, cooler, or staying the same? Of all the links on your anonymous source page, the only one I saw that stated the entire planet was in a multi-year cooling phase ("8 years," you said) was the unconfirmable tabloid story quoting a Yeti expert who works for the Russian government. And now you appear to be defending that story. After dismissing the scientists at NOAA as compromised propagandists who don't know how to measure average global temperature.
The rest of those links all seem to refer to lower-than-average regional temperatures over time periods of three months or less. My previous observation about individual data not being averages still applies. Average GLOBAL temperature is what shows whether the globe is warming or cooling.
You started out here by saying you had a lot of evidence that NOAA was wrong about average global temperature being a record high this year. <span>Again,when you can identify a link to an authoritative source who says average global temperature is in decline, I'll be happy to discuss the merits of it. If you want to keep defending the credibility of tabloids that turn to Yeti-spotters for their information on global warming...well, let's just say I'll start to doubt your claim that you don't fear the Illuminati.</span>
<span><span>
</span></span>
<span>I'll check back later.</span>
Sven, I gave you links already that you haven't read, and they involve the NOAA as well as other authorities, and yes, they show that the earth is currently cooling. You ignored them to look for Yeti experts. You aren't interested in a serious discussion. I don't have to "prove" anything; those who make alarmist claims that man-made carbon emissions will soon destroy the planet without a new fascism to control it, those are the people who have to prove their thesis. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ALARMISTS (meaning you), not the skeptics. And frankly, you haven't begun to prove it, and as I have pointed out, there is lots and lots of evidence that it isn't true. Try reading some actual books; Amazon is full of them.
The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. It is currently cooling. Sun spots (solar activity) have more to do with it than any other factor. When it did warm, the result was not disaster but more temperate climes with longer growing seasons, meaning less starvation and want.
Yes, facts are strong and fiction is weak, the facts are on my side, not yours. We both know you just got your ass kicked in debate, so why don't you stop burying me in meaningless drivel that is nothing more than circular argument? Get lost.
Sven, I gave you links already that you haven't read, and they involve the NOAA as well as other authorities, and yes, they show that the earth is currently cooling. You ignored them to look for Yeti experts. You aren't interested in a serious discussion. I don't have to "prove" anything; those who make alarmist claims that man-made carbon emissions will soon destroy the planet without a new fascism to control it, those are the people who have to prove their thesis. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ALARMISTS (meaning you), not the skeptics. And frankly, you haven't begun to prove it, and as I have pointed out, there is lots and lots of evidence that it isn't true. Try reading some actual books; Amazon is full of them.
The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. It is currently cooling. Sun spots (solar activity) have more to do with it than any other factor. When it did warm, the result was not disaster but more temperate climes with longer growing seasons, meaning less starvation and want.
Yes, facts are strong and fiction is weak, the facts are on my side, not yours. We both know you just got your ass kicked in debate, so why don't you stop burying me in meaningless drivel that is nothing more than circular argument? Get lost.
Oh by the way, here's a recent link (January 2010) to an article where "many scientists are predicting a 30 year cooling period." Of course, you will want to do do a search for "Yeti" and "Daily Mail" so you can deny it without reading it.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/285746
Now we're getting somewhere. Tomorrow's a busy day for me at work, but I'll review Latif's research and get back to you.
<span><span>
<p><span>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812</span>
<span>
</span></p></span></span>
<p><span>Bad news, stogie. As the interview I just linked to above clearly demonstrates, Latif is not the man you want. He's a very firm global warming and AGW believer who says we're on a "plateau" in the middle of a sustained warming trend. You really should have read the Daily Mail story you linked to.</span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>Got anything else?</span>
</p>
<p><span>Stogie,</span>
</p><p>
</p><p><span>This situation calls for a classic application of the scientific method (come up with a theory, test it, think about what you observed, and adjust your theory accordingly). Here's what you should have learned from our little experiment: 1) the weather in your neighborhood is not a reliable indicator of the global climate, 2) climate scientists who think the planet is cooling are damn hard to come by; and, 3) lying tabloids lie.</span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>Time for you to adjust your theory to better fit the experimental results. </span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>
</span></span>
</p>
Like I said, Sven, it is not my obligation to convince you. You are already convinced about AGW and are looking to reinforce your preconceived beliefs. In any case, Latif does say we are in a cooling period and it may last 30 years, so if he is right, my argument is proved. The earth is cooling, at least for now.
Sven, don't insult the scientific method by pretending you have used it. You haven't proved or disproved anything by your verbal gymnastics and you are not nearly as clever as you suppose yourself to be.
You are the one who needs to adjust his theory in light of emerging facts; carbon emissions do not affect global temperatures to any significant degree; industrialization is not causing global warming; and local temperatures are ALWAYS cited by warming alarmists as proof of global warming when it is in their favor, and then argue that local temperatures are meaningless when not in their favor.
You have not proved any of your assertions, merely raised the volume. You have not proved that climate scientists who believe in global cooling are in short supply, you have merely asserted it without proof. You have found irrelevant and insubstantial "reasons" to discount the links I have sent you, merely embarrassing yourself in the process. You have not proved that any tabloids lied about the subject of global warming (though it is common to find AGW scientists who lie, skew the data and cover up contrary evidence).
The result of this little experiment is that Sven is a convinced AGW alarmist who strenuously resists any of the substantial evidence that disturbs his concrete-like mindset.
I win, you lose, and we both know it. Get lost.
Oh, and by the way, the Russian scientist never claimed to be a "Yeti expert." You are being dishonest in an attempt to destroy his credibility. If you have to be dishonest in argumentation, isn't that strong evidence that you are wrong and know it?
Sven, you are again drawing illogical conclusions and being intellectually dishonest. The fact that Latif is a believer in AGW does not undermine his accurate observation that we are now in a cooling period. If anything, it increases his credibility because he is admitting facts that undermine his global warming beliefs.
It's really funny how you cite some irrelevant fact and then pretend that you have won the argument. You are intellectually dishonest and it really shows.
stogie said: "<span> Latif does say we are in a cooling period."</span>
Latif said: "We are not talking about a net cooling."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812
:-D
Oh, really important difference! Not.
Yes, it IS important to our little argument that you are making an entirely false characterization of this climate scientist's conclusions. You offered his work as evidence for your belief that the planetary temperature trend is downward. After I linked to an interview in which he refutes exactly your mischaracterization of his work, you say the disconnect between your words and reality is not important. With this last post, your argument has now descended to utter nonsense.
I think the way you ignore Latif's own explanation of his conclusions demonstrates something that's quite important on a much larger scale. The denialist movement latched on to the Daily Mail's blatant mischaracterization of Latif's work with gusto. That phony tabloid story is everywhere on the Internet, and everyone from you to George Will has brandished it. The question arises in my mind: is the denial movement grounded in large part on one fake tabloid story? This seems to be an example of a highly partisan phenomenon: a lie that demagogues find too appealing to stop telling. Look at you: Latif has give repeated interviews to refute the lie, but you won't give it up. How can you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when yours is so blatant?
Just so it's perfectly clear, let me point out (again) that Latif is not positing ANY decline in average global temperature. In the NPR interview, he actually predicts a tiny INCREASE over the short term, which he describes as a temporary "plateau" in a sharper overall upward climb. Here's another interview with Latif and one of his co-researchers, Noel Keenlyside. Keenlyside distills their conclusions to the essence: no increase in the mean global temperature over the period 2005-2010, followed by renewed accelerated warming.
"Mean" is a basic mathematical concept that's the key to understanding this issue. I saw your post today about Las Vegas, which shows you're still focused wrongly on tiny bits of the important whole: the AVERAGE global temperature. Average temperature has a mega-trend with smaller oscillations within that larger trend. Your problem is you're so obsessed with certain trees that you don't comprehend the forest.
<p><span>
</span>
</p>
<p>Sven, you reveal yourself as I knew you were, a dedicated adherent to the manmade global warming theory. And yes, you are intellectually dishonest for the reasons I stated in prior comments. And as I stated before, if you have to resort to Machiavellian methods and verbal gymnastics, then your side has already lost the argument.
</p><p>
</p><p>Since you lack scientific support for your AGW theory, you are overemphasizing Latif. It looks like Latif doesn't know what he believes, arguing in 2009 that the earth is cooling and later denying that he meant what he said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojib_Latif.
</p><p>
</p><p>And what Latif or other AGW true-believers predicts does not impress me. Their predictions are not based on any sound science, but are merely their own fantasies. I know what I personally feel and experience, having lived on this earth over 60 years, and the climate and its temperatures are not in any way abnormal, but are in fact, cooler than average. I have not personally witnessed any "global warming" and I am not willing to take the unprovable predictions of a minority of scientists (yes, AGW climatologists are in the minority), ESPECIALLY since the observable weather patterns are cooler or colder than normal, not just in Los Angeles or Las Vegas but all over the globe.
</p><p>
</p><p>Recent polls show that only 33% of the public believe in AGW so it appears that your opinions are also in the minority.
</p><p>
</p><p>As for average temperatures, as I said in my very first comment to you, those averages have to be based on accurate and comparable data. That means the number of temperature measuring stations have to be comparable to the ones of prior decades or you are comparing apples to oranges. The colder stations in Russia went offline after the Soviet Union collapsed, and no longer added their cooler temperatures to the global average for some years; other measuring stations have been located in urban areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces result in higher temperatures (due to reflected heat) than recorded when the areas were more rural. So your yakking about mean and median (and yes, I have taken statistics classes) are really not convincing to me.
</p><p>
</p><p>IF CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming, why hasn't global warming closely correlated to rising levels of emissions? We have temperatures dropping in periods of increasing emissions, and vice versa.
</p><p>
</p><p>The problem with AGW is this: you haven't proved it. You can't duplicate it in the laboratory. Computer models cannot predict past weather patterns where the results are known, because the AGW scientists really don't know what data to feed in. Their suppositions about AGW are nothing more than a leap of faith. And on this, we are supposed to reduce industrial production, go back to the 19th century, and greatly reduce the number of jobs, the levels of income, the standards of living, in a time when we are already experiencing severe economic dislocations. I don't think so, Sven.
</p><p>
</p><p>You say AGW exists, I say it does not. I think it is the Y2K frenzy of our time, and like the Y2K panic, it will prove bogus. In any case, I am perfectly willing to take the chance, considering that the "cure" is more fatal than the disease.
</p>
On "overemphasizing" Latif:
You're the one who proudly injected him into this discussion. And the only reason you're NO LONGER impressed with him is that I pointed out he actually DOESN'T share your global cooling beliefs.
***
On your contention that Latif has changed his tune:
Latif's research group published their conclusions in 2008, and he has never changed his position on those matters. This is simple, documented, accessible, historical fact. What he has repeatedly disavowed, however, are the mischaracterizations of his research that a politically-motivated, convicted-liar, cryptobiologist-quoting tabloid invented in 2009.
***
On your continuing descriptions of my position on AGW:
I'll point it out for the second time -- I haven't written one word about my opinions on AGW.
***
On judging scientific matters according to personal feelings and polls:
That is just willful ignorance.
***
I think we've reached the logical end for this discussion. You're obviously not going to cite a climate scientist who shares your global cooling beliefs.
Hang in there with the tough financial times. I hope you keep your house. I put something in the mail for you today. It's only a little, but I hope there are a lot of others who do the same.
<span>Sven, you are so dishonest. I didn't "proudly" inject Latif into this discussion, I merely googled a story about global cooling and sent you the link. I didn't and don't know Latif from Adam. You are disingenuous, however, by pretending that Latif's comments were mischaracterized. Misunderstood, perhaps, but honestly so, due to Latif's own ambiguous and confusing statements. As for the tabloid, we have already established beyond any reasonable doubt that your mischaracterization of that publication is grossly exaggerated and unfair, and that it is YOU who are politically motivated, not the tabloid. So please don't regurgitate past hyperbole that has already been refuted, as you are only wasting my time.
In any case, Latif's unproven assumptions are irrelevant in light of better evidence. You are yet to refute in any honest way the massive links to cooling data that I sent you originally, from the website isthereglobalcooling.com. You merely dismissed the whole massive collection of links based on your intellectually dishonest attempt to disparage a single link, that of a Russian scientist and the publication that carried his story.
As Groucho Marx once quipped, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" Now you are asking me the same question.
So it is "willful" ignorance that I should believe you and and the global warming alarmists and deny my own "lying eyes"? You abandon all common sense and accept the say-so of agenda-driven "scientists" whose conclusions lack any logical, scientific or intellectual basis whatsoever, and then accuse me or "willful ignorance"? That's a laugh. If Chicken Little had a PhD from Harvard you would now be cowering in a dog house to escape pieces of falling sky.
Record cold and freezing and I am still supposed to believe the planet is frying? No, you are the "denier" here, denying reality and common sense to the say-so of those who peddle junk science from socialists and Marxists with a political agenda. I will never abandon my own reason, as you have done, in the face of eggheads with "credentials." If I were to do that, I would have to accept Marxism as the best economic system simply because some communist with a PhD from Harvard says so.
Computer models do not constitute "science." They cannot begin to recreate the enormous complexity of the earth's open climate system; in fact, they do not take into account the most important warming factors, i.e., solar activity and water vapor (the greatest greenhouse gas of all). In order for anyone to judge the effects of CO2 emissions on global warming or cooling, one would first have to factor in the effects of solar activity, water vapor and other greenhouse gases. That has not been done, and any conclusion drawn from the temperature archives alone is totally bogus with regard to the effects of CO2. Outside of their totally inadequate computer models, what do global warmists have going for them? Not much.
And this just in from Brian Sussman's book "Climategate": the USHCN archives, if one throws out the corrupted temperature stations located in urban areas where they reflect trapped heat from concrete and asphalt (the "Urban Heat Island effect," ) there has indeed been a net cooling since 1930. (Even with the corrupted data, the temperature average shows a net increase of only 0.5 degrees F since 1900). No, Sussman isn't "cherry picking," he's doing what any honest scientist should do, he is eliminating erroneous data that skew results. Global warming "scientists," however, generally try to skew results in any way they can to prove their preconceived theories. I have examples to prove my point, though I am sure you aren't [...]
Post a Comment