Alabama's heat wave: A preview of global warming or just a hot spell?

Bob,

I heard that those Globalists no longer use "Global Warming" as the term (what if there is no warming?), instead, it is "Climate Change" now.

That means, no matter our planet getting warmer or cooler, they will insist that there is a need of a global institute to tax everyone on the planet, and they will decide what to do with the money.

 

Read up on how Christy screwed up the satellite temperature measurements for a decade, how heavily he promoted his incorrect numbers as proof that global warming was not happening, and how NASA had to have a competent contractor literally point out the algebra mistakes in the code he was using ... then determine for yourself how much faith to put in Christy's spin on anything related to global warming.

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? | ThinkProgress

That said, Schmidt's comments in the posted article pretty much nail it.

 

...has sea level risen?...the one guy says 8-inches already?

 

The problem with 'climate change' is that we're trying to make a math model of a very complex eco-system, using very little data. We have pretty accurate METOC data for the last few hundred years. Going back a little further than that, we have to make some caucu-guesses from physical evidence ranging from ice core samples to GOD only knows what else. We put all of this in the old mix-master, and try to reach a consensus at to what's going to happen in the future.
Unless you're a devotee of the first thirteen chapters or so of the Old Testament, the earth and the sun are pretty old....at least by our standards. Using very precise data from the last few hundred years is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa using an 8-pack of Crayola Crayons.
It just don't work.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't put my faith in science to come up with an accurate answer.
Example?
I like coffee.
Over the last decade, 'science' has manged to prove conclusively that coffee is good, bad, no GOOD...no waitaminute....BAD...no...wait!
Well.....they just don't really know, no do they?
The full weight and authority of the medical community cannot reach a definitive conclusion as to whether one beverage is good for one (or more, unless you count lab rats) life form.

It's not an easy thing to figure out. We're somewhat sure how the sun is behaving TODAY. What was it doing a few thousand years ago? If you remember your 8th grade science, the earth isn't exactly a perfect heat sink. We have an internal heat source. Plate tectonics----something that we're also not really sure about affects heat distribution. Biomass loading isn't consistent.
All of this is politically neutral.
Scientists aren't.
Global Warming?
Sure...but I'm old enough to remember when the scientific community was dead-bang certain that there was Global Cooling, and that we HAD to do something about it NOW, or we're doomed.

The climate has been changing for a looooooong time.
I'm going to need something a little more concrete than "Dang! It ain't never been this hot before!!" before I take the lock-wire off of the giveacrap switch...

 

Christy has been wrong in the past, but is right here. Many places have serial records. This is local climate, not global warming. You need to look at the global temperatures and that includes pesky ocean temperatures. They are rising and affecting local climates. Models are quite poor as to how though right now. When people have a cold spell, does that disprove climate change, of course not, and hot spells do not prove it. Its boring old temperature charts. So many people don't believe in human caused disaster, because it is so often caged in non science that can easily be demonstrated wrong.

That's an easy one, coffee is good for some people and bad for others. When you try to generalize to the whole population, without knowing other health factors and the rest of the diet, you come up with bad conclusions.

Its been this hot before, the whole world was once under water. The data is very clear though that its getting hotter now, and ghg is contributing.

 

AG,

How IS the view from down there with so much sand in your eyes?

Icarus

 

Sand? I'm in austin, one of those sights for climate research. You know where science happens.
If you note, for you AGW fan bois, I made the case for human caused climate change in my statement. You can not though look at local weather and decide its global warming. I can easily pick places that are cold. You need to actually look at global not local temperatures and weather. Short cuts lead to inept delusions and bad predictions. Once you look globally you can create a climate change model, that hopefully expains why some places are getting colder, some warmer, and what is weather versus climate.


Not doing the work, gets a million voices asking why is it so cold in this global warming. You get trenbreth in leaked documents getting upset that he can't make up warming, and other "scientists" hiding the science. Very bad things indeed.

How is the view from your church? Is the minister saying we will all die in the hellfire of global warming because of the sin of pollution? Take a step back and a deep breath. We already have enough ghg in the atmosphere to raise sea level 6 meters. It won't come next year though. We can move, and shift agriculture, we can reduce pollution. But the population isn't going to follow when crappy politicians that call themselves scientists keep calling weather climate change. We have had extreme weather in austin since the city was founded. When the droughts in the 50s, the decade without rain happened, better water management was instituted. Most people are moaning that the world will end if there local climate becomes more like austin, really the hipsters keep actually moving down here, hopping on their fixies and riding in the heat

 

Allright, perhaps I was over the top, as you do acknowledge in your previous post that GHG is contributing to global warming. the question is,, what do YOU actually believe, as I believe I have heard some contrary opinions on the subject from you in the past?

Icarus

 

I don't believe, blind belief makes you reject contrary evidence. I have find the evidence compelling that human generated ghg are changing the climate of the planet, and the net is negative for the animals including humans. The evidence is so strong that politically, the world should greatly reduce ghg.

I am quite skeptical of many of the alarmist claims. I don't like religion wrapped up as science and sold to me. When I express this skepticism, some of you naturally attack, because I am not following your prayer book. I also have looked at the climate models well enough to know that everyone changing to florescent bulbs isn't going to have any statistically significant impact, but these are some of the solutions the politicians sell us. I find it ironic that as I have helped reduce the carbon footprints of businesses, those that believe seem to be doing nothing positive. Reductions are not that difficult, but they do cost money, and the politics seems to mean we are spending money to increase not decrease ghg. All you need to do is say the magic words, I believe in global warming, and as a politician you can increase ghg and blame the other side. You see many scientists like alley that only do good science, but advocate politically for ghg reduction. On the other side we see, politicians wrapped as scientists like trenbeth (warmig alarmist) and christy (tool of spreading unscientific doubt) occasionally using science when it suits them, but mostly trying to hide facts that don't follow their story. I am quite cynical of the whole selling of global warming. Many more in this country were ready to spend money reduce ghg production a decade ago than today.

 

Take a few minutes to view the following site:

United States Global Change Research Program

Then scroll down the page and click on your area of the country. Read what is predicted to happen.

Note: This was prepared years ago and the results are now being seen. Worth your time to explore.

Cheers

 

You misremember. This canard is so common that the American Meterological Society commissioned a review of the scholarly literature to be sure, once and for all, what scientists were actually saying way back when. The review can be found here:
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then."

 

I am re-studying background myself (reading Yergin's Quest where he recpas) I am thinking the negative warming scenarios were mentioned from the very beginning back to Arrhenius in 1890's. By 1971 yours truly wrote a high school term paper on global warming, expecting to flood the coasts by year 2000, citing such scholarly references as World Book Encyclopedia (we did not have Wikipedia...sorry). I am thinking the negative warming scenarios were mentioned from the very beginning. However, until about 1960 there was no CO2 data trend due to hard to measure. After CO2++ was confirmed, then the negative scenario talk got louder in 1960's and 1970's. Somehow people tend to want to say this is a new discovery, perhaps it helps dramatize better by saying this is newly discovered modern issue since Al Gore brought it forward.