Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Clap clap, clap-clap-clap...

....glo-bal war-ming...clap clap, clap-clap-clap:

The National Weather Service says the Grand Forks airport had 8.1 inches of snow yesterday, setting a record for the date. And Fargo set a record with 5.9 inches.

The previous mark in both cities was set back in 1926.

And this:
Portland tied the record for the date set in 1890 with 8.5 inches of snow on Monday, according to Bob Marine of the National Weather Service.

Elsewhere, Marshfield in Washington County had 18 inches of snow, Lakeville in Penobscot County 17 inches, Island Falls in Aroostook County 16, Brassau Lake near Moosehead 15.7, Farmington 14.7 inches and Andover 13, the weather service said.

The storm may have produced even more snow if it hadn't tracked farther out to sea that originally forecast, Marine said.
As ever, my disclaimer: Anecdotal evidence is beyond stupid as support or condemnation of global warming. I only point these out as a foil to the increasingly shrill comments and stories presented by the mainstream media linking warm-weather aberrations to global warming.


Matt said...

2007: Second warmest global temperature ever recorded.

The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.

And the most warming is far from the urban heat islands of major cities. The most dramatic increase in temp has been in the arctic.

(now, stop reading... close your eyes and meditate on these facts. please don't just glance over them and not think about critically)

A logical person would recognize that this is a trend, and would want to find some kind of explanation for it.

I love how you laugh at facts showing increased temps, but then give absolutely no alternative explanation to why this is happening.

Solar radiation? Nope, sorry can't be that. Solar Irradiance is now at the minimum of its current 10-11 year cycle. El Nino? Nah, that and La Nina are currently in their "cool phase".

All you've ever said is that it COULD be some vague, hundred thousand year cycle of warming that we know nothing about... something that we haven't yet discovered scientifically. True, it COULD be some kind of climate forcing that we haven't yet discovered.... OR maybe it's the incredibly obvious conclusion that we're screwing up the equilibrium of our atmosphere by pumping fossil fuels that have built up over millions of years underground, by burning all of them within a 200 year period, and releasing gases into the air that weren't there before.

Seriously... if you're going to be talking about global warming, add something intellectual to the argument. There's a lot at stake here. Implying that climatologists just take data as 'anecdotal evidence' for support of human caused climate change, shows a gross lack of knowledge on the subject. Do yourself a favor and read an article that ISN'T written by Richard Lindzen, or some other scientist who recieves grants directly from oil and gas companies.

Tell me why this is really happening, oh wise one.

k2aggie07 said...

The GISS record has been updated...sorry. You're using bad, old data that NASA has since corrected. I blogged about it a while back.
1934 is the hottest year on record, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, and 1931. Four of the top ten are in the 1930's. Below is the year, the "old" GISS temperature deviation and on the right the now corrected deviation. Link to my posts here and here.

1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Matt said...

How thick is that skull of yours? You've made this "argument" (if thats what you'd call it) many times before and I've shot you down.


GISS data is updated on the 10th of every month. I'm most definitely not using old data... that's complete and total BS and you know it.

From NASA's GISS itself:

August 7,2007: A discontinuity in station records in the U.S. was discovered and corrected (GHCN data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center). This had a small impact on the U.S. average temperature, about 0.15°C, for 2000 and later years, and a negligible effect on global temperature, as is shown here. (here being:

Copy and paste the link and see for yourself.

"The effect on global temperature was of order ONE-THOUSANDTH of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable."

I'm sorry for proving you wrong over and over again.... it must be a little frustrating for you.

There's a difference between being a skeptic, and being a debunker. Skeptics will see both sides of an argument and admit the likelihood of both. A debunker will deny, deny, deny the truth, even if it slaps him across the face. Which one are you?

One talking point down... many, many to go. Got anymore for me?

k2aggie07 said...

If you're going to be a jerk I'll just delete your comments. I don't run this blog to amuse you and I sure don't run it for people to tell me I'm thick skulled, gloating as if they've made a point or accusing me of being a "debunker"...even when that accusation is using a very, very strange definition of a word.

Furthermore, NASA and GISS make no attempt whatsoever at normalizing or correcting data based on the number of stations available. I sincerely doubt that the quality of data (meaning both accuracy, precision, and number of measurements) has been a constant from 1880 to 2007. Displaying them all on the same graph is insulting to anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence.

I'd like to remind you that you don't have a monopoly on truth.

The point of the articles I posted wasn't to suggest that global warming was utterly false (e.g., gloating about a victory over NASA) but instead to show that there is more than enough room for reasonable doubt as to the accuracy and reliability of the modeling that is going on in this situation. If GISS can make an error that leads to .15 C fluctuation in the US data (which is far from inconsequential, since we're talking about less than a 1 degree temperature anomaly) and not even realize it until an amateur meteorologist looks into their work, then they can (and probably will) make mistakes in other places. Its called the peer reviewed process -- only US News and Al Gore want us to blindly accept that The Debate Is Over.

Speaking of, Al Gore and Ban Ki Moon are calling for all of us to wash our clothes fewer times, drive smaller cars, keep our houses above 80 degrees while they jet around the world living a life most people can only dream of. They clearly don't buy into what they're selling - or at the very least, they don't think it applies to them. Why should I?

You sure do have a funny definition of "proving me wrong" when all you do is copy and paste what other people write as if it somehow becomes a display of your own logic or intelligence.

If you really want to debate me, try answering this, this, this, this, this, this, or, most importantly, this. That is, if you're diligent enough to actually read a journal paper rather than a press release from the DNC. Please note that these require one to "have a brain of their own," and need the ability to think "objectively" and be a "sheep"...but a sheep with a brain.

This is your last warning. If you insult me or act like a jerk again on my blog you won't be welcome here any more. This is my space, and you're a guest here. You better start acting like it.