OT: It's Still Summer in SoCal (Climate Change)

[ptourkin]

Even though we have less daylight, we still have summer temps:



https://twitter.com/MattBaylow/status/654526969200054272

What's needed to avoid distinction of "hottest October ever" in #SanDiego is an avg daily temp of 68.6F each day next 17 days - not possible

[dgauthier]

I love hot weather, but I must admit I'm getting a little tired of it being 90 plus *every day*. The heat and drought is freaky. Our AC's set to kick on at 77, and all summer it's been starting up around 7 AM. I hope we get some rain this winter. At least it's a bit cloudy today.

[Lewis Moon]

Even though we have less daylight, we still have summer temps:



https://twitter.com/MattBaylow/status/654526969200054272

What's needed to avoid distinction of "hottest October ever" in #SanDiego is an avg daily temp of 68.6F each day next 17 days - not possible

AZ too. Blech.

[dgauthier]

AZ too. Blech.

I was just in Tucson last weekend, and it was 10 degrees cooler than LA. (Hotter in Phoenix though.) It's disturbing when you beat the heat by going to Arizona. ;)

[texbike]

Texas also. We've had consistent 90s for highs with a couple of exceptions over the last several weeks. However, the mornings have been nice. I was joking with another cyclist on a ride yesterday that we're getting both Fall AND Summer weather each day.

Oh, and if you guys have any extra rain laying around, please send it our way...

Texbike

[djg21]

It's getting cooler. It's supposed to be mid to high 40s this weekend. It's time to pull out the cold-weather gear.

[Lewis Moon]

I actually saw someone in knee warmers last week. Musta been wishful thinking. At 4:30 AM I'm unzipping my summer jersey after the first mile.

[JasonF]

My daughter is a freshman @ USC (hence the avatar) and downtown LA has been brutally hot. To add insult to injury she has a southerly-facing upper floor dorm room with no a/c....her room is regularly in the mid-90s and portable a/c units are forbidden since they keep blowing out building fuses.

[8aaron8]

It makes me feel somewhat crazy. Every evening around 9 p.m. I open my back door hoping for a cool breeze to find it's still warmer outside then inside, and I set my ac at 82!

[joe.e]

riding to work in the dark with your jersey open is the new normal, I'm afraid.

@dgauthier: I have my air set to 78 and it makes me sad when I get up at 6am and its already on. r.i.p earth.

[bobswire]

Careful what we wish for. This could likely be the norm in the coming months in California. http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Key-Southern-California-interstate-blocked-in-6573716.php

[93legendti]

Climate Confusion, aka "weather", is living up to its name-frost warnings here this weekend and snow in northern Michigan, just like there was in 1987 on Labor Day when I was last in the UP. The prediction is for a warmer winter than last year, which is shocking because I thought every season was supposed to be exactly the same...science and all.;)

[NickR]

This past weekend was the worst, even the beach was a blistering hot to ride.

[fiamme red]

Climate Confusion, aka "weather", is living up to its name-frost warnings here this weekend and snow in northern Michigan, just like there was in 1987 on Labor Day when I was last in the UP. The prediction is for a warmer winter than last year, which is shocking because I thought every season was supposed to be exactly the same...science and all.;)You don't seem to understand that meteorology (predicting local, short-term weather) and climate science (predicting global, long-term weather) are two completely different things.

[RyanH]

Every year people in SoCal forget that October is usually a hot month until near the end, somehow coincidentally on Halloween.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[ptourkin]

climate confusion, aka "weather", is living up to its name-frost warnings here this weekend and snow in northern michigan, just like there was in 1987 on labor day when i was last in the up. The prediction is for a warmer winter than last year, which is shocking because i thought every season was supposed to be exactly the same...science and all.;)

you don't seem to understand that meteorology (predicting local, short-term weather) and climate science (predicting global, long-term weather) are two completely different things.

"hottest october ever"

[Tony T]

Not so much here in upstate NY. It's getting cooler. It's supposed to be mid to high 40s this weekend. It's time to pull out the cold-weather gear.

Freeze coming the w/e

[ptourkin]

Every year people in SoCal forget that October is usually a hot month until near the end, somehow coincidentally on Halloween.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

"Hottest ever" not, "oh it's hot in October." Cyclists tend to remember weather.

[Tony T]

"hottest october ever"

Ever, like in the last 100 years? :)

[fiamme red]

93legendti is the Sen. Inhofe of Paceline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

[ptourkin]

Ever, like in the last 100 years? :)

Actually, borehole measurements give an accurate record going back 500 years and proxy data, such a tree rings and coral reefs give us data going back at least 1,000 years, but keep trying.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

I've experienced hot Octobers before, but those usually follow a mild summer, and the heat usually only lasts a week or two. We've had brutally hot temps for a long time now, and the summer was no walk in the park, either. Oh, and have I mentioned the humidity?

[classtimesailer]

Lovin' It. Global Warming is the Best Thing Ever.

[Lewis Moon]

Lovin' It. Global Warming is the Best Thing Ever.

If you like this, just wait until the ocean currents get out of whack!

[stackie]

I agree wrt Californians forgetting that summer is delayed about six weeks compare to rest of USA. But this fall is really unseasonably warm, at least here on the Monterey peninsula.

Isn't the warmer than usual fall typical before a El Ni�o winter?

I'm sure hoping so.

Jon

[Tony T]

Actually, borehole measurements give an accurate record going back 500 years and proxy data, such a tree rings and coral reefs give us data going back at least 1,000 years, but keep trying.

So you're saying that this is the warmest Oct in SD in 1,000 years?
1,000 years is not that long ago (just how long has man inhabited the earth?)

yes, please keep trying ;)

[PQJ]

Whether it's the weather or something else, sapiens is going to destroy itself anyway. I'm guessing in 500 - 1,000 years. Which in the history of things is a minuscule amount of time.

[verticaldoug]

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=02

NOAA update for el Nino

[ptourkin]

So you're saying that this is the warmest Oct in SD in 1,000 years?
1,000 years is not that long ago (just how long has man inhabited the earth?)

yes, please keep trying ;)

I'm confused, are you disagreeing with the vast, vast, vast (over 97%) majority of scientists who actually study this who agree that the climate change is anthropogenic or are you simply arguing with the data that clearly exists that says things are getting warmer a la Abe Simpson shouting at the cloudhttps://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3073/2767638386_d8efc6fb1f.jpg?

Either way, there have been enough locked threads about this already - have fun.

[jmoore]

It's hot in TX, which is normal. But I have a new ElevenVelo jersey I've only been able to wear once. THAT is the tragedy

[joe.e]

as an aside, you should never talk crap about the weather before you head out for a ride. I was lucky enough to get hot mist (is this called rain?) all the way from burbank to the rose bowl :confused:

[Tony T]

I'm confused, are you disagreeing with the vast, vast, vast (over 97%) majority of scientists who actually study this who agree that the climate change is anthropogenic or are you simply arguing with the data that clearly exists that says things are getting warmer a la Abe Simpson shouting at the cloud?

Either way, there have been enough locked threads about this already - have fun.

No, I find it quite amusing that you think that warmest Oct on record (i.e 100 years) in San Diego (or in your view "ever") is proof of anything. If the weather in SD next year is back to the norm, that will have no impact on the study of global warming either.

As already stated by flamme red, "meteorology (predicting local, short-term weather) and climate science (predicting global, long-term weather) are two completely different things"

[45K10]

...

[Kirk007]

Even Ostriches with their heads in the sand will still get burnt or drowned or whatever flavor is coming to their local neighborhood.

And its not 500-1000 years. If we don't get get our act together, its more like 40-100 before we suffer global ecosystem collapse with a die of of 50% of biodiversity. Which half will homo sapiens be in?

Don't believe me, buy E.O. Wilson's upcoming book Half Earth this coming March. Or listen to your pick of MacCarthur genius level scientists - if you need names, I've got some for 'ya.

[verticaldoug]

Even Ostriches with their heads in the sand will still get burnt or drowned or whatever flavor is coming to their local neighborhood.

And its not 500-1000 years. If we don't get get our act together, its more like 40-100 before we suffer global ecosystem collapse with a die of of 50% of biodiversity. Which half will homo sapiens be in?

Don't believe me, buy E.O. Wilson's upcoming book Half Earth this coming March. Or listen to your pick of MacCarthur genius level scientists - if you need names, I've got some for 'ya.

It doesn't matter. You have to kill about 5 bln people either way. Which way do you want to do it?
I am selfish and not willing to live at a sustainable level. If the rest of you are honest about your true carbon footprint, you are not either.

[Seramount]

science, schmience...

it just FEELS wrong that it's been 90+F every day for, ummm I dunno, forever...

the lack of rain is the real killer tho...always depresses me to watch all the vegetation struggling to make it thru another hot, parched day.

[Kirk007]

It doesn't matter. You have to kill about 5 bln people either way. Which way do you want to do it?
I am selfish and not willing to live at a sustainable level. If the rest of you are honest about your true carbon footprint, you are not either.

Well I'm not sure its kill 5 billion but yes populations levels need to level off or drop. And to be fair, it is much more than climate. I view climate change as an accelerant on all the other unsustainable events, that would be driving us to the very same extinction crisis, but perhaps at a slower rate. Wilson will paint a path forward that he thinks is achievable. I'm not as optimistic or generous towards human nature.

[Elefantino]

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could have a non-politicized (or non-religious) motive for opposing science.

I blame Al Gore. The messenger killed the message. If the sentinel had been someone from another political persuasion I wonder if there would be any unanimity. Probably not, because we live in an era where if one side says the sun is out the other says it's midnight.

[Louis]

Now rain and mud...

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/17/us/17california/17california-master675.jpg

[andyschen]

We have had a lot of above average warm days up here in NorCal as well. It was even humid at times...very unusual for the San Francisco Bay Area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyanH]

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could have a non-politicized (or non-religious) motive for opposing science.

I blame Al Gore. The messenger killed the message. If the sentinel had been someone from another political persuasion I wonder if there would be any unanimity. Probably not, because we live in an era where if one side says the sun is out the other says it's midnight.
Because one of the tenets of science is to test and challenge a hypothesis. But hey, science, right?

Do all scientists agree on Climate Change? (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136)

NASA Data Undermining Climate Change Models (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/)

[Louis]

That's what I call unbiased news sources - Murdoch and Forbes.

Do all scientists agree on Climate Change? (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136)

NASA Data Undermining Climate Change Models (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/)

[beeatnik]

Because one of the tenets of science is to test and challenge a hypothesis. But hey, science, right?

Do all scientists agree on Climate Change? (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136)

NASA Data Undermining Climate Change Models (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/)

Getting your climate change news from Forbes is like getting your management case studies from the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

[Jaq]

My daughter is a freshman @ USC (hence the avatar) and downtown LA has been brutally hot. To add insult to injury she has a southerly-facing upper floor dorm room with no a/c....her room is regularly in the mid-90s and portable a/c units are forbidden since they keep blowing out building fuses.

Hey. Sarkisian's gone. Cooler times ahead.

Fight On.

[oldpotatoe]

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could have a non-politicized (or non-religious) motive for opposing science.

I blame Al Gore. The messenger killed the message. If the sentinel had been someone from another political persuasion I wonder if there would be any unanimity. Probably not, because we live in an era where if one side says the sun is out the other says it's midnight.

How about a financial reason? Lots of those. Bribes from both sides to both sides.

[Tony T]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/10d9144048da01330b4f005056a9545d

[Elefantino]

How about a financial reason? Lots of those. Bribes from both sides to both sides.
Qualification: I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone without an immediate, vested monetary interest could have a non-politicized (or non-religious) motive for opposing science.

Pay me enough money and I'll convince you a dog meows.

[Tony T]

Damn it's cold on the east coast.
52� and going to a low of 29� in the overnight.
It was 75� less than a week ago.

[djg21]

Damn it's cold on the east coast.
52ｰ and going to a low of 29ｰ in the overnight.
It was 75ｰ less than a week ago.

It never got much above 45 degrees on my ride today and was windy as hell.

[PQJ]

Um, wild swings in temperatures, boys. Crazy weather events. Not just all warmer all the time. But I could be wrong on this; I'm not a scientist.

[Kirk007]

Latest tip on how-to turn a fortune into a much smaller fortune: invest in waterfront property. Hold for 30 years.

[Tony T]

Invest in Nevada desert, in 30 years, you'll have waterfront property.

[dgauthier]

Um, wild swings in temperatures, boys. Crazy weather events. Not just all warmer all the time. But I could be wrong on this; I'm not a scientist.

You put more energy into a pendulum, it swings wider. With global warming comes wider temperature swings. Unfortunately, the climate science deniers think global warming is a hoax if it's deadly cold outside.

[alioup]

It's just a really strong el nino that is contributing to the weather irregularities. No need to get your panties in a bunch everyone. Yes this october is an outlier but there still is an upwards trend.

https://tribkswb.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/1997vs2015-el-nino-800.gif

(red/white correspond to anomalies in the ocean water e.g. warmer than normal water). 1997 was the last strong el nino. But what do I know, I'm just some measly PhD student studying sustainability/chem :rolleyes:

[rnhood]

It's just a really strong el nino that is contributing to the weather irregularities. No need to get your panties in a bunch everyone. Yes this october is an outlier but there still is an upwards trend.


1997 was the last strong el nino. But what do I know, I'm just some measly PhD student studying sustainability/chem :rolleyes:


Somebody gets it. Its easy to get mislead these days.

[oldpotatoe]

Qualification: I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone without an immediate, vested monetary interest could have a non-politicized (or non-religious) motive for opposing science.

Pay me enough money and I'll convince you a dog meows.

:D:hello:

[Tony T]

You put more energy into a pendulum, it swings wider. With global warming comes wider temperature swings. Unfortunately, the climate science deniers think global warming is a hoax if it's deadly cold outside.

And who should share the blame for this? (hint: look at the title of this thread).
(the hottest Oct in 100 years is a pimple on an elephant's a$$)
The problem is, too many look of their window and say wow, it's hot here, must be global warming, because only what happens by me matters. What, it's been a normal Oct 3,000 miles away?, well that means nothing, you denier!

[Kirk007]

And who should share the blame for this? (hint: look at the title of this thread).
(the hottest Oct in 100 years is a pimple on an elephant's a$$)
The problem is, too many look of their window and say wow, it's hot here, must be global warming, because only what happens by me matters. What, it's been a normal Oct 3,000 miles away?, well that means nothing, you denier!

So last year's winter in Boston was normal? We are seeing symptoms of a larger phenomena that has different effects based on all sorts of variables. But to assert there's no connection; to deny the occurrence of climate change, to think that billions of one dominant species that has cleared, grazed, polluted, used up,de-watered the proportion of Earth that we have undeniably done, and yet refuse to acknowledge that all of this could be impacting how a closed system works, is to me incredulous. Might as well blame everything on witches - it's about as plausible as denying anthropogenic climate change.

[Matthew]

I did a mountain bike race yesterday in northern Michigan and it snowed! October 17th. and snow!!! Arrrgggh. I will take your balmy summer like temps any day. 70's last weekend, freaking snow yesterday. Back in the sixties next week. Crazy here this time of year. Matt

[Tony T]

So last year's winter in Boston was normal? We are seeing symptoms of a larger phenomena that has different effects based on all sorts of variables. But to assert there's no connection; to deny the occurrence of climate change, to think that billions of one dominant species that has cleared, grazed, polluted, used up,de-watered the proportion of Earth that we have undeniably done, and yet refuse to acknowledge that all of this could be impacting how a closed system works, is to me incredulous. Might as well blame everything on witches - it's about as plausible as denying anthropogenic climate change.

Can't look at the weather effect on a tiny spec on the earth (i.e. San Diego or Boston) for one year and say that climate change/global warming is the cause. To use this argument, then what to do when the 2015 winter in MA is not as bad as 2014 (or the 2016 summer in SD not as hot as 2015).

The effect of global warming will be measured by the effect on ice caps and sea levels, not how hot it is in SD this Oct.

[Tony T]

I did a mountain bike race yesterday in northern Michigan and it snowed! October 17th. and snow!!! Arrrgggh. I will take your balmy summer like temps any day. 70's last weekend, freaking snow yesterday. Back in the sixties next week. Crazy here this time of year. Matt

Well, one could think that snow in MI in Oct must be the result of climate change. But a look at the records (dating to 1890) will show that this is not unusual (http://www.mtu.edu/alumni/favorites/snowfall/)

[Matthew]

I know it's not that unusual here in Michigan. We have a saying, "wait 5 minutes and the weather will change." This time of year we often have crazy swings in temps. I just didn't want to race in those conditions but it really wasn't too bad. Trails were in great shape.

[zmudshark]

The effect of global warming will be measured by the effect on ice caps and sea levels, not how hot it is in SD this Oct.

Oh crap, we're screwed then.

[ptourkin]

Can't look at the weather effect on a tiny spec on the earth (i.e. San Diego or Boston) for one year and say that climate change/global warming is the cause. To use this argument, then what to do when the 2015 winter in MA is not as bad as 2014 (or the 2016 summer in SD not as hot as 2015).

The effect of global warming will be measured by the effect on ice caps and sea levels, not how hot it is in SD this Oct.

Is this the point you've been trying to make?

None of us are saying that the hot October in San Diego is our evidence that the climate is changing due to anthropogenic reasons. There is a ton of other evidence for that that climate scientists point to.

We know the difference between meteorology and climate science. Learn a new parlor trick or better yet, read.

The current patterns are a symptom. BTW, 13 of the 14 hottest years in recorded history have occurred in the 21st century - we aren't just talking about this month.

[Tony T]

We know the difference between meteorology and climate science.

I don't think you do.

[alioup]

I don't think you do.

Apparently you don't either...

[gasman]

Ok guys lets keep this in line. The above posts do not follow forum rules.

For anyone whose obvious purpose in the view of the moderators is to harass, threaten, anger, slander, or discredit other forum members.

[ctcyclistbob]

I know it's not that unusual here in Michigan. We have a saying, "wait 5 minutes and the weather will change." This time of year we often have crazy swings in temps. I just didn't want to race in those conditions but it really wasn't too bad. Trails were in great shape.

Did MI adopt our saying?
"If you don't like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes."
― Mark Twain

Saw snow flurries in CT today ...

[NickR]

80% humidity at 6am for yesterday ride. Today light rain in the morning, at least that's what we call it in LA and overcast for most of the day.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

80% humidity at 6am for yesterday ride. Today light rain in the morning, at least that's what we call it in LA and overcast for most of the day.

I felt (and looked) like I jumped in a pool of water after yesterday's morning ride. Today's mist and cooler weather was a welcome break.

[NickR]

I felt (and looked) like I jumped in a pool of water after yesterday's morning ride. Today's mist and cooler weather was a welcome break.

I walked out the house with sleeves and a jacket, two seconds outside and quickly realized not going to need them.

[Kirk007]

nothing to see here: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21/last-month-was-the-hottest-september-on-record-noaa.html

Or here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/24/us/texas-oklahoma-arkansas-lousiana-flooding/

Or here: http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-patricia-mexico-coast

Only loony enviros would link this to climate change (oh and renowned Budhhist monks):

The Bells of Mindfulness

by Thich Nhat Hanh

The bells of mindfulness are sounding. All over the Earth, we are experiencing floods, droughts, and massive wildfires. Sea ice is melting in the Arctic and hurricanes and heat waves are killing thousands. The forests are fast disappearing, the deserts are growing, species are becoming extinct every day, and yet we continue to consume, ignoring the ringing bells.

All of us know that our beautiful green planet is in danger. Our way of walking on the Earth has a great influence on animals and plants. Yet we act as if our daily lives have nothing to do with the condition of the world. We are like sleepwalkers, not knowing what we are doing or where we are heading. The future of all life, including our own, depends on our mindful steps. We have to hear the bells of mindfulness that are sounding all across our planet. We have to start learning how to live in a way that a future will be possible for our children and our grandchildren....

If we continue to live as we have been living, consuming without a thought of the future, destroying our forests and emitting dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide, then devastating climate change is inevitable. Much of our ecosystem will be destroyed. Sea levels will rise and coastal cities will be inundated, forcing hundreds of millions of refugees from their homes, creating wars and outbreaks of infectious disease.

And a man of God and Science (Pope Francis's Climate Change Encyclical): "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it."

Luckily we have that great science mind Donald Trump to clear things up: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/24/donald-trump-questions-pope-francis-climate-change-weather/

[oldpotatoe]

nothing to see here: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21/last-month-was-the-hottest-september-on-record-noaa.html

Or here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/24/us/texas-oklahoma-arkansas-lousiana-flooding/

Or here: http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-patricia-mexico-coast

Only loony enviros would link this to climate change (oh and renowned Budhhist monks):

The Bells of Mindfulness

by Thich Nhat Hanh

The bells of mindfulness are sounding. All over the Earth, we are experiencing floods, droughts, and massive wildfires. Sea ice is melting in the Arctic and hurricanes and heat waves are killing thousands. The forests are fast disappearing, the deserts are growing, species are becoming extinct every day, and yet we continue to consume, ignoring the ringing bells.

All of us know that our beautiful green planet is in danger. Our way of walking on the Earth has a great influence on animals and plants. Yet we act as if our daily lives have nothing to do with the condition of the world. We are like sleepwalkers, not knowing what we are doing or where we are heading. The future of all life, including our own, depends on our mindful steps. We have to hear the bells of mindfulness that are sounding all across our planet. We have to start learning how to live in a way that a future will be possible for our children and our grandchildren....

If we continue to live as we have been living, consuming without a thought of the future, destroying our forests and emitting dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide, then devastating climate change is inevitable. Much of our ecosystem will be destroyed. Sea levels will rise and coastal cities will be inundated, forcing hundreds of millions of refugees from their homes, creating wars and outbreaks of infectious disease.

And a man of God and Science (Pope Francis's Climate Change Encyclical): "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it."

Luckily we have that great science mind Donald Trump to clear things up: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/24/donald-trump-questions-pope-francis-climate-change-weather/

I know we are not supposed to enter into a political fray but yeegads..(slaps forehead, shakes head).

[Elefantino]

I know we are not supposed to enter into a political fray but yeegads..(slaps forehead, shakes head).
The climate became a political fray with "An Inconvenient Truth."

The messenger killed the message for many.

[Robbos]

I'm constantly amazed in my work how many people will refute pier-reviewed academic research and take their own individual experience as the only truth, all others be damned. In my neck of the woods, those who study these and other issues that clash with people's individual experiences are blown off as being part of some vast conspiracy. Expecially if said conspiracy might endanger one's lifestyle habits.

[verticaldoug]

I'm constantly amazed in my work how many people will refute pier-reviewed academic research and take their own individual experience as the only truth, all others be damned. In my neck of the woods, those who study these and other issues that clash with people's individual experiences are blown off as being part of some vast conspiracy. Expecially if said conspiracy might endanger one's lifestyle habits.

Give us the bad news doc, when does the patient die?

[93legendti]

The sky is falling, even if the seas aren't rising.

When alarmism turns to desperation:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

"Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says"

[PQJ]

The sky is falling, even if the seas aren't rising.

When alarmism turns to desperation:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

"Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says"

Did you even read the article you linked? Seems to me it undercuts your hypothesis.

Out of curiosity, if you had a severe recurring pain in your lungs, would you go see a pulmonologist or a plumber?

[oldpotatoe]

The climate became a political fray with "An Inconvenient Truth."

The messenger killed the message for many.

I agree but I was talking about another 'pearl' from the Donald ....

[pinoymamba]

I think it's rained more in SoCal than NorCal in the last two months...

[93legendti]

My favorite alarmist-Debbie Stabenow, who "feels global warming" when she flies:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vBOnGeTZsTo



She might be flummoxed by the "pause" in global confusion/warming:



"Climate-Gate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz3pg5WhikN



"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

[Kirk007]

My favorite alarmist-Debbie Stabenow, who "feels global warming" when she flies:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vBOnGeTZsTo



She might be flummoxed by the "pause" in global confusion/warming:



"Climate-Gate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

The academic at the centre of the 舛limategate affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 遡eeping track of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 創ot as good as it should be?
The data is crucial to the famous 蘇ockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 壮tatistically significant warming."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz3pg5WhikN



"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the 叢lateau or 叢ause in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

now there's some authoritative sources. The equivalent to going to Walmart for advice on a custom bike frame.

I can give you the address of a few villages in Alaska to visit so that you can see the sea rise and warming effects for yourself. Hurry though - they are relocating them as we speak (they're sinking into the sea, see).

[verticaldoug]

My favorite alarmist-Debbie Stabenow, who "feels global warming" when she flies:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vBOnGeTZsTo



She might be flummoxed by the "pause" in global confusion/warming:



"Climate-Gate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

The academic at the centre of the 舛limategate affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 遡eeping track of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 創ot as good as it should be?
The data is crucial to the famous 蘇ockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 壮tatistically significant warming."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz3pg5WhikN



"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the 叢lateau or 叢ause in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

David Rose may have a history of cherry picking and taking statements out of context in his writing. It is ironic that just this weekend, a group was protesting the DailyMail's coverage of climate change and handing out flyers by the Whole Foods on Kensington High Street.

From the Guardian' George Monbiot related to the 2010 article:

(I've been able to pull this together with the help of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which put me in touch with the relevant scientists and pointed me to the primary datasets.)

Rose:

"A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961-1990 average."

"A year ago tomorrow" would have been 7 December. The Met Office issued its forecast (not a "prediction") on 10 December.

And there was nothing "confident" about it. The press release said that a record warm year "is not a certainty, especially if the current El Ni? was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption." As it happened, El Ni? did decline rapidly, and was replaced by a very strong La Ni?.

Rose:

"Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met."

Rose provides no source for this claim (or for any of the claims here). The Met Office tells me it was not trying to influence policy, simply to report the facts.

Rose:

"Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere"

I challenge Rose to find a single occasion on which these bodies have said that temperatures will rise "in step" with CO2. As Professor Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research tells me: "One should not be misled by seizing on an individual value or year and citing trends for that, because natural variability such as from El Ni? creates ups and downs all the time."

Does Rose expect warming to proceed along a straight line?

Rose:

"Last week at Canc?, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give ｣20bn immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5C higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production."

I can find no evidence at all for this. The Institute did release a report last week, but it doesn't even mention 6.5C, let alone predict that temperatures would climb to that point. In fact it makes no predictions whatever about global warming: it simply explains what is likely to happen to agriculture at different temperature scenarios, none of which extend as far as 6.5C. It is not easy to see how Rose could have got this so wrong.

Rose:

"Actually, with the exception of 1998 a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong El Ni? effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for 10, but for the past 15 years."

All the datasets, including the Met Office/CRU figures show that the current decade is the warmest in the instrumental record.

Rose:

"They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all."

Professor Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (yes, the Phil Jones), tells me: "The error of estimate of global averages or the forecasts for subsequent years is completely unrelated to the trend of warming. This is comparing apples with oranges."

Rose:

"Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C. That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8C, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat."

In fact 14.52C (which means 0.52C above the long-term average) is equal to the record set in 1998. The Met Office figures show that for January-October 2010 is the equal warmest year on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Nasa databases, which record anomalies of 0.54C and 0.58C respectively, suggest that so far it's the warmest year on record.

Phil Jones tells me:

"The forecast of 14.58 for 2010 was well within the error range if the final number was 14.52. The difference is 0.06 and the error range is +/- 0.10 approx".

Rose:

"Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Ni? was at its peak."

This, again, is utter nonsense, and goes to show what happens when you rely on untrustworthy sources. As you can see from all three global datasets (CRU, NOAA and Nasa) all the months this year for which the data has so far been collated (January-October) were anomalously warm.

Phil Jones points out: "Looking at these, it is clear that they have used the land-only values!!!!!!"

Amazing. I can't imagine what the fuss would have been like if climate scientists had made the same mistake as the Global Warming Policy Foundation has done.

Rose:

"The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005."

Perhaps Rose could explain how he has obtained the data from October to the end of the year. Is he employing Mystic Meg as his researcher?

Rose:

"Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1,000AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now."

Rose, as usual, provides no reference for this paper, and none of the scientists I've contacted, including Mann, has any idea what he's talking about. But Mann points out that neither "we, nor any other researchers, have ever denied there was a period of relative warmth sometime during medieval for many regions. What we and other competent researchers have all found is that the warmth was far more regional than modern warmth, with some large regions, like the tropical Pacific, having been unusually *cold* at the time, and when you average over the globe, the warmth of the medieval warm period/medieval climate anomaly simply doesn't reach modern warmth. Every peer-reviewed scientific study of the matter comes to the same conclusions."

Rose:

"Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide may account for much of the 20th-century warming."

Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University says: "I have no idea what "research" they are talking about." Dessler recently analysed of all the data and showed that there is no evidence for such claims.
Advertisement

Dessler continues: "This is really a classic "sceptic" argument. When it was originally brought up in the early 1990s, it was a legitimate uncertainty in our understanding. Scientists, however, view uncertainty like a starving wolf views red meat, and so the problem was thoroughly attacked over the next 15 years. In particular, about eight years ago, Nasa launched the atmospheric infrared sounder on board the Aqua satellite, which measures water vapour distribution with great accuracy. These data have really settled the question. However, just like the monster in a horror movie, this argument just won't die."

Anthony del Genio of Nasa also tells me: "I know of no evidence for the statement that cyclical changes in water vapour are responsible for much of the 20th-century warming, unless there is a new paper of which I am not aware that makes such a claim."

He continues: "The important thing is that the inter-annual changes of water vapour and everything else associated with El Ni? are not systematic long-term variations, rather they go up and down every two to five years or so. So they don't cause a long-term trend. CO2 changes, however, do cause long-term changes in CO2. Because CO2 is itself a greenhouse gas, it warms the atmosphere and surface of the planet, which causes more water to evaporate from the oceans and build up in the atmosphere. The resulting warming due to the water vapour is in fact larger than the initial warming due to the CO2 that forced it to happen, and this is the point of the Lacis paper - yes, water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but water vapour doesn't change systematically with time UNLESS CO2 is changing and initiating a warming that sets into motion the surface and atmospheric processes that allow water vapour to systematically increase. So CO2 changes are the root cause of whatever water vapour feedback winds up occurring."

Rose:

"Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a little-noticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995."

Phil Jones replies: "The key statement here is 'not statistically significant'. It wasn't for these years at the 95% level, but it would have been at the 90% level. If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level." [What this means is that the warming trend for the past few years previously met a lower test of statistical significance. With addition of the results so far for 2010, it now means the higher test.]

Rose:

"One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports. He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'"

Here's what Trenberth says on his website:

"It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short- term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."

It is hard to believe that Rose was unaware of this explanation.

Rose:

"The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"

The question now emerging for Rose is very simple. Just how many mistakes does he have to make before the thesis that these are innocent errors starts to collapse?

www.monbiot.com