A warmist left a comment at an older post. Someone who goes by the name JC Smith, who insists the climate catastrophe is coming, and could not be happy if it wasn’t.
I’ve decided to be generous and to move his comment and make it a post. Maybe other readers here can help him (her) out.
Comment by reader JC Smith:
Yes…..global cooling. Wouldn’t that be nice. Let’s just ignore the facts, and click our shoes together and tell ourselves that global cooling is in.
For anyone curious about FACTS, you can look at this link at NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/
For the last 365 days in the US, the daily high temp records have exceeded the daily minimum temp records by a ratio of 3.3 to 1.0 (29,298 to 8,968 as of 02/03 in the morning). If you look at just the LAST MONTH…it is even worse.
Over the last 30 days, there have been 2,949 new daily high records (ie highs for a specific day) while there have only been 160 new daily low records. The ratio is almost 20 to 1, new high records to new low records.
Aberdeen, South Dakota set a new record high for January 5th of 63 degrees which beat the old record or 46 degrees by 17 degrees. Phillip, South Dakota set a new record high 74 degrees which beat the old record of 46 degrees by 28 DEGREES. Think about that for a minute. A new record high which was 28 degrees HIGHER than the old record high for January 5th (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/plains-bask-in-historic-record-warm-weather/2012/01/06/gIQAZleBfP_blog.html).
Global warming has been happening for at least the last 120 years. For the last 30 years, it has gotten worse. The last 30 days are “off the charts” as far as record high temperatures go.
So, please show me some FACTS with LINKS, that show me that global cooling is taking place. I look forward to seeing them.”
Quite the powerful evidence you present here, JC. Even the most talented of defense attorneys surely would be trembling in their shoes just from its sheer caliber.
You’ll get your facts and links. The question is: are you even going to listen?
32 responses to “A Warmist Reader Demands Facts And Links”
Pick Annual, Table, Rank
1934 is the 3rd warmest year in US history and the warmest is only .25F warmer. 1931 was 10th warmest.
1934 was warmer than every year this century except for 2006.
1934,1931,1930 and 1938 were warmer than 2011.
1934,1931,1930, 1938 and 1933 were warmer than 2010.
And if you sort by year, with 117 being the hottest year, 2011,2010,2009 and 2008 didn’t even break 100.
The 1930s had 4 years ranked 100 or above.
The 1950s had 2 years ranked 100 or above.
1921 was ranked 113 – the 4th warmest ever.
Climate change has been happening for millions of years on Earth. And Global Warming has been happening for at least the last 18 000 years! Do you know that sea level was 120 meters below where it is today???
But you know: the temperatures sky-rocketed because of the wood fires that the cave dwellers lightened so many thousand years ago…
The Holocene optimum was 10,000 years ago, we’re still way below that. Wasn’t all that bad for humans back then.
The UAH global temperature has us right where we were in 1979. Climatically, that’s some boring 33 years. I trust them more than surface thermometer readings for all the UHI effects and smoothing/gridding tricks people like Hansen play.
I hope it stays that way, but personally I fear a severe cooling. It’s -10 deg C outside right now and it’s no fun whether on the bike or in the car.
Zombie has at WUWT shown that alarmists will call for the exact same measures whether they fear catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling; it’s the same battle plan.
So if the solar induced cooling pans out the alarmists will continue their alarmism because of the cooling instead of the warming.
As for the warmist science, well just bin it and fire the pseudoscientists.
I’ll give you a random link and quote.
“However, the details of the interactions vary greatly
from model to model and from parameterization
scheme to scheme. Unraveling the relevant, meaningful
results necessarily involves understanding the impacts
of the model’s assumptions, a monumental task in itself.”
It’s all bunk.
The WUWT post by Zombie about that book from 1977.
Have you been lurking on this blog for long? Have you read the things I write? Have you followed the links in the articles? Or do you feel you don’t need to because you already know the truth?
For most if not all the stations in the GISS database, the warmest year in South Dakota was 1934. Neither of the locations you cited are currently reported in GISS. But in any case, if true, those figures are weather, not climate. Check the historical range for today at Aberdeen. South Dakota gets extreme swings in temperature, especially in winter.
I would say that JC is a good representaiton of the informed CAGW brigade. When contrary information is denied by the MSM then a sneaky poke into the matrix to see if there is perhaps another side, is quite natural. However, the paradigm is not broken easily, and a list of supposed facts as listed makes a compelling case on the surface. No doubt the CAGW brigade are fully loaded with similar such “facts” and they deserve to be dealt with by someone qualified to do so.
There is a clear contradiction between all the cooling evidence and the statistical evidence posted by JC. They cannot both be right unless there is some other factor so far missing from the equation. I look forward to seeing the refutation of these “facts”.
Yes, the last 30 days are “off the charts”.
Better link for posteriority:
JCS is actually correct. It is silly to talk of Global Cooling when that has not occurred. What has occurred is that global temperatures according to all datasets have stabilized the past 15 years, there is neither global cooling nor global warming of any significant degree. It makes the skeptics sound unscientific(and silly!) to claim that global cooling has occurred.
However, it is interesting to note that the yearly deviation can easily be as much as the total warming that is claimed to have ocurred since the theoretical AGW began in the 70’s.
For some unknown reason, the quote of the NYT stock seems to correlate with global temperatures.
I posted this to Facebook today–maybe it will be useful.
In times gone by, I was accosted by people, some holding magazines, some holding books, some holding tracts, who insisted for my own good and the good of the world that I must, must, MUST, buy and read (and presumably, be saved by what I read) what they are peddling. Emphasis “buy”, “read” only required if I wanted ever to speak again.
While I have in fact have read most of the offered literature (some I even bought myself), I have done so knowing a priori that what I was reading was fraudulent.
I also knew a priori that arguing with the peddlers about their nonsense (from the point of view of my knowledge and beliefs) was a waste of my time unless there was entertainment value in it for me.
But when people whose opinions I respected started telling me that I must read (or begging me to please, just read) Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, I failed to recognize it as the same stuff the two women (street corner or front door), or the two young men in suits riding bicycles (front door), or the young man with the huge bow-wave hair-do and reeking of perfume (front door, or soap box in the park) have for years peddled. The failure is especially painful because I have had an interest (a self-educated interest, even) in weather and such going back to the global cooling and nuclear winter panics in the 1950s and since and I did not recognize it. (I did however recognize that the recent call to inject sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to save us is talking about the same acid rain that was going to destroy us, so I’ve not lost it completely.)
And worst of all I failed to recognize that appeals to truth, to authority, to common sense, and to demonstrations of fact were all huge and enormous wastes of my time (since there is little entertainment value) and doomed forever to failure.
It simply is not possible to change the beliefs of the True Believers, even if their beliefs are ludicrous.
Especially if they are ludicrous.
And that is the revelation.
Why should come as a surprise that there would be more high temperature records being created than low when it is widely accepted that there has been an underlying rising temperature trend for around 250 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Particularly so when it is considered that reliable instrumental temperature records only go back some 150 years? With perhaps a change in the trend i.e. a cyclic temperature inflection now underway we will see that bias change toward record minimums?
Here is the basic context. Earth is a very dynamic place. Before getting excited about any changes, one ought first show that those changes are not natural variability. Natural variability is the NULL hypothesis. The poster cites temperature records – a very dubious measure of something, but no one knows what. By the way, it is very cold in Alaska and Eastern Europe this week. Also, in that place Al Gore and friends were cursing in – the Great Southern Ocean. (Look up The Gore Effect.)
If one could show Earth is changing in some manner that it never has before, then one should try to find out what is causing that change.
Despite heroic efforts to find a cause that will encourage takeover of all parts of society by a few elites – we still await any proof of any human-caused mechanism that might influence global Earth systems.
Carbon dioxide levels (very tiny) have been proposed as the cause of global warming. This fails on a number of levels. One has to understand natural logarithms and (missing) multipliers to delve into the topic. However, ice core studies indicate that as Earth warms there follows an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Therefore, the latter cannot be the cause of the former.
There is much more that can be presented. Why bother, when the NULL hypothesis remains un-falsified?
If the majority of temperature measurements collected in the USA carries errors of a few degrees C, what errors are involved in those from lesser sophisticated countries? What is in that case the meaning of a global average temperature? How can any reasonable person believe annual global averages in tenth or thousands of a degree and accept on that basis that year x is the yth warmest year since the year z? How can you use such data to predict global temperatures by the year 2100? What has happened to the good old adagium “garbage in, garbage out”?
You guys are hilarious. Has anyone here done High School science? Wow. 9 olut of 10 replies here don’t have a clue. Have fun in life guys 😉
Darren, be more specific if you want to be taken seriously. Now, you sound like you believe the IPCC climate models and their forecasts. The IPCC itself points out that their models cannot predict and have no predictive skill, and insists on calling the model runs “projections”. I am sure you don’t know the difference so I’ll tell you.
The only difference between a projection and a prediction is that a prediction is validatable. In other words, what the IPCC is saying is: You cannot wait a few years, compare the real world with what the models said, and when you find a however large difference, discard the model because of it – we explicitly told you that the model makes no validatable prediction.
That, my friend Darren, is the rock-solid evidence on which the IPCC builds its policy recommendations for the future.
Having been contemptuously critical of others, I am led to believe Darren is well trained in science. Enlighten the clueless, then, by explaining how carbon dioxide differs from the gases of Nitrogen and Oxygen, and how they differ with respect to radiation, how such a tiny amount of the first can have catastrophic effects in the near future when it never has before, how the LWR is absorbed/radiated by molecules, how that can influence the “world ocean”, why Rome and Sarajevo have snow, and why it has been 40 below in Alaska for weeks. For your second assignment, using language a high school student should be able to understand – explain how magnets do what they do.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you because there has been no attempt to answer the basic question.
I am not sure that the logic is quite right in the assumptions made concerning this questions. The logic seems to be that because there are more records being broken that are higher than those taht are lower, then this means warming is taking place. However, I am not sure that this follows. Heat is energy, whereas cold is the lack of energy. It seems more likely that the records for high temperature will be broken.
Nevertheless, a more competent direct response is required.
We are still near the peak of the current warm cycle. At the peak more heat records will be broken. In thirty years we will be breaking cold records.
Spot on Ed – and that’s without accounting for the warming bias introduced as a result of increasing UHI and poor station siting.
I noticed this post at Jo Nova’s site a week or so ago. Dr David Evans has prepared a good summary of the main points around the sceptics case with references to some supporting data.
Something about the weather.
Well….I’m still waiting. I’ll repeat, word for word, the question I had:
“So, please show me some FACTS with LINKS, that show me that global cooling is taking place.”
And the reason NOBODY could give me a link showing that temperatures are cooling on a global basis, is because temperatures AREN’T cooling on a global basis. They are warming….and they are warming at an INCREASING RATE.
For years 1880 – 2011, a list of the 11 warmest years on a global basis:
2011: 11th warmest (tied with 1997)
2010: 1st warmest (tied with 2005)
2009: 7th warmest (tied with 2007)
2008: 13th warmest
2007: 7th (tied with 2009)
2006: 6th warmest
2005: 1st warmest (tied with 2010)
2004: 9th warmest
2003: 4th warmest
2002: 5th warmest
2001: 10th warmest
“This marks the 35th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above the 20th century average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average. Including 2011, all eleven years in the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011.”
Here is the link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Of course, some of you already know that the world is continuing to warm.
The ratio of record high temperatures to record low temperatures has continued to grow…..and since the 1990’s temperatures continue to accelerate to the upside.
“…and they are warming at an INCREASING RATE.”
Do you really not understand that temperatures at a plateau can remain high while not increasing overall? Are alarmists really so soft in the head, or are they just trying to score rhetorical points? I’m charitably inclined to the latter interpretation – better evil than dumb.
Average global temperature (whatever the average of an intensive variable means) has recently peaked, as it does every ~65 years. Soon, it will start accelerating down, bottoming out in the 2030’s before resuming another ~32 year upward climb. The underlying trend is the same as it’s been since the end of the Little Ice Age, before SUVs.
Take a pill. Nothing is happening which hasn’t happened before, and will happen again.
Good news for you, JC, warming is not accelerating. You can relax and stop worrying. Everything’s fine.
“The climate of the 2000’s is about 1.5 degree F warmer than the 1970s, so we would expect the updated 30-year normals to be warmer,” said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., NCDC director.
The above sentance is contained in the 3rd paragraph from the following NOAA article: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110629_newnormals.html
This shouldn’t be a surpise to anyone that looks at facts, becuase the ratio of record highs to record lows, has been growing since the decade of the 1980’s….and the current decade, as I’ve noted before….has gotten off to a “hot start” beginning in 2010 up through today.
You clearly have not read any of the material on this web page or you would not have posted the question that you did. IT PAYS TO DO ONES HOMEWORK BEFORE ONE ASKS Just read the many posts under COOLING.
The inter net is full of web pages recording the cooling as well . Read the many posts on
ICECAPhttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog or IS THERE GLOBAL COOLING http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
You and I know that short term[ 365 days , 30 day or one day]warm temperature records or isolated daily regional temperature records do not prove anything about a cosine like alternating global temperature cycle or trend which lasts for 60 years with alternating phases of about 30 years warmer weather followed by about 30 years of cooler weather. Some climate cycles last for 1500 years The cool cycle which is just starting will have just as many cold records. Come back and post your evidence again in a decade or two. The hundreds of people of eastern Europe an Asia who just recently froze to death would have wished that their governments had prepared better for the cool cycle that is just starting To revel in summer heat and claim global warming for ever is kind of foolish and dumb as winter temperatures are sure to come whether you believe it or whether you know about the coming winter or not. I think that most skeptics do not dispute that global climate has warmed somewhat over the last 20 or 120 years. More recently the regional and global temperatures have been flat and have actually started to decline during the last 10-15 years .The real debate is about the true pattern of the historical global temperature rise, what is the prime cause of the slow background warming and the alternating warming and cooling pattern that has taken place ,what role if any has man played in this historical temperature rise , the impact of carbon dioxide , if any on global temperatures and at what rate are the temperatures going to rise during the next 100 years .
The response to your question has been precisely given, for ex. by nofreewind, what don’t you understand in it ? You ask a question, skip the answers than claim nobody has replied, that’s poor reasonning and logic.
JC Smith : “For years 1880 – 2011, a list of the 11 warmest years on a global basis”
“Warmest years” is just a spin used for the warmists’ PR to hide the decline. “Warmest years” is irrelevant when talking about a trend. If temperatures decreases slightly over 10 years, you can still claim “warmest years”. You’re confusing values and trend.
If your current salary is among the highest in your 40 year carrier (values) but if it’s mostly lower than 10 years ago (trend), it’ a decrease, a fact that no amount of spin will change.