No, the "it" of concern absolutely is global. It just won't necessarily affect all regions in the same way at the same time. Climate change involves periods longer than 36 months. It's important to look at 10 year running averages. The problem is that there are a number of important cycles. Without considering change over longer periods of time any attempt at measuring a rate of change will fail, because you can not trll where you are with rrspect to the various cycles. There is no disagreement that the exceptionally warm gulf fueled Harvey. I haven't seen a scientific organization that has stated a level of contribution of climate change to Harvey, though. The point is that oceans are warming, and this is one of the ways we feel the vost of oceans warming. Yes, there have been serious droughts, hurricanes, etc in the past. Surely that does not contribute to a decision to ignore climate change, which will augmdmt these ptoblems. I don't know of any other type if serious disaster where having lived through it left people ready to ignore efforts to limit there occurrance. Generally, when we know of such risks we work to limit them.
The real problem here is that earth isn't following Ohio in lock step. So, you look at a few short years of Ohio weather and come to the conclusion that the world population will be fine. [/QUOTE] As Freeman Dyson has pointed out in interviews, the so-called "climate scientists" are NOT doing holistic studies of the overall environmental impact of climate change. My own opinion continues to be solidified that they are apparently acting as money grubbers by creating general alarm over the climate in order to get more funding for their laboratories. [/QUOTE] ??? Climatologists study climate. I agree we need more attention paid to impacts of what climatologists are finding. But, it is disturbing that someone would try to turn that into an accusation against climatologists. And, no, climatologists ard not getting rich. Oil and gas companies are getting rich. You are making the same mistakes again. And, yes, you absolutely are cherry picking specific places, specific years, specific types of measurement, etc, with no attention to what science has shown about climate for many years mow.
Its so funny that warmists will point to a local event like a tornado or a flood or hurricane or shrinking glacier and say "Proof of global warming!", but when there is evidence counter to the warmist clams then they say "Greenland is one location on earth, only one contributor to an actual measure of earth's temperature". You people are hilarious. That's why everyone takes AGW is just a big joke, just a ploy by Gore to make a living post-politics that went too far.
Yes, well said. They are not using good science. They are alarmists. They have political goals. And of course you will lose your grant the moment the scientist reports it is fakery.
I gave you data from Kansas, Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and Indiana. It all shows the same thing. Fewer cooling days. You can continue to be willfully ignorant concerning that but it means *you* are the denier, not me. ??? Why aren't the climate scientists talking about the decrease in high temperatures and in the cooling days per year? Are they not also part of climate? Why is all we hear from the climate scientists is that *TEMPERATURES* are going up? Temperatures apparently aren't going up in a lot of places, instead the MEAN is going up. That doesn't mean that temperatures are going up! Your claim that climate scientists study climate is meaningless. Goodyear studies tires on NASCAR cars. So what? There are a lot more parts to the the car than just the tires! The tires have to work with the suspensions and drive train to reach maximum performance for the car. Just like *temperature* is only a part of the total environment. Yet the global warming alarmists want us to believe that 1. temperature is the only controlling factor in our lives and that 2. temperatures are going up, not just the mean, and 3. that the late 20th century global mean temperature is the best mean temperature for the human race and we have to make paupers of ourselves to get back to that global mean temperature. Temperature is *NOT* the only controlling factor in our lives. Apparently only the mean is going up in many places on the globe. And there aren't any studies I can find from the "climate scientists" that show that the late 20th century global mean temperature is the best for the human race. It's just an unstated, unproven piece of religious dogma that we are supposed to take on faith! I didn't say climatologists are getting rich! Stop putting words in my mouth! But global warming alarmism *is* the driver for many climatologists to obtain funding for their research facilities. Except *I* am not making any mistakes and you haven't shown where I have. You haven't refuted a single graph of piece of data that I have provided. NOT ONE! What has science shown? That the *MEAN* temperature has gone up? So what? *YOU* apparently don't even know enough to question what that means. You just assume it means that maximum temperatures keep increasing! It was my own data that doesn't show that which clued me in to start looking at "global warming holes" -- something you have *still* refused to admit exist let alone try to explain them. Instead you just continue your willful ignorance and quoting religious dogma from the global warming alarmists! I gave you data from places across the US, data from Ecuador, and data from Australia. And you accuse me of "cherry-picking"? What types of measurements do you want anyway? Do you even understand the meaning of "cooling day"? I am *not* going to spend a couple hundred dollars to provide you with cooling day records longer than 36 months in the past. The past 36 months data is plenty to give current trends! If you don't believe that then *YOU* spend the money to get more historical records that show that the past three to five years are anomalies! All you've offered on here is flat statements of "you are wrong". Not a single piece of data other than data on global mean temperature - which, as I've shown, is meaningless when it comes to variance, standard deviation, and absolute temperature. If all you have to offer is more religious dogma on global warming then don't bother. I've had my fill of it from Al Gore. I don't need more from you. You won't convert me because the data available today is *not* on your side.
If North America and South America aren't seeing "global warming" then I'll repeat - it isn't global warming! If you want to talk long term trends then the climate has been warming since the end of the last ice age. Why should we expect warming to stop in the 20th and 21st century? "Cycles" are meaningless. Cycles mean things repeat - like the ice ages. You can *certainly* tell where you are in a cycle! And now you've been reduced to using the same argument that the climate scientists have been using since 1998! "Wait five years, the warming will resume". "Wait ten years, the warming will resume." "Wait 20 years, the warming will resume." The problem is that the hiatus has *not* ended. What are we going to hear in 2020? "Wait fifty years, the warming will resume!" Oh, MALARKY! Katrina was a Category 4 when it hit land and it stayed that way for over 24 hours. Harvey was no where *near* that strong of a storm. If a "warmer Gulf of Mexico" is the determining factor for hurricane strength then why wasn't Harvey worse than Katrina for wind damage! go here: www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html or, better yet, go here: http://theconversation.com/warming-slowed-by-cooling-pacific-ocean-17534 From the article: "In summer, the equatorial Pacific’s grip on the northern hemisphere loosens, and the increased greenhouse gases continue to warm temperatures, causing record heat waves and unprecedented Arctic sea ice retreat." Except we have *NOT* seen record heat waves in either North or South America and the retreat of the Arctic sea ice has been halted. Once again, the prediction of the climate scientists have been proven wrong. "The last cooling phase in the tropical Pacific Decadal Oscillation – cooling waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean – lasted from roughly 1940 to the early 1970s. During that cool phase, warmer, drier weather dominated in the midwestern United States." And yet, warmer, drier weather has *not* dominated in the midwestern US. While the Pacific Decadal Oscillation may be a cause of the hiatus, the predictions the climate scientists made based on their models, once again, been proven wrong. "But we know that over the timescale of several decades, climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." Really? *HOW* do "we" know that? As usual, we have speculation masquerading as fact. We have 13% more green area on the earth today than in 1980. We are seeing record crop production in US. High temperatures are moderating all across the US and apparently South America and Siberia. Tornadoes in the US are at a historic low. So are hurricanes, at least in the Atlantic. These are *good* things, not bad things. I'm not sure what serious disasters you are talking about. If you are talking about the repercussions of building in flood plains then I'm with you. If you are talking about long term migration plans for populations near the coast then I'm with you. If you are talking about killing more electrical generation plants then I'm *not* with you. Cars put more CO2 in the air than all the electric plants combined - yet we are *not* going to get rid of the gasoline auto in the US. It just isn't going to happen.
Incorrect. That's one of the things correctly predicted by global warming theory. Here's Dr. Francis talking about it in 2013, how the Rossby waves move more slowly now due to global warming. That is, it's yet another demonstration of the how climate science keeps making correct predictions over and over. That's why climate scinece has such credibility, because it's been getting all the predictions right for 40 years running now.
As both are seeing strong warming, that statement is senseless. No, the climate was cooling for the past 8000 years, until humans recently reversed that. Come on, this is basic stuff. Until you grasp it, you're going to keep getting everything wrong. No, the climate scientists have pointed out the warming is strong and ongoing, and that the "hiatus" is a fraud invented by desperate deniers. Temperatures have been climbing fast the whole time you've said there was a hiatus. I've showed you the graph. You pulled a Stevie Wonder and pretended you couldn't see the very obvious strong warming. Your conspiracy theory requires that you deliberately ignore the best data, which means it's junk science. Awful logic, as it assumes all hurricanes must act the same. Sea surface temperatures were well above average, due to global warming. That allowed Harvey to strengthen faster. Denying that is like denying the round earth. Which in no way contradicts global warming theory. Which in no way contradicts global warming theory. You're flinging red herrings right and left. If you science wasn't so awful, you wouldn't have to deflect like that. No, those are all just some denier myths you're pushing. Here's how we know it's warming strongly. The thermometers say it's warming strongly. It's that simple. You're just wrong.
Not even close. Sea ice extents at the North Pole are well below the 30yr average with volume and thicknesses on pace to break the 2012 record.
Technically Katrina was a category 3 at landfall. But, that's really misleading. Katrina's integrated kinetic energy was enormous due to the size of the storm. The top 3 Atlantic Basin cyclones in terms of IKE are Isabel (2003), Katrina (2005), and Sandy (2012). I absolutely agree with you that Harvey was NOT caused by global warming. It's really annoying hearing the media, Al Gore, and other alarmists incorrectly attributing individual weather events to climate change. The National Hurricane Center and most reputable meteorologists and atmospheric scientists usually quash those claims pretty quick though. Harvey was a fluke.
Where in Pete's name have you been for the past two weeks? On Mars? The Weather Channel, the network news, and the cable news *all* said this was a configuration of high pressures and a hurricane that has never been seen before! There is no way *any* global warming theory predicted this! Remember, it had been 12 YEARS since any major hurricane impacted the US. If global warming was going to cause this kind of weather configuration it would have happened long ago. This presentation has nothing to do with Harvey. Did you do *any* research on Harvey at all? go here: www.ktbs.com/weather/harvey-pm-thursday-update/article_fafed5ce-8944-11e7-b07f-9f4a7e1671bb.html "Figure 5 shows the jet stream is far removed from Harvey. A ridge out west and one in the Gulf of Mexico keep the storm pinned up in Texas through late next week. So, the forecast is based on this." Why do you *insist* on wasting everyone's bandwidth with garbage? Except "science" didn't predict this at all! The jet stream wasn't any kind of factor at all! This is the kind of garbage the global warming religionists like you *always* put out. And you wonder why you have no credibility at all with the public any more?
Then why are they both seeing fewer cooling days? Wouldn't strong warming result in *more* cooling days? So we were headed into the next ice age until humankind stopped it? And you want us to give you any credibility at all? Too bad even the IPCC had to agree that the hiatus was happening in their 2014 report. Did you forget to read the report? Are the members of the IPCC "deniers"? No, the MEAN has been climbing. That is *NOT* the temperature. And no one, including *YOU*, has yet explained why there are fewer cooling days in so many areas on the globe if the temperatures are going up! You didn't even bother to go look up "global warming holes" on the internet, did you? *YOU* are the one that says the higher temperatures in the ocean would increase the category of hurricanes due to global warming, *not* me! Are you now trying to change your story? Except Harvey did *NOT* strengthen faster. In fact it *died* quicker than most as it went back out into the Gulf before coming back onshore the second and third times! But it *does* contradict the theory that global warming is going to turn the earth into a cinder and we are all going to starve as crops burn up! Global warming is supposed to be *killing* crops, not boosting them. If that is not happening then it is just one more prediction of the global warming religionists like you that has been proven wrong. You can't *ever* provide anything factual in refutation, can you? All you can do is just provide declarative statements as if you are *the* expert. Here's what NOAA shows for tornado counts through 2014: 2002 actually set a record for fewest tornadoes. And 2012-2014 are well down in number compared to history. The same applies to hurricanes. We have been in a 12 year drought of major hurricanes hitting the US. That is a *RECORD* length of time since record keeping was started in 1851. The only myths flying around here are those from the global warming religionists like you that can do nothing but deny reality! The MEAN is going up. Apparently the maximum temperatures are not in many regions of the globe. You've shown in other threads that you simply do not understand statistics which is why you can't tell the difference. You had to be shown that you can't tell the slope of the mean from the variance and the standard deviation. And you can't seem to grasp that you can't tell the variance and standard deviation from the slope of the mean! The mean *can* go up while the maximum temperatures are going down. But the global warming alarmists can't admit that because most people would consider that to be a *good* thing. It means lower cooling bills in the summer which, in turn, means less energy usage. That's a good thing but it doesn't drive lots of money for research!
Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center on Aug 21, 2017: "A cooler than average first half of the month kept ice loss at a sluggish pace with little change in the ice edge within the eastern Arctic. Retreat was mostly confined to the western Beaufort and northern Chukchi seas. Ice extent remains above that seen in 2012 and 2007.
I think you are smarter ghan that. - the average temperature of earth is rising. - places in both those continents are getting warmer. - the hiatus was nota fraud. In fact, it was nota hiatus in terms of earth collecting heat. It's just that heat started going to places that were less thoroughly monitored. This is phydics. Heat didn't just "go away". We just needed to learn more ablut where it went. - you tend to cherry pick places and specify short time periods, which is not a legitimate approach to understanding climate, as has been explained to youseveral times by various posters.. - Harvey wasn't worse than Katrina for several reasons inbolving what makes hurticanes strong and how susceptible the afected area is to damage. The point was that warm water is one factor in making such storms mire severe. - cycles are seen in solar output, cycling between highs and lows over the course of a few years. This is significant in studying weather, let alone climate. - scientusts gave been studying how earth retains heat gor a long time now. They know how co2 vontributes to that. You can rebutt that by saying "no they fon't".
Sorry, common sense tells even the non scientist that you are discussing high altitude wind waves that occur far to the north of the typical hurricanes that move opposite to the jet stream, much lower latitudes and end up moving from East to West as opposed to West to East (Jet streams) thus there is no correlation between the jet stream and American hurricanes that hit the USA. Those begin off the West coast of Africa.
Yah, well i was actually speaking of the added polar ice that is on Greenland. I should have checked sea ice thousands of miles away as you do, but did not.
The MEAN is rising. The mean can rise while maximum temps go down. It actually means a more moderate climate. What is so bad about this? Can you give me a location in South America that has *more* cooling days today than in 2012 or 2016? Or is this just a part of your religious dogma? ROFL!!! The heat went "somewhere" but we don't know where! If you don't know where it went or how it got there then how do you know it won't *stay* there? Oh, MALARKY! I gave you REPRESENTATIVE locations that I picked at random. The US data was five year data and for Ecuador and Australia was for three years. That's plenty long to discern a trend. And once a trend has been established then it *exists*. Saying that it doesn't is denying reality. We've been told first that five years would be needed to show an actual trend, then ten years, and then twenty years. The reason the mean hasn't gone up is because some years are colder and some are hotter. The variances have all balanced out. 2016 was a hot year but 2017 looks like its going to be a cooler year. If 2018 is cooler yet then the mean will remain horizontal just like it has for the past 18 years! Except Harvey was *NOT* strong. There was very little actual wind damage. So why was Harvey so weak if the Gulf waters are so much warmer? Harvey caused so much damage because the weather conditions forced it to stay stationary so long which allowed record rain totals to be incurred. That isn't a function of *strength*, it's a function of the *weather*. And the weather was not a function of global warming! We are in a solar output *minimum*. But somehow the climate models don't seen to account for this very well! And yet they can't tell us, or WON'T tell us, if the mean is going up because of higher maximum temperatures or because of longer growing seasons. The difference between the two are HUGE when it comes to the impact on the Earth and the environment. And the difference between the two have tremendously different impacts on the probability of research money availability in the future. Which do you suppose will be pushed by those looking for *more* grant money?
That's ice extent (a measure of surface area). It's definitely below the 30yr climatological average in that chart. The other way to measure sea ice is by volume. That's what could end up being a record low this year.
asked and answered - several times. I didn't make such a claim. The hiatus behavior vaused more investigation, and has been answered. Your suggestions here are counter to the analysis of NASA, NOAA, and other groups of scientists from here and abroad. No, the point was that it was strengthened by the fact that gulf water was warm - reported to be above 90 degrees. Cite please. I think you are again missing that the change has never been proposed to be the same in all regions. And, as you point out, it hasn't been.
go here: "http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-ice-volume-rebounds-19262 "What she and her colleagues have taken away from this finding is that the sea ice might be more resilient than had been assumed, able to rebound somewhat after a cooler melt season." go here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ This data doesn't include August during which the sea ice volume will have recovered even more based on surface ice extent! There is no doubt that 2016 was a warm year for the Arctic and that May to mid-Jun was a high melt situation in the Artic. There is also no doubt that mid-Jun through July, 2017 has been a cooler melt season allowing the sea ice surface extent and volume to recover. I would also note that the melt in 2017 was not nearly as dramatic as in most years. It most closely resembles 2014 which actually saw a large volume *increase* later in the year. If the increase does follow 2014 we could see sea ice volume recover to near 2010 levels. As usual, reality doesn't appear to be nearly as much gloom and doom as the AGW reliigionists would have us believe.
You say the ice is recovering, but the article you cite says it is NOT recovering! It even says that in the title! And, AGAIN you compare two years, one of which isn't even complete when the topic requires consideration of trends over time periods more like 10 years. Also, you are once again picking one region - in fact, one that doesn't seem to support your claims. I didn't check up on your claims about other regions. Is this the kind of thing I will find if I do?
Armstrong should stick to economics. Greenland has been losing ice every year. That it amasses more ice during the winter months is a function of global warming. The fact of the matter is that it then loses more than it amasses during the warmer months in general. That there would be one year where it managed a net gain (should that happen which it has not)does not constitute a change in tread .
No, you've never admitted that the mean can go up while maximum temperatures moderate. You just keep going back to the AGW Bible that the Earth is going to become a cinder if nothing is done. Do you not understand that people can look back in the thread to see what you said? "places in both those continents are getting warmer. " I asked you to show me one place in South America that is getting warmer, i.e. has an upward trend on cooling days. You just punted. Nope. It has *NOT* been answered. All kinds of excuses have been given but all the excuses basically boil down to "believe us and not your lying eyes!". "The heat is hiding in the deep ocean where it was transported to by James Kirk on the Enterprise". "The Pacific Ocean is cooling while it is getting hotter.". "Just wait 5/10/20 years. The hiatus will go away." "Your suggestions here are counter to the analysis of NASA, NOAA, and other groups of scientists from here and abroad." No, they are *not* countered by anyone, not NASA, not NOAA, nor any other group of scientists. That is proven by the fact that you can't provide a single study showing why the mean is going up while maximum temperature records are going down. There *is* a reason why no one wants the public to understand that much of the globe may be seeing their climate becoming more moderate instead of turning into a cinder! You still haven't explained why Harvey simply wasn't packing the winds of a major storm fed by warmer water. Even when Harvey was pushed back into the Gulf after its initial landfall it never regained strength again! When it hit TX the second time and then when it had landfall a third time on the TX-LA coast it had *not* picked up strength from the warm Gulf waters. WHY IS THAT? Why doesn't that not match the claim you keep making that global warming results in stronger hurricanes? go here: skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm The article claims " If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. " Why would the Earth have cooled? This is called wanting to have your cake and eat it too! If water vapor and CO2 is *trapping* the heat then how can it go anywhere? It can't be both trapping the heat while letting it escape! If the heat is trapped in the deep oceans then how would cooling occur? Is the heat *not* in the deep oceans? It is this kind of idiotic hypocrisy that are causing more and more people to doubt the claims of people like you! go here: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-04-...-a-significant-driver-of-earths-climate.html# "However, the research team was able to evaluate the effects of solar activities on certain regions in the planet. According to the study, variations in ultraviolet radiation may trigger stratospheric changes near the equator and across the polar regions. Data also revealed that solar winds impact the planet’s global electric field. This in turn affects aerosol formation and rainfall, researchers said." One more indication that what we may be seeing is REGIONAL in nature and not global. Then why is it called GLOBAL WARMING?
