Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
You will get it, but locally only and typically for less than 10 days. Greater temperature volatility is a product of more extreme N/S wander of the Jet Stream, indirectly caused by Polar region warming faster than the mid latitudes, at least in the Northern hemisphere.
I. e. It is that delining temperature gradient that is causing the West to East momentum of the Jet Stream to decrease, making it easier for new cold records, especially south of Canada and new heat records north of the US to be set.
If a mass of arctic air moves further South, then somewhere else along that latitude line, a mass of warmer than normal air moves farther north - all the result of and predicted by the theory / growing understanding of AGW.
This change, (greater temperature volatility), can have large economic effect, especially in your food cost. For example, a mass of freezing Arctic air that moves into Kansas just as the spring crops there have sprouted, it can kill them and as that mass has low water vapor in it, the relative humidity drastically falls as it warms. That makes replanting the crop, in dryer soil, not only costly but also with less yield per acre, even if second planting does sprout.
You also asked: "How much will it cost?" - I don't know, your guess is a good as mine, which is about 10% more in your food bill directly due to AGW.
Last edited by a moderator:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
If you gotta ask, You can't afford it.
.....................
Our local meteorologists new mantra is: "Another record setting cold..."
...
MASON CITY, Iowa (AP) — An arctic winter weather system hovering over Iowa has led to several record-breaking cold temperature readings in the state.
The National Weather Service says Mason City hit a record low of 18 degrees below zero at 6 a.m. Friday, shattering its 115-year-old record for February 27rg of 12-below, set in 1899.
Waterloo also reached a record low of 24-below zero on Friday. The previous record of 14-below was set in 1897.
Records were also broken Friday in Dubuque and Elkader. Dubuque reached a low of 21-below Friday morning, well below the record of 12-below set in 1879, and Elkader had a Friday reading of 28-below. The previous record had been 18-below set in 1935.
..........
Residents of Dubuque and Elkader, Iowa, have endured back-to-back days of record-setting cold.
Temperatures in Dubuque reached 17 degrees below zero this morning, besting the previous record of 10 below set in 1962. A record low temperature of 21 degrees below zero was recorded Friday morning, significantly colder than the previous Feb. 27 all-time low of minus-12 set in 1879.
Conditions were even more frigid in Elkader, where a record low of 30 degrees below zero was recorded. According to the National Weather Service, the Clayton County community was the coldest spot in Iowa this morning.
The end of February brought frigid temperatures to much of the tri-state area.
On Friday, Manchester, Iowa, saw temperatures dip to 26 degrees below zero; Galena, Ill., 25 below; and Maquoketa, Iowa, 24 below.
Temperatures of 16 below were reported Friday in McGregor, Iowa, and Lancaster, Wis. Residents in Cuba City, Wis., and Tennyson, Wis., also suffered through double digit-below-zero temperatures.
............
And, I expect the real climate science deniers to say:
It's only local, and it's only weather-------not climate...
milkweed said:
If you cant (or dont want to bother) answering the question/point being made by sticking with the topic, rather choosing to wander down a political affiliation path or made up type I denier labels, and trying to categorise my position by something you pretend to be familiar with weelll then you are just another troll looking for attention.
Cold is bad...
All you are sayyyying...isss stuff... I.. ob...serve.
I know this stuff is going on. This is in fact ACC happening before our eyes. It is in fact the result of man made methods to control the climate (for a myriad of reasons/purposes) gone awry. The have gotten hold of a tiger by the tail and cannot afford to let go. Rather than come clean to the public about what is really going on, they have to lie and come up with various and sundry dishonest explanations for what people are really experiencing while simultaneously attempting to reign in the frankenstein monster now rampaging across the globe... trying to put the genii back in the bottle. We don't know where all this is heading at this point. But, I know this (to your point about stewardship of the planet), they will be held responsible being called to account for what they have done and what they are continuing to do--including the ongoing, ever expanding, web of lies and obfuscation.
Easy prediction - examine physical reality, and it practically makes itself.
Any time you want to present some science for people to deny, feel free.
As far as the Iowa scene, if you recall we had in Minnesota - just to the north - what was accurately labeled the fifth most severe winter in measured history just a couple years ago - and to my knowledge (informal checking) did not set a single 24 hour low temperature record at any location in the State. This one is looking similar, except the snow moved east some.
So not only is it local, it's not even - by historical standards - all that cold. It's a long, freezing, cold snap winter - and the cold snaps are having trouble staying below zero F, even, let alone the 20 and 30 and 40 below, even in the daytime, we have on record from the past.
The fossil fuel dependency? The artificial CO2 boost? Why yes, that's a fair description.
Your question was answered two or three times, by different people making the same point - you have confused temperature at ground level with radiation flux from the sky. You did not understand the findings as reported. Other people are not unsure how their instruments captured a rising temperature trend, because that's not what their instruments captured or were meant to capture. You are unsure about something you have invented to be confused about.milkweed said:
A glance at this seems to put the last few days and weeks well within the norms: https://weatherspark.com/averages/30956/3/Minneapolis-Minnesota-United-States https://weatherspark.com/averages/30956/2/Minneapolis-Minnesota-United-States
And that is for a serious cold snap. Our serious cold snaps are what used to be normally cold days - or nights, rather.
Last edited:
Not at all!
The planet is definitely warming (mean) and heating/cooling ( dynamic range) simultaneously from both anthropogenic and natural reasons. IMO
The God you speak of doesn't exist.
However massive holes in scientific knowledge do.
I mean ... let's face it, science by your own admission can not even adequately explain lightning!
How are they, the climate scientists, going to explain something as complex as what is happening with any degree of accuracy?
I suggest that an increase in Lightning may act as beneficial natural loop in dealing with CH4 and you accuse me of claiming hidden Acts of God...sheesh!Billy T said:
Billy T said:
Here in Melbourne was have had two massive storms in recent times that our own BOM have failed to predict ( no storm warnings issued until after the event ) The latest storm (2 days ago) described by many as cyclonic of all things...
Which indicates that some extreme weather is seriously defying most if not all modelling they have to work with.
Last edited:
Yes and it is worth noting that this year the record breaking is not minor but significant in degree.
One can only wonder, if the trend continues, just how cold next year is going to get and how great the degree of separation between record and new record is going to be...
Wave "Slurpy" 4 days ago NewEngland.
src: http://www.staywildmagazine.com/news/2015/2/24/the-slurpee-waves-of-nantucket
Last edited:
Funny thought:
Imagines in the not too distant future, most of the Northern hemisphere frozen solid during Winter and some of Spring, and climate scientists still claiming GW !!
Imagines in the not too distant future, most of the Northern hemisphere frozen solid during Winter and some of Spring, and climate scientists still claiming GW !!
Last edited:
I am aware you do not pay attention to details sooo..
I
w
i
l
l
t
y
p
e
s
l
o
w
e
r
I am also aware you have not read the paper in Nature and are just winging it.
HERE IS WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID *Note the bold*
article said:
What I said was the temp trend in OK is declining at surrounding sites (via GISS).
NOTE new info follows --->
Barrow (which is where the 2nd station maybe located though they refer to it as the North Slope site so it could be out in the oil fields in ANWAR for all I know) is showing warming in that decade referenced. Like a 2 degree trend.
Soo how do you attribute a giant leap in Barrow with 22 ppm vs a decline in Oklahoma with 22 ppm?
Yeah, I am skeptical of what is being presented.
Are you aware that I have read the posts here, and was commenting on them? You claimed to be unsure of how instruments measuring a surface temperature decrease and instruments measuring a surface temperature increase could be squared. Their instruments were not measuring surface temperature., so the contradiction ( and therefore your problem, as posted here) does not exist.milkweed said:
What I was "winging" was your source of the surface temperature data you claimed showed a contradictory decrease. I doubted it, on principle, based on your prior use of sources, but didn't care.
But thank you for clarifying - it's worse than I imagined: you aren't even talking about the same freaking surface location. So your difficulty is what, exactly? Are you confused about the circumstance that for various reasons - as has been repeated some thousand times here and everywhere - the influence of the CO2 boost is expected to be much more immediate and dramatic at higher latitudes generally? By the fact that surface temps at different locations have different governing influences and patterns, including multi-year oscillations etc?
My guess: like many, many other people, due to a steady diet of wingnut argument from manipulative, political agenda based, sources, you have had inculcated an overall or intuitive picture of the AGW argument as one of steady increase in temperature on each square foot of the earth's surface due to the constant warming influence of the CO2 in the air above them. That framing is a deliberately created and reinforced item of disinformation, which I know to be intrinsic to the propaganda content of the sources you keep posting from, and explains your odd confusion perfectly.
You intuitively, as basic approach or frame, expect a given increase in CO2 to have a given effect - on everything (IR, temperatures, humidity, ice melt, snowfall amounts, cloud cover, etc etc etc) everywhere. You see contradiction in the discovery of differences of any kind.
You are being played by your sources.
Last edited:
Played by My Sources?? LOL
Imagination indeed.
From Trippys link:
You attempts at deflection are not working well. The question remains, How can they attribute 22ppm to anything they observed when what they observed was both warming and cooling?
Oh wait...
CO2 causes warming (and cooling)
CO2 causes drought (and flooding)
CO2 causes rain (and snow)....
@ Milkweed,
Perhaps these two doodles for graphs might help, maybe not..
This would be the usually simple and intuitive trend if one thinks of each vertical line as being a decade.
However the situation is far from simple or intuitive.
This one shows temperatures both increasing and decreasing with the mean temperature still climbing.
(Please ignore the comment about "no green house gas causality" as it is (incorrect to state that*)
* I haven't bothered to amend the diagram sorry...
I hope this helps and forgive me if I am reading your concerns incorrectly.
Even with geothermal temperature increases and no GHG Model A could possibly be the outcome. However there is evidence to support GHG's and none to strongly support geothermal at present.
Theoretically this means that you could have a frozen northern hemisphere and still have global warming... which sounds absurd but that's the way averaging can work I guess...
Perhaps these two doodles for graphs might help, maybe not..
This would be the usually simple and intuitive trend if one thinks of each vertical line as being a decade.
However the situation is far from simple or intuitive.
This one shows temperatures both increasing and decreasing with the mean temperature still climbing.
(Please ignore the comment about "no green house gas causality" as it is (incorrect to state that*)
* I haven't bothered to amend the diagram sorry...
I hope this helps and forgive me if I am reading your concerns incorrectly.
Even with geothermal temperature increases and no GHG Model A could possibly be the outcome. However there is evidence to support GHG's and none to strongly support geothermal at present.
Theoretically this means that you could have a frozen northern hemisphere and still have global warming... which sounds absurd but that's the way averaging can work I guess...
Last edited:
Sad to see it Photizo especially given that it is demonstrated globally on a daily basis... and more of course...
One of the more immediate concerns I have is that "global investment" both macro and micro appears to becoming shaky. The stock markets, foreign exchange rates etc are all showing signs of stress, as investors may start to loose confidence in the future.. This may manifest in significant terms as early as late 2015 early 2016 IMO.. I do hope my prediction is ill founded but after this years Northern Chill and events in both Middle East, Ukraine and recent assassination of the Russian Opposition leader, I guess many investors maybe starting to get uhm... cold feet. The ramifications of an investment melt down (macro and micro) will be terribly significant on how the world copes with climate change in the immediate future. IMO
Last edited:
Not when you consider the reports of serious oxygen decline at high altitudes. (Currently I believe, all high altitude test reporting is off limits last I looked and all we have in the public domain is sea level testing) and all those thousands of jet engines traveling around the world burn up an awful lot of oxygen...by the hour.
And what is worse is that I do not believe any one has done the research to work out just how long we can keep on burning oxygen like this before we all suffocate. Certainly not publicly anyhow.
Maybe we should make it a sciforum's project and do some real math and predicting....?
And what is worse is that I do not believe any one has done the research to work out just how long we can keep on burning oxygen like this before we all suffocate. Certainly not publicly anyhow.
Maybe we should make it a sciforum's project and do some real math and predicting....?
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
insanity?
couple things
More natural gas is flared off at the wellheads than is used to heat american homes
the biggest users of oil are the US military followed by the airlines. Civilian vehicles come in a distant third.
when you or i conserve, we have little effect.
couple things
More natural gas is flared off at the wellheads than is used to heat american homes
the biggest users of oil are the US military followed by the airlines. Civilian vehicles come in a distant third.
when you or i conserve, we have little effect.