Record low temperatures in Kansas City

lol, I'd be surprised if I got that question in an interview!

Bull. I was just in Boston recently and it was 90 with almost 90% humidity.

TheHobbyHobbler wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:

So...you want us to consider the Earth's temps over the last 125 years? Are you serious? When the Earth is 4.6 BILLION years and you want us to look at the last 125 years? Seriously?

But, actually, climatologists have access to more extensive data. It might not be as precise as modern records, but scientists mine the natural world (ice, etc.) for indications of prior temperature and climactic conditions. Really, we're not limited to the the last one hundred years.

But, the limited time scale is sort of the point, Sally. The fact that over such a short interval (since the Industrialization - really, in the last century) things have changed so dramatically. That does not square with the long arc climate data.

But things have not changed so dramatically since 1996 when you would think that the Earth's temps would have skyrocketed during that time. China's CO2 emissions during that time have TRIPLED, just as one example, and the Earth's temps have not risen. India's and the US's CO2 emissions during that time have risen dramatically but still the Earth's temps have remained steady. Something just does not seem right.

Boston had a 75 degree dew point on Tuesday. Global warming affirmed!

Something just does not seem right.

Do you know the physical mechanisms that determine how and how much greenhouse gases effect global temperatures?

It's not necessarily a linear thing.

But this goes to my earlier point --- people shouldn't be making determinations by how things "seem". We're not comparing couches.

At the end of the day, unless you're a climate scientist or are otherwise qualified to draw informed conclusions, you basically have two choices:

a) You can go with the vast majority of experts

OR

b) You can cry vast conspiracy

Sorry, it's AFFECT

There you go again. Don't answer the question, just spout the party line.

That's a good warmer.

TheHobbyHobbler wrote:

Something just does not seem right.

Do you know the physical mechanisms that determine how and how much greenhouse gases effect global temperatures?

It's not necessarily a linear thing.

And do you know how much CO2 Emissions contribute to the Greenhouse Effect? Very little. Water Vapor contributes up to 95% to the Greenhouse Effect.

Wang wrote:

There you go again. Don't answer the question, just spout the party line.

That's a good warmer.

Nice pun.

And, I did answer Sally's question. She asked why temperatures haven't continued to rise despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I suggested two things:

a) The relationship between atmospheric carbon etc. and temperature is not linear

b) The fact that gut instinct and casual observations of weather don't accord with some imagined sense of what global warming should look like doesn't mean that global warming isn't occurring. This kind of homespun analysis (Sally and Wang are just two examples), often driven by anti-elitism/anti-intellectualism, is a dangerous force in politics, and a reason why the will of the people is no guarantor that the best or most empirically validated ideas and practices will win out in Washington.

Sally, keep it up! You're close to SHUTTING DOWN this warmer!

Sally Vixxxxens wrote:

TheHobbyHobbler wrote:

Do you know the physical mechanisms that determine how and how much greenhouse gases effect global temperatures?

It's not necessarily a linear thing.

And do you know how much CO2 Emissions contribute to the Greenhouse Effect? Very little. Water Vapor contributes up to 95% to the Greenhouse Effect.

That's because the Greenhouse Effect is a natural and good thing. It's a life-sustaining feature of the atmosphere.

But you know what they say about too much of a good thing, Sally.

This is a pretty sad wing-nut echo chamber.

Where are the other reasoned posters?

Wang wrote:

On the east coast, we have had a cool summer, a frigid winter, and so far another moderate summer punctuated by the current epic cool couple of days. I can't recall many July mornings as cool as this morning.

This is not a day here or there. The east coast has been cool-ish for going on 18 months.

When are you going to stop saying it's climate change not weather change, or that my neighborhood is not the globe, or whatever other warmer-logic catch phrase is popular?

It's not party catch-phrase, it is results of actual studies.

Why do you think a retort of "it's seemed colder here for a year and a half!!!" is a sufficient argument? Do you know how fallacious that thinking is?

Start with this, an excellent documentary series covers all the issues: "Years of Living Dangerously," just completed on Showtime:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/years-of-living-dangerously-premiere-full-episode/

Wang wrote:

On the east coast, we have had a cool summer, a frigid winter, and so far another moderate summer punctuated by the current epic cool couple of days. I can't recall many July mornings as cool as this morning.

This is not a day here or there. The east coast has been cool-ish for going on 18 months.

When are you going to stop saying it's climate change not weather change, or that my neighborhood is not the globe, or whatever other warmer-logic catch phrase is popular?

If you were from British Columbia or Alaska you would be saying the exact opposite over that timeframe since it has been a-typically warm. Who then, would be right? The overwhelming majority of people on the planet would give the benefit of doubt to thermometers and detailed time comparisons of the data by specialists. Have you asked yourself why you find this very sensible option to be incredible?

Why would we care what the temperature is in Britain?

TheHobbyHobbler wrote:

This is a pretty sad wing-nut echo chamber.

Where are the other reasoned posters?

Tired of answering the same idiotic gotcha denialisms.

Yeah, I hear ya. Also, too many damn trolls.

8/10. These threads almost always work!