View Full Version : Extreme weather has plagued the globe this year
The World Meteorological Organization said "global land surface temperatures for January and April will likely be ranked as the warmest since records began in 1880," according to the United Nations.
The agency found that climate warming was unequivocal and most likely "due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/07/weather.extremes/index.html
That's right people...you read it here first: It's HOT in the summer sometimes!!!!!!!
Bravo, Hans, bravo.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And in the United States, temperatures climbed into the triple digits this week in Midwestern states. </div></div>
Oh My GOD!!!!!!!
Run!!!!! Run Now!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> temperatures for January and April will likely be ranked as the warmest since records began in 1880,</div></div>
Translation: We have no frequent clue how hot it got at other times in history before 1880.
Great science.
adigirl
08-08-2007, 12:17 PM
I think someone flew over the cuckoo's nest today.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's right people...you read it here first: It's HOT in the summer sometimes!!!!!!!
Bravo, Hans, bravo. </div></div>
...global land surface temperatures for January and April...
Last time I checked it was winter in the Northern hemisphere in January...
Yes, Hans. Did your story say it was 35 C in January? No, it didn't. It said there was a slight uptick.
(yawn)
It can be 35 Celsius in January, it all depends on where you are located.
You said the Northern Hemisphere.
Yes I did, just like I said it can be 35 Celsius pending on your location.
"Don't tell Al Gore, but global warming is taking a holiday in Sacramento this week. The maximum temperatures Sunday and Monday set records each day -- as the coolest "highs" for the dates since record-keeping began in 1877.
Forecasters credit a deep marine layer and a potent low-pressure trough with funneling the cool air this way. It's as if Mother Nature cut herself a wedge of Santa Barbara weather and plopped it down on Sacramento's plate.
We're talking, for once, about the all-time lowest maximums, instead of the all-time highest. Monday's downtown high was just 74 degrees, 3 degrees cooler than the previous record of 77 degrees set in 1906, according to the National Weather Service. Sunday's downtown high of 76 frosted the previous low maximum of 78, set in 1962. "
Sacremento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/312002.html)
All part of extreme weather patterns. Thanks for proving my point.
Yup, you alarmists got it cornered. You say the Global Warming causes extreme cold and hot temperatures; that way no one can argue with you.
It's beyond laughable. How people to believe in your junk science is beyond me.
This thread was about extreme weather, not global warming.
From your original post:
"
The agency found that climate warming was unequivocal and most likely "due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
Anyways, moving on...
The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted, either by critics or data. Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed. But unless the critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data. When it begins to look like predictions of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for. The media mobilize their templates to completely re-cast the information.
This process was fully in evidence yesterday when the global news service Reuters spun a report in Science magazine (which has been quietly starting to warn its readership that maybe it would be prudent to come in a bit from the end of the global warming limb) as if it confirmed the seriousness of global warning, when in fact the report contained devastating information of flaws in the doomsters methodology and warned that the disaster has been postponed.
"Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists."
That's the Reuters headline on an article in this week's Science magazine. But the Science article itself is an artful retreat from previous, over-confident global warming predictions.
Here's the Reuters story
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday." (italics added)
Here is Science magazine's own summary:
"Next Decade's Climate."
"Rising greenhouse gases are changing global climate, but during the next few decades natural climate variations will have a say as well, so researchers are scrambling to factor them in." [italics added]
Notice that the editors of Science repeat the global warming party line, but emphasize the news: Climate modelers are finally "scrambling to factor in" natural variation. That's funny. You would have thought that model-builders would have done that ages ago. You mean they were only doing greenhouse predictions, and ignoring all the rest?
That's the message a lot of scientific readers will get out of this backhanded admission.
For example, write the editors,
"Stirrings in the North Atlantic Ocean today that have nothing to do with the strengthening greenhouse-just natural jostlings of the climate system-could lead to drought in Africa's Sahel in a decade or two, they recognized. ... until now, climate forecasters who worry about what greenhouse gases could be doing to climate have ignored what's happening naturally. Most looked 100 years ahead, far enough so that they could safely ignore what's happening now. No more. In this week's issue, researchers take their first stab at forecasting climate a decade ahead with current conditions in mind. The result is a bit disquieting. Natural climate variability driven by the ocean appears to have held greenhouse warming at bay the past few years ..."
Eeeek! Maybe it's not true at all???
"but the warming, according to the forecast, should come roaring back before the end of the decade..." [italics added]
Phew!! Saved by the end of the sentence!
Now notice what Reuters "news" agency does with this story. According to Science, the big news is that climate modelers are finally, finally factoring in huge natural climate variations. By announcing that big news, they are also admitting that climate modelers have previously ignored nature.
OK. So what's the big new modeling prediction? A graph on the same page (746) of the magazine shows real fluctuations in measured temperatures that average to zero until 1998. Then there's a big peak around 1998, which allows the modelers to claim there was a net rise in temperature in the 90s. But the peak is followed by a trough immediately afterward, in 2000. What makes the trend look upward as a whole is the predicted future temperatures. Those are the ones we haven't seen yet.
In otherwise, data that doesn't exist.
Let's push a little further. The editors begin their Letters section with two interesting headline letters. One is a retraction of an ancient climate event, by the original author who made the claim. The next piece is called The Dangers of Advocacy in Science, by Robert A. Gitzen of the University of Missouri. The out-take from that letter is the following, printed separately in large-sized font: "WOULD ANYONE DISAGREE that publishing overly liberal conclusions is poor science...?"
By publishing and headlining Gitzen's letter is Science once again hinting that all is not well on the global warming front?
What most people don't know is that real science is a giant debating society, filled with skeptics. It is only mature science that is stable and agreed-upon. But mature science comes only after centuries of cumulative evidence, and constant, heated debate. It took 20 centuries after the planets were observed in the night sky, before Newton and Copernicus settled the nature of the solar system. Einstein's Relativity Theory happened three centuries afterwards, and even in his own lifetime, part of Einstein's universe was overthrown by Quantum Mechanics, which Einstein fought all his life. (He was wrong on that).
Climate science is a new kid on the block. It's woefully immature, as shown by the admission in this week's ScienceMag that current climate models have only now attempted to account for natural variation. But how can we tell how much of the observed variation is due to "man-caused global warming" if we don't know how much is due to natural variation? We can't.
This is still very immature science. It's only Reuters and its ideological ilk who feel sure they know the answers. And they aren't interested in real science.
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/twisting_science_to_fit_the_gl.html)
So there's no extreme weather going on?
No more extreme than at any other times in history. And even if there was, can you say it is global warming, and not the earth's natural cycle of weather patterns?
I dunno, this is just a thread about extreme weather for this year around the globe.
For some reason you keep linking this to global warming.
That is because you guys link extreme weather to global warming, because you are knee-jerk alarmists.
Where did I say this was due to global warming?
Where did you say it wasn't?
I did not say it was or it wasn't, because I don't know why it is like that.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.