Sure Fire Proof of Gobal Warming

Apparently so...

Really?

You really serious?

I hope not!

I cannot remember who told me but here is their reasoning why Global Warming is true. It's snowing more in odd places because Global warming is heating the polar ice caps and evaporating the ice and therefore putting more moisture in the atmosphere and that creates more snow in hot places???

It sounds like BS to me!

that is BS

Weather is one thing, always had chaotic variations and peaks, climate is another. Simplifying, it is long term averaged weather. And this interesting picture, even if real, does not add much to the debate. Still, I believe the whole AGW scum, unless challenging it is declared illegal, (you never know) it could do some good in the sense that many people will eventually ask themselves a more important question: On what else are those b*stards lying to me about? S.M.

So is it "Global Warming" or Human induced climate change that we are supposed to worry about?

Global Warming is a scam, but if it is true then Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a scam, but if AGW is true then it is more likely to be beneficial than harmful, but if it is harmful then we can't do anything about it, but if we can then it will be too expensive, but if it isn't too expensive then it will lower our standard of living, but if it doesn't lower our standard of living it will disrupt the economy, but it doesn't disrupt the economy then it violates our rights, but if it doesn't violate our rights it is an excuse to install a Marxist government, but if it doesn't install a Marxist government, then whatever Obama does has to be worse than global warming.

I have heard EVERY ONE of these excuses for not believing the many thousands of climate scientists who have been proving AGW correct for the past 20 years.

It is so weird that when it comes to AGW all data, logic, and science seems to evaporate from these forums and what is left is Fox News. You are all perfectly capable of thinking rationally on almost everything else, and admit mistakes, look at the data hard, analyze the heck out of every conceivable question. Why does all that go out the window when it comes to debating AGW?

Correction. It does not entirely go out the window. My apologies.

Anthropogenic, not Anthropomorphic.

Thanks, Codemaster.

I'm trying to imagine what Anthropomorphic Global Warming would look like. The opposite of a giant snowman? A giant Lava Man? Where's the Justice League when you need them?

If global warming is raising the temperature of the worlds oceans, melting the ice at the poles, and raising the moisture contentment in the atmosphere, which in turn precipitates, results in flooding and heavy storms?

So the question is, what is causing the extra precipitation, and thermodynamically what effect is this having on the upper atmosphere?

Regards JD.

I live in the Sonoran Desert. This picture was taken 1-1-2015, 30 miles from my house.

I see no point to this thread, none.

Sonoran Desert Climate looks cold?

Regards JD.

115°F is common during July/August. We saw 122°F 20 years ago in July.

Snow is as uncommon here as it is in the Arab deserts.

Saudi Arabia is the second hottest country on Earth

OK, so I'm 150 miles north of the 10th hottest country on earth.

Ironic that the #3 and #5 hottest countries used to be part of the Fertile Crescent, whose land was destroyed by salt deposited by human activity back when the human population was quite small. Humans have a disconcerting way of magnifying small activities into huge effects.

I just love it when climate realists mess with the AGW alarm zealots. Thanks for the chuckles Fredski and Lyn.

You know, you're right about that. I'm one of those, but since I don't automatically submit to theories about millions or billions of years of climate activity based upon a couple of hundred years of decent data, I am henceforth grouped as a reasoned skeptic into the flat-earth deniers group. I understand about the ice cores, tree rings, and all that but, what I object to is how that data is considered so 'accurate' for both timescale as well as quantifiable levels of (insert datum here). No one that I have seen has presented an 'error budget' for this whole thing and how a Monte Carlo analysis of the data with these variations would play out. Ever see a margin of error used for any of this data? Never mind that our planet's climate is a system with many thousands of degrees of freedom, it's no wonder they can barely predict the outcome.

Uncertainty Analysis of Climate Change and Policy ... - MIT

Assessing Climate Change under Uncertainty: A Monte ...

Katz_Techniques for Estimating Uncertainty.pdf - Climate ...

"Margin of Error" was a statistician on Car Talk.

Thank you.

BTW, I think that was Margie Novarra.

And in #17 I think you meant anthropogenic!

Thanks. Too late to edit it, but I did post a correction.

Ask and you shall receive. Thanks !

"No one that I have seen has presented an 'error budget' for this whole thing and how a Monte Carlo analysis of the data with these variations would play out."

Not until you actually asked, that is.

I nominate your for membership in the flat-earth deniers group because you claim that the data does not exist just because you haven't gone and looked for it. Remember the bishop who refused to look in Galileo's telescope because he already knew what he would see?

For you to claim that they can barely predict the outcome just means that you haven't gone and looked at the predictions. They are scientists. They publish results of computer models, but they are very conservative about relying on their models for actual predictions. That's why the actual climate change has usually turned out to be worse than they predicted.

Their critics, on the other hand, are radical political commentators who are not careful at all about taking every anomalous snowfall and turning it into proof that global warming is not happening. Like Fredski starting this thread, except they get paid for it. (Fredski, you don't get paid for it, do you?) Their reputations do not depend on being right or wrong, but on making the opposition look bad and making their sponsors rich, and if that means that they have to make everyone in the US distrust scientists, that only makes their job easier. I have seen citation after citation of some new research that claims to disprove AGW, and every time, it turned out to be some blogger who lied about some new research that actually supported AGW.

I really shouldn't post in AGW discussions. It's bad for my health.

Thanks Robin. By the way I've always wanted to know if you've got your own bard. They come in handy when you're starving. Maybe he could sing about your Good Answers.

OK, thanks for the reasoned response. I was reacting to what you said. You didn't actually ask for the data, which would have been a very interesting point to make. What you said was that you've never seen this info, and then implying that it is no wonder that they can't predict anything.

Suppose you had said, "Does anyone know if they use 'error budgets' for this whole thing? Where would I find it? Or a Monte Carlo analysis of the data with these variations? Where would I find a margin of error for any of this data?"

That would make a big difference in the kind of answer you receive. By the way, in case you wondered, yes, after a long career in biology and software, I am now a marriage counselor, and one of the main things I work with is tone of voice and phrasing. But I still get pissed off in AGW discussions.

Professional climate scientists actually know an enormous amount about statistics, modeling, error bars, chaotic systems, etc. Far more than you or I do. And what they don't know the other scientists will call them out on. They have to defend their work against criticism from the smartest people in their fields, and that means they have to nail their research down tight before trying to publish. You make it sound like they're some high school hackers messing around with the school computers.

If you want to look at intense, ongoing debates about AGW between people on both sides who know the science, try this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

BTW, not EVERY poster on that site knows the science well, but if you want to learn a whole lot about every possible objection to AGW, it's a good site to visit. It is moderated to keep the discussion civil and productive. I think they do a good job of making people stick to the science.