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.
@94 bobbo
Touché
>Why would you “assume” I wasn’t using the Fahrenheit scale?
Surprisingly, I did think about it, since it matches up with 2-3C. Even with that, your numbers are still wrong, and I think in a significant way. I think a warming of 1C is benign, less sure about 2C, though I think it is not as bad as IPCC WG2 likes to say.
>Silly to use intelligence/expertise to erroneously nitpick rather than find resolution.
You have to start with something accurate, and I don’t see much chance of resolution on primary issues, especially since we are not having that much expertise.
>Your attitude of sowing disharmony is troubling.
It is that attitude which makes climate science so problematic.
To clarify, your numbers are not wrong, but you started out by saying that how could people possibly believe otherwise of an effect of all this carbon. I responded that the effect of CO2 itself is just 1C(2F), so it takes extra steps and scientific principles to get to higher numbers.
94, Bobbo,
It makes a huge difference if you’re conceding something because you omitted it versus taking a proactive approach and balancing things on a playing field.
Please don’t try to misrepresent your motives.
So in other words, the best IPCC models are useless in proving causality? That they can’t make meaningful predictions? That their best predictions are for 100 to 200 years out? LOL.
If you want to use a control group, then use the other planets. The other planets are experiencing a warming trend as well. Do you suppose there’s something in common? Nah! The best science you have at your disposal (which can’t predict or prove anything) says there’s nothing in common.
What have I “denied” exactly?
Ah so it sounds like you prefer policies that increase the cost of goods, lower quality of life, and lower employment. All you had to say is you’re an idealist.
And somehow, you seem to want others to believe that there hasn’t been one up and coming greedy businessman who considered pushing alternatives. You know why? It’s not been profitable. For example ethanol is actually more expensive when you account for the tax dollars being spent as well as the poorer fuel economy.
So how do you propose to penalize people for carbon emissions if they resort to wood burning stoves to avoid your absurd energy policies?
Perhaps after your liberal ilk pass legislation to tax carbon emissions, they may consider that a one-child policy gives the government too much power over the lives of people and create an exception?
Who said anything about resources being stressed? Since man-made CO2 is the root cause (as per your “best science” available), the question was do you favor a one-child policy. I didn’t add the caveat of stressed resources so please don’t do so in order to posture yourself differently.
If you believe that this should be a personal choice then I have no beef with that.
But if you are in favor of government regulating how people choose to raise a family then I simply won’t see eye to eye with you (unless we’re talking professional welfare recipients).
For now it sounds like you lean towards empowering government to regulate how many children families should have.
Based on an assumption that man-made CO2 is the root cause. If the “science” is well settled as you state, then somebody is hiding a formula for global temperatures as a function of man-made CO2 output.
Why are the best scientists so shy about predicting things 10 years out? Why is the “best science” only making predictions that no one can validate (100 to 200 years out)?
Nah, I just notice you speak out of both sides of your mouth. What EXACTLY are you skeptical of?
So you’re saying CO2 drives water vapor? LOL. http://tinyurl.com/gtp6z
No not ENTIRELY different sets of variables. The warming trend is not unique to Earth. Once you establish a common effect, you should then eliminate the unique variables. You then will come to an obvious realization that perhaps mankind isn’t the root cause. But sure, you can believe that this is some sort of convenient coincidence that the planets in our solar system are demonstrating warming trends at the same time for completely but highly coincidental reasons.
Your “factors” == assumptions. I have to ask again, why are the “best” scientists so shy about predicting things 5 to 10 years out? Why are they only doing predictions that no one can validate (100 to 200 years out)?
Why stop with AGW? From your “scientific” logic, you can also predict we will have proof of alien visitation from other planets in the next 100 to 200 years. So now the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove you wrong. LOL.
And you’d want to regulate people’s lives based off of an unproven theory unless someone can live 100 to 200+ years of age? LOL. The IPCC is not the best science. It’s a political organization with an agenda. They cherry pick their data.
But your first point was: pointing out that models do not prove anything is a skeptical critique against AGW and one that I have made on several other posts.
So let’s be clear, somehow you’re saying you are barely clinging to skepticism of AGW in spite of the “deniers” (as though there are no other skeptics). And that you have frequently made critiques against AGW to somehow demonstrate your skepticism (even though you’ve already embraced the IPCC being the “best science” without any skepticism and how your perspective has been based on faith due to a lack of empirical evidence and proof of causation)
Sounds like you’re just talking out of both sides of your mouth as usual. But sure, I suppose that not wanting any proof of causation or empirical evidence somehow makes you a “skeptic” in your eyes. LOL.
If your theory was based off of science rather than political social engineering, I’d say it was rational.
But you’ve already indicated you’d be in favor of regulating man-made water vapor, enacting tax policies for people who use more electricity than you deem fit, and you think a one-child policy would be just peachy.
You like to claim you’re a skeptic, but you embrace a dogmatic viewpoint with little to no causal or empirical proof.
92, FreddyBobs96k,
Correlation can be an observed byproduct or consequence of something else.
In the 1300s, many Europeans correlated that the Black Plague was caused by cats since cats always seemed to be around in great numbers when the Plague came into a town.
It never occurred to people that the cats were not the problem, but a consequence of feeding off of rats/mice with fleas carrying the Plague.
OK..
Until some one in this Blog can show me a FULL daily estimate of weather for the LAST 10,000 years.
You can add to that:
river paths
Flood plains
Sea level height
and a BUNCH of other factors.
DO NOT consider that your life span is long enough to know the Full weather patterns this planet has HAD, or will go thru.
The oldest record weather patterns are from CHINA. Which as the world turns isnt Much.
WE are estimating BASED on what MAN has put into the mix. aND THE PROBLEM IS WE DONT UNDERstand what nature WILL throw into the mix.
If the planet is going to CHANGE, do you think we have a chance??
Said it beforw saying it again.
The effed up weather WORLD WIDE is due to the gulf oil spill and attempts to steer it away from the gulf coast.
Blame it on BP!
#101,
Um ya..
And your brain has been on vacation sence the 70’s. Born in the 70’s..thats even better.
Folks
what we are dealing with here are examples of people that say A is not A, ie., rationality, the denial of reality, the cult of death. Go read Rand, read chapter VII ‘This is John Galt Speaking’ of part III ‘A is A’, where he interrupts an emergency national radio broadcast to give a 3 hour Rand rant. In it is explained why the non-rationalists function.
Bobbo is a particular exhibit. He seems to have no basic numerical skills, cannot or will not respond to ‘back of the envelop facts and numbers challenges. Uses excessive labels of the word ‘science’ at the same time uses excessive consensus-like words.
This is what drives deniers, that the consensus is a lie. We give challenges to test it. No rational responses so far.
98–Guyver==most of our little discussion really boils down to defining our terms doesn’t it.
What captures my attention is your lack of understanding what “proof” in a scientific theory means when a control group is involved. I will leave that as a cautionary statement to you for future reference.
Perhaps my skeptical/challenging attitude would be more evident if the AGWer’s would post how right they are about their positions, but they aren’t doing that, only the deniers responded to this thread. But in truth I see my skepticism really has grown weaker over time. AGW is not “proven” but it is the best explanation of what is going on, has wide scientific acceptance, makes common sense, is reasonable to pursue for a number of other reasons. Like I said, what would you call that? I don’t “believe” in AGW but I see its very definitional.
So, “if” the model could predict the temp at given times and places all over the world within x degrees and do that repeatedly, then we would all say the model has “proven” itself. But it cannot do that now, like I said, maybe with (better) super computers. For some reason, the fact that the models only claim the ability to trend the effects over centuries of time does not bother me as it does you. The gaps in the fossil record don’t bother me either as far as the general theory of evolution goes either. A certain comfort with lack of specificity. Probably one of the differences between AGW vs Deniers???
Like I said ((this thread or some other?)) this is a subject with enough ambiguity that the real value of it is to explore how one comes to think what one does, and with a bit more effort, how one changes one’s mind. An exercise.
Or, one can just use one’s ignorance as a battering ram against anything new or different.
I wonder what your real issue/s is/are? Do you have them expressly in mind, or are you on autopilot?
My oh my. Are the long winded dumb asses out in force today or what
# 104
Bobbo said
AGW is not “proven” but it is the best explanation of what is going on,
Alternative
Natural oscillation due to variations in transparency due to cloud cover, due to cosmic rays nucleating water vapor (gaseous to water phase) which makes clouds which are opaque to visible light, majority of insulation phenomena. The varying solar wind modulates the size of the earths magnetic field which modulates cosmic ray intrusion. Cosmic ray nucleating water is demonstrating in particle physics cloud chambers.
Better than AGW as it avoids the CO2 effect, which we deniers challenge not the basic physicality, rather its relative effect in amongst other constituents in the air, even ignoring cloud cover.
See I respond to your challenge with an attempt at explaining reality. No use of coverall vagaries.
There are models that predict warming of 2C, models that predict warming of 3C, models that predict warming of 4C, models that predict warming of 5C, etc. Even within the same model, you can tweak the parameters and get a large variation in output. So why should I feel confident that any of these are accurate?
More importantly, should the last 12 years of roughly flat temperatures influence my opinion as to which models are correct? I would think it makes the lower warming models more likely, when 12% of the data is in and you have little warming.
I have seen Tamino claim otherwise with regards to the models, saying that they accelerate towards their numbers, and there is no difference between them in early decades.
When I tried to test this assertion, I found that the Climate Explorer’s published model runs have NO models that predict high warming.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/22/the-failed-presidency-of-barack-obama/
# 109
climateprogress.org must be the most toxic AGW site on the planet.
Unbelievable that people can be so closed minded and so stupid. All those accusations and no statements to validate positions.
For example what were the key untruths uttered by Lindzen?
Of course absolutely no contrarian posters. What a disgusting collection of religious fanatics.
Thanks, John but you’re too late.
The Climate-Scientologists have already proven that man-made global warming will be the cause of any future weather conditions even if we are having a 20-year cooling trend or whatever.
Even if we all freeze to death, man-made global warming theory will be vindicated. There is no possibility that any event can disprove it.
THE SCIENCE IS IN!
Them collidge boyz think ther so smart! Ther awl a-lyin to yez… Why, fer awl yew know, we maht not even be speakin English! They maht have secretly bin teachin us Chinese our entire lives! ‘At’d be jist lahk ‘em!
WER ALL A’SPEEKIN’ CHINESE, I TELLS YA!!!
#106–cgp==you don’t present a theory or a model that takes into account all the known variables and their known effects. The variables you do include are all in the models. You fail to address what happens when one of your variables is doubled. etc. I think you suffer from the same disease we see too often from the right wing: make stuff up and then believe it.
As stated, poking holes in the only theory that is currently accepted is a failing position absent a competing BETTER theory. A theory in substance, not just the form of a theory in words.
Fail.
113, Bobbo,
There are a lot of unknown variables.
And just how long will it take before mankind can actually double the concentration of CO2 from 0.0360% in the Earth’s atmosphere?
Sometimes it’s more important to gather empirical data than it is to come up with some sort of theory that is UNPROVABLE (as you have stated previously before).
As for “poking holes” in the only theory the IPCC is pushing, that’s called a peer review. Although I do not know CGP’s background, those who oppose the theory of AGW (not necessarily natural GW) within the scientific community have been largely ignored by the IPCC. Or liberals employ either ad hominem / genetic fallacies to discredit dissenting scientific opinions.
Here’s another aspect of the BS that is passed around.
Consider the modtran software that simulate atomic absorption of co2 at 300ppm. There is a substantial dip in that about 32 per cent of the spectrum is absorbed.
BUT does that mean an analytical procedure (invented so it can detect ppm) can be extrapolated to planetary photon counts.
No of course not when there are more photons than the co2 vibrational modes can absorb, they pass thru, the spectrum gets washed out.
You cannot have an effect, nor any feedback (+ or -) whereof when it aint there.
Just my rationale. Somebody correct me.
I said: The gaps in the fossil record don’t bother me either as far as the general theory of evolution goes either.
Then you said: And they don’t bother me either since nobody is trying to pass legislation to reform how people choose to live based on the fossil record.
And there I suspect is the real issue. Not the science/issue itself but the politics of the solution. You’ve been LIEberTARDing all along, just as LIEberTARDS do. Bad LIEberTARD-not to be redundant.
So==nothing we discuss about the science will resolve your politics making such discussions worthless, just as they have been. I’m surprised you don’t drill down on the phased in direct tax since I assume you are more against slavery than you are your grandkiddies having to move uphill?
Ha, ha. Extended discussions are always revealing. But often still not worth the candle.
cgp==I doubt anyone posting here is going to contest your summary of c02 vibrational modes, although I do get shaky just trying to think about it.
And your issue might be thinking there is any dogma to fight against? There is no dogma. Only common sense becoming a vehicle for economic fraud. Fight the fraud, not the common sense. Thats what Rutherford would have done!
I found this:
“Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is “science” only in the “right” hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.”
here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
Lays out the big picture perfectly.
118, Bobbo,
What an excellent way to tap dance out of your control group “issue”. To each his own.
I think you’ve been very clear in that you’re predisposed towards what you think is “common sense” not based off of empirical evidence.
Fact is, man-made and naturally occuring CO2 make up a fraction of less than 1% of Earth’s atmosphere…. but somehow I’m the one being unscientific? LOL.
Yup, your posture has essentially been faith-based. Oh well, you’re dogmatic to a flaw. That’s your prerogative.
119, Bobbo,
No dogma from you?!?!?!?! ROFLMAO. Sure, whatever it takes for you to bow out when you realize that someone has a keener understanding than you, you switch to politics mode. 🙂