Ah you know its coming, both the snow and the blame game. Here’s a NWS/NOAA graphic you don’t see very often:
The forecasts say snow possibly down to sea level, or very close. I’m betting we’ll see at least snow flurries in downtown SFO at least briefly.
Here’s the latest forecast discussion:
FXUS66 KMTR 241819 AFDMTR AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 1019 AM PST THU FEB 24 2011 ...COLD WINTER STORM TO IMPACT OUR AREA LATER TODAY... ...VERY COLD TEMPERATURES EXPECTED BOTH EARLY SATURDAY MORNING AND SUNDAY MORNING... .DISCUSSION...AS OF 10:14 AM PST THURSDAY...LIGHT RAIN SHOWERS HAVE BEEN REPORTED ACROSS THE FORECAST AREA THIS MORNING. LOOKING AT THE LATEST SATELLITE WATER VAPOUR IMAGE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AREA IS UNDER MOIST NORTHWEST FLOW AHEAD OF AN APPROACHING STORM SYSTEM. THE MOIST FLOW WILL PRODUCE SHOWERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY TODAY WITH THE BEST CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION FROM THE GOLDEN GATE NORTH AS WELL AS THE WINDWARD SIDE OF THE COASTAL MOUNTAINS. THE VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGE IS SHOWING MAINLY CUMULUS TYPE CLOUDS FROM THE GOLDEN GATE SOUTH SO ALTHOUGH SHOWERS ARE LIKELY IN THE MONTEREY AREA THERE WILL BE PERIODS OF SUN TODAY. CURRENTLY IT APPEARS THAT THE FORECAST MODELS ARE IN GOOD AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN TO IMPACT THE AREA TODAY. COLD AIR WILL BEGIN TO FILTER INTO THE FORECAST AREA TODAY DROPPING FREEZING LEVELS AS IT SLIDES SOUTHWARD. THE CURRENT FORECAST IS ADVERTISING SNOW LEVELS OF 1500 FEET TONIGHT IN THE NORTH BAY WHICH SEEMS REASONABLE. SNOW LEVELS ARE FORECAST TO DROP TO 300 TO 400 FEET FOR THE NORTH BAY TOMORROW NIGHT INTO SATURDAY MORNING FOR THE NORTH BAY. THESE LOW FREEZING LEVELS WILL CONTINUE TO SPREAD SOUTH TO MONTEREY COUNTY BY SATURDAY MORNING. WITH THE LOW FREEZING LEVELS SNOW WILL BECOME AN ISSUE FOR ELEVATED AREAS AND WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ALL OF THE MOUNTAIN ZONES TONIGHT AND TOMORROW. THE FORECAST ISSUE TODAY WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THE NORTH BAY VALLEYS IN THE WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES. ACCORDING TO THE HYDROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER 24 HOUR SNOW FALL PROBABILITY DOES INDICATE A 10 TO 20 PERCENT CHANCE OF RECEIVING 1 INCH OR LESS OF SNOW IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY BETWEEN 1200Z THE 25TH AND 1200Z THE 26TH. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA HAS NOT RECEIVED MEASURABLE SNOW IN QUITE SOME TIME HOWEVER THIS IS A VERY COLD AIRMASS AND A FEW SNOW FLURRIES MAY BE EXPERIENCED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT A CROSS SECTION WAS PERFORMED FROM SONOMA TO SOUTHERN MONTEREY COUNTY FOR THE 0600Z SATURDAY THROUGH 1200Z SATURDAY TIME FRAME AND SOME CONDITIONAL INSTABILITY AND MAYBE EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR CONDITIONAL SYMMETRIC INSTABILITY CAN BE MADE FOR THIS TIME FRAME. ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR BANDED PRECIPITATION AND SOME IF IT MAY BE IN THE FORM OF SNOW. I DO FEEL THAT THE SOIL AND GROUND TEMPERATURE WILL BE TOO WARM IN THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO SUPPORT SNOW ACCUMULATION BUT WE WILL SEE A FEW FLURRIES. HOWEVER, A FEW HUNDRED FEET IN ELEVATION AND PRECIPITATION WILL BECOME PREDOMINATELY SNOW.
CONTEST
The NWS is so interested in this rare event, they want people to TWEET with geolocation info. This is at the top of the NWS San Fran web page:
See Snow in the Bay Area – Tweet It! 
So in that spirit, I’d like people to be on the lookout not for the first snowfall, but for the first ridiculous claim that this SFO snowfall is related to any of these:
global warming, climate change, or climate disruption,
For example:
“…global warming increases increases severe events, why is why we have this snow in SFO”
…would qualify.
The first credible and verifiable report posted here in comments will earn the tipster a single item of their choice from the WUWT Stuff store, see here.
POLL
In the meantime, here is a poll:
It’s at least 24 hours from any snow in SFO, so we may even find statements in advance. Good hunting.
“The first credible and verifiable report [..]”
I think “credible” is going to be difficult. I’m anticipating it’ll be Joe Romm, but I’d never describe his commentary as “credible”. Nobody who pushes this pseudo-science (let’s begin calling it what it REALLY is) can possibly be described as “credible”.
It’s Camelot! Surely such weather shenanigans are against the law!
>:(
>:P
I await developments with interest!
“…global warming increases increases severe events, why is why we have this snow in SFO” should be “which is why”.
Sorry, it’s the grammar Nazi in me.
Funny thing about John Kerry – AFAIK , until it became one of Obama’s priorities , he had no interest in Cap and Trade and little if any knowledge of climate change . But I think Romm will be the first to try to tie snow in the bay area to warming – he’s too consistent that way .
Just went looking. No mention of the dreaded AGW yet. Did find this:
“Previous snowfall at sea level in San Francisco:
Dec. 25, 1856 2.5 inches
June 12, 1868 2 inches
Dec. 31, 1882 3.5 inches
Feb. 7, 1884 1.5 inches
Feb. 5, 1887 3.7 inches (most snow ever recorded in the city)
Jan. 16, 1888 0.1 of an inch
March 3, 1896 1 inch (latest ever)
Dec. 11, 1932 0.8 of an inch
Jan. 15, 1952 0.3 of an inch
Jan. 21, 1962 2 inches
Feb. 5, 1976 1 inch
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/22/MNB81HS40O.DTL#ixzz1Ev56ihmd
Nah, it’s gonna be Gleick or one of the other, uh, geniuses who blog on the SFGate site.
REPLY: I thought about adding Gleick, but he’s such small potatoes I didn’t think anybody would know who he was – Anthony
I tried to vote – for ‘other’ – but the wheel just kept spinning round and round and my vote did not appear to go through. Is there a glitch or is it just me?
How about Global Weirding? That just about covers anything that could possibly happen.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/02/17/global-warming-hysteria-change-the-soundbite-call-it-global-weirding/
I would have thought Hansen would have been on the list… he’s my vote.
When algore crawls out of his hole and sees snow on his toupee
…too late
I just googled San Franciso global warming…
…got too many matches
Fox News
punditpress
co2insanity
etc
Some of them are making fun though………..;-)
I would have thought that Gadaffi would be on the list 🙂
I was checking in to see how long it would take to link the colder water killing baby dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico with global warming. Granted colder water as the cause of death has not been linked yet, but just a theory at this point.
As one who lived in San Francisco for 30 years, let me correct your terminology, SFO is the airport, which is 13 miles away past Candlestick Park in the town of Millbrae, in San Mateo County. San Francisco’s downtown is another matter entirely, The City has numerous micro-climates that will affect any snowfall. I’ve seen sleet and hail and a few flakes of snow, only I missed the storm by a year. Perhaps Coit Tower will get some, making certain Telegraph Hill pooches I know very happy!
It will be “some other” first… Someone in the paper business. Then Al Gore will run with it!
If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?
I bet “other.”
You know Tom Friedman of the NYTs will pipe in first. He will feel vindicated claiming the snow event in San Fran is “weird weather” of which he warned.
Don’t doubt me….
I don’t know why but I’ll go with Kerry, I think he’s a bit of a dark horse in this race. C’mon Lurch!
Brent in Calgary
There was a “It’s probably already been done” option in the poll.
😉
Sonicfrog says:
February 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
It will be “some other” first… Someone in the paper business. Then Al Gore will run with it!
=============================================================
I can agree with that. Al Gore doesn’t seem smart enough to imagine reasons why global warming can cause snow in San Francisco. But he will be on his web site as soon as some one else dreams one up.
June 12, 1868 2 inches… must have been the coldest winter Mark Twain experienced: A summer in SF…. Sorry should be January??
Who’ll be first? My guess is our very own home-grown R. Gates, but he’ll only be 75% sure. ;o)
They had snow in SF a few years ago. Maybe 10-12 years ago? My ex-wife has relatives out there. They were extremely excited.
If Al Gore crawls out of his hole and sees snow will he disappear for 6 weeks?
I just did a search for +”San Francisco” +”Global Warming” +snow and got 5, 490,000 hits. Most of them were spoofs, but there were a couple of sites I’ll take a look at. WUWT came in 6th with its poll. Steve Goddard was 8th, below CO2insanity. Now I need to do a search for +”Coming Ice Age” +aerosol . I read three or four comments at a couple of sites that flat-out deny that there were predictions by scientists in the 1970s that we were “on the verge of a new ice age”. I can remember back that far – not coherently, but enough to know that was the word at the time. I want some PROOF, so I can slam these revisionists.
Sorry and you can snip as appro. but Kerry is just almost as dumb as a box of rocks. ergo I voted for him.
LexingtonGreen says:
February 24, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“: I was checking in to see how long it would take to link the colder water killing baby dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico with global warming. Granted colder water as the cause of death has not been linked yet, but just a theory at this point.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What’s so strange for me about going through these comments is the rahrah glee going on, and this nastiness toward any notion of anthropogenic global warming. For instance, what LG’s comment, if it turns our that dolphins did die from colds is that some sort of proof that our planet is cooling? Who would that work?
And what about all the other complexities that may be involve, but no time for them… because of why?
But, if you’re curious about the dolphins here’s an interesting article:
~ ~ ~
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/scientists-scrutinize-rise-in-baby-dolphin-deaths-1278132.html
Scientists scrutinize rise in baby dolphin deaths
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY ~ AP ~ Feb. 24, 2011
“Although scientists are investigating whether the deaths are related to last year’s huge BP oil spill, they say toxins from oil or chemicals used to disperse it are considered a less likely cause than cold or disease. That’s because only one species of dolphin — and no other kind of animal — is dying, and because the calf deaths appear concentrated in Mississippi and Alabama rather than Gulf-wide.”
~ ~ ~
Why do so many folks think this is all a joke?
Can you really look around at your world these past decades and think nothing of note is going on?
sorry about those typos.
I’ve always lived north of 45°N and the streets in San Francisco always scared the bejesus out of me. I always wondered what happens if it snows. Is it worse living near the top of a hill and fearing the long slide to the bottom, or is it worse living at the bottom and fearing unexpected visitors?
The forecast for LA is also for snow down to 1000 feet, which is even more unusual given that we’re three degrees south of SF.
We might want to re-assess our fear of “global warming”. It seems that counting our blessings that we’re getting wet could be a better track. In the process of raising hell in our local paper (locally called “News Lite- Less News, Less Filling”) there’s a link to a paper on Great Basin droughts. LONG droughts.
http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_m/files/Mensing_S_Smith_J_Norman_KB_Allan_M_Extended_drought_Great_Basin.pdf
Maybe a little water-based snow in S.F. could be a good thing? ….As long as it doesn’t kill the dolphins.
Good thing I bought some extra popcorn for this. 🙂
Not only is snow caused by warming but the fire season will be much worse because all the snow made the brush grow. You just know it will happen if you live in CA.
Terry
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm “A complete list of things caused by global warming” already has “Baghdad snow” as well as “snowfall decrease”, “snowfall increase”, “snowfall heavy”, and “snow thicker”. Another day, another thing to blame on Global Warming.
How San Franciscans see the world.
Here in NW Calif., the cold air mass has yet to arrive – 6pm PST.
So, the moisture may pass by before the cold hits and drops white stuff on Al Gore’s parade.
Our local meteorologist says the really cold air will hit Saturday. Expect a big chill.
I bet the connection has already been made in the press somewhere.
Walter Dnes says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm “A complete list of things caused by global warming”
~ ~ ~
Just goes to show you
how central climate is to life on this here, one and only, planet that will ever be our home. So why do you folks seem to hold it in such contempt?
No predictions would be of any value if there weren’t a quantitative tool to determine if it was, or was not, snowing in San Fran.
Good news…there is!!
http://www.isitsnowinginsfyet.com/
Citizenchallenge: take a look at the link provided by Walter Dnes above. That should explain why we tend to laugh at AGW attributions.
Janne Pohjala says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm
If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?
Fog is already a liquid droplet so freezing it will not produce snow. Snow forms as a crystal from the vapor (gas). This can get complicated and the processes combined (forming, freezing, melting, re-freezing). For a response to your exact question, start here:
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/359/
Then here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graupel
Now you are on your way! Have fun.
Janne Pohjala says:
February 24, 2011 at 4:03 pm
> If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?
Most likely no. If it mixes with subfreezing air the typical result will be rime ice building on things like wires and tree limbs that can cool down to freezing quickly.
Snow it typically formed from water vapor in air. “Snow pellets” (sometimes included as hail) are snow flakes that have supercooled cloud droplets freeze on them.
http://emu.arsusda.gov/snowsite/rimegraupel/rg.html has some interesting electron microscope photos of rime ice on snow crystals.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm is a great resource and has a useful morphology diagram linking snow crystal formation with temperature and air saturation.
citizenschallenge,
You come here with your misconceptions, and assume you understand scientific skepticism/realism. You do not.
The truth is that those promoting wind power and those that work against nuclear power and against supplying fossil fuels are harming the environment much more than those who oppose monstrous windmills and approve of all the benefits of efficient, cheap, clean energy.
What gives you the completely wrong impression that skeptics are not genuine environmentalists? The green totalitarians have bamboozled you, and like a child you unquestioningly accept what they say. No doubt you swallowed Algore’s An Inconvenient Truth hook, line and sinker.
My suggestion is that you get up to speed by reading here for a while, before posting the mindless drivel that is apparent in your first few comments. You say, “Can you really look around at your world these past decades and think nothing of note is going on?”
A central theme of skeptical scientists is that what is being observed has happened many times in the past, and to a greater degree. Nothing unusual is occurring now, and we have the records to prove it. The charlatans trying to sell people like you on imminent climate catastrophe will not come out and debate. That should tell you something: that they lack the confidence to support their conjectures. If you have any sense you will ignore their alarming pseudo-science.
That should be ‘disruption’ in the title, not ‘disrupton’, BTW.
[Fixed, thanx. ~dbs, mod]
It already happened. I was speaking with a naturalist/colleague in the Monterey Bay area around noon today about anticipating snow down to sea level. Without skipping a beat, she explained it was due to “climate disruption.”
My lad said, “As long as it extends the snowboarding season, I do not give a fig where it comes from, now move out of the way, I need to dig out the snow chains and head for Tahoe”!
Oh to be a fit youth again!
P.F. says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Snow in S.F. is periodic climate disruption, seeing that on occasion, going back as far as the records do, it’s snowed there – done that.
It’s just that these days, some want to charge admission to a natural spectacle.
Nancy Pelosi will be the first one.
San Francisco Snow Record
1856 Dec 25 2.5″
1868 Jan 12 2.0″
1882 Dec 31 3.5″ Snow fell from 11:30am to 4:20pm.
1884 Feb 7 1.5″ Snow fell off and on during the day.
1887 Feb 5 3.7″ Snow fell during the day. Up to 7″ of Twin Peaks.
1888 Jan 16 0.1″
1896 Mar 3 1.0″ Fell as brief heavy snow at night.
1932 Dec 11 0.8″
1952 Jan 15 0.3″
1962 Jan 21 Unofficial 3″ in Sunset and Westlake Districts
1976 Feb 5 1.0″ Up to 5″ at top of Twin Peaks.
As you can see, snow is not that unusual. Infrequent, perhaps, but not unusual.
So for snow in S.F. to be the “extreme” weather event to qualify as a result of global warming, the snow is going to have to be far in excess of the 1887 3.7inches.
Anything less is natural variability.
DJ Meredith says:
February 24, 2011 at 8:55 pm
If it does snow in S.F., it won’t be the Gorish thing of the past as once claimed.
The local meteorologists will surely be in forecast nirvana.
“If it’s cold enough, would San Francisco fog turn to snow when it comes to shore?”
I too used to live in SF. The fog tends to be a summertime phenomenon caused by the temperature differential of the central valley v. the coast. But, as has been noted above, SF’s tendency to micro-climates has be experienced to be believed.
This reminded me of the other contest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/24/contest/
But the comments appear to be closed?
If not, then I’d like to submit these articles for that contest:
http://www.kasa.com/dpps/news/interactive/upcoming-fire-season-expected-to-be-bad_3728671
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1982178.shtml?cat=516
If it snows on Mt. Camelpie, it will be hard to ignore.
We had an inch of snow in Eugene this morning, but then climate disruption occurred and it all melted and the streets dried. So, my guess is that the climate disruption will move south into SF before the snow gets there and save the day, thus disrupting this poll as well!
😉
Nice water vapor loop here:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/loop-wv.html
Give it time to load.
There is a good explanation of CO2 and cold weather in this video.
I’m going to go out on a limb and try for the “Trifecta-de-Tutti-Trifecta”-
WIN – “Proponent Some Other”, Owner – Noaa Websterson the VI
PLACE – ”Romm Joe’, Owner – Soros Inc.
SHOW – “Gore Getter Al”, Owner – Sherri Masseuse, Jennie Masseuse, Vicki Masseuse, Hotlips Masseuse, Kiko Masseuse, Latta Masseuse, Song Li Masseuseii, Volga Masseuseinski, Cici Masseusei, Gretta Masseuseo, Victoria de la Madrid La Masseusela, Bridgit Masseuseka, Helga and Hilda von Hamburg Masseusen GmBH, United Masseuse Workers of the World (Locals 214, 667, 2319, 14205)
I just had to vote for Al Gore. The poor guy is probably trying to lay low these days, and will avoid making a comment on San Fransisco snow to avoid further embarrassment. But a person never knows, Al could be invited on a morning talk show and fall victim to the media spotlight once again. If he does, it would sure be a YouTube keeper!
Isn’t it now “Climate Challenge”?
Old PI was looking for something from the 1970s about scientists predicting an impending Ice Age.
How about this from Time magazine of June 24th 1974?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Andy
I think this info-babe
http://failblog.org/2011/02/25/epic-fail-photos-snow-reporting-fail-gif/
was explaining to the viewers how suddenly Global Warming can strike
I’m in the SF north bay, the sun is shining, temps are rising, and the satellite views denote clearing skies. No snow for us. Global Warming thwarts us once again. 😉
Don’t know about ess eff, but it’s snowing in Oroville
Thanks for the tips from a couple of people about the 70’s. Here’s the best site I’ve found so far. This is a compendium of both popular and peer-reviewed papers from the time.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims
I also found several sites that said the new Ice Age has already begun, or that it will begin “within the next century or so”. Two also indicated that weather would become chaotic before the final plunge, swinging back and forth between extremes of warming and cooling, until cooling dominated. We’re certainly seeing chaotic weather.
February 24, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Rhoda R says: “Citizenschallenge: take a look at the link provided by Walter Dnes above. That should explain why we tend to laugh at AGW attributions.”
Guess you missed my post pointing out that it just goes to show you how many aspects of our lives are influenced if not controlled by weather.
Still can’t figure out why it’s worth all the ridicule.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
February 24, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Smokey says:“ citizenschallenge, you come here with your misconceptions, and assume you understand scientific skepticism/realism. You do not.”
Well, which skepticism are we talking about? The philosophy kind – “an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere”?
Or, the skepticism that demands you remain skeptical to your own conclusions also and that you remain open to readjusting your own thinking according to the incoming evidence?
The self skepticism that reminds one that experts who have spent life times studying a field do know more than we do, so shouldn’t be discounted because of political persuasions. Not that they are always right, but to consistently dismiss them outright and ignore the evidence they present isn’t very smart either.
~ ~ ~
Smokey says:“A central theme of skeptical scientists is that what is being observed has happened many times in the past, and to a greater degree.”
Human civilization is perhaps ten thousand years, we have been blessed and deeply influenced by a spell of “just right” weather. To ignore what society is doing to our atmosphere to disrupt that “just right spell” simply doesn’t make much sense.
Mass extinctions were normal too, but that doesn’t mean we need to push full throttle to embrace another one.
~ ~ ~
PS. I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.
Also, I learned the basics of climatology in High School in the early 1970s and have been watching the situation with interest ever since. I may not be a climatology, but I am aware of the developing state of affairs.
Cheers, peter
citizenschallenge says:
“I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.”
You started posting here in April 2010.
@citizenschallenge:
It seems to me that nothing has been presented to scientifically support AGW over natural variability. I’ve been living on the planet 60 years and see nothing unusual about the recent decades.
Smokey says:
February 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm
citizenschallenge says:
“I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.”
You started posting here in April 2010.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hmmm, forgot that one, care to share the link, I’d love to read it again.
Also I did a couple posts a few days ago. Guess I was just trying to introduce myself as more than your run of the mill troll. 😉
DanB February 25, 2011 at 1:03 pm says:
@citizenschallenge: It seems to me that nothing has been presented to scientifically support AGW over natural variability.
~ ~ ~
What about all this stuff?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
Or, http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch
Or, http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm
Or, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DanB says: I’ve been living on the planet 60 years and see nothing unusual about the recent decades.
~ ~ ~
You haven’t noticed vast land-areas of previously… well basically untouched biologically active natural countryside come under construction, cities, farming, factory complexes, mining, etc?
Don’t get me wrong I’m not knocking that stuff, I depend upon it as much as you do. However, that does not justify us ignoring the deep impact these activities are having upon our planet’s biosphere, our life support system.
Spent some time on Google Earth exploring our planet and all those exotic names you’ve always heard of. Look at the Amazon, give it a fair canvasing, then go up the coasts. How can it be said that humanity isn’t having a substantial impact?
And come on now Dan, be honest, look at the opportunity that awaited you and me as go getter twenties. Then look at what is awaiting our twenties kids these days. Don’t tell me you don’t notice a tragic diminishment in beckoning opportunities?
So you “think” (that man is having an extreme (er, substantial) effect on the environment (based on Google earth searches and looking up other exotic names …).
Okay. That is your opinion, based on your feelings, your emotions. Your “”decision” that man IS having an adverse impact on the planet – to your mind – means therefore – that YOU want to make energy and food and clothing and shelter and clean water TOO expensive to and TOO rare for most humans to live in even minimal comfort, health, sanitation, and above a starvation diet.
So why do YOU really want tens of millions of innocents to die an early death of disease and squalor based on YOUR opinion about man’s impact?
With no evidence of any more than 1/2 of 1 degree of a temperature rise – a temperature rise that will do nothing but good for billions as more plants and food, fodder, fuel, and fortune are growing due to nature’s increase in CO2 and a warmer and longer growing season, and a temperature rise you CANNOT link to mankind’s activities, YOU have decided that millions must die so YOU feel better about what YOU have assumed about the environment.
Does that seem moral? Proper?
RE: Citizens Challenge to my post above.
I saw a news video talking about the cold water killing the dolphins. It is just so odd all this cold ocean water. Here a linkable story is:
“Cold water can also kill dolphins, and the water has been cold lately — in fact, NOAA was already starting to look into weather-related dolphin mortality in the Gulf last year, right before the oil spill hit.”
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-25-as-if-the-gulf-coast-hasnt-had-enough-to-deal-with-now-there-are
Kind of weak, but check the 8th paragraph
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/san-francisco-consumed-by-chance-of-snow.html
LG, thanks for that link. Interesting. That article had another link worth looking at http://climatide.wgbh.org/2010/10/cold-pacific-skews-global-ocean-temperatures/
Cold Pacific skews global ocean temperatures
October 29, 2010 | 1:46 PM | By Heather Goldstone
A point worth keeping in mind:
“Indeed, many parts of the world’s oceans – like the North Atlantic – have been much warmer than usual this year. As Andy Freedman explains, these seemingly contradictory conditions are a symptom of a moderate to strong La ninã event that may have been the only thing keeping 2010 from even more record-setting heat. . . “
racookpe1978 says:
February 25, 2011 at 6:22 pm
So you “think” (that man is having an extreme (er, substantial) effect on the environment (based on Google earth searches and looking up other exotic names …).
~ ~ ~
No, you’re being silly and mischievous. The GoogleEarth viewing is icing on the cake to support what tons of varied evidence and reports are telling us.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: Okay. That is your opinion, based on your feelings, your emotions.
~ ~ ~
Not so fast, with a bit of time I can pile up a list of learned papers discussing aspects of resource depletion, but you would probably poopoo all of them.
Are you claiming there’s no qualitative and quantitative evolving difference in state of our planet as the decades have pasted?
But, do you deny that we live on a finite planet and that 7 billion consuming people don’t have an impact on that?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Then you turn the whole thing into some moralistic play meant to get me off balance because I too consume and I too am part of the problem. But what does that emotional distraction have to do with trying to understand our current situation in a good faith manner?
~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: So why do YOU really want tens of millions of innocents to die an early death of disease and squalor based on YOUR opinion about man’s impact? etc.
~ ~ ~
Come, come lighten up. If you have valid facts and science backing you up ~ why must you resort to this sort of rhetoric?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: and a temperature rise you CANNOT link to mankind’s activities,
~ ~ ~
Do you actually believe this? Based on what?
*********
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_depletion
The State of Consumption Today
http://wn.com/Humanities_ecological_footprint
citizenschallenge says @February 25, 2011 at 4:42 pm:
“Hmmm, forgot that one, care to share the link, I’d love to read it again.”
It wasn’t one comment, it was multiple comments beginning in April of last year. A couple more in July. Maybe more. Are you being deliberately devious, claiming that you’ve never posted here before? You can look up the archives like I did. At this point I look at anything you say with a jaundiced eye.
Regarding your comment above, like all alarmists you forget that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you to show convincingly that catastrophic AGW is a fact. Every alarmist has failed to show CAGW. Thus, CAGW is reduced from a hypothesis to a conjecture; an opinion. Continue arm-waving all you want, but the fact is that the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. Nothing unprecedented is happening.
Over the course of the Holocene there have been more serious droughts, floods, both higher and lower temperatures, and more rapid changes. You look at normal weather and scare yourself. But it’s just the weather.
CO2 causes no measurable global harm. On balance, the rise in CO2 is beneficial. More is better. The whole “carbon” house of cards is based on fraud, and you’re doing your part to perpetuate it. You need to stick with verifiable facts and quit being a CAGW shill.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011109942_friedman18.html
“Weird weather supports claims of climate change
The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington, D.C., while it has rained at the Vancouver Olympics, writes Thomas L. Friedman, is in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.
By Thomas L. Friedman
Syndicated columnist
Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington, D.C., is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
When you see lawmakers like Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.
The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth-grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.
Here are the points I like to stress:
• Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.
The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever.”
Tom Rowan,
Joe Romm is as much a fool as Friedman. He knows he’s peddling dreck because he censors contrary information. For example, if I sent a post similar to yours to climate progress it would never get out of moderation. I’ve tried.
Romm is on the payroll of a guy who stands to benefit financially if Cap & Tax ever passes; his organization is funded by million$ from George Soros – while WUWT is run by unpaid volunteers. Who would you trust? Romm is bought and paid for, and he’s as scientific as a Scientologist.
And Friedman?? Pf-f-f-f-t. A scientific know-nothing. Why would you even listen to him? It’s like listening to Brad Pitt pontificating on climate science.
Finally, what you are describing used to be called “the weather.” Now it’s “climate change,” a term used by conniving charlatans who won’t come out and debate, who censor the public’s input, and who have gamed the system for their own financial advantage.
Your “as global temperatures rise” refers to a natural cycle that has happened countless times over the Holocene. A 0.7° rise over a century and a half is laughably minor. And that is presuming there has even been that much of a rise, since GISS and others manipulate the temperature record.
You’re making wrong assumptions based on bad data. I recommend geting up to speed by reading the WUWT archives. You can do a search starting with “CO2”, “Romm”, “realclimate”, “steig” and “giss”. That should get you started on the right track.
Does this count?
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979100065
Smokey says:
February 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm
citizenschallenge says:
“I’ve been looking at this website for years, I’ve just never posted before.”
You started posting here in April 2010.
—–
Hey Smokey, how did you check that? I can’t even remember exactly when I made my first post here (after quietly reading since the ‘latex’ days) and would be curious to remind myself, so… can I look that up?
Al Gored,
I remembered having a debate with him/her in April. So I looked it up.
Smokey,
I did not remember, and barely recall it now, but I don’t doubt your word. Be nice enough to share the link, I don’t know my way around this website that well yet.
{Other than that I’m a 55 year old man, who’s really disappointed with the hash our right wing corporate powers that be have created these past decades.}
My actual point was that I’d been checking in on this site on and off for years – but have only now decided to spend a little more time haunting your discussion group. I shall try to remain civil and hope not to get banished.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge:
Arctic Sea Ice Reports, 4-24-2010; Abraham Climbs Down, 7-29-2010 [2 posts].
There may be more. I had to go back and find these again, since I didn’t save them. That’s enough favors.
Smokey says: “Regarding your comment above, like all alarmists you forget that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you to show convincingly that catastrophic AGW is a fact. Every alarmist has failed to show CAGW. Thus, CAGW is reduced from a hypothesis to a conjecture; an opinion. Continue arm-waving all you want, but the fact is that the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. Nothing unprecedented is happening.”
~ ~ ~
You know, about that Null Hypothesis. ~ Seems like a pretty cavalier way to approach the legacy we are leaving our children.
{Excuse me a moment here, but how disgusting… the whole right wing was ready for Cheney’s 1% suspicion to their start war of choice with horrific consequences ~ But, now the right wing is demanding 100% of the type of proof that will only be available after the deeds are done and gone… and it’s way too late to influence consequences.}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Rowan says:
February 26, 2011 at 7:57 am
“Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth-grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense.”
~ ~ ~
Words of wisdom.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Smokey says: “Joe Romm is as much a fool as Friedman.”
~ ~ ~
What do you base that on? Is it because his message disagrees with what you believe? Take a look at the guy’s bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-1.
Considering all the man has accomplished ~ to come up with such flippant derision says more about your qualities than his!
Why not focus on presenting evidence to support your emotional charge that the man is a fool? Got some evidence to back up the cheap talk?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Smokey says: “Every alarmist has failed to show CAGW.”
~ ~ ~
To me it seems that signs of CAGW are imprinted upon all the Earth Observation data coming in.
I’m wonder if you can better define what you mean by CAGW?
And what kind of hurdles-of-voracity you would suggest to help us come to a mutual understanding?
Smokey says:
February 26, 2011
citizenschallenge:
Arctic Sea Ice Reports, 4-24-2010; Abraham Climbs Down, 7-29-2010 [2 posts].
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well alrighty then, the first one is pretty weak, but the record stands for itself, see:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
~ ~ ~
Regarding the political performer known as Lord Monckton ~ I’ll even repeat those words:
citizenschallenge says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I would love seeing this thing go to some official court – then when the evidence is presented the whole world will be able to clearly see what a liar the good “Lord” is!
citizenschallenge says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Has anyone here taken the time to look at the newly released NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report? http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
cheers
citizenchallenge,
I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to educate someone who is clearly not up to speed on these subjects. I recommend reading the WUWT archived articles and comments.
But I’ll try to help you out here because you’re so far off track. Conflating “Cheney” – a politician – with the scientific method is disingenuous. And you can leave the “children” out of any science discussion. An extremely strong case can be made that children and everyone else will be substantially harmed by reducing CO2 to 1990 levels. So leave the misplaced emotion out, OK?
First, there is nothing “cavalier” about the concept of the null hypothesis, except to someone who doesn’t understand its great value. The climate null hypothesis is a function of the scientific method. Its value is in comparing any alternative hypothesis to it. If the alternative hypothesis shows there is no difference from the null, it means that the alternative was a placebo; what is claimed for the alternative probably doesn’t exist. The definition of a null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.
The expected data is catastrophic global warming due to the rise in CO2. But there is no difference between the ten millennia of the Holocene and current temperatures. In fact, today’s climate is especially benign, well within the parameters of the Holocene. Nothing extraordinary is occurring. There is no difference whatever between the very mild, natural 0.7° temperature rise over the past century and a half, and numerous similar or larger temperature rises – and declines – over the past ten thousand years.
Therefore, the null hypothesis shows that the alternate hypothesis, asserting that a rise in anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming [the CO2=CAGW hypothesis], fails. Natural variability explains the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age. Further, the MWP, the Roman optimum and the Minoan optimum were each warmer than today – at a time when CO2 was lower. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
The null hypothesis is critical to the scientific method, which is why Kevin Trenberth is so desperate to replace it with his own personal, cherry-picked, pseudo-null hypothesis. If it were not so important Trenberth would not have made it an issue. The null hypothesis destroys Trenberth’s claim that there is “missing heat,” and it goes a long way toward falsifying CO2=CAGW.
One of the tests of a hypothesis is its ability to make accurate predictions. There is no catastrophic global warming as has been repeatedly predicted. There may be a small fraction of the natural warming since the LIA attributable to human activities, but it is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. If it exists it is inconsequential.
The alarmist crowd has no choice but to predict climate catastrophe; otherwise the funding will begin to dry up. That, in fact, has already started. The reality is that nothing occurring now is any different from what occurred during the Holocene prior to the first SUV coming off the assembly line. It is becoming increasingly clear that CO2 does not have the warming effect claimed by climate alarmists.
If the planet’s temperature exceeds any of the parameters of the Holocene, the null hypothesis will have been falsified. But that is not even close to happening. As Prof Richard Lindzen puts it:
I prefer to accept the words of people like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen over self-serving and disingenuous scaremongers like Al Gore and Michael Mann. But your mileage may vary.
Smokey says: The null hypothesis is critical to the scientific method, which is why Kevin Trenberth is so desperate to replace it with his own personal, cherry-picked, pseudo-null hypothesis. If it were not so important Trenberth would not have made it an issue. The null hypothesis destroys Trenberth’s claim that there is “missing heat,” and it goes a long way toward falsifying CO2=CAGW.
~ ~ ~
Interesting write up S, thanks for taking the time. I am reading it with interest.
But, I’m wondering if you could give a few more details about this?
citizenschallenge says:
“…I’m wondering if you could give a few more details about this?”
No. This is getting tedious. Do a search of the archives for “Trenberth.” Do the same at Bishop Hill and Climate Audit. You will learn and retain more if you do it yourself.
To citizenchallenge:
“Odd. You disparage sarcastically the early deaths of millions and the continued squalid lives of billions .. but offer nothing to improve their lives. These people can be saved by clean water, transportation, and power. But you want to pay corrupt thrid world dictators and intrenation green-energy NGO’s and banks and restrict low cost energy to democrat-controlled Congressional Districts – or didn’t you decide not read that democrat-written cap-and-trade bill passed by Pelosi that only taxed refineries and power plants in republican districts? Did you chose not to participate in the on-going recession – the one caused by high=energy prices deliberately raised as part of a CAGW initiative to restrict energy production and drilling?
What? Do you actually “believe” that NASA-GISS, HadCRU, NOAA, and the team are “not influenced” by the 89 billion spent on their salaries and their so-called “scientific” research? Do you “believe” the IPCC and UN and politically-funded democrats are pristine and not guilty of exaggerations and propaganda when 1.4 trillion dollars in new taxes are solely based on their catastrophic global warming schemes? Enron, you will refuse to recall, started the cap-and-trade schemes as they financed Clinton and Gore. Do you consider Enron, Soros, and Gore honest when their lives and global incomes are at stake, but who will make billions when a global carbon scheme is enacted?
You claim – again! – but based on no evidence of any kind that “big oil” is funding skeptics. If so, then you must have evidence that scientists WILL change evidence, write papers, and conduct research based on who funds them to get the “proper” results. OK. That’s your opinion, and you may have any opinion – no matter wrong it is – that you desire. But what exactly is your EVIDENCE that “scientists” have changed data or hidden inconvenient facts to make the skeptical side case?
Just where is all this “funding” of the skeptical community? The Koch brothers have funded ONE gathering – of an unelected political party at one event in one state that did NOT fund any skeptical research before or after that one gathering – and you claim that is “proof” of collusion?
See: There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. only accusations of “big oil funding skeptics” – by people who will make 1.3 trillion by pushing a carbon scheme by falsifying evidence and biasing res4earch towards CAGW. And there IS evidence and 89 billion in real money trails to “climate science” showing that has actually happened to manage the CAGW propaganda: the latest being a change in jobs by Obama’s EPA officials to Soros’ carbon trading company. And hundreds of others cases: including Penn State getting a 89 million grant to re-re-re-study the (falsified) link between malaria and CAGW. Just days after clearing Mann from HIS fraudulent schemes.
Yes – YOU (personally) are threatening the lives of millioins by your belief in CAGW – when there are over 800 peer-reviewed papers showing today’s temperatures are within natural limits, have happened globally before at CO2 levels much lower, and much higher, than now. When you can show NO evidence that any man-released CO2 – approximately 3.5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere – has affected temperatures now. Or that today’s temperatures are changing just as they have in the past.
You cannot show any evidence for CAGW. At best, you can show that temperatures have risen since the mid-1650’s by about 1.2 degrees. And, you can show that (just maybe above statistical uncertainty and the known 5 degree urban heat islands) that temperatures since 1970 have risen less than 1/2 of one degree.
You claim NOAA and Wkipedia aand Joe Romm and Hansen as a reference. Fine. Got a reference that is NOT being paid to make a living promoting CAGW?
By the way: Measured Arctic summertime temperatures at 80 degrees north latitudes have declined since 1958. Antarctic temperatures – both summer and winter – have declined as well. Just where have temp’s risen the past 15 years as CO2 has risen? Oh. In doing that, cite a source for that that isn’t being paid to exaggerate CAGW. A source that doesn’t hide its data. A source that doesn’t “correct” old temperatures falsely downward, nor recent temperatures falsely upwards. A source that actually uses data instead of extrapolating temperatures for 1200 kilometers to sea – to places where no real data exists.
Just what is the harm from higher CO2 levels and a less-than-3-degree rise in temperatures over the next 150 years? Because in less than 150 years, we will begin the 450 year-long continuous slide back towards the real threat of the Modern Ice Age. And YOU can’t do anything about that either. Except kill people through catastrophic energy policies based on falsified CAGW theories.
Seems to me Enron was one of Bush’s biggest contributors and booster – I love how they have now been morphed into an eco-plot.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: If so, then you must have evidence that scientists WILL change evidence, write papers, and conduct research based on who funds them to get the “proper” results.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CC: Where’s your proof, where’s the inconsistencies that such a global plot would produce?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CC: Regarding right wing think tanks.
The thing is all these groups are committed public advocates, with a focus toward muddling the AGW conversation rather than helping refine conclusions.
Unbridled Free Market and not scientific understanding being their goal, as evident by their formation, supporters, funding and the working they pump out:
The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc ~ operating “simply as” Frontiers of Freedom (FF) was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming”.
“we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SPPI ~ Executive Director is Robert “Bob” Ferguson, who was listed as executive director of the Center for Science and Public Policy in the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation 2006. He is also a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981–1997), John E. Peterson (1997–2002), and Rick Renzi (2002).
The political performer known as Lord Monckton is their brain trust, that ought to tell you something about their seriousness about science.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Marshall Institute ~ conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. primarily to lobby in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Before moving on to environmental “skepticism.” They argue tobacco and second-hand smoke don’t do nothing, they don’t believe acid rain exists, and they’re convinced their are not ties between CFCs and Ozone. One of its founders being Frederick Seitz a true pioneer in the art of obfuscation and denial fabrication.
Here’s a nice tidbit:
Matthew B. Crawford, was appointed executive director of GMI in September 2001. He left the GMI after 5 months,
“…the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank. ”
—Matthew B. Crawford
Also:
In 1998 Jeffrey Salmon, then executive director of GMI, helped develop the American Petroleum Institute’s strategy of stressing the uncertainty of climate science. William O’Keefe, the Institute’s current CEO, was previously Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute, and has also been on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Energy Association and Chairman of the Global Climate Coalition,[19] a business-led anti-climate change action group active between 1989 and 2002.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I image you believe all of this makes them no worse than those fancy colleges and focused scientists, rather than politicians. But, it ain’t so, there is a big difference.
posted 2/28/11 9:19am
Smokey says: “First, there is nothing “cavalier” about the concept of the null hypothesis,”
~ ~ ~
You’re right Smokey and I deserve to be spanked for that sentence.
What I meant to say was the ‘misusing’ of the null hypothesis, etc., etc..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And Smokey says: “But I’ll try to help you out here because you’re so far off track. Conflating “Cheney” – a politician – with the scientific method is disingenuous.”
~ ~ ~
But, Colemans spiel was political. And I see a real irony for the right-wing to trumpet 1% suspicion… Attack on the one hand ~ and we Need 100% proof before we pay attention to our climatologists on the other.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Comrade Theo Goodwin says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“He did not say he (Coleman) was here to present the science.”
~ ~ ~
And Smokey scolds me on that point: “But I’ll try to help you out here because you’re so far off track. Conflating “Cheney” – a politician – with the scientific method is disingenuous.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
By the way whatever happened with Coleman’s law suit against Al Gore for Fraud” ?
Smokey is there a real discussion forum you visit on the web?
I would like to give your above thoughtful long post a thoughtful reply. But, this is a pretty confining venue, no offense intended, but it isn’t an open forum either.
Would you have any interest in visiting Skepticforum.com to take up a conversation?
racookpe, as for the CAGW thing, it seems to me skeptics use that word a least a thousand times more than I’ve ever noticed in the scientific literature… or even sites like SkepticalScience and RealClimate or on science lectures like UCTV’s Perspectives on Ocean Science series.
What’s going on?
Besides, are you saying small problems left ignored won’t cascade into bigger problems, if left ignored won’t cascade into catastrophes? What about those century floods, those aren’t catastrophes? What are you railing against with the CAGW thing?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
racookpe1978 says: “You cannot show any evidence for CAGW.”
~ ~ ~
{The C in AGW is nothing more than cascading events and results.
And you’re right I can’t show you any evidence at all ~ if you refuse to look at it.}
Seems to me our planet’s cryosphere makes a mighty good thermometer:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Looking through that there’s some serious indicators. Also keep in mind “sea ice extent” is not “sea ice mass.” {and that an inch of fresh snow or slush ice is not equal to an inch of glacial ice.} ~ ~ ~
Warming oceans:
American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting – December 13-17, 2010 |
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/12/14/deep-ocean-heat-is-melting-antarctic-ice/
Global glaciers:
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
~ ~ ~
Then of course there is that excellent summary, with links to real papers:
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Posted on 30 July 2010 by John Cook
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html ~ ~ ~
. . . and 10 signs of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
The 2009 State of the Climate
citizenschallenge says:
“Smokey is there a real discussion forum you visit on the web?”
Yes: WUWT. Take it or leave it, I don’t waste my time on thinly trafficked sites. I’m not even going to spend any more time on this aging thread after this comment.
And:
“The C in AGW is nothing more than cascading events and results.”
The “C” in CAGW specifically means “Catastrophic.” Which has not happened, and there is zero indication that it will ever happen. It is simply a debunked scare tactic intended to lubricate Cap & Tax and other restrictions on activities that emit harmless and beneficial CO2.
Finally, I have nothing but contempt for those flogging the blog run by a cartoonist. Its name is a lie; there is nothing skeptical about it. It is an alarmist blog run by a mendacious prevaricator.