nycsnow Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Happy birthday sacrus!! Enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 thanks for the bday wishes guys. I epecially like iso's toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Happy Birthday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 A blow out?...July 2012 beat July 1936 by 0.1°C (25.3°C vs. 25.2°)...lol... Who said blow out? Here are the July temperatures since 1895: Obviously the 1930s were warm - no one denies that. The top 5 July temperatures are: 2012 - 77.56F 1936 - 77.43F 2006 - 77.26F 2011 - 77.01F 1934 - 77.00F http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/7/supplemental/page-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Who said blow out? Here are the July temperatures since 1895: Obviously the 1930s were warm - no one denies that. The top 5 July temperatures are: 2012 - 77.56F 1936 - 77.43F 2006 - 77.26F 2011 - 77.01F 1934 - 77.00F What factors made the 1930's so warm? +EPO? Curious to see the comparison with those years vs. today's abnormal warm stretch. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 What factors made the 1930's so warm? +EPO? Curious to see the comparison with those years vs. today's abnormal warm stretch. Thanks in advance. poor farming practices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEXtreme Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 What factors made the 1930's so warm? +EPO? Curious to see the comparison with those years vs. today's abnormal warm stretch. Thanks in advance. Check it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Adam and HM think a east coast hurricane threat is possible in the last week of August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 One of Joe Bastardi's many reasons why he disbelieves July 2012 of being the warmest on record is because back in the 1930's, night time low's were not as warm as they are this day in age. Urbanization was not as big and people would have to travel far just to get to an airport. Now, more airports are established, communities have grown, and industries have been expanding (or growing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 One of Joe Bastardi's many reasons why he disbelieves July 2012 of being the warmest on record is because back in the 1930's, night time low's were not as warm as they are this day in age. Urbanization was not as big and people would have to travel far just to get to an airport. Now, more airports are established, communities have grown, and industries have been expanding (or growing). Go to Don S.' thread in the Climate Change Forum and see why Bastardi is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Go to Don S.' thread in the Climate Change Forum and see why Bastardi is a joke. Very well, I'll check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Good read. He had some valid points. Honestly, talking about AGW has grown old for me. Media has basically blown everything out of proportion, real or not, people will believe anything these days. It really is disheartening if you think about how much control the media has on the public. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Good read. He had some valid points. Honestly, talking about AGW has grown old for me. Media has basically blown everything out of proportion, real or not, people will believe anything these days. It really is disheartening if you think about how much control the media has on the public. Oh well. Don is a well respected, unbiased, fact based poster. He never lets emotions or preconceived notions cloud his thoughts. He has no agenda. When Don S. posts, I read said posts to educate myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEXtreme Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 One of Joe Bastardi's many reasons why he disbelieves July 2012 of being the warmest on record is because back in the 1930's, night time low's were not as warm as they are this day in age. Urbanization was not as big and people would have to travel far just to get to an airport. Now, more airports are established, communities have grown, and industries have been expanding (or growing). How does that make any sense? You are a joke too if you believe that and a baised racist. http://www.bloomberg...a2DMOgmGng.html http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14380 BTW Read the comments: http://stevengoddard...limate-deniers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 What factors made the 1930's so warm? +EPO? Curious to see the comparison with those years vs. today's abnormal warm stretch. Thanks in advance. Strong +PDO/+AMO couplet in the mid 1930s -- plenty of warmth surrounding the CONUS. Warm oceans are a good recipe for heating up the adjacent continent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Don is a well respected, unbiased, fact based poster. He never lets emotions or preconceived notions cloud his thoughts. He has no agenda. When Don S. posts, I read said posts to educate myself. Well I wouldn't say that. We all have biases, and bias is not necessarily a bad thing. It's human nature, and often times we may tell ourselves we're speaking objectively but subconsciously we have a bias (in varying degrees) toward a certain side. From my observation, Don is pretty darn unbiased in his weather posts, but does show his bias quite clearly regarding climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Well I wouldn't say that. We all have biases, and bias is not necessarily a bad thing. It's human nature, and often times we may tell ourselves we're speaking objectively but subconsciously we have a bias (in varying degrees) toward a certain side. From my observation, Don is pretty darn unbiased in his weather posts, but does show his bias quite clearly regarding climate change. +1. Very true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Well I wouldn't say that. We all have biases, and bias is not necessarily a bad thing. It's human nature, and often times we may tell ourselves we're speaking objectively but subconsciously we have a bias (in varying degrees) toward a certain side. From my observation, Don is pretty darn unbiased in his weather posts, but does show his bias quite clearly regarding climate change. Can you link me to even one post where he showed his personal biases affecting the integrity of said post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 +1. Very true He's biased in the climate forum? Really? How? I need concrete examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Strong +PDO/+AMO couplet in the mid 1930s -- plenty of warmth surrounding the CONUS. Warm oceans are a good recipe for heating up the adjacent continent. Thanks Tom. This was the answer I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag3 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 He's biased in the climate forum? Really? How? I need concrete examples. Climate change is like politics. Cant you undertand that? There are 2 sides to each debate and the other side sees the other as biased. I laugh at the people who argue over and over and over about climate change and politics. The entire world is 100% experiencing a warming. Some classify it as human caused and others classify it as a weather cycle. No one knows the right answer and no one will ever know because a human's life cycle is miniscule and the people arguing it right now wont be alive to know the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Climate change is like politics. Cant you undertand that? There are 2 sides to each debate and the other side sees the other as biased. I laugh at the people who argue over and over and over about climate change and politics. The entire world is 100% experiencing a warming. Some classify it as human caused and others classify it as a weather cycle. No one knows the right answer and no one will ever know because a human's life cycle is miniscule and the people arguing it right now wont be alive to know the outcome. Two sides and in this case one is wrong. Its not like politics. It was forced to become that way. We don't need to live forever to know what's going on. Sorry buddy not everything needs an opinion or a debate. JB is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psv88 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Climate change is like politics. Cant you undertand that? There are 2 sides to each debate and the other side sees the other as biased. I laugh at the people who argue over and over and over about climate change and politics. The entire world is 100% experiencing a warming. Some classify it as human caused and others classify it as a weather cycle. No one knows the right answer and no one will ever know because a human's life cycle is miniscule and the people arguing it right now wont be alive to know the outcome. False. Politics is not science whereas you have concrete indisputable evidence. Politics is about one's opinion as to how to govern and which laws are better for the greater good. Totally subjective. Science involves physics and chemistry interacting in the atmosphere in which CO2 is a greenhouse gas being produced en masse at levels not seen for millions of years on this planet. Not to mention the methane from cattle and other gases releases as well. Not sure how people with any sense of logic can deny the fact that if humans pump millions of tons of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, a substance which has been proven to prevent the release of heat from the atmosphere, thus warming the surface below, it will warm the atmosphere. Tell me where the excess CO2 is being absorbed? The oceans? The rainforest? The rainforest is getting smaller and the oceans are only capable of so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Can't wait for cooler weather next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psv88 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Climate change is like politics. Cant you undertand that? There are 2 sides to each debate and the other side sees the other as biased. I laugh at the people who argue over and over and over about climate change and politics. The entire world is 100% experiencing a warming. Some classify it as human caused and others classify it as a weather cycle. No one knows the right answer and no one will ever know because a human's life cycle is miniscule and the people arguing it right now wont be alive to know the outcome. Take issue with this as well. There were two sides to the debate about many things, and one turns out right and one turns out wrong. In some cases there is more than one correct answer, such as in economics where competing views as to the proper way to stimulate the economy may both hold weight in similar proportions. Climate change is not somethere where there are two sides. There either is or is not AGW. Period. The conservative side has ALWAYS been resistant to change. Slavery, Women's suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay rights, Abortion, Universal Suffrage, social security and medicare...the list goes on. AGW will prove to be yet another time when conservatives resisted. Why? The conservatives stem from a core base back to colonial times of those who controlled the wealth in the country. AGW poses a threat to their idea of unbridled capitalism and industrialization without the need to protect the environment as the expense of the beloved profit margin...and those "conservatives" who are poor and refuse to believe in AGW have been blindly led to believe due to the dissemination of false information from FOXNEWS and other media who appeal to one sector of their beliefs, such as abortion, guns, anti-obama, and therefore they subscribe to all of their beliefs, aka, no AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan76 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Take it to PR...Don't need that here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Take it to PR...Don't need that here It's banter. Anything goes unless it breaks forum rules. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Couple things that baffle me: 1) There are two labels given in the CC forum -- you're either an AGW supporter or a denialist. This shouldn't be the case; It's a huge spectrum. The term denialist to me implies that you believe in ZERO anthropogenic contribution. That's certainly not the stance I've taken (I think the natural forcings take the majority, but anthropogenic activity does contribute a certain percentage, whether it's 5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, ..I'm not sure). 2) The lack of humility from some on the AGW side (not all, a few in particular). When there are comments like, "there is no debate, the science is settled"..., "if you're against AGW, you don't believe in science, etc"..that's about as biased as you can get in my opinion. Earth's feedback systems are very difficult to understand and simulate w/ models. I think it's impossible to determine the level of warming (or cooling) the Earth will experience in the next century...all speculation. I'm willing to offer the possibility that I'm completely wrong -- maybe we are fated to 3-5C of warming in the next century, maybe human activities are responsible for 85% of the warming. I don't think so but I could be wrong. At the very least don't accuse the other side of spewing lies, falsehoods, fake science, whatever. Climate change is very much a debate like politics. We don't have a 100% certain answer at this point. There are thousands of scientists who aren't AGW supporters or doomsday alarmists; I guess their degrees are worth as much as toilet paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Couple things that baffle me: 1) There are two labels given in the CC forum -- you're either an AGW supporter or a denialist. This shouldn't be the case; It's a huge spectrum. The term denialist to me implies that you believe in ZERO anthropogenic contribution. That's certainly not the stance I've taken (I think the natural forcings take the majority, but anthropogenic activity does contribute a certain percentage, whether it's 5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, ..I'm not sure). 2) The lack of humility from some on the AGW side (not all, a few in particular). When there are comments like, "there is no debate, the science is settled"..., "if you're against AGW, you don't believe in science, etc"..that's about as biased as you can get in my opinion. Earth's feedback systems are very difficult to understand and simulate w/ models. I think it's impossible to determine the level of warming (or cooling) the Earth will experience in the next century...all speculation. I'm willing to offer the possibility that I'm completely wrong -- maybe we are fated to 3-5C of warming in the next century, maybe human activities are responsible for 85% of the warming. I don't think so but I could be wrong. At the very least don't accuse the other side of spewing lies, falsehoods, fake science, whatever. Climate change is very much a debate like politics. We don't have a 100% certain answer at this point. There are thousands of scientists who aren't AGW supporters or doomsday alarmists; I guess their degrees are worth as much as toilet paper. JB's certainly is. Are all these other scientists like him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 JB's certainly is. Are all these other scientists like him? I'm not sure where JB falls on the spectrum. IIRC, he's mentioned that he believes in some human contribution. With climate change though, I think we'll eventually have a fairly good answer 20-30 years down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.