2011 Global Temperatures

[LakeEffectKing]

I think it comes down to weather vs. climate. Weather events vs. climate events. The timescale is the main dividing factor. I've been referring to the tendency to blame just about any extreme weather event on AGW. This paper appears to be trying to address both weather and climate events in relation to AGW. Or at least blur the line.

You are ignoring the obvious point about the Fairbanks cold wave. If it does indeed turn out to be a 3SD cold event (likely), doesn't that mean it had a 99% chance of not occurring thanks to AGW? After all, that's the exact reverse of the logic/math you are using to say that 3SD warm events have to be due to AGW, since there was only a 1% chance they would have occurred 100 years ago?

Therefore, mathematically, the Fairbanks coldwave should not be occurring, per AGW-induced odds.

To tag onto your point, a simple question can be asked, and if not answerable then the whole 3SD discussion is very suspect.....Question. At what global temperature do 3SD events drop to their minimum??

(Edit....It's a trick question)

[skierinvermont]

I think it comes down to weather vs. climate. Weather events vs. climate events. The timescale is the main dividing factor. I've been referring to the tendency to blame just about any extreme weather event on AGW. This paper appears to be trying to address both weather and climate events in relation to AGW. Or at least blur the line.

Please point to where the paper blurs the line between short term events and seasonal events. As far as I can remember, short term events are not event mentioned.

You are ignoring the obvious point about the Fairbanks cold wave. If it does indeed turn out to be a 3SD cold event (likely), doesn't that mean it had a 99% chance of not occurring thanks to AGW? After all, that's the exact reverse of the logic/math you are using to say that 3SD warm events have to be due to AGW, since there was only a 1% chance they would have occurred 100 years ago?

Therefore, mathematically, the Fairbanks coldwave should not be occurring, per AGW-induced odds.

First of all, I have no idea whether it is or isn't a 3SD event or not. A 3SD event isn't just record cold.. it is a 1/700 year event.

Seconf of all, just because positive 3SD events have increased 100X, doesn't mean negative 3SD events have decreased 100X. That's not how normal distributions work.

Third, I have never said that +3SD events have to be due to AGW, I said that if you randomly select a +3SD event there is a 99% chance that it would not have occurred without AGW. That is a huge critical distinction which thus far you seem incapable of grasping.

Fourth, because the SD for shorter events is larger than for longer events, 3SD warm weekly or monthly events have increased in frequency less than 3SD seasonal events, and 3SD cold weekly or monthly events have decreased in frequency less than 3SD seasonal events. Thus 3SD cold anomalies are more common for weekly or monthly departures than for seasonal departures.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If one June July and august period was .71, .85, and .67C above normal ocean and land and say 1.02, 1.17, .94 for land.

Isnt the point of the paper showing that AGW causes heat waves that are so hard to attain to be more frequent more because of heat distribution rather than messing with the physical climate factors?

At some point maybe a 2sd event becomes a 3sd event because there is just more warmth in play.

Russia would be hit by this more locally if the ice is gone in summer with no cold buffer from the arctic.

Our area has been affected by climate change the most in November.

Because in the past deeper snow pack as well as years with snow pack well into the Northern CONUS would be in place with deeper cold and less modification of arctic chills..

We recently had a blast come threw with -6 to -8C 850s. and -1 to -3C 925mb temps. The high was 49F. The air came from Canada at the time was 10c+ above normal...snow cover was also below normal as well as snow depth.

This impact might be the difference in a 42F high and 49F but that adds up over time.

Also if we change the definition of 3SD like we do with the 30 year averages then it won't seem so drastic. November is 2F warmer here on average dropping the 70s and adding the 2000s.

The average person has no idea the averages changed. If we used the long term ones like 1950-1995 the current departure of 4.8F would be 6.5-7F which is quite a change.

As far as winter, our area can not come close to the previous cold because the source region is not cold enough overall for the kind of dry cold to make it here then be aided by radiational cooling.

We have gone 12 years with out a below zero reading.

anyways...this makes total sense. If the climate keeps warming we will continue to see this happening. And its not just an STL thing.

Patterns rule the day but AGW now causes warm times to be warmer and cool times to not be as cool as they were.

Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

[Mencken_Fan]

Very humble read....thanks for that.

Hello LakeEffectKing. When it comes to being "humbled", I guarantee you...I've been around that block a few times...and at heavy cost.

Bear with me and I'll share my view of "reality", it's benefits and its costs.

Think of the human brain as a computer; knowledge is the hard drive, intelligence is the CPU.

While our hard drives may vary in size, the limitations over our lifespan are not great. One may become a master of trivia, current events, history, even science, simply by piling up masses of information. Knowledge can be divided into 2 categories: general, and specialized.

Our intelligence is the CPU which processes our knowledge. Logic circuits ask (relevance?), (source?) (timeliness?), (alternate views?) (do I need more knowledge?) and that list goes on and on and on....

Knowledge has pros and cons. Too much specialization leads to tunnel-vision. One may see the finer details of each tree without seeing the forest. Too much generalization (me in particular) sees the forest well but misses the details. Either case can bear a great cost. My analysis of gold, the housing market, etc. was ridiculously far ahead of the general public but my lack of knowledge of finer details (the trees) savaged my execution. While my intelligence was spot on, I was humbled big time by my lack of knowledge.

When I analyze posts in the climate section here, I don't analyze the details (trees) because I know darned well that no one here can analyze all the trees to perfection.

What I do is...I analyze the forest (the logic of the posters.) Yes, I do background research, reading pro and con websites, just as I've done in the past with evolution/creationism, etc. but overall...the logic of the posters here, and the logic of the websites I'm led to...that's the logic that leads me towards the highest probability of reality. And the best estimation of reality doesn't come from our hard drives....it comes from our CPUs. (Point being; people who know a lot of stuff don't impress me; I'm impressed only by those who know how to best interpret, visualize, extrapolate, and communicate all that stuff.)

Tim in ILM

[WeatherRusty]

Hello LakeEffectKing. When it comes to being "humbled", I guarantee you...I've been around that block a few times...and at heavy cost.

Bear with me and I'll share my view of "reality", it's benefits and its costs.

Think of the human brain as a computer; knowledge is the hard drive, intelligence is the CPU.

While our hard drives may vary in size, the limitations over our lifespan are not great. One may become a master of trivia, current events, history, even science, simply by piling up masses of information. Knowledge can be divided into 2 categories: general, and specialized.

Our intelligence is the CPU which processes our knowledge. Logic circuits ask (relevance?), (source?) (timeliness?), (alternate views?) (do I need more knowledge?) and that list goes on and on and on....

Knowledge has pros and cons. Too much specialization leads to tunnel-vision. One may see the finer details of each tree without seeing the forest. Too much generalization (me in particular) sees the forest well but misses the details. Either case can bear a great cost. My analysis of gold, the housing market, etc. was ridiculously far ahead of the general public but my lack of knowledge of finer details (the trees) savaged my execution. While my intelligence was spot on, I was humbled big time by my lack of knowledge.

When I analyze posts in the climate section here, I don't analyze the details (trees) because I know darned well that no one here can analyze all the trees to perfection.

What I do is...I analyze the forest (the logic of the posters.) Yes, I do background research, reading pro and con websites, just as I've done in the past with evolution/creationism, etc. but overall...the logic of the posters here, and the logic of the websites I'm led to...that's the logic that leads me towards the highest probability of reality. And the best estimation of reality doesn't come from our hard drives....it comes from our CPUs. (Point being; people who know a lot of stuff don't impress me; I'm impressed only by those who know how to best interpret, visualize, extrapolate, and communicate all that stuff.)

Tim in ILM

Regardless of AGW position, I just love the way this guy thinks. His logical train of thought is beautiful!

This is someone with the innate ability ( or is it learned? ) to decipher complex problems in such a way so as to enable him to detect the blurred constituent parts and assign relative significance. This type of insight may not be all that common, as in common sense.

You are a wise individual my friend.

[WeatherRusty]

That's basically what I said as well. Except I would say the actual weather pattern is more important for a major event occurrin than the global environment.

So question: what are the odds Fairbanks, AK would be having one of their all-time greatest November cold waves right now? Based on the loaded dice against it?

How common is the upper air pattern which allows for very cold arctic air to spill out of the arctic into that part of Alaska? What causes that pattern. Could it be tied to a weakened AO which in turn is affected by late season open water in the arctic which is a consequence of a warming world?

Looked at from a larger perspective, a climate system further out of thermal equilibrium should be more turbulent, meaning a larger degree of weather variability with the odds stacked in line with the direction of change. The range of variability will however be greater, in both directions.

[dabize]

How common is the upper air pattern which allows for very cold arctic air to spill out of the arctic into that part of Alaska? What causes that pattern. Could it be tied to a weakened AO which in turn is affected by late season open water in the arctic which is a consequence of a warming world?

Looked at from a larger perspective, a climate system further out of thermal equilibrium should be more turbulent, meaning a larger degree of weather variability with the odds stacked in line with the direction of change. The range of variability will however be greater, in both directions.

Excellently coherent and to the point

CO2-induced warming is a very simple basic fact (see the picture)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Fingerprints_1024.jpg

But it becomes manifest only via the complex interplay of its effect on the patterns (AO, PDO, MJO etc) that produce normal (i.e. non-AGW-affected) weather and climatic conditions, leaving ample room for obfuscationists to do their work.

[TerryM]

Hello LakeEffectKing. When it comes to being "humbled", I guarantee you...I've been around that block a few times...and at heavy cost.

Bear with me and I'll share my view of "reality", it's benefits and its costs.

Think of the human brain as a computer; knowledge is the hard drive, intelligence is the CPU.

While our hard drives may vary in size, the limitations over our lifespan are not great. One may become a master of trivia, current events, history, even science, simply by piling up masses of information. Knowledge can be divided into 2 categories: general, and specialized.

Our intelligence is the CPU which processes our knowledge. Logic circuits ask (relevance?), (source?) (timeliness?), (alternate views?) (do I need more knowledge?) and that list goes on and on and on....

Knowledge has pros and cons. Too much specialization leads to tunnel-vision. One may see the finer details of each tree without seeing the forest. Too much generalization (me in particular) sees the forest well but misses the details. Either case can bear a great cost. My analysis of gold, the housing market, etc. was ridiculously far ahead of the general public but my lack of knowledge of finer details (the trees) savaged my execution. While my intelligence was spot on, I was humbled big time by my lack of knowledge.

When I analyze posts in the climate section here, I don't analyze the details (trees) because I know darned well that no one here can analyze all the trees to perfection.

What I do is...I analyze the forest (the logic of the posters.) Yes, I do background research, reading pro and con websites, just as I've done in the past with evolution/creationism, etc. but overall...the logic of the posters here, and the logic of the websites I'm led to...that's the logic that leads me towards the highest probability of reality. And the best estimation of reality doesn't come from our hard drives....it comes from our CPUs. (Point being; people who know a lot of stuff don't impress me; I'm impressed only by those who know how to best interpret, visualize, extrapolate, and communicate all that stuff.)

Tim in ILM

Well put - Personally I'm a fan of the concept that CPU speed might be a better analogy for intelligence. If you attend open Mensa events (just about all local groups have them) you will notice that conversations flow more rapidly than in other milieus, that subjects change more rapidly and that verbal shorthand is more common than an exhaustive rehashing of material.

Knowledge is easier to attain and retain with a higher IQ, but since a superficial knowledge base coupled with a high speed CPU is adequate for most situations many of us have never done the hard work necessary to become truly proficient in any field. While we can dazzle a neophyte with our quick grasp of convoluted concepts we tend to fail when confronted by those who have actually put in the hours needed to master a subject.

That said, the AGW argument on this thread seems to have devolved to one side arguing that higher global temperatures causes more extreme hot events, while the other side is arguing that an extreme cold event disproves this. Hanson's paper shows not just that the center of the curve has migrated toward the warm end, but also that the curve has flattened, as one would expect in a chaotic system as it moves from one phase to another.

To disprove this one would need to show that more normal weather patterns are occurring, rather than pointing out anomalous incidence on either side of the norm.

Have Funn!!

Terry

[LakeEffectKing]

More accurate:

Excellently coherent and to the point

CO2-induced warming forcing is a very simple basic fact (see the picture)

http://www.skeptical...prints_1024.jpg

But it becomes manifest only via the complex interplay of its effect on the patterns (AO, PDO, MJO etc) that produce normal (i.e. non-AGW-affected) weather and climatic conditions, leaving ample room for obfuscationists to do their work uncertainty in past historical temperature records and the forcings that went into them, thus providing a potentially over-valued correlation to increases in global CO2 to global temperatures.

There is no obfuscation (from many skeptics), only a difference of opinion on the amount of uncertainty in the complex climate system and the ability to attribute any tangible warming/or cooling to any change in a forcing without completely understanding all of the feedbacks, thresholds, and/or system changes at various points in the system as it changes.

[WeatherRusty]

Well put - Personally I'm a fan of the concept that CPU speed might be a better analogy for intelligence. If you attend open Mensa events (just about all local groups have them) you will notice that conversations flow more rapidly than in other milieus, that subjects change more rapidly and that verbal shorthand is more common than an exhaustive rehashing of material.

Knowledge is easier to attain and retain with a higher IQ, but since a superficial knowledge base coupled with a high speed CPU is adequate for most situations many of us have never done the hard work necessary to become truly proficient in any field. While we can dazzle a neophyte with our quick grasp of convoluted concepts we tend to fail when confronted by those who have actually put in the hours needed to master a subject.

That said, the AGW argument on this thread seems to have devolved to one side arguing that higher global temperatures causes more extreme hot events, while the other side is arguing that an extreme cold event disproves this. Hanson's paper shows not just that the center of the curve has migrated toward the warm end, but also that the curve has flattened, as one would expect in a chaotic system as it moves from one phase to another.

To disprove this one would need to show that more normal weather patterns are occurring, rather than pointing out anomalous incidence on either side of the norm.

Have Funn!!

Terry

Which translated means a greater range of variability becomes more likely.

[WeatherRusty]

More accurate:

There is no obfuscation (from many skeptics), only a difference of opinion on the amount of uncertainty in the complex climate system and the ability to attribute any tangible warming/or cooling to any change in a forcing without completely understanding all of the feedbacks, thresholds, and/or system changes at various points in the system as it changes.

If we double atmospheric CO2 concentration, or indeed any other long lived greenhouse gas such as methane we increase the radiative power reaching the Earth's surface by 3.7W/m^2. ( The reason methane is about 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas is not due to any inherent property of the molecule, but rather it is so very much easier to double it in our atmosphere given it's very low concentration. A relatively small quantitative increase in methane raises it's percentage concentration very rapidly.) This increase in wattage produces a black body surface temperature response of just below 1.2C everything else remaining equal.

Studies of past climate, recent volcanic eruptions and modeling results indicate a net positive feedback somewhere between 2C and 4.5 as the total warming to be expected at radiative equilibrium. Thus the scientific investigation indicates warming will be significant. Your gut feeling may tell you otherwise. I'll go with the science.

[LakeEffectKing]

If we double atmospheric CO2 concentration, or indeed any other long lived greenhouse gas such as methane we increase the radiative power reaching the Earth's surface by 3.7W/m^2. ( The reason methane is about 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas is not due to any inherent property of the molecule, but rather it is so very much easier to double it in our atmosphere given it's very low concentration. A relatively small quantitative increase in methane raises it's percentage concentration very rapidly.) This increase in wattage produces a black body surface temperature response of just below 1.2C everything else remaining equal.

Studies of past climate, recent volcanic eruptions and modeling results indicate a net positive feedback somewhere between 2C and 4.5 as the total warming to be expected at radiative equilibrium. Thus the scientific investigation indicates warming will be significant. Your gut feeling may tell you otherwise. I'll go with the science.

You certainly can run with the narrow part of "science"....I'll look at the broader scope science and the way it's conducted, and understand the reason people marginalize others opinions as being "gut".

AGW is not at a point where everyone should be in lockstep on the conclusions drawn thus far from an uncompleted testing of the overall hypothesis.....not even close .

[tacoman25]

Please point to where the paper blurs the line between short term events and seasonal events. As far as I can remember, short term events are not event mentioned.

First of all, I have no idea whether it is or isn't a 3SD event or not. A 3SD event isn't just record cold.. it is a 1/700 year event.

Seconf of all, just because positive 3SD events have increased 100X, doesn't mean negative 3SD events have decreased 100X. That's not how normal distributions work.

Third, I have never said that +3SD events have to be due to AGW, I said that if you randomly select a +3SD event there is a 99% chance that it would not have occurred without AGW. That is a huge critical distinction which thus far you seem incapable of grasping.

Fourth, because the SD for shorter events is larger than for longer events, 3SD warm weekly or monthly events have increased in frequency less than 3SD seasonal events, and 3SD cold weekly or monthly events have decreased in frequency less than 3SD seasonal events. Thus 3SD cold anomalies are more common for weekly or monthly departures than for seasonal departures.

The paper references specific, non-seasonal events. The Moscow and Texas heatwaves. They didn't last the entire season, especially the Moscow one.

Also, as far as odds for cold events of this magnitude, the paper answers most of your questions...not sure where you're getting the information for some of your other statements.

The study asserts that specific events in the 3SD can be d irectly attributed to AGW because of the odds. But I'd like to see how they apply that logic in reverse to cold events.

[tacoman25]

How common is the upper air pattern which allows for very cold arctic air to spill out of the arctic into that part of Alaska? What causes that pattern. Could it be tied to a weakened AO which in turn is affected by late season open water in the arctic which is a consequence of a warming world?

Looked at from a larger perspective, a climate system further out of thermal equilibrium should be more turbulent, meaning a larger degree of weather variability with the odds stacked in line with the direction of change. The range of variability will however be greater, in both directions.

You illustrate my points perfectly! Even extreme cold waves MUST be in some way tied to AGW. After all, AGW is the driving force behind everything in our climate now.

[skierinvermont]

The paper references specific, non-seasonal events. The Moscow and Texas heatwaves. They didn't last the entire season, especially the Moscow one.

Also, as far as odds for cold events of this magnitude, the paper answers most of your questions...not sure where you're getting the information for some of your other statements.

The study asserts that specific events in the 3SD can be d irectly attributed to AGW because of the odds. But I'd like to see how they apply that logic in reverse to cold events.

For the last time, they do not attribute events in the 3SD category to AGW. They state very clearly that the attribution is to a multitude of causes including AGW. And that the vast majority would not have happened without AGW and that any one of them individually would 'almost certainly' not have happened without AGW. This conversation cannot continue until you grasp this basic distinction. Every time you fail to make this distinction I will continue to correct you until you get it right.

As I said before, just because +3SD events have increased 70X (from .15% to 10%), doesn't mean -3SD events have decreased 70X. That's not how normal distributions work because of the long tails. I can calculate how much they have changed theoretically assuming the shape of the distribution hasn't changed. The calculation would go as follows:

-because +3SD events have gone from .14% to 10%, that indicates they have shifted about 1.7SD (IE from 3SD to 1.3SD).

- thus the mean of the distribution has shifted upwards by about 1.7SD.

-thus a -3SD event is now a -4.7SD event.

-the percentile for a 4.7SD event is .00013

-this means that the frequency of 3SD events should have decreased slightly over 1000X (from .14% to .00013%).

But again, I very much doubt that the Alaskan anomaly for fall 2011 will be a -3SD event. Also the increase in +3SD events appears not only be due to a shift in the distribution, but also a slight flattening of the distribution.

[tacoman25]

For the last time, they do not attribute events in the 3SD category to AGW. They state very clearly that the attribution is to a multitude of causes including AGW. And that the vast majority would not have happened without AGW and that any one of them individually would 'almost certainly' not have happened without AGW. This conversation cannot continue until you grasp this basic distinction. Every time you fail to make this distinction I will continue to correct you until you get it right.

As I said before, just because +3SD events have increased 70X (from .15% to 10%), doesn't mean -3SD events have decreased 70X. That's not how normal distributions work because of the long tails. I can calculate how much they have changed theoretically assuming the shape of the distribution hasn't changed. The calculation would go as follows:

-because +3SD events have gone from .14% to 10%, that indicates they have shifted about 1.7SD (IE from 3SD to 1.3SD).

- thus the mean of the distribution has shifted upwards by about 1.7SD.

-thus a -3SD event is now a -4.7SD event.

-the percentile for a 4.7SD event is .00013

-this means that the frequency of 3SD events should have decreased slightly over 1000X (from .14% to .00013%).

But again, I very much doubt that the Alaskan anomaly for fall 2011 will be a -3SD event. Also the increase in +3SD events appears not only be due to a shift in the distribution, but also a slight flattening of the distribution.

You are the one who needs to correct your distinction. You aren't grasping the difference between individual events (in this case, heatwaves like the 2010 one in Moscow) and seasonal anomalies. It's not entirely your fault, the paper also does not make this disctinction, as they jump from seasonal occurences of 3SD to the likelihood of individual heatwaves.

Again, I am not referring to an entire season as the "event". I am referring specifically to the ongoing coldwave in Fairbanks, which very possibly could produce their coldest November on record, and very possibly their coldest 2 week stretch this early.

[skierinvermont]

You are the one who needs to correct your distinction. You aren't grasping the difference between individual events (in this case, heatwaves like the 2010 one in Moscow) and seasonal anomalies. It's not entirely your fault, the paper also does not make this disctinction, as they jump from seasonal occurences of 3SD to the likelihood of individual heatwaves.

Again, I am not referring to an entire season as the "event". I am referring specifically to the ongoing coldwave in Fairbanks, which very possibly could produce their coldest November on record, and very possibly their coldest 2 week stretch this early.

The paper does not make any reference to the type of individual events you describe. When it defines the Texas and Moscow heatwaves it defines them by their entire summer anomaly, which did reach the 3SD threshold over much of Russia and Texas, as the paper shows and describes. Which is how they are commonly defined elsewhere as well since both heatwaves lasted all or much of the summer.

Coming back to the Fairbanks anomaly.. if you wish to look at the monthly or bi-weekly anomaly then the standard deviation will be much larger than it will be for an entire season. Thus the frequency of short-term -3SD events is predicted to be less affected than that of seasonal -3SD events. I still have my doubts that even the bi-weekly anomaly will reach the -3SD threshold. -3SD is not just record cold, it is a 1/700 year event. Fairbanks would probably have to break their previous bi-weekly record for the same period by nearly 1C.

[tacoman25]

Coming back to the Fairbanks anomaly.. if you wish to look at the monthly or bi-weekly anomaly then the standard deviation will be much larger than it will be for an entire season. Thus the frequency of short-term -3SD events is predicted to be less affected than that of seasonal -3SD events. I still have my doubts that even the bi-weekly anomaly will reach the -3SD threshold. -3SD is not just record cold, it is a 1/700 year event. Fairbanks would probably have to break their previous bi-weekly record for the same period by nearly 1C.

Ok, so what then would be the odds that Fairbanks would break the record for coldest November, given how much the "dice is loaded" the other way? Less than 1 percent? Because given current model output, there is a good chance they could do that, possibly by 1C.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You certainly can run with the narrow part of "science"....I'll look at the broader scope science and the way it's conducted, and understand the reason people marginalize others opinions as being "gut".

AGW is not at a point where everyone should be in lockstep on the conclusions drawn thus far from an uncompleted testing of the overall hypothesis.....not even close .

Who is in lockstep?

The Government of the United States does next to nothing. The Citizens do next to nothing as a whole to combat AGW. The United Nations do next to nothing. Almost every other government does next to nothing.

So who is in lock step?

The only people who are in lockstep in the United States is about 20-30 percent of the population and nearly the entire scientific community.

How can you say everyone is in lockstep when politicians can make up bold face lies about tested and proven science and have zero public recourse?

The Liberal socialist President has signed off on test drilling in the Beaufort & Chukchi and will sign off on full-time rigs as soon as they strike pay dirt.

Salaazar is nothing but a useless puppet to ensure oil drilling in the arctic wont be stopped which Obama clearly is on board with.

So what is there to complain about? You know that we have proven the warming we have already seen unless you want to tell me you are a professional and think its all bunk, made up, bad science, hog wash?

The only thing we don't agree on is what is going to happen next....

Outside of the climate science community there is no lockstep.

How is it not even close to being tested?

[skierinvermont]

Ok, so what then would be the odds that Fairbanks would break the record for coldest November, given how much the "dice is loaded" the other way? Less than 1 percent? Because given current model output, there is a good chance they could do that, possibly by 1C.

You would have to know what the standard deviation is for a monthly anomaly in Fairbanks.

[LakeEffectKing]

Who is in lockstep?

The Government of the United States does next to nothing. The Citizens do next to nothing as a whole to combat AGW. The United Nations do next to nothing. Almost every other government does next to nothing.

So who is in lock step?

The only people who are in lockstep in the United States is about 20-30 percent of the population and nearly the entire scientific community.

How can you say everyone is in lockstep when politicians can make up bold face lies about tested and proven science and have zero public recourse?

The Liberal socialist President has signed off on test drilling in the Beaufort & Chukchi and will sign off on full-time rigs as soon as they strike pay dirt.

Salaazar is nothing but a useless puppet to ensure oil drilling in the arctic wont be stopped which Obama clearly is on board with.

So what is there to complain about? You know that we have proven the warming we have already seen unless you want to tell me you are a professional and think its all bunk, made up, bad science, hog wash?

The only thing we don't agree on is what is going to happen next....

Outside of the climate science community there is no lockstep.

How is it not even close to being tested?

Where did I say that people were in lockstep??? I said we shouldn't be (even though many want us to be). Re-read....

Oh, and over the last decade or so, the warming has certainly leveled off....so your "proved warming" is based on your arbitrary timeframe.....and the timeframe seems to continuously be getting longer and longer....

Complain????....Not from me here. I'll do that if regulations are put in place that will mean or do NOTHING other than for symbolic/feel good reasons.

[WeatherRusty]

You are the one who needs to correct your distinction. You aren't grasping the difference between individual events (in this case, heatwaves like the 2010 one in Moscow) and seasonal anomalies. It's not entirely your fault, the paper also does not make this disctinction, as they jump from seasonal occurences of 3SD to the likelihood of individual heatwaves.

Again, I am not referring to an entire season as the "event". I am referring specifically to the ongoing coldwave in Fairbanks, which very possibly could produce their coldest November on record, and very possibly their coldest 2 week stretch this early.

While at the same time the eastern U.S. is basking in a very mild Nov., some 4F warmer than normal here in the Northeast. Why the amplified pattern? Can you say atmospheric turbulence?

[WeatherRusty]

Who is in lockstep?

The Government of the United States does next to nothing. The Citizens do next to nothing as a whole to combat AGW. The United Nations do next to nothing. Almost every other government does next to nothing.

So who is in lock step?

The only people who are in lockstep in the United States is about 20-30 percent of the population and nearly the entire scientific community.

How can you say everyone is in lockstep when politicians can make up bold face lies about tested and proven science and have zero public recourse?

The Liberal socialist President has signed off on test drilling in the Beaufort & Chukchi and will sign off on full-time rigs as soon as they strike pay dirt.

Salaazar is nothing but a useless puppet to ensure oil drilling in the arctic wont be stopped which Obama clearly is on board with.

So what is there to complain about? You know that we have proven the warming we have already seen unless you want to tell me you are a professional and think its all bunk, made up, bad science, hog wash?

The only thing we don't agree on is what is going to happen next....

Outside of the climate science community there is no lockstep.

How is it not even close to being tested?

What an awesome retort Friv.... bring it on brother!

[WeatherRusty]

Where did I say that people were in lockstep??? I said we shouldn't be (even though many want us to be). Re-read....

Oh, and over the last decade or so, the warming has certainly leveled off....so your "proved warming" is based on your arbitrary timeframe.....and the timeframe seems to continuously be getting longer and longer....

Complain????....Not from me here. I'll do that if regulations are put in place that will mean or do NOTHING other than for symbolic/feel good reasons.

The warming leveled during the 50's and 60's too, but looked at in hindsight that did not prevent the theoretically expected rise to continue and there is zero reason to think the same will not happen again.

We have the potential technological knowhow to affect the change we need on a global scale, but we will not or can not do it for other reasons. Nothing less than a full paradigm shift in the way we produce and utilize energy on a global scale will suffice to bring about necessary changes required.

So, the weather will become more extreme and the oceans will rise at increasing rates. The extinction rate will increase and human societies will feel the pressure. Get used to it, we're screwed.

[LakeEffectKing]

The warming leveled during the 50's and 60's too, but looked at in hindsight that did not prevent the theoretically expected rise to continue and there is zero reason to think the same will not happen again.

We have the potential technological knowhow to affect the change we need on a global scale, but we will not or can not do it for other reasons. Nothing less than a full paradigm shift in the way we produce and utilize energy on a global scale will suffice to bring about necessary changes required.

So, the weather will become more extreme and the oceans will rise at increasing rates. The extinction rate will increase and human societies will feel the pressure. Get used to it, we're screwed.

Meh....the smart people like you, TerryM, Friv, skier, et al. will have the ability to adapt....us dumb poor oil slaves will not, and we'll die...so it's actually a win for intellectual evolution, don't you think?

[WeatherRusty]

Meh....the smart people like you, TerryM, Friv, skier, et al. will have the ability to adapt....us dumb poor oil slaves will not, and we'll die...so it's actually a win for intellectual evolution, don't you think?

Obviously we are all coal and oil slaves and the century old technology it powers. We will all prosper together...or not. There once was a song with the words..."United we Stand, Divided we Fall". Words of wisdom to live by. I fear we are headed in the wrong direction.

I plan on sticking around for quite a while longer, but the future is more yours than mine my friend.

[LakeEffectKing]

Obviously we are all coal and oil slaves and the century old technology it powers. We will all prosper together...or not. There once was a song with the words..."United we Stand, Divided we Fall". Words of wisdom to live by. I fear we are headed in the wrong direction.

I plan on sticking around for quite a while longer, but the future is more yours than mine my friend.

If you can get some of the experts who vehemently are telling "me" (and others) that this is a serious problem and to reduce energy, you need to convince those who aren't "doing as they say" first! Then I'll go change one of my light bulbs to one of those spiral looking things in the back room I never go in....

http://www.dailymail...-footprint.html

You guys are being mentally raped!!

[The_Global_Warmer]

Where did I say that people were in lockstep??? I said we shouldn't be (even though many want us to be). Re-read....

Oh, and over the last decade or so, the warming has certainly leveled off....so your "proved warming" is based on your arbitrary timeframe.....and the timeframe seems to continuously be getting longer and longer....

Complain????....Not from me here. I'll do that if regulations are put in place that will mean or do NOTHING other than for symbolic/feel good reasons.

The natural order of things is still in place. But to help out lets catch up.

Once upon a time The natural order of things or by her super hero name "Mother Nature" is still in charge, she runs 100 percent of the Earths climate as long as Father Time "The Sun" supplies her with sustenance. Sometimes Father can not put as much food on the table and Mother has to conserve her energy so she doesn't starve so the Earth will cool. Other times Father strikes pay dirt and gets to work mandatory overtime and Mother gains a little weight, she doesn't like going up a dress size. So she dumps the extra energy on the Earth and it warms.

Now as powerful as Mother earth and Father Time are. Earth is a big boy and can take care of himself. His attributes(elements) can form things like large bodies of water called oceans. if these large bodies of water are close to the N/S Poles sometimes Father Time goes on business trips and leaves these parts of the Earth without any sustenance for Mother Nature to give to Earth. The water then turns to ice. This ice helps regulate the Earths Sustenance budget. Humans call it the Earths Energy Budget. But we will get to those people later. Water and Ice are not the only "Angels" helping do what is best for Earth.

Another friend called "Air" is everywhere at all times helping the Earth. Air is unique and he takes on many forms. His most used form is Nitrogen. Nitro(his friends call him that) is pretty shy and likes to keep to himself. A friend of Nitro is Oxy or "Oxygen" is his full name. Oxy is very important because he helps father time produce ozone so those biological lifeforms on Earth can exist. he also feeds them and helps them have a there own piece of father time on Earth. Hydro an Heli are brothers and friends of Nitro and Oxy. Not everyone on Earth is so sweet. There is a Gang of Gases, Think west side story, they mean well but they can sometimes be bad for Earth.

to make a long story short Earth and his partners in crime Air, Water, Land, and Ice.(land is very boring and due to time restrictions we will have to forgo his introduction). These guys have built a system of regulations. not all is known about this system but it has been in place for a long long time. It has worked together uninterrupted by any biological lifeforms on Earth for a long time.

But like all good things times change. About 8 million years ago:

A species that looked like these guys lived on earth near the equator in a nice warm place. These guys were unique themselves but were just another animal in the order of things. Apparently when the time came and the natural order of things said there time was up. They didn't want to go. So they changed. And Father Time, Mother Nature, and Baby Earth came for them again and again, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at them. but they always made it out. And got stronger and more powerful each time.

Again to make a long story short:

Earth and it's biological inhabitants worked in harmony for billions of years. but like a virus on Fathers Times time table, the Great Apes to the Hominids replicated like a virus. Consuming every natural resource in it's path and moving on. But that didn't stay the same, eventually this creature evolved to it's current crowning Achievement:

Homo sapien was here. And as you can see by looking at this photo, very very dangerous.

That Danger comes in many forms:

Some more aesthetically pleasing than others.

For most of it's time Homo Sapien Aka "wise man" had little effect on Earths regulatory systems. They could use tools, even grown there own food supply. However eventually they reached a pinnacle of achievement. Once they achieved globalization they took jump after jump into manipulating there surroundings. They went threw many Renaissance...eventually they had there technology and industrial revolution. This is when they are on a large scale started to change earths friends, Air, Land, Ocean and Ice.

The friends Earth rely's on for his security were no longer free at the will of mother nature exclusively they were now being tinkered with by Humans. Just like his ancestors before him who left the Trees, walked out of Africa, and sailed the ocean blue. Modern Man now took over completely with his own free will, with almost no limits in sight. He now possess the ability to change the Earth, change everything about the Earth, the Earth no longer has full control. Mother Nature now shares that with Man.

Mother Nature still decides how the ebb and flow will go but Man influences it as he sees fit. And he currently sees fit by adding the gang of not always good gases GHGs to the equation.

this has thrown off the natural order of things. Sometimes this order is still in control and can appear so for a while but mans changes always come out.

end of satire, I know that is pretty silly, but to me it is silly to not let science, logic, and reason be what they are. Clouding them with our emotional biases makes us see things that do not exist.

Humans change the composition of the air everyday with billions of them contributing to it. BILLIONS OF THEM.

Try to see how powerful we are. Go look at your dog or cat. They are some of the smart animals out there. They have no idea what humans are capable of, go see a horse, dolphin, or chimp. They are some of natures best and brightest, they again are nothing compared to modern humans. Look at how we live. Look at how far we have taken this.

How can anyone not think we rule the day and the Earth now? We own everything. we take everything we want. we build, idealize, invent, create anything we want.

And everyday we becomes bigger, faster and stronger, smarter, more efficient, faster, and greedy for more.

It would be poetic justice if messing with the hand who feeds us ends up being our own un-doing.

But anyways, it is perfectly normal to go decades with little to nor warming, or even slight cooling when the right factors come together. nature is still running the show

[The_Global_Warmer]

If you can get some of the experts who vehemently are telling "me" (and others) that this is a serious problem and to reduce energy, you need to convince those who aren't "doing as they say" first! Then I'll go change one of my light bulbs to one of those spiral looking things in the back room I never go in....

http://www.dailymail...-footprint.html

You guys are being mentally raped!!

Hypocritical politicians are no reason to discredit the real science of AGW. that man has to look himself in the mirror, that has nothing to do with how I should view AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

If you can get some of the experts who vehemently are telling "me" (and others) that this is a serious problem and to reduce energy, you need to convince those who aren't "doing as they say" first! Then I'll go change one of my light bulbs to one of those spiral looking things in the back room I never go in....

http://www.dailymail...-footprint.html

You guys are being mentally raped!!

I don't feel that way, but since you went there, you didn't add that we "guys" deserve it. You know, like blame the victim while your at it. Or maybe "we" are to stupid to realize what is going on in your eyes?

If you think people are going to give up opulence and a cushy life style, forget it. It's not going to happen, and the fact is we must find a way to embrace the modern first world life style while at the same time powering it cleanly with little detrimental environmental impact. It we can't, and I doubt we will, then we are screwed.

Playing the blame game gets us nowhere.