Actually, people who understand both weather and climate – and science in general – don’t get their science information from the Daily Fail, a rag that’s been shamelessly pushing the worst kind of outright climate change denialism for years – and needless to say, it was promptly contradicted by the chief scientist of the Met Office. The denialist rag was also full of crap about what it said about the IPCC report, which talks extensively in the new AR5 (as well as the previous AR4) about the effects of circulation changes including the jet stream on extreme weather (for instance, Section 2.7.6.1 Midlatitude and Subtropical Jets and storm track position; Section 2.7.6.2 Weather Types and Blocking).
Ironically, just yesterday a paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on this exact subject, building on prior research about the effects of climate change on circulation systems and the jet stream in inducing extreme weather in mid latitudes. It focused in particular on the fact that the strength of the jet stream – technically, the strength of Rossby waves – is proportional to the temperature differentials between the Arctic and the tropics. With a rapidly warming Arctic, the mid-latitudes would be subject to weakened zonal winds and larger Rossby wave amplitudes, causing jet streams to meander and get stuck in fixed positions for long periods and therefore creating more persistent weather extremes. So no, this phenomenon is not “outside our knowledge”, although it’s apparently outside Mat Collins’ knowledge.
So congratulations on once again being completely wrong, and providing the extra humor of quoting the Daily Fail as a science source.
Our single conservative in Washington DC is there for two reasons: keeping the costs of grazing rights on Federale lands at a minimum and to slaughter off every last wolf on the face of the planet. They love the wind mills, glad to see them all over the range land [ka’ching]. So, that’s not an answer to why you’re pissy with me.
I was think more along the lines of basic meteorology. If you’re competent with Physics, Chemistry and Calculus, look on the QC 800s shelf at your local library.
Among the loser messages for Alarmists is that Corporations are the culprit. But it’s a convenient message; if we can blame Something Else, we can also live like Mr Gore until Something Else gets fixed. And of course, as you know, Mr Gore and I (and, frankly, almost all the rest of the world) intend to live well while we are around.
Anyway, the current Alarmist approach to claim extreme events after they happen as part of AGW is simply another example of how horrible we are at predicting. (The “pre” in predicting refers to saying what will happen in advance of it happening, not pasting on an explanation post event.)
We can’t even get the next hurricane season right, but we’re going to get the next few decades right…
Our position (as I mentioned earlier) is:
We can predict tomorrow and next week with high confidence.
We cannot predict next year with confidence.
We can predict the next decades with high confidence.
We cannot predict the next ice age with confidence.
This becomes kind of mushy pretty fast, and we constantly get surprised by our various predictions. WRT to AGW, the prediction we are most likely to get wrong is what the net effect of warming will be, even if it turns out we got the warming right.
If we just claim all the things that bear out our prediction as confirmation, and all the things which do not as “expected variation,” we are sort of like the proselyte who makes a statement with high confidence that God controls the world. When something good happens, there’s your proof. When something contrary to that belief happens, well that’s because you didn’t understand the fine print: variations from expectation are not only expected, but properly understood they can be seen as proof of His control.
We’ll see how convinced the masses are of the new twist in the AGW message that we’re dealing with climate change, and extreme events (“Yea; even a silent hurricane season or a butt cold winter”) are yet more proof. Here’s my prediction, which I’ll discuss further in a new debate around the marketing message of AGW: The polloi may give lip service to accepting the message, but they ain’t gonna change what they do anymore than are Al Gore and I. Church on Sunday instead of just Easter, but midweek sinning will continue as usual, even if on Sunday there are more parishioners tacitly agreeing that hell awaits. “Pastor, thank you for a great message. See you next Sunday.”
When the great lakes have a mid February ice cover not seen since before 1979, it’s just a tough sell to pretend after the fact that this is what AGW predicted all along. Every time we change the marketing message for AGW to accommodate what actually happened because what actually happened was so far from the original message, we chip away at the polloi’s faith in those predictions.
I think the AGW message would be better off saying, “Well; we’re pretty confident the earth is gonna have an average warmup by some of the ways we can measure things, but we haven’t got a clue what the net outcome is going to be from that. Just in case it’s bad, let’s put our heads together about what to do.”
That way Germany is less likely to rush out of the room after the Sunday sermon and end up burning down forests because its nuclear plant replacements can’t keep up. Instead, they would stay for Sunday School and hear Dr Emanuel explain why we need more nuclear power.
It just doesn’t do us any good to run around like Chicken Littles with our heads cut off.
Not really, as I said, I think you are ok on your personal effort, in general republicans are not, it is thanks to ideology that they are not reliable to figure out what are the good solutions from the bad ones.
And once again, there is no need to reinvent the wheel, it should not be hard to point at the scientific organizations and academic groups that support your peculiar take on why controlling emissions of global warming is not an important issue, lets see them.
Useless rhetoric when we notice the basic problem here, you continue to deny that it is not really that new of a twist, most of the consensus on the hurricanes was beginning to form by the turn of the century, the FUD effort of contrarians in the media is clear, like the misrepresented say so of “scientists claimed an Ice age was coming in the 70’s” the effort here is to pump up errors from the popular media and make them pass as if they are coming from the scientists themselves.
And there is still the ongoing matter of refusing to see the evidence that corporations are the culprit of the important but still a minority of people that think that this issue is not important nor dangerous.
On another forum the discussion about the winters reached the great lakes ice issue. The true believers are sure it’s an anomaly, it’s already been handwaved away as meaningless.
The scientific evidence says clearly that the great lakes region has been experiencing a cooling trend, of various time frames and degrees, but there is zero chance it is “natural variability”, the buzzword for an anomaly that goes against anything warming. It didn’t matter. Evidence just doesn’t seem to matter to the global warmer. So of course there will be papers coming out blaming the record cold and ice on global warming. And the strident voices of doom will not learn a thing.
I can’t predict what the weather will be next weekend, yet I can predict that six months from now it’s going to be an awful lot warmer than it is now, with absolutely no sign of snow!
Life is full of such mysteries. They seem to happen when we deal with stable influences (like this one and this one) and chaotic factors cancel out.
You are once again tilting at your favorite straw man. The existence of substantial unknowns at some level of granularity does not equate to the level of scientific ignorance that you like to espouse. There is a vast body of paleoclimate evidence that shows us how the climate behaves under many different conditions, including conditions of strong forcing. The IPCC is both conservative and forthright about the scientific unknowns and uncertainties and is probably one of the best resources for lay understanding of the issues. But the ease with which you dismiss well cited scientific evidence as “gibberish” and revert to what are, frankly, vapid generalizations suggest that no imaginable evidence would change your views, which is pretty much the definition of an entrenched dogmatist.
If that was correct then the anomalous 1998 warm year would had been propped up as a one to use for the “true believers” allowing them to claim a rate of warming that was way over the expected range, that was not the case because they were doing science not using faith.
And here is a direct link to the part of the video of Dr. Richard Milne explaining why 1998 was not used to claim an exaggerated rate of warming. That should had been the case if faith was driving this.
There is a common problem with the pseudo-scientific view, that one year, or one winter means a lot in terms of climate. They want to use anomalies, compared to the cold period of recent climate, to tell you it’s so awful, the warming.
Like the winter of 98, which is easy enough to look at it. the warmer looks at the El Nino, and the US, and ignores the rest of the world.
The climate scientists looks at trends, long time periods, because you have to, if ou want to know what is actually happening.
So lets just look at the winter of the hottest year ever, and see what that actually means.
The trend, in this case, for the great lake region, is much easier to look at. That one starts during that “hot” year. So it will be called “unfair”, because looking at colder winters for 17 years isn’t fair. Of course if it showed warming it would fair, but never cooling trends.
You have to go back far enough to show warming or it isn’t fair.
Full stop here, the reality is that you are omitting what the scientists at those organizations conclude. You really have no good source that claims that this is not science.
Yes, that is science, do you have any scientists from those organizations you are cherry piking supporting the idea that your peculiar cherry picks mean what you think it does?
While technical discussions probably are deadly for their level of boring, it seems almost anything goes.
Even if that hypothesis was promoted to theory (it certainly isn’t yet), but even if that was the mechanism, the arctic wasn’t warm, isn’t warm this year. Or the last, which is why such off the cuff handwaving just isn’t scientific. At all. You take something hypothesized to explain things, but the required conditions aren’t there this year. So your entire dismissal, even if we use your terms, doesn’t work.
Gosh darn, an anonymous internet crank insults a leading researcher, what a surprise. Who should I listen to? That’s a tough one.
Once again, the pseudo-scientific approach is to object to the source of something, like it means the scientist has to be wrong because of what paper reported the story. :smack:
Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, one of the Met Office’s most senior experts, he can’t be trusted because of the paper that reported what he said.
And also somebody on the internet said he is wrong.
It might be a “tough sell” if anybody was trying to sell it. No one is. Incidentally, there was more ice than this in 1994, when it reached 94% – not that it matters. A more pertinent question is why anybody thinks this has any relevance to anything whatsoever when the Great Lakes have been rapidly losing ice for 40 years – see below – but with a tremendous amount of annual variability.
No, the scientific evidence clearly says the Great Lakes region has lost 71% of its average ice cover in the past 40 years, just like the Arctic has been doing – and you’ve struck out again. Why in the world would any rational person think that any one particular year’s ice cover “proves” anything? Maybe there’s more ice because that part of North America was cold this winter. So what? The world wasn’t, and the ice trend isn’t.
I don’t know which was more ridiculously wrong – your Great Lakes ice pronouncement or the complete bullshit you posted about the UK floods from the denialist Daily Fail, which I notice you’re now hoping gets quickly lost in the discussion and forgotten. I’m sure you didn’t know at the time how wrong it was. Now you do.
That paper, that should not deserve that title, has an agenda. What is more likely is that what Mat Collins reported was just one part of it and as usual the Daily Mail does not report the rest. It is a typical maneuver for that tabloid.
Basic Republican opposition boils down to who pays? We both know its a bad solution to shut down all the fossil fuel power plants all at once, so what good solutions should we be asking our nanny-state Congress for?
Horseshit, that’s just the lazy way out. Whine and complain that someone else has to change their ways.
wolfpup, feel free to say what you’re doing personally to stop CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, how many gallons of gas do you burn every month?
