81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
greg holmes
April 19, 2012 7:31 am

Hello all, is this report by Yale the university or the lock company please? (sarc)

John F. Hultquist
April 19, 2012 9:37 am

How is it that “ragnarcarlson” is able to post the same comment twice, once at 1:22 am and immediately following? If I think something I write was not sent and try a second time I get an instant reminder of something like “We think you already said that.” Maybe there is a new letter or something, but still, it is the same post.
———————–
temperature records
More importantly, if I understand (from ragnar) the comment at 1.: it is that warm temperature records have been broken – proving Anthony is wrong. This is a misunderstanding of the issue of warming versus warm. Assume that low temperature records are distributed normally. Likewise for high temperatures. Meanwhile, assume there are periods of time, maybe 30 years or so, when there is a cooling trend. Toward the end of that cooling trend records will be broken on the low tail of the normal distribution. Now it stays at this coolness level for several years. Statistically, records will continue to be broken more frequently at the low side than at the high side throughout the cool period even though it is no longer cooling. One can flip this pattern if there has been a slight warming. So now, say, things are a bit warmer. Records will be broken more to the high side as the “mean” of the distribution slides to the ‘right’ or high side. Even as the temperature slides over the hump (highest mean) and starts a cyclic decline things will still be warm (or warmer than in the previous trough). More warm records will be broken than cold records broken.
The above concept is stolen with great respect from Luboš Motl.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/record-temperatures-and-female-fields.html

Brian H
April 19, 2012 8:53 pm

Long may the post LIA warming continue! Unfortunately, it may not. If only CO2 could help–but no luck there.
Stock up on electric blankets.

David A
April 20, 2012 2:14 am

ragnarcarlson says:
April 19, 2012 at 4:18 am
——————————————————–
rag, this is quite silly, so the population of every state that had a tornado is about 25% of tne US. And from this you assume that almost 100% of the people in those states experienced a tornado?
Really?

Bill Parsons
April 20, 2012 9:11 am

“Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I remember when I was a young’un when things were perfect. Yep, when I was young, everything looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goldenes-Zeitalter-1530-2.jpg
Actually, EVERY people and every historic era recollect a Golden Age – always a period isolated by either place or time, too distant for anyone to challenge its authenticity. No one can say, “Hey, I remember those days (or that place), and it sure wasn’t golden.” because nobody was around to see it. Consequently , only the poets and storytellers (and climate scientists) have a license to recount “the Golden Age”.
By contrast the present is always plagued by hangnails, hemorrhoids, disease, tornados, bad food, biting flies, war, poverty, nagging housewives and… well, reality.
Young professor Leiserowitz is an environmental teacher, but basically he’s offering a classic(s) lesson in griping about the lousy modern era.

Brian H
April 21, 2012 12:13 am

Bill;
A prominent Swedish scientist was quoted as saying that the tragedy of climate science was/is that it arose during the coldest few decades of the last 10,000 years, and consequently its baseline assumptions about what is “normal” are based on that abnormal period.