What kind of person wants people to be able to decide on truth? A computer algorithm that pulls facts from the web is much better at deciding what is true. WolframAlpha has been doing this for almost 6 years, and already delivers truth, rather than a bunch of search results. Like, just ask it “Are boreal winters getting colder?”, and the issue is settled. Google will probably do a much better job as well. Instead of a bunch of links to science papers and shit like that, it will just say “Yes!”. Issue settled. Of course somebody might argue over what “boreal winter” even means, but computers are fucking great at collecting knowledge. Just ask WolframApha about boreal winter, problem solved.
As for the idiocy of salon? What does Google’s Ngram viewer tell us about climate change deniers? Oops. Maybe they should use actual real terms when trying to tar with a wide and sticky brush.
Yeah, but if a machine will shut you up, I’m sure most people would turn over search results to a machine, it has the added benefit of keeping people from having to think at all. Just reply with “Google says you are wrong”, end of the Great debates forum right there.
Yeah, I’m the idiot because wolframalpha doesn’t know jackshit about something. Can’t wait to see how Google does, letting a computer decide what is truth, and what is not.
It’s exactly that kind of thing that creates some serious fucking skepticism, when now we are being told a warming arctic creates cold air masses that frequently slide southward into the United States.
The basic fuck up is obvious. You can’t claim global warming will melt the arctic, and cause winters to be warmer and drier, and then claim extremely cold, unusually cold winters are also due to global warming.
Yes, climate idiots will focus on an unusual weather event, one that has happened many times before, and think it means something about climate, and they will point at weather and go “Oh my God! The climate is changing!”. And then after they switch the dogsled race they will get buried with snow and it will be unusually cold, but they will ignore that, because they actually fucking want bad weather or bad climate, to wake people up, because people are stupid and need to be scared and anxious so they will do what they are told by other people. That idiots will focus on weather, rather than climate, is guaranteed.
Looking at long term data is what climate researchers actually do, rather than one month, or season.
Alaska has been added to the NCDC CAG page, so you can actually look at a lot of the data now.
With the addition of Washington DC, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Alaska to the NCDC display tool, it’s now possible to display all of the US data. The issue of Alaska, which was reported to have had drastic cooling since 2000, except for Barrow, is now easy to confirm, though the story isn’t anywhere near as simple as what was reported.
While the one station from Barrow, located in the middle of the largest oil field in the US, does show unusual warming, the data for the entire north slope shows the same off winter cooling pattern, with winter cooling, even as summer shows a small cooling trend. this asymmetric change is evident even in Alaska.
Looking at the Tmax and Tmin, it’s clear the nighttime lows are falling faster than the daytime highs. (global warming theory predicts nighttime lows, especially in winter, will trend higher, as the greenhouse effect gets stronger)
Tmin winter trend for Chicago 30 year trend -7.7 F a century
Tmax winter trend for Chicago 30 year trend - 5.7 F a century
And at least the summer trends show Tmin rising, even as Tmax is falling. So at least there is that. But if you are trying to convince a skeptical person in Chicago warming is happening, you are going to have a bad day.
Especially since along with the colder winters, snowfall is increasing as well.
What’s really strange, is that the annual 30 year trend is cooling, but it’s because of the Tmin trend dropping. That is the exact opposite of what we expect to see.
One does not need an alternative theory when debunking, like for example with the smoking issue. If the data shows smoking increases the risk of heart problems, lung problems, cancer (and probably a whole bunch of other nasty shit), declaring I have no alternative hypothesis is just a tactic. It doesn’t mean shit.
But in the case of the most obvious winter trends, and perhaps even the global trends, Cohen and others have put forth several hypothesis (some call it a theory), to explain why climate change is happening as we observe. There is no doubt snow is increasing, like a lot, in areas that quite possibly could alter the winter patterns, though certainly the great shifts of the ocean circulation patterns also could be the reason.
Then there is the historic and unexpected solar minimum, which until “global warming science” tried to take over everything, we would expect to see altering our climate, most obviously in the far northern regions.
But to ignore it and call it stupid, well deniers are gonna deny.
