If government taxes enough, hopefully they can make the weather more like 1892 and 1893.
If government taxes enough, hopefully they can make the weather more like 1892 and 1893.
Yes, there are all kinds of records, record highs and record lows. There were a number of record lows this past winter.
But the number of record highs has been outnumbering record lows in the past 20-30 years, and particularly this year. See for example:
which shows both long-term and short-term trends. So yes, we are still seeing record lows, but a lot more record highs, and an increasing ratio of highs to lows with each decade.
Furthermore, measuring the heat of the planet by measuring air temperature is like measuring your body temperature at your big toe: it’s correlated, but very weakly. The oceans have roughly the same thickness and 500 times the density of the atmosphere at sea level, and average sea level is a terrific measure of average ocean temperature. After 8000 years of stagnation, sea level has risen first slowly then more rapidly over the past 130 years, and the more accurately we measure its average level, the smoother and more monotonic the rise.
The planet is warming. We are causing it. Get over it.
Thinkprogress and Wikipedia in the same post? Amazing. Just Link to something by Kos & toss in a little Alex Jones for good measure and I’m sure every single person here will happily gobble down at least 1 or 2 metric tons of your Shinola®.
Well the primary sources are all there linked from the articles, so you can look up the data as far back to the original measurements as you like.
So are you too lazy to do the work to look into the sources and deal with the data? Or are you a coward who feels the need to attack the sites because your world-view can’t deal with the facts? They remain valid measurements regardless of where they’re published.
Clueless At A Famous Cambridge, Massachussets University
As Steven pointed out, Adam:
You didn’t even bother to read the linked information on those fatuous pages. Why should anyone bother to treat your careless nonsense seriously?
In any case, I don’t actually think you’re fat, but you probably have poor taste in sugar daddies.
Since you insist on attacking messengers, deal with this:
Are the National Academies a bunch of Marxist hippie Nazis, or whatever is your latest generic insult? Or are they right on every single issue except for climate change, on which they find the evidence overwhelming and irrefutable? Or are you just wrong?
The answer should be obvious.
“The planet is warming. We are causing it. Get over it.”
Just out of curiosity … what are you doing to stop it?
Metal extraction from ores is one of the most horrendous polluters of the planet, in terms of greenhouse gases as well as toxic tailings with heavy metals, organic solvents, etc. Most metals naturally occur as oxides with some sulfides mixed in, and most processes, to first order, react them with carbon, producing metals, CO2, and SO2.
For some metals, this involves carbochlorination, where the oxide is converted to the chloride by reaction with chlorine in the presence of a carbon catalyst. Yes, carbon, oxygen, chlorine, produces dioxins and furans.
My company develops zero-emissions metal extraction processes at high energy efficiency which have no carbon and no chlorine. We electrochemically separate the metal oxide into the metal and a pure oxygen gas by-product. Our first metal products have energy efficiency or clean energy implications: magnesium for light-weight vehicles, silicon for solar panels, rare-earths for wind turbines and vehicle electrification. We are in R&D mode, have had our lab up and running for a year and a half, and should have our first product shipping around year’s end.
Personally, I bike to work often 22 km round-trip, use cold showers to reduce my home air conditioning load, take public transportation when possible. I also participate in forums which discuss the science and technology of global warming and ways to mitigate it.
I thought this was one such forum, and was prepared for a discussion of the facts and data. I am willing to listen and consider reasoned counter-arguments. Apparently I was mistaken, and this site is only for true believers of propaganda. Good bye.
@Adam … I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. I respect the fact that you are actually willing to back up your statement with action, something that many high profile proponents of AGW (ex: Al Gore) are not willing to do.
I’m assuming the primary power source for this electrochemical separation process is cold fusion based, no?
So why did the planet warm each time after the last ice ages? Certainly not us and certainly not now. You can go back to the stone ages and live in the dark if you want, don’t try telling that to the Indians and Chinese who have absolutely no intention of cutting back!
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
People at “a famous Cambridge, Massachusetts University” deal in data. That is why we are so successful so often. Likewise with the National Academies.
You don’t care one whit about data. You presented a few data points, and I mistakenly thought you were interested in a discussion about data, so I presented some good summaries of the entirety of the temperature record data set. You answered in a lazy and/or cowardly manner. And you continue to betray your ignorance by repeating the same diatribe you use to dismiss every other comprehensive summary of the data which shows you’re wrong.
You are pointless. You have no interest in a discussion of data or facts because you have no facts. I will answer P.J.’s question and then cease throwing pearls before swine.
You are making appeals to authority. I look at the data.
If you experience disconnected ramblings, paranoia, and anxiety, you should stop taking THC and consult with Pedro about other “treatment options” that might be right for you.
There are no other
Somehow, I just knew he couldn’t tell from Shinola®.
@stevengoddard: I only post once more to point out that for the record, I made no appeals to authority, I posted as any other member of this forum. You, however, took information from my email address, which your site says is “Not published”, and published it in your first reply to my first post, presumably so you could drag out your tired old Feynman line. Violating your own website’s policy makes you a liar.
You are nothing like Feynman, who used data to change the way people think about the world. You presented six data points above. I countered with a comprehensive record of 20,000 data points over one year, and a study with hundreds of thousands more over several decades. You replied with name-calling and no data, yet lied again when you claimed above “I look at data” — probably without even looking at the data I provided. You cling to your six data points like a drunkard clings to a lamp post, for support instead of illumination.
I taught hundreds of students materials processing, computer simulation, and transport phenomena, including radiative transport. I put all of my teaching materials out for public access on the Web, along with all of the source code and data behind all of my research publications. On the few occasions when students and others on the net have pointed out errors in my materials, I have acknowledged them and made the corrections. That rigorous testing against the work of others is what makes my materials authoritative. And the practice of doing so successfully and repeatably across the generations establishes the authority of institutions like MIT and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.
In contrast, you allow direct replies to all posts on this forum but your own, at which there are no “reply” links. I can only take that to mean you’re too afraid of the frailty of your house-of-cards arguments, with your pathetically cherry-picked subset of the data, to actually participate in a meaningful discussion.
That is why you have no support for your propaganda, no scientific authority whatsoever, and no right to abuse the words of Feynman.
Let me correct my post: upon review, the “Reply” links seem to appear only in the first or second levels of a discussion thread, not in all posts but yours. The other arguments of my post, on your cherry-picked data, the frailty of your propaganda, and your dishonesty in this discussion, remain.
Blah blah blah ad hom ad hom ad hom …..
I didn’t publish your email, but I am pretty sure that I have published more than six data points. It is quite clear that you have not sought out the data, because otherwise you would not have made the erroneous claims in your post.
Adam is probably IWB’s kin or a recruiter for the Chicken Little Brigade. People who do science by Cherry Picking such as Adam should not accuse others of following their lead.
1894 was just one year of a multi-year U.S. heat-wave.
Years 1890-1899 (except 1893 – when it was in Europe):
INTENSE HEAT IN THE UNITED STATES.
~9 July 1890
INTENSE HEAT IN NEW YORK.
~19 June 1891
There has been intense heat throughout America and fifty deaths from sunstroke are reported.
~29 July 1892
DESTRUCTIVE FOREST FIRES IN AMERICA.
GREAT LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY.
~21 Sept 1894
PHENOMENAL HEAT IN AMERICA.
~24 Sept 1895
INTENSE HEAT IN AMERICA – APPALLING DEATH-ROLL.
~13 Aug 1896
HEAT IN AMERICA.
THOUSANDS PROSTRATED.NUMEROUS DEATHS.
~12 July 1897
THE HEAT WAVE. 170 DEATHS IN NEW YORK.
~9 Sept 1898
The heat wave, which during June laid people in New York and other parts of America prostrate, now prevails in England.
~22 July 1899
I think he had difficulty hearing you. He was so far up on his horse.
Perhaps he should have done a little more research before jumping in with both feet.
Even assuming that all these record temperatures you cite and their distribution,
and the ratio of high to low is correct ( I do not assume so), none of that proves
the hypothesis that CO2 is the cause of any presumed temperature rise.
As a scientist producing models of material processing, it must be clear to you that the climate of the entire planet actually cannot be modeled at present, nor is reducing the entire system to one easily digested but poorly understood number actually useful, except for beating people over the head with.
“After 8000 years of stagnation, sea level has risen first slowly then more rapidly over the past 130 years, and the more accurately we measure its average level, the smoother and more monotonic the rise.”
The Journal of Coastal Research would like a word with you…http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Sea level rise is decelerating. I have dutifully and exhaustively searched to find just one of the Gaia-Worship/Earth-Fever models that correctly predicted this most unfortunate non-event.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us all.