A brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America, according to international news agencies. Temperatures have been much below normal for over a week in vast areas of the continent. In Chile, the Aysen region was affected early last week by the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The snow accumulation reached 5 feet in Balmaceda and the Army was called to rescue people trapped by the snow.
In Argentina, the snow in the region of Mendoza, famous for its winery, was described by localimagemeteorologists as the heaviest in a decade. The temperature in the morning of July 16th was the lowest in the city of Buenos Aires since 1991: -1.5C. The cold snap caused a record demand for energy and Argentina had to import electricity from Brazil. Many industries in Argentina were shut down due to gas shortage.
It snowed in nearly all the provinces of Argentina, an extremely rare event. It snowed even in the western part of the province of Buenos Aires and Southern Santa Fe, in cities at sea level.
Now I know why the sudden urgency to say 2010 is the warmest year ever before the year is over. Who needs this data added to the math?
Found by denialist Jason Price.
#63–Guyver==what else would you call “There is no proof of AGW because there is no control group?” except skepticism/anti AGW?
YOU are so biased you can’t see what, as I keep telling you, is plainly stated===and that is all within this very thread. Not a dishonest general reference to the hazy past/other threads. If you can’t read this thread accurately, what are the odds on your summary of who knows what you think you have read?
The Arguments against Cap and Trade and the corruption going on there should not be confused with the issue of AGW itself. I think that is too much of the motivation for arguing against AGW. Its dishonest and intellectually weak regardless of the merits of what governmental response to it is.
If you disagree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and the sensitivity of the atmosphere to its doubling is “settled science” then indeed you are devo.
Causality will NEVER BE PROVEN, just as cigarettes don’t cause cancer, lead does not cause brain damage and all the other consensus positions of science in the absence of control groups.
Grow up. or maybe more correctly, wise up?
The best science available to us says that if you dump billions of tons of carbon into the air thus doubling the co2 percentage, the temperature of the atmosphere will rise 3-5 degrees in the next 100-200 years leading to sea level rise of ((I actually forget)) up to 20 meters depending on what ice melts.
Deniers main defect is not in poking holes at the general demonstrable fact that Co2 heats up the atmosphere and turns the ocean acidic, rather it is that they have no counter/better theory themselves. When you can not even advance a possible scenario how dumping billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere “will have no difference” you move from earned skepticism to outright bat shit crazy.
Not a balanced skeptical position unless the skepticism is the same and the proposed positions are wildly unbalanced?
#65 Bobbo,
The irony about the whole situation is that these people claim to be supporting and enforcing science, yet they dismiss every piece of science data placed in front of them, while embracing every kooky contrarian theory with open arms.
The same people that chide us for reminding them that climate and weather are different,because they “already understand the difference” stupidly post articles like the one that started this thread, using weather as evidence of no climate change.
The contrarian evidence amounts to “there is a theory that such and such could explain so and so”, most often linked to some lone ‘researcher’ with credentials in auto mechanics or something irrelevant, and that sole ‘theory’ is sufficient to discount all other scientific evidence.
What can you do… arguing with these idiots is a waste of time… they are not interested in science, they are interested in arguing and will do and say ANYTHING to not be proven wrong, although that can be done over and over and over. We see it here all the time… prove them wrong, they abandon the thread, wait until John posts some other badly sourced article about local climate, and then start all over, hoping that they can make their point without getting egg all over their face.
It;s like confirmed creationists… show them all the evidence in the world that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist, and they will still go “La La La I can’t hear you, and everything you say is wrong anyway!” Refute their flimsy evidence and they will ignore you and take their argument to someone else, hoping to find someone gullible or ignorant enough to believe in them and make them feel relevant.
That a 6 molecule of CO2 in 10,000 other air molecule has any effect on the massive heat flow of a planet is something to be believed in.
CO2’s radiative signature would have to dwarf that of O2, N2, O3, N2O, H2O, Ar, H2S. The forcing versus feedback due to short lifetime of water vapor is an argument that I cannot figure.
awake how dare you lump deniers with creationists that’s your perverted non-argument point, nobody else’s.
Oh I forgot CH4 of which there might be a hell of a lot more around a coast near you.
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/17_Matt_Simmons.html
Evacute the southern states NOW.
Hell this is getting better than any SFi movie.
#69 cgp
You are right, so I apologize to creationists for lumping them with you.
Now, if you want to do some real research, look up some climate trends for the southern hemisphere (notice how they are basically the same as northern hemisphere? Yes, steady upwards trend), and then read up on some borehole research and what that shows about CO2 and temperature correlation.
They show you are wrong… so quick, find some homeless guy standing on the corner with a sign that says “Global warming is a lie” and ask him for some theories to refute real science.
Bobbo, the effect of doubling CO2 alone is only about 1-1.2C. IT is the feedbacks which are the issue. I think it is likely that nature has negative feedbacks, so I can see how warming would be less than 1-1.2C.
To get to 3-5C you are automatically creating net positive feedbacks. They infer the numbers from models, which are tuned to get the results they want. Looking at the various papers describing the models, we see that a key measure of validation is whether they agree with other models.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt124.pdf
Page 16
What percentage of the land mass of the Earth does South America compose? It’s about 3.5% for those keeping score at home. In order to say something about global warming, you really have to ask about the other 96.5%
I challenge you to find ANY day when at least 3.5% of the Earth’s surface is experiencing below (or above) average temperatures.
It’s GLOBAL warming…not wherever it is cold warming!
“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Thursday that last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth.”
And this record shows a about .15C of warming over the last 12 years, or about 1C every hundred years.
Not mentioned in the article is that GISTemp does not show a record June, neither does UAH.
However HadCrut does show a record, oh wait no they don’t, and neither does RSS. I’m forgetting the 6th measurement system, but does anyone want to bet what it shows?
What a boring thread. Bobbo with every other post providing no data, no scientific evidence given either way and just general bickering and defensive arguments. Sheesh!
Ya’ll have at it, I’m with Hopper.
>It’s GLOBAL warming…not wherever it is cold warming!
Actually, global warming is wherever it is cold warming. Global warming is expected to have a primary effect in cold areas, during winter, and at night.
Further nitpick bobbo, ocean acidification won’t happen. The ocean is slightly basic, even if the acidification effect happens, it would just go to being slightly less basic. PH won’t go below 7.
Didn’t those borehole CO2 readings lag the temperature by 300 years? Ocean feedback loop, where CO2 follows temp. Just some inconvenient details.
Mike–you post with apparent “expertise” on this GW issue. Why would you “assume” I wasn’t using the Fahrenheit scale? Silly to use intelligence/expertise to erroneously nitpick rather than find resolution. Your attitude of sowing disharmony is troubling.
Bubba==most of the time you post outside your area of expertise, you do so consistent with your nickname. Not that I think anyone should/would read this entire thread before posting, but “all I did” was post #11 saying it would be fun to run a psychological comparison of AGW’s vs Deniers. After that, all I did was “try” to correct patently bogus criticisms sent my way. Now YOU want an entirely different discussion yourself by criticizing me for a lack of data or evidence which was never germane to the subject being discussed. Where is YOUR data and evidence???
So Bubba==if a quasar is found 12 Billion Light years away pointed near our general direction, ie, enough for us to identify as a quasar, it means that that quasar is close to the “edge” of the universe. Assuming the other end of the quasar is pointing to the edge of the universe, what happens to its energy beam as it hits the edge of the universe? Junior Spacemen need to know!
#67–cgp==you say: “That a 6 molecule of CO2 in 10,000 other air molecule has any effect on the massive heat flow of a planet is something to be believed in.” /// Are you really referencing the action of ONE molecule of Co2, or is this a faulty allusion to the trillions of molecules in actual question? I admit I take it on faith that yes indeed the greenhouse gas co2 has the heating effect the IPCC models claim for it. Do you have any EVIDENCE otherwise or do you simply argue from your own ignorance/incredulity?
That reminds me==Mike are you also saying acidification is not happening? I don’t think acidification means that the ocean must test as an acid, only that it tests “less base” is still an acidification of that body of water.
Its amusing to really push the Deniers on their position. Will they finally demonstrate their personal ignorance on basic science, quibble about terminology, or just flip out and claim we don’t need no government????
Ha, ha.
Silly Hoomans.
Bobbo,
I’m meeting up with Ben next week, says he’ll secure me a plot on the Mount of Olives. You want me to put a word in for you or are you already sorted?
Shalom,
Al.
Algore==thanks for recognizing my sortedness. I find all ceremonies to be an affront to human dignity, those surrounding death especially so. The word I would like given is to make the best use of my bodily remains. Cat food, fertilizer, soylent green, whatever is most needed at the moment.
Sad to hear you and the missus parted ways. Good that happy endings are available elsewhere.
Boobo,
You think we have trouble now, wait 11 years, when we are at the next solar maximum. Then, all the heating will be blamed on “natural solar activity”. If the skeptics falsely use “natural solar heating” as an excuse now, when we are at an extended solar minimum and we should be trending towards record LOW global temperatures, imagine how much that excuse will be used in eleven years.
Watch closely… their next big ‘proof’: “The thermosphere is cooling”. The upper reaches of the atmosphere are getting colder. Why? Because heat is being trapped at lower levels by increased CO2, like the fabric of a tent. But they will ignore the lower levels of the atmosphere, and next we will see a post by John “C”rank Dvorak using the upper level cooling as proof of his view, completely out of context with what is really happening.
And so it goes…
Awake–yes, everything will be twisted and spun to fit the ideology possessed. External reality is no tether for these folks. Personally, I don’t “trust” the models, but I submit to the best science available until a better theory takes its place. “How/why do we think the way we do and how/why do we change our minds?”
Since none of us “knows” climate science sufficiently to criticize it ((we all work off derivative sources)) it would be instructive for each of us to evaluate how and why we opine on it the way we do and to think about what would need to be seen to change our minds?
Its called thinking. But we are Devo.
No, weather and climate are not synonymous. Anyone claiming so should look up the definitions.
That there is snow in South America should not alarm anyone. It happens to be winter time. It is not singular events that determine climate, but the average conditions experienced over time. Thus, one winter snowfall, although extreme is meaningless while the third or fourth “warmest” month on record in a continued pattern is of concern to climate.
Deniers are cut from the same cloth as bible thumpers. Their faith is based upon finding imaginary faults with the science instead of actually refuting the science itself with better science. It is not coincident that most extreme bible thumpers are also climate change deniers, bigots, racists, tea baggers, and hope America fails. I attribute much of their problems to their outright refusal to allow anything to interfere with their hatred of anyone not like them.
Mr Fusion –
Excellent statement on your part.
I may steal your “Their faith is based upon finding imaginary faults with the science instead of actually refuting the science itself with better science.” quote since it is so true.
#87 Pedro
After all there are only two extremes.
Anybody who isn’t on an extreme? Well they are the worst of them all.
64, Bobbo,
That’s you conceding to my post #33 which is the point I’ve been making.
You’re a skeptic of what exactly when you questioned someone’s comprehension of long term trends and consistently single out AGW vs. Deniers?
You also don’t need a control group if you can predict future global temp trends as a function of human CO2 output (if what you seem to believe comes true). If human CO2 were THAT significant, this would be an easy exercise.
If you’re THAT anal about a control group, then figure out why other planets in our solar system have been experiencing a warming trend as well.
I’ll ask a third time because you seem to be intentionally dodging the question due to what seems to be your biases. As for how you think, are you in favor of Cap & Trade, Carbon Credits, etc?
What kind of moronic logic is that? Just because humans contribute CO2, does not mean our contribution is significant nor does it mean that CO2 somehow isn’t a greenhouse gas. DUH! I never said nor implied that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. But you’re a skeptic right? LOL.
CO2 is something we all exhale. And although you may make a stink over the origin of the CO2, the bottom line is CO2 is CO2. Would you be in favor of government regulations which penalizes families for having more than one child? (direct question) Sort of like China’s One-Child policy?
Water vapor is a green house gas in much greater abundance than CO2. Do you think we should regulate man-made water vapor as well?
Sensitivity of the atmosphere to its doubling? Sounds like you’re establishing causality for the long term trend…. but you say you’re a skeptic, right? You do what is called double speak to posture yourself. On one end, you concede that AGW is “ambiguous” but on the other you litter the rest of your rant with implied causality. Or are you just relying on IPCC models based off of assumptions? LOL.
There’s two main arguments to global warming. You choose (supposedly as a skeptic) to cram everything together instead of addressing each point… that is your prerogative. One is of causality and the other is if causality is proven true, then is our contribution significant?
If your “best science” relies on computer simulations based off of assumptions, then I will agree with you. Stop pushing junk science by dismissing the scientific method. You know they say you should avoid saying “never” and “always”. They usually end up being false. 🙂
Since you claim causality will never be proven (via cherry picked data and assumptions made by IPCC models), you decide that the “best science” should skip causality and simply go straight to regulation in spite of that? LOL….. but you’re a skeptic, right?
Pssst, Even Very Low Levels Of Lead Cause Brain Damage In Children: http://tinyurl.com/yur82y
65, Bobbo,
Says who? Mr. Bobbo the “Skeptic”? What measurements were taken and what were the direct observations / predictions that have come of it?
Earth’s atmosphere is ~ 0.039% CO2. Water Vapor (another greenhouse gas) on average is about 2% to 3% of our atmosphere…. up to 4% in tropic zones. Since there is about 100x more water vapor than CO2 (and water vapor is a green house gas), wouldn’t you also agree that by your “billions” argument water vapor should be of greater concern? LOL.
You should also clarify that what you refer to as the “best science” is actually subjective interpretations using cherry-picked data and simulations based off of assumptions. There is a scientific method and what you’re relying on isn’t based off of the scientific method. Your “best science” is nothing more than subjective interpretation with no scientific method as a basis. Shame on you for misrepresenting your objectivity / skepticism. Somehow I’m misrepresenting yours stance when I question your “skeptical” conclusions? Ha!
So what is the known reaction the planet has had from those billions of tons of carbon (I assume you meant CO2)? Surely if temperature is a function of man-made CO2 (as you seem to imply / claim), you should quite clearly be able to make predictions….. but I’ll surmise that with all the “best science” you have at your disposal, it will not be enough to reinforce your religious stance.
Hey you know 4 out of 5 dentists prefer Trident chewing gum in preventing plaque. At least that’s the general consensus. LOL.
72, Awake,
Correlation != Causality.
And what good are trends if you haven’t established causality?
80, Bobbo,
He’s breaking it down for you in a simple ratio. Obviously your using big numbers seems to lead you to “the sky is falling” mindset with your use of “billions of tons”. I don’t see you griping about water vapor which easily dwarfs CO2.
But you did say you’re a skeptic right? ROFLMAO.
And as a skeptic, you claim that causality can never be proven and that AGW is “ambiguous”? But you demand evidence (probably from your best science sources) that your faith is misplaced? WOW! You obviously think you’re much more well informed by your faith in things. Skeptic? What a fraud. LOL.
This is fun. The frustration is palpable.
#90 Guyver
“Correlation != Causality.”
True. But
No correlation => No causality.
There is a correlation, meaning the observation remains significant. But no its not proof of causality.
The arguments being bought up here seem to all be covered fairly well at the somewhat unfortunately named
http://grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
For example the argument about CO2 lagging as bought up here – is covered seemingly reasonably here.
So hows this wrong? Is there another site/sites that covers the material at least as well that shows there is no AGW?
So what’s bad about global warming anyway? Sounds like a good thing to me. Its certainly nothing so serious that Americans should be asked to lower their standard of living. Of course its blindingly obvious to all but the retarded that nothing is that important.
Guyver–you are getting a bit tedious, but I respect the effort you have put in and I do think direct questions deserve an answer even if they are beside the point? I’ll skip the more ambiguous or less understood issues you can repost if the desire remains?
1. Conceding or not, pointing out that models do not prove anything is a skeptical critique against AGW and one that I have made on several other posts.
2. The definition of scientific proof does require a control group otherwise all you have is potential accidents or coincidents. A lot of fraud is based on this faulty understanding of predictive models which is why they don’t prove anything, they only “model” it. With super computers, that may change. The sensitivity of the atmosphere to co2 levels is universally agreed to. Very Devo to offer nothing but a bald denial.
3. I am not in favor of any of the Cap and Trade or Credit systems I have read about. Too artificial and subject to abuse and manipulation. I favor a direct phased in tax to penalize carbon emissions thereby encouraging alternative green energy development.
4. I do agree co2 is co2. I’ve just never thought of it that way before.
5. If water vapor was being increased by human activity when there was a ready alternative, then of course ways of regulating it would have to be looked at. Like Methane, chlorofluorocarbons, etc
6. One Child Policies make sense when resources are stressed. Each society should decide that for themselves. I’ll go with the majority vote. Personally, I’d rather leave a better world to one child than a worse world to 5 kiddies.
7. My understanding is that the effect of doubling the co2 in atmosphere is well settled. What is not well settled is the effect of everything else going on at the same time. AGW has many variables many of which can be nailed down “in isolation” and then lost in the interaction/feedback of things.
8. You seem to confuse being a rational skeptic with being a kneejerk nay sayer. The two conditions are very different.
9. I thought water vapor varied from 60-85% of the Greenhouse Gases depending on air temperature which is affected by co2? Damn those feedback loops.
10. Other planets is to argue by analogy with entirely different sets of variables. Earth itself would be quite cold without its atmosphere of greenhouse gases. Silly to think that adding GHG increases the average temperature but somehow will stop just because the source of the carbon changes to human made.
11. Re Lead Poisoning, its never been tested. Some results are so damaging, and some correlations so high, we accept scientific consensus as fact. Just as we will with AGW when the water gets past our belt buckles, or not as we walk from Miami to Cuba.
12. The effect of doubling atmospheric co2 is predicted to be from 3-5 degrees (Fahrenheit) and should take place in the next 100-200 years. This is based on modeling many factors as published by the IPCC. Its the best and in fact only prediction we have.
I’ll stop at 12. And as I have stated elsewhere, its hard to remain a skeptic of AGW when one is confronted by the lame arguments of the deniers. Skeptic. Maybe my definition is a bit off as well. Still open to a better theory but accepting the best/only predictions science can currently give us? What would you call that?