Global warming beater Justin Gillis of the New York Times had an article yesterday describing a new paper in the current issue of Nature magazine, the point of which seems to be scaring people with alarming global warming statistics.
Gillis’ article “By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past,” describes the results of a class-project-cum-Nature-article headed by Camille Mora from the University of Hawaii at Manoa (please, no puns). The class assignment was to identify the year for each spot on the globe in which all future years were, according to climate model projections, warmer as a result of greenhouse gas emissions than the warmest year simulated by the models during the historical period 1860 to 2005. Mora and students termed this pivotal year the “climate departure.”
This work is significant, according to Gillis, because:
Thousands of scientific papers have been published about the model results, but the students identified one area of analysis that was missing. The results are usually reported as average temperature changes across the planet. But that gives little sense of how the temperature changes in specific places might compare with historical norms. “We wanted to give people a really relatable way to understand climate,” said Abby G. Frazier, a doctoral candidate in geography.
Perhaps Dr. Mora should have injected a little climate-science history in this class.
Looking at the time that a human climate signal will rise above the background noise is not particularly a novel concept. It’s commonplace. We would guess that a signal-to-noise ratio was probably present in the first papers describing the performance and output of the very first climate models.
After all, without such information it is impossible to put absolute changes in perspective. Some measure of the statistical significance of climate change has been present in every climate assessment report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dating back to 1990.
In our presentation to the Science Policy Conference of the American Geophysical Union this summer, we even included a table listing the number of years into the future it would be before projected changes in precipitation across the U.S. rose above the level of nature variability. We guess we just didn’t give that year a catchy enough name like “climate departure,” because our results didn’t capture the attention of the press (nor were they very frightening).
But Gillis does manage to carve some new, scary Jack-o-Lanterns from the Mora study.
Here is his lead paragraph:
If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday.
Uh, correct us if we are wrong, but we already thought that global temperatures were reported to be at unprecedented levels in recorded history. According to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report:
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.
So, is this recycled news, or is the new paper saying that we have to wait until 2047 for that to happen? Well, whatever, it sounds B-A-D.
Or how about this one:
“Go back in your life to think about the hottest, most traumatic event you have experienced,” Dr. Mora said in an interview. “What we’re saying is that very soon, that event is going to become the norm.”
Hot Tub Time Machine came immediately to mind, but Gillis provided another scenario:
With the technique the Mora group used, it is possible to specify climate departure dates for individual cities. Under high emissions, climate departure for New York City will come in 2047, the paper found, plus or minus the five-year margin of error.
How scared should you be about passing the date of “climate departure”?
Not at all.
In Figure 1, we show the complete observed (rather than modeled) history of the annual average temperature from New York City’s Central Park, spanning from 1869 through 2012.
Figure 1. Annual average temperature from New York’s Central Park, 1869-2012 (data from the New York City Office of the National Weather Service).
Here are some not-so-scary facts, that by others would be passed off as horrors:
● The average temperature in Central Park for the past 83 years (since 1930) (54.8°F) is greater than the warmest year during the first 39 years of the record (1869-1907) (54.7°F).
● There has only been one year in the last 20 years of the record that was colder (by just 0.2°F) than the warmest year during the first twenty years of record.
So essentially, New York City has already reached its “climate departure” date and no one noticed.
By his own estimation, the older author of this blog post (PJM) has lived through nine environmental ends-of-the-words-as-we-know-it. What’s new here?
Whether the climate departure date in New York was reached as a result of the heat of urbanization, natural climate variability, human-induced global warming, or the likely combination of all three, its passage is of virtually no practical significance. Yes, it is warmer now that it was 150 years ago.
As concerned as readers of the New York Times might be, they are living twice as long as they did back then, and, in Manhattan, are richer than Croesus.
Science/science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. put the new Mora article in perspective (although not in the Justin Gillis article, but rather at NBCNews.com):
But trying to compel action with a stark warning about a future that is coming regardless of what efforts are taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions may be misguided, according to Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
“It is better to design policies that have short-term benefits” such as jobs, energy access or less pollution “which can also address the longer-term challenge of accumulating (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere,” he said. “That is a policy-design problem that we have yet to figure out, and which does not involve trying to scare the public into action.”
But what attention would come to climate change if the researchers, the media, and the government weren’t complicit in trying to scare people into giving up some of their freedoms to try to mitigate it?
Trick or treat? Happy Halloween!
============================
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
I have noticed recently, that more and more “scary” climate change articles seem to be published in the media. Perhaps it is my imagination though… but today alone I found at least 8 under Science in Google News.
This has got to be one of the most useless pieces of ‘research’ ever published in the dismal annals of ‘climate science’. How in the hell has it ended up being published in Nature? Even for an alarmist journal like that this reaches a new low. But I guess it’s worked enough to garner some suitably apocalyptic headlines:
http://progcontra.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/apocalypse-soonish.html
This, following so soon after Bob Geldof’s nonsensical ramblings, makes it feel like we’ve stepped back a decade and that the flat-lining of temperatures has never happened.
Until skeptics address the AGW meme politically and specifically (leftist meme) the movement will survive, expand and grow. Science just isn’t going to win in a post normal world. Skeptics are divided politically and the core of AGW advocacy is not.
Skeptics by addressing every AGW science claim seriously on it’s own and ignoring the broad political motivations of AGW in its entirety enhance the AGW agenda which is a negative.
What is the point in having yet another way to look at unrealistic projections from broken models of climate?
Great idea for a class project. Get your students to focus on something we know to be wrong.
Jim, the media are operatives of what general political persuasion? Does any of this surprise you given the AR5 release date?
Poorly done High School Science. Junk.
He is actually Camilo Mora, PhD. He is not a climatologist, but in the Geology Department. His expertise is in the dispersal of marine species, particularly fish. But his ongoing lab is devoted to the evils of anthropogenic activity of ecological systems. Basically he indoctrinates students into the religion of climate change and the redistribution of wealth.
Figure 1. Annual average temperature from New York’s Central Park, 1869-2012 (data from the New York City Office of the National Weather Service).
Are these people serious?
They would get even more impressive chart if they quoted temperature for the
5th Ave
“Figure 1. Annual average temperature from New York’s Central Park, 1869-2012 (data from the New York City Office of the National Weather Service).”
Heat Island!!
Socialism is the goal. Truth is irrelevant. The smart people, the ruling class needs to be charge. Global warming is only a means to an end. Your life has to be controlled.
So I guess ‘Mora Manoa’ is out of the question?
Figure 1 would be far more useful if it included the high-low values, like stock market reporting.
Furthermore, I look at the year c 1900 on the graph, and the _average_ value is just under 55 deg F. I find it hard to believe the high for that year was below 54.8. Or it would seem that temps varied that year from 54.65-54.75 deg F.
So this report is even phonier than first revealed – the name switch from Camilo to Camille reminds one of the Richard Windsor impersonation by Lisa Jackson at the EPA.
An obvious case of conclusions reached first, then “research” done to justify them. It’s so crudely done that one wonders how anybody could be gullible enough to be taken in by it.
As I pointed out in a post yesterday, there was an article in Yahoo News on this piece of horse feces which someone said they were a co-author of this report and were ashamed hat having been “callow and naïve” enough to be taken in by it.
Let’s hope Dr. Mora’s other expertises are at least as good as his climatology expertise. Climate prediction for individual cities! I bow to him.
This is from the Social Sciences Department, Geography!! Give me a break. Students no less! Geography is an anachronism like alchemy (apologies to geographers but ask yourself why you chose this subject). Geography is a classic old timey discipline that drew the maps of the world (graphy). In grade school, already out of work in the map drawing business, they scrambled about finally settling on coffee-grows-in-Brazil type information. Here they are now in a field of science and mathematics that needs to deal with chaos theory, geology, advanced math and statistics, physics, chemistry, biology….and the ones in these disciplines are even lost at sea on the subject. The students even offer that this is an important contribution!! This idea can safely be rejected out of hand as having a probability little different than zero. It would indeed be unprecedented in a number of ways – 1) it has never, ever happened before 2) the only thing they have for data is a totally crashed theory and a present trend of temps going the opposite way to CO2. 3) unless caused by an asteroid, geological processes just don’t happen this fast. 4) what has happened before is CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere >20 times this figure didn’t do such damage. How did this get published in Nature. Oh there is going to be big changes alright but that is in the broken science of climate science and replacements for fallen scientific journals. Shame, shame.
Bah! You call that scary? Check THIS one out! Warming oceans will make the jellyfish eat us all!
…our poor Oz friends! This is a very cool book review, how much is due to climate change is questionable…
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/sep/26/jellyfish-theyre-taking-over/?page=1
Gary Pearse,
A friend’s dad advised him to get the easiest degree possible, because the degree was the important thing: it opened doors. [This was in 1966, when there weren’t many “Studies” degrees.]
My friend chose Geography. Told me it was the easiest 4 years he ever spent. He got a job at Coca Cola, they sent him all over the world, and he ended up a VP making in a month what I made in a year. So those Geography degrees are worth something! ☺
Just as an example of Climate Change in Bangladesh…
Looks like Bangladesh has had some problems with extreme weather even before 1979.
The dates go back as far as 1584. Before Superstorm Sandy etc.
Must be CO_2,
Must be sea level rise…not:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp?MR=1
Some of those billions spent on CO_2 eradication might have been spent on sophisticated warning systems and a workable evacuation/shelter system to help these poor souls in Bangladesh and other inevitable weather disaster prone areas in the world. (maybe start with promoting: “never build on a flood plain”)
CNN is picking this up as well —- sigh!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/10/us/climate-change-study/index.html
I would be more receptive to the notion of “global warming” if the snow would melt out in my yard.
Easy, is it? Unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality, as computational climate models are shown not to have regional skill whatsoever. Still, one can define “climate departure” relative to models, of course.
I believe it has a well earned place on the list of Top 10 Most Useless Inventions Ever, but just go ahead regardless.
Science/science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. put the new Mora article in perspective
“It is better to design policies that have short-term benefits” such as jobs, energy access or less pollution “which can also address the longer-term challenge of accumulating (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere,” he said. “That is a policy-design problem that we have yet to figure out, and which does not involve trying to scare the public into action.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Leave CO2 out of it entirely. It is immaterial, and will only serve to skew policies wrongly, and hurting, not helping economies.
Don’t forget that today is also 10-10.
A day that lives on in climate infamy due to the video produced by the 10-10 group showing skeptical children, getting violently exploded into bloody pulp by smiling people.
The 10-10 group lives on and issued this statement today:
“For the last three years, 10/10 has been the day we knock on cynicism’s door and run away giggling.
The day we put clingfilm over the toilet of business-as-usual, and order unwanted takeaways to the house of despair.
This year we’re relaunching our #itshappening project, which showcases all the best climate success stories from around the world.”
http://www.1010global.org/uk
My hottest most traumatic event didn’t involve weather or climate.
AGW speak = MAYBE .POSSIBLE, MIGHT, IN THE FUTURE = WONT
A class-project-cum-Nature-article headed by Camille Mora from the University of Hawaii at Manoa
paragraph number six:
The research comes with caveats. It is based on climate models, huge computer programs that attempt to reproduce the physics of the climate system and forecast the future response to greenhouse gases.
Though they are the best tools available, these models contain acknowledged problems, and no one is sure how accurate they will prove to be at peering many decades ahead.
“and no one is sure how accurate they will prove to be at peering many decades ahead.”
WTF******* WHY ARE THESE MORONS/AIRHEADS ALLOW TO PUBLISH SUCH CRAP!!!!!!
I have no thoughts of being polite at the moment since Justin Gillis is pathetic and needs to be called out. Please allow me to present a previous story, concerning Lonnie Thompson, that he wrote for the NY Times, and then transition into the current story he’s written about concerning this supposed piece of ‘research’ conducted by Camilo Mora at the behest of the NOAA and unwittingly paid for by the taxpayers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/science/earth/lonnie-thompson-climate-scientist-battles-time.html?pagewanted=all
‘The New York Times
‘A Climate Scientist Battles Time and Mortality’
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: July 2, 2012
‘Fifteen years ago, Dr. Thompson was treated for asthma, but he now suspects that the diagnosis was incomplete. He learned in 2009 that he had congestive heart failure, but kept to a schedule of expeditions to New Guinea and the Alps.
‘Last fall, he reached a point where … his failing heart struggled to keep him alive.
‘It was deep in one of his comatose periods, he figures, that he had the dream. He described jumping through space and landing in a beautiful spot filled with flowers and streams. There, he said, a figure in white spoke to him.
‘“It’s not your time,”’ the figure told him. “You have another purpose.”
‘He underwent the (heart) transplant that evening. The donor’s family most likely does not know that the decision they made saved the life of a world-famous scientist.’
Ok, got that? Apparently Justin Gillis is insinuating that the all knowing creator of the universe (I’m an atheist, by the way) has sent Dr. Thompson back from the grips of death so as to save it. Particularly gripping, however, is when Gillis writes that, “The donor’s family most likely does not know that the decision they made saved the life of a world-famous scientist.” Got that? Well, I’m certain that the donor’s family is particularly comforted by the fact that their loss did not save just anybody. No, their loss saved the life of somebody sent back by “Nature’s God” itself. Didn’t Nature’s God create “all men equal” Mister Gillis? Apparently not. Climate Scientists must be above us.
Ok, now for Gillis’s current piece of dribble.
‘This work is significant, according to Gillis, because:
Thousands of scientific papers have been published about the model results, but the students identified one area of analysis that was missing. The results are usually reported as average temperature changes across the planet. But that gives little sense of how the temperature changes in specific places might compare with…’
In 2003 a General Practitioner gave me 5 years and referred me to a specialist. In 2004 I asked that specialist a rather profound question in regards to what the GP had told me. The specialist (a very dear and truly excellent doctor who will forever be in my thoughts) said, “Doctors are good about making predictions for groups. They’re not good about making predictions for individuals.” I’ve outlasted the GP’s belief by a significant margin.
A human being is a “specific place” on this planet. And it is quite clear that all the scientific research in the world has not made an accurate prognosis for the world, the group. So there isn’t a chance this research has made an accurate prognosis for a specific place, an individual. These morons could learn a thing or two from my dear former specialist (who, unfortunately has moved out of state). Now, I have little doubt I won’t make it to 2047. Heck, it’s likely I won’t make it to 2017. But I have little doubt the world will. Grow up Mr. Gillis.
And don’t ruin my Halloween. It’s my favorite holiday. It’s the day we confront our fears, and instead, have fun with them.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
And about as real as the kid under the sheet at the door is a real ghost.
JimS says:
“I have noticed recently, that more and more “scary” climate change articles seem to be published in the media. ”
Clearly a ‘departure point’ in climate change articles ! We’re dooomed.
Here is a related issue that may not have been discussed: Major cities have all become thermal sinks that do not cool at night as they used to. So warmer nights lead to warmer localized daytime temperatures. This leads to the inability of some building Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems to adequately cool their indoor environment. Some buildings have no choice but to close their outside air dampers to limit their thermal load and maintain air temperatures. This exposes the tenants to higher CO2 levels while they work, which is known to decrease productivity, potentially reducing the tenants profitability.
Conversely, there are also winter conditions where this same action is needed but for different reasons.
So, due to the inability of cities to properly regulate their construction, they are exacerbating the problem by allowing more buildings to be built within their boundaries, forcing owners to spend more money for more energy to satisfy their tenants. This increases their carbon footprint!!!!! (I know the term has no relevance on this website.)
So, what would happen if all major cities created a moratorium on new construction in order to stop this from happening?
The term “major” can be defined by the reader…
Rubbish.
Any code? Data from the model runs that they used?
Methods they used to verify?
Any proof they used to validate their concepts of problems in man’s future?
Anything? Besides the future scenarios of disaster?
Well, I disagree. The bugs and rats in New York City noticed and thoroughly enjoy the few exceptionally warm winter nights that are causing this “unprecedented warming”. Don’t say that “no one” noticed! 😉
And now, from our files…
SCARY STORY FROM….. 1978!
Spock: “Move where? The brutal Buffalo winter might become common all over the United States.”
“Climate experts believe… .”
LAUGH — OUT — LOUD.
.
.
(not laughing, though, about the e-vi-l of the energy-poor suffering this coming winter due to the lies of the IPCC and Envirostalinism)
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_558ef3ed-e941-5054-bc6b-115e04e10886.html
Tens of thousands of cattle killed in Friday’s blizzard
well stadium wave my warming pause…
When he talks too long does he get horse manoa?
“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.”
That is the most awkward sentence I’ve read in weeks. The word “successively” must be removed, or “, and warmer” must be addd after than. They are as bad at writing as they are at calculating.
if worded correctly it is also false.
2003-2013, maybe
1993-2003, maybe
1983-1993, no
Inevitably, when criticizing spelling, writing or wording, one makes errors in spelling, writing or wording. There must be a word for that that sounds nicer than hypocrisy.
Why always NYC? Every movie potentially dooms NY. Is that the centre of the effing Universe or something?
Kevin M;
Yep. It’s called Muphry’s Law.
Thank Dog that it’s been warming. Who needs or wants a continuation or return to the LIA? Besides every Green and ‘Climate Scientist’ and Warmist, that is.
Dog is the Dysexic’s Deity, btw.
Agg. Typo:
Desexic’sDyslexic’sMy brother in-law claims his kids in grade 1 had the same assignment last year. Could this be plagiarism?
Janice Moore
October 10, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Wow. Great video. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
Who knew the Earth started in 1850?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/climate_model_warning.jpg
like cigarette package warnings this should be mandatory on all climate posts that use models!
‘Dopey’ Gillis of the NYT misrepresenting the editor of Science Magazine who in turn misrepresented the author of a report published in Nature in March of this year:-
What the editor reported:-
What the authors actually reported:-
The authors say that the rate of warming (not global temperature per se) since the Little Ice Age 200 years ago was greater than at any time in the last 4000 to 5000 years, but current temperatures are below the peaks of the present Interglacial Period. Unfortunately the review system skews the reporting to support the Catastrophism meme.
Sorry, about the incorrect reference to Nature:-
Justin Gillis is the Judith Miller of climate reporting at the NYT.
I just want to know whether it is going to rain in two weeks. Unfortunately, our weatherman gets it right about 50% of the time. So does my cat.
Kevin M, Brian H:
I think you’ll find that O’Toole’s Corollary is more apposite.
“According to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report:” “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.”
Did they really just write that the 1850s are the hottest decade on record?
WOW.
Truly a pathetic article by Gillis which is par for the course for him but Borenstein’s article for AP was even more pathetic, also par for the course. As for the study, three thoughts: They made predictions which can (and should) be verified, second, what would their study show for non-urban sites and lastly, they used models – ’nuff said.
SyFyGate!
Somebody hacked into their computers and stole all the rejected scripts!
Good. We need Fat Boys to make our flesh creep. Without them, how will we know we are doomed?
Dear Tom J,
I’m so glad. It was your wonderfully candid, thoughtful, comment at 11:02am today that inspired me to find something to make you laugh (laughter is the best medicine). I like you (at least, from what I know of you from your WUWT comments). I want you to BE HERE waaay past 2017.
I hope that tomorrow (10/11) is a better day. Take care.
And….
Enjoy! #(:))
lol, Physics Major, this IS on topic — we’re dealing with a real comedy routine with those AGW clowns!
…..who are going the wrong way….
and who would NEVER have had the real scientist ingenuity Bill Cosby demonstrated when he solved this problem… .
LOL — the Fantasy Science Club “scientists” would have run their breakfast model a few times, printed out the results, handed them to their kids and said, “Here. Eat this. The model says it’s good for you.”
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
(a little early, but, this is a discussion about models, so, like that matters)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/dr-roy-spencers-ill-considered-comments-on-citizen-science/#comment-1442994
I wrote yesterday
“The obvious corruption of these scientific journals, through scientist-activist misbehaviour, is apparent from the ClimateGate emails, the utter screed that had been published on climate science in once-respected journals, and the alarmist nonsense that appears in the IPCC reports, particularly the SPM’s.”
I actually cited Science and Nature in the above sentence before editing it out, thinking I was being too hard on these particular journals, once among the most respected scientific publications in the world.
Then out comes this screed from Hawaii, published in Nature! How the mighty have fallen.
Jesus wept.
More guff from the High Pressure (no pun) sales department then.
No science, just wind.
And, as you recall, no doubt, Allan MacRae (good observation above, thanks for sharing, here), Jesus wept at distress of his grieving friends.
So, too, he likely weeps at the distress of all of us in the side of science truth. It is also probable that he wept at the thought of bringing Lazarus back from paradise into a world where (for there is, truly, “nothing new under the sun”) there were “scientist-activist(s)” daily plotting and promulgating their dirty deeds. Since Lazarus’ resurrection was real data directly threatening their control over the people, from that day on, there was a contract out on him. If Lazarus had gone to Hamburg to make a speech, I’ll bet they’d have done even more than cancel his non-refundable return plane ticket to Australia… .
But, for you and me, Mr. MacRae, there is hope!
“‘Take heart,'” Jesus said, “‘I have overcome the world.'”
All will be well.
Well, they’re university students, if they were any younger I’d consider this child abuse. Unfortunately, universities will continue to churn out the kind of highly educated fools they always have. In my professional life I’ve never yet hired a degreed Computer Science grad that had a clue about anything. They’re so busy concentrating on how much they get paid that they don’t have time to actually be productive or write coherent code. I can’t see climate “science” being any different.
Speaking of climate departures, yesterday evening we had a heavy, slow moving storm come through Calgary. In the city itself it was rainy and several degrees C above freezing However, I went for a drive and practically at city limits the rain turned to snow. Eventually I got to a place on the highway where there was about 6 inches of heavy, wet slush, and people were having difficulty getting up a gentle rise. Several cars were in the ditch. Luckily I just got new tires last week and was able to just drive normally.
It is a bit early for that sort of thing.
A case of cherry picking. I am sure the whole world has experienced “Climate departure” if we compare the last century to the last full Ice Age. All that means is that the planet is not as cold as it once was.
But then one has to ask – what temperature SHOULD it be? I see 2 answers to that question.
#1 – What the “normal” temperature of the planet may be given the averaging of its biological history (say in the last 600 million years)
#2 – What is best for homosapiens
I do not pretend to know the answers to either (nor is the former even discernible to any degree of accuracy currently being thrown about). But before we start jumping off cliffs in Norway in step with their indigenous rodents, I would think we would want to find out.
The warmist priests have learned their 10 year prophesies are too short leading to failure and doubt of their prescience. No doubt they have seen their 100 year projections of catastrophe proven futile in the modern world–too long for the attention span.
Why not try 33 1/3 years? A prediction that won’t be proven totally wrong short term as ALL 10 year scenarios have, and doesn’t suffer from future fatigue as do ALL their “by the year 2100” lies have.
I’m sure our all knowing government will jump at the chance to continue funding this religion keeping their eye on the goal of taxing carbon.
Exactly how many meteorological temperature stations were there in the world between 1860 and 1910? Exactly how many of them were in the Southern Hemisphere?
When you find out you will see that the temperatures at that time were anything but ‘Global’.
Well, I suppose that’s one way to exclude the hot decades of the 30s and 40s since most people (and students) alive today were not back then.
Me, the hottest was was hiking up Mt Greylock, the tallest mountain in Massachusetts, during the 1970s heat wave that brought the all record high for the state, 105°F or something like that. Fortunately it wasn’t too traumatic, as my friends announced it would be stupid the hike the mountain that day. So we started around midnight and watched the hazy sunrise from the top.
The guy who had set up his tent in the middle of the trail wasn’t too appreciative when his dog started barking at us as we went by at 0300.
====================================================================
I’ve been in Calgary a few times for computer training in Novembers and a March. I’ve always wondered how they got that almost-pea gravel they spread around on the roads out of the storm sewers. Do they have catch basins that they pump out in the spring?
From what I can find, Kingston Jamaica is warming at a rate of 0.1C/decade over the last 20 years. I fail to see how that is going to result in catastrophic warming in the next 20 years or less. I have a feeling that the authors of this paper were so busy looking at their computer models that they failed to look at the actual data.
Hartman’s Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation: “any article or statement about correct grammar, punctuation, or spelling is bound to contain at least one eror”.
(re: Roger Knights at 9:26pm)
Or, “pride cometh before a fall.”
Thanks for sharing that pithy and apropos quot.
Well at least storm Phailin missed Bangladesh this time… It’s a crap shoot where these storms hit…just like Sandy and Katrina…,but it’s Climate Change for the folks where it does hit…
[SNIP a valid email is required to comment here anon@anonymou.se doesn’t cut it. Unless you use a valid email address your comments will not be published per policy – mod]
“Dr. Mora is not a climate scientist; rather he is a specialist in using large sets of data to illuminate environmental issues.”
I have been told by warmist after warmist after warmist that only climate scientists are qualified to speak about the climate. But, of course, now they are latching onto this.
timbrom;
Did you miss the spelling of “Muphry’s”? What could be more apposite?