The only thing average about weather is it’s very non-average usually.
Which is exactly why climate is averaged conditions. Some regions are so variable, it’s hard to even describe the “climate”, while others have such a sameness about them, year after year, it’s rare to see the occasional variation. One thing the internet pundit has made clear, is their almost complete lack of knowledge about climate, and a pathological ignorance about Meteorology.
Of course not. The exact same thing is true in medicine, where no matter how horrific the side effects, or how wrong a treatment was, how useless or dangerous a drug or operation turns out to be, the medical establishment never apologizes for anything. It’s goddamn science you see. “We didn’t know, but this is how science advances.” is about as close as you will get to admitting anything from the true science. Of course the same is true for quacks, cranks and frauds. Iy might just be human nature to never want to admit you were ever wrong. About anything.
We don’t need to even look far, it’s right here in the topic. A terribly failed prediction was presented about the global warming. Here is another source for it. While there are multiple failed predictions, a entire shit ton of them, what we see in return is some insipid idiocy about Washington DC days over 80.
Of course it misses the entire point. But it did bring up how somewhere there was also some really stupid wrongness about the metric itself. At the time DC and Omaha didn’t have only 35 days over 80 a year. Not even close. Nobody bothered to check, much less issue a correction.
That idiot “Hansen says” still lingers all over the historic record. Hell, skepticalscience probably has an article explaining why it is true. Fucking idiots.
Speaking of DC and temperatures, it might just be coincidence this popped up right after my commentary on the matter. Summer 2014 in D.C.: 90-degree days running 40 percent below normal
Interesting that it says "Of course, the crazy summers that kicked off the 2010s averaged about three weeks more 90 degree days than the average around 36 days. ", confirming what I thought, that 35 days a year was the average in 1986, which makes Hansen’s claim make sense, in regards to the numbers at least.
There never has been an average of 35 days a year over 80 in DC. Never.
But it was the other predictions I was using as an example of course. When Hansen claimed in 20 years it would be 2 degrees warmer, hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years, he was directly speaking about a 2 degrees C rise, making our current era as warm as the Emian, the warmest time in the last interglacial period. That part is directly from his 1986 paper.
He was very specific about this. It was a direct proof of the CO2 theory, that with out drastic reductions (in 1986) the earth would be showing extreme warming by 2006, and disastrous warming by 2020.
Of course not a single global warming alarmist fuckhead will ever even hint that he was wrong. That the predictions were very wrong. That the science was far from settled, and the climate models got it all wrong.
On no, because people just don’t do that. Usually. A couple have, Dyson and Lovelock are high level examples of honest retraction and a change to skeptical thinking. but they are now called names and shunned by the true alarmists.
No, the goddamn religion of global warming does not like anyone who recants from the dogma.
Hahaha fuck me. " recants from the dogma" is terrible prose. Fucking fuckhead religions. Just mocking them can lead to becoming stupid.
That makes no sense at all. I gave an example of climate simulations which were a good fit with one of the leading temperature indices. You disputed the accuracy of that particular temperature index and demanded examples of climate simulations which fit the “observed data.”
So it was reasonable for me to ask you which of the leading temperature indices you would accept. So that the goalpoasts could be fixed in place.
There was nothing in my request which implied that the leading temperature indices had different sources of data. Perhaps they do, and perhaps they don’t, it makes no difference for purposes of my question. I was simply trying to determine where the goalposts were.
Anyway, I have my own rules of debate and one rule I have is that I don’t engage with people who strawman me, i.e. people who pretend that I took a different from position from what I actually took. I realize that in your case it is probably that you are too stupid to understand what I am asking you or what you are talking about, but ultimately it doesn’t matter.
I prefer to engage with people who respond to what I actually say, as opposed to what they wish or imagine I said.
So welcome to my shit list.
Goodbye.
YIPPIE … what a shithead … goes to all the trouble of demonstrating that all five indices are all pretty much the same and throws a fit because I picked the one he didn’t want me to.
Show me a climate prediction that matches the observed data.
Nah, makes you lazy … it’s just so easy.
Watchwolf, look at it this way - most rational posters on this board will consider it a sign of good character to have made Brazil’s shitlist.
I’m heartsick about this … I haven’t felt this bad since I drowned kittens in front of a bunch of girls scouts.
If I followed that rule I would spend very little time arguing with fuckheads.
Meanwhile, the global warming is still going strong, with record early snow worldwide, and more cold records being set almost daily.
The coldest arctic since modern record keeping started, the most antarctic sea ice ever recorded, along with new revelations that according to the climate station temperature records, continued cooling of the NH. Mostly the winter season, but it seems according to the official story, spring is the only season showing a warming trend in the NH. Which is fucked up, because it fits with neither greenhouse gas warming, solar dominated climate, or ocean circulation theories.
Of course if that motherfucker Vatnajökullgoes off, it probably won’t matter either way.
That’s pretty much the point. In internet discussions, there are lots of people who refuse to respond to one’s actual point and instead respond to the point they wish or imagine one had made. The practice is annoying, dishonest, and a complete waste of time.
It’s the oceans, now they’re saying it’s NOT the Pacific Ocean, but the Atlantic … sheesh … make up you mind will ya
Or just keep slinging shit on the wall, something will eventually stick. It’s SCIENCE!
Of course. Of course. It’s so common, so predictable, it’s sort of like human nature at this point.
One decides on what is true, before the fact, and then anything that would upset the comfort zone is avoided at all costs. Most people don’t want to have to actually think, research, learn and make an effort. They want an authority to tell them what is real, then they can move on. It’s a rare bird that even discusses climate, global warming or any of the science behind it. Hell, we saw this over and over here, the very same internet experts that want us to buy their doomsday predictions, can’t even explain the basic greenhouse (CO2) theory, much less know if any evidence supports it or not.
It’s a major reason I don’t take it seriously.
That being said, I find that the quick effort it takes to debunk some idiot claim often leads me to learning something new, and unexpected. I pretty much wrote off skepticalscience as a shit blog, but Gigos idiot spam caused me to do a quick search, wya back when, and I was rewarded with the following awesome.
I find that hilarious. That blog is used by idiots all the time as evidence and a good place for scientific learning.
Priceless.
It’s always wise to restate your position on a regular basis.
Except that isn’t true.
Someone, Somewhere Is Still Emitting A Whole Load of Ozone-Depleting Chemicals
Emissions of carbon tetrachrloride are still 30% of peak emissions
http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/08/ozone-depleting-chemical-still-seeping-atmosphere
CFCs dissolve the oxides of copper. We used to be able to get the stuff in a spray can. Just spray it onto the copper electrical contacts and presto, no more open circuits. CFCs evaporate really quickly so it was the “go to” stuff for electronic technicians.
Carbon Tet is a solvent that’s practically insoluble in water. With a beaker half full of each, you could drop your substrate in, stir vigorously, that part that dissolves in Carbon Tet does and that which dissolves in water gives a nice separation. Just pour the Carbon Tet down the sink and precipitate the substrate back out of the water and you’ve a great way to purify.
Burning a half dozen tires will keep green brush burning without dying out.
The ocean is a fantastic place to dump old nuclear reactors.
Kinda puts atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] in perspective, eh?
So we’re three THOUSAND posts in, and you’re still arguing that weather and climate are the same thing? Congrats, you get points for persistence; it’s probably only been pointed out about six hundred times that that’s not correct and has never been correct.
Weather is about temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover. Climate is about temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover.
The only difference is time interval.