A brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America, according to international news agencies. Temperatures have been much below normal for over a week in vast areas of the continent. In Chile, the Aysen region was affected early last week by the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The snow accumulation reached 5 feet in Balmaceda and the Army was called to rescue people trapped by the snow.
In Argentina, the snow in the region of Mendoza, famous for its winery, was described by localimagemeteorologists as the heaviest in a decade. The temperature in the morning of July 16th was the lowest in the city of Buenos Aires since 1991: -1.5C. The cold snap caused a record demand for energy and Argentina had to import electricity from Brazil. Many industries in Argentina were shut down due to gas shortage.
It snowed in nearly all the provinces of Argentina, an extremely rare event. It snowed even in the western part of the province of Buenos Aires and Southern Santa Fe, in cities at sea level.
Now I know why the sudden urgency to say 2010 is the warmest year ever before the year is over. Who needs this data added to the math?
Found by denialist Jason Price.
Said it beforw saying it again.
The effed up weather WORLD WIDE is due to the gulf oil spill and attempts to steer it away from the gulf coast.
Blame it on BP!
#101,
Um ya..
And your brain has been on vacation sence the 70′s. Born in the 70′s..thats even better.
Folks
what we are dealing with here are examples of people that say A is not A, ie., rationality, the denial of reality, the cult of death. Go read Rand, read chapter VII ‘This is John Galt Speaking’ of part III ‘A is A’, where he interrupts an emergency national radio broadcast to give a 3 hour Rand rant. In it is explained why the non-rationalists function.
Bobbo is a particular exhibit. He seems to have no basic numerical skills, cannot or will not respond to ‘back of the envelop facts and numbers challenges. Uses excessive labels of the word ‘science’ at the same time uses excessive consensus-like words.
This is what drives deniers, that the consensus is a lie. We give challenges to test it. No rational responses so far.
98–Guyver==most of our little discussion really boils down to defining our terms doesn’t it.
What captures my attention is your lack of understanding what “proof” in a scientific theory means when a control group is involved. I will leave that as a cautionary statement to you for future reference.
Perhaps my skeptical/challenging attitude would be more evident if the AGWer’s would post how right they are about their positions, but they aren’t doing that, only the deniers responded to this thread. But in truth I see my skepticism really has grown weaker over time. AGW is not “proven” but it is the best explanation of what is going on, has wide scientific acceptance, makes common sense, is reasonable to pursue for a number of other reasons. Like I said, what would you call that? I don’t “believe” in AGW but I see its very definitional.
So, “if” the model could predict the temp at given times and places all over the world within x degrees and do that repeatedly, then we would all say the model has “proven” itself. But it cannot do that now, like I said, maybe with (better) super computers. For some reason, the fact that the models only claim the ability to trend the effects over centuries of time does not bother me as it does you. The gaps in the fossil record don’t bother me either as far as the general theory of evolution goes either. A certain comfort with lack of specificity. Probably one of the differences between AGW vs Deniers???
Like I said ((this thread or some other?)) this is a subject with enough ambiguity that the real value of it is to explore how one comes to think what one does, and with a bit more effort, how one changes one’s mind. An exercise.
Or, one can just use one’s ignorance as a battering ram against anything new or different.
I wonder what your real issue/s is/are? Do you have them expressly in mind, or are you on autopilot?
My oh my. Are the long winded dumb asses out in force today or what
# 104
Bobbo said
AGW is not “proven” but it is the best explanation of what is going on,
Alternative
Natural oscillation due to variations in transparency due to cloud cover, due to cosmic rays nucleating water vapor (gaseous to water phase) which makes clouds which are opaque to visible light, majority of insulation phenomena. The varying solar wind modulates the size of the earths magnetic field which modulates cosmic ray intrusion. Cosmic ray nucleating water is demonstrating in particle physics cloud chambers.
Better than AGW as it avoids the CO2 effect, which we deniers challenge not the basic physicality, rather its relative effect in amongst other constituents in the air, even ignoring cloud cover.
See I respond to your challenge with an attempt at explaining reality. No use of coverall vagaries.
#105 Indeed!
There are models that predict warming of 2C, models that predict warming of 3C, models that predict warming of 4C, models that predict warming of 5C, etc. Even within the same model, you can tweak the parameters and get a large variation in output. So why should I feel confident that any of these are accurate?
More importantly, should the last 12 years of roughly flat temperatures influence my opinion as to which models are correct? I would think it makes the lower warming models more likely, when 12% of the data is in and you have little warming.
I have seen Tamino claim otherwise with regards to the models, saying that they accelerate towards their numbers, and there is no difference between them in early decades.
When I tried to test this assertion, I found that the Climate Explorer’s published model runs have NO models that predict high warming.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/22/the-failed-presidency-of-barack-obama/
# 109
climateprogress.org must be the most toxic AGW site on the planet.
Unbelievable that people can be so closed minded and so stupid. All those accusations and no statements to validate positions.
For example what were the key untruths uttered by Lindzen?
Of course absolutely no contrarian posters. What a disgusting collection of religious fanatics.
Thanks, John but you’re too late.
The Climate-Scientologists have already proven that man-made global warming will be the cause of any future weather conditions even if we are having a 20-year cooling trend or whatever.
Even if we all freeze to death, man-made global warming theory will be vindicated. There is no possibility that any event can disprove it.
THE SCIENCE IS IN!
Them collidge boyz think ther so smart! Ther awl a-lyin to yez… Why, fer awl yew know, we maht not even be speakin English! They maht have secretly bin teachin us Chinese our entire lives! ‘At’d be jist lahk ‘em!
WER ALL A’SPEEKIN’ CHINESE, I TELLS YA!!!
#106–cgp==you don’t present a theory or a model that takes into account all the known variables and their known effects. The variables you do include are all in the models. You fail to address what happens when one of your variables is doubled. etc. I think you suffer from the same disease we see too often from the right wing: make stuff up and then believe it.
As stated, poking holes in the only theory that is currently accepted is a failing position absent a competing BETTER theory. A theory in substance, not just the form of a theory in words.
Fail.
104, Bobbo,
I take the straightforward conventional meaning and you like to make subtle nuances so you can blow sunshine up people’s rears.
You call yourself a skeptic, while demonstrating a crippling lack of skepticism. That’s your prerogative.
What captures my attention is you don’t realize that control groups are for experiments. Have I not been clear about gathering empirical evidence? I’ll leave this as a cautionary statement of you think you know more than you really do, but you just like to make others think you’re somehow smarter than you really are.
Stop using the control group as a crutch.
You demonstrate an uncanny ability of embracing a political organization with a reputation of editorializing by non-scientists scientific works. This is what you call the “best science” (as a skeptic).
And now we see you starting to be a little intellectually honest about your supposed “skepticism”. CO2 makes up about 0.0360% of Earth’s atmosphere (both man-made & natural). Looking at all the greenhouse gases found on Earth, CO2 makes up about 3.5%. Water vapor makes up 95%. http://tinyurl.com/2eckaz6
You believe the billions of tons of CO2 being released by mankind (which makes up only part of the 0.0360%) in our atmosphere is the best common sense answer to your global warming trends? Then so be it.
That’s the same sort of mindset that Socialists / Communists use when describing why socialism / communism has failed in America. They say the right people haven’t been in control. What EXACTLY do you think a supercomputer would provide you that cannot be done on a slower supercomputer? Don’t hold your breath too long.
Because I am a skeptic and you are not. The fact remains it’s somehow easy for people to predict centuries out but for whatever reason they can’t predict 5 to 10 years out? Sounds like BS. I suppose a lot of climate “scientists” can make a good living pushing 100 to 200 year predictions where no one will be around to validate their claims.
And they don’t bother me either since nobody is trying to pass legislation to reform how people choose to live based on the fossil record.
I can humor claims of AGW, but if it’s backed up on faith, assumption-based models, and lack of empirical evidence then you’re going to have a hard sell with me.
Skepticism is being open-minded. It’s not predisposed towards denialism (as you seem to prefer calling anyone who isn’t in the AGW camp).
It ALMOST sounds as if anyone who is a skeptic is somehow ignorant in your eyes? LOL.
113, Bobbo,
There are a lot of unknown variables.
And just how long will it take before mankind can actually double the concentration of CO2 from 0.0360% in the Earth’s atmosphere?
Sometimes it’s more important to gather empirical data than it is to come up with some sort of theory that is UNPROVABLE (as you have stated previously before).
As for “poking holes” in the only theory the IPCC is pushing, that’s called a peer review. Although I do not know CGP’s background, those who oppose the theory of AGW (not necessarily natural GW) within the scientific community have been largely ignored by the IPCC. Or liberals employ either ad hominem / genetic fallacies to discredit dissenting scientific opinions.
Here’s another aspect of the BS that is passed around.
Consider the modtran software that simulate atomic absorption of co2 at 300ppm. There is a substantial dip in that about 32 per cent of the spectrum is absorbed.
BUT does that mean an analytical procedure (invented so it can detect ppm) can be extrapolated to planetary photon counts.
No of course not when there are more photons than the co2 vibrational modes can absorb, they pass thru, the spectrum gets washed out.
You cannot have an effect, nor any feedback (+ or -) whereof when it aint there.
Just my rationale. Somebody correct me.
Bobbo,
I got a B.E chem (2nd class honours) in 1984 Canterbury University New Zealand, which means I was middle of what I considered a course filled with a lot of top-of-school kids (not me).
When you go thru 13 years of study, some of the numeracy and hard-nosed thought processes develop within, and a keenness to go anywhere you are not a specialist in. I enjoy challengingdogma, and man o man are there a lot of dogs out there.
So I know just a bit of stuff to get me into trouble.
I said: The gaps in the fossil record don’t bother me either as far as the general theory of evolution goes either.
Then you said: And they don’t bother me either since nobody is trying to pass legislation to reform how people choose to live based on the fossil record.
And there I suspect is the real issue. Not the science/issue itself but the politics of the solution. You’ve been LIEberTARDing all along, just as LIEberTARDS do. Bad LIEberTARD-not to be redundant.
So==nothing we discuss about the science will resolve your politics making such discussions worthless, just as they have been. I’m surprised you don’t drill down on the phased in direct tax since I assume you are more against slavery than you are your grandkiddies having to move uphill?
Ha, ha. Extended discussions are always revealing. But often still not worth the candle.
cgp==I doubt anyone posting here is going to contest your summary of c02 vibrational modes, although I do get shaky just trying to think about it.
And your issue might be thinking there is any dogma to fight against? There is no dogma. Only common sense becoming a vehicle for economic fraud. Fight the fraud, not the common sense. Thats what Rutherford would have done!
I found this:
“Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is “science” only in the “right” hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.”
here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
Lays out the big picture perfectly.