This alarmism is just too funny
I just hate it when I have to scrape climate change off my windshield in the morning.Bob it’s climate CHANGE. Sheesh!
For the past 5 years wind turbines have been going up right & left around here. Now, all of the sudden, that could possibly come to a screeching halt because of the “lesser prairie chicken”. It seems their habitat has been disrupted. All this green energy is killing the prairie chicken and other species of birds are flying into the props. I’m all for alternative energy sources but where does this end? Liberals can’t even agree among themselves on how to proceed with this.
When projecting to 2050 (36 years from now) it makes sense to consider the trajectory defined by the previous 36 years at least. Right? So why focus only on the previous 18 years? Oh, yea, because it’s the only way you can support your point. That’s called cherry picking.
Me too. Shoveling it off the sidewalk and driveway is even worse. Causes heart attacks
Small consolation, but the snow IS getting warmer!Me too. Shoveling it off the sidewalk and driveway is even worse. Causes heart attacks
The comment was about the *current *trajectory. We all know the past trajectory was up, but if the last 18 years don’t qualify as current, how does a period going even further into the past meet that criterion?
It’s been stated repeatedly-- whether there’s warming or not depends on your starting point. Why 18 or 36 or 70 or 500 or 1500?
Hold on, so we’re now past the CO2 does not cause warming stage and into the climate sensitivity is low stage?
drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
From your source:*There seems to be continuing confusion regarding how the deep ocean can warm without an observable temperature increase at the ocean surface.
That’s no consolation. Warmer snow is wetter, denser, and HEAVIER :bigyikes:Small consolation, but the snow IS getting warmer!
How far back to we have accurate global measurement of ocean temperature?
The answer to that question is quite revealing given that charts of ocean temperatures go back to the early 60’s suggesting they actually had valid data back then.
Hot outside? Global WarmingSnow jokes, but it’s good people understand that AGW creates a greater risk of greater precipitation events, bec warmer air holds more water vapor. And it’s good they understand that this greater precipitation can come down as deluges AND as snowstorms and blizzards, AND severe, damaging hail storms.
So, if you are in more northerly latitudes, expect more snow fall…brought to you by those who emit GHGs (us humans)
If periods that are more recent are better representatives of “current trends” then why cite an 18 year period? Why not look at the period starting in 2008? That 6 year period shows faster warming than all the IPCC predictions. The reason, of course, is that 2008 was an unusually cold year, and I picked it to make global warming appear worse than it is.
That is probably so, but that was not the point being raised. The comment was not about long-term trends but about current ones, so while it may be reasonable to object to the use of short-term trends it is not reasonable to argue that the short-term trend is other than flat.
NOAA said in 2009 that a 15 year period without warming would be a significant indicator that existing models were inaccurate. That period was identified by NOAA, not by AGW opponents. Further, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory identified 17 years as the minimum period of time necessary to separate man-made warming from the “noise” of natural temperature fluctuations. Both of those benchmark periods have now been exceeded, making this period of time, short though it may be in terms of climate change, significant.
I could make that case by looking at the shorter-term 6 year period starting in 2008. Since we are no longer concerned with applicability to projections into the future, one short-term current trend is as good as another.
I have seen that claim many times, but the actual NOAA text that I read did not use those exact words. I think ths may be a case of misinterpretting statements about statistics.
This separation you speak of is not something that comes about suddenly when the 17 year threshold is past. Rather the separation gradually gets more distinct over time. The point at which one calls it “significant” is arbitrary. As it stands, the statement about 17 years is meaningless without some associated quantitative metric for confidence. I think this is another case of an over-simplification and misinterpretation of a technical assertion.