Its 70 degress right now in Louisiana in mid July! THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!

It's the jetstream. And look what's happening out West.

Polar vortex.

Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:

No Way - you continue with the "on record" stuff, completely ignoring the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and you only want to look at like 140 years or so. Also, scientists have looked at tree-ring proxies and concluded that the Middle Ages were warmer than anything today.

Jesus you are tiresome. Yes, in the past 4.54 billion years Earth has been both colder (globally) and warmer (globally) than it is now. Christ, are you satisfied with that statement?

It doesn't change the *fact* that the planet overall is getting warmer NOW than, say, within the last couple hundred years. Humans aren't much concerned with how hot it was during the Silurian.

In addition, scientists HAVE NOT "concluded that the Middle Ages were warmer than anything today." Here's one research paper, among many:

Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, S. Rutherford, R. Bradley, M.K. Hughes, D. Shindell, C. Ammann, G. Faluvegi, and F. Ni, 2009: Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science, 326, 1256-1260, doi:10.1126/science.1177303.

"Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. . . . The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally."

[NOTE: A link to actual research, and not to a newspaper or blog "summary."]

Yes, as near as we can tell, for a while EUROPE was warm during part of the Middle Ages. That does not mean THE PLANET was--and in fact, as this *actual research* indicates, it was not.

I'm sorry you're so offended by "on record"--I too wish we had good planet-wide temperature data for the last X thousand years, but we don't. The data we DO have make it clear that the planet as a whole is warming, and that's what people are concerned about.

This trope always works, and I've bitten before, but come on guys:

5/10

Some or your points are valid. But can we agree that the Earth has not warmed since 1996 (or 1998)? Even the IPCC Report V concedes that. A few other points:

1) Global Cooling was the "in thing" in the 1970s. But that never happened. Instead, you contend we are in a period of Global Warming. But whose to say that Global Cooling won't be the "in thing" yet again. It already looks like it might be happening.

2) After Katrina, all the Global Warming Alarmists predicted more frequent and more severe hurricanes. Yet, Wilma was the last major hurricane to hit the US and that was a DECADE ago.

3) Most of the catastrophic hurricanes have occurred prior to 1970. Like 80%. Why is that if Global Warming causes much more severe weather?

4) Why have Global Warming "scientists" been reduced to cooking the books (data)? Because the data does not support what they claim?

I have a few more but have work to do.

1) The globe is not cooling by any measurement.2)The US isn't the globe, there have in fact been more severe storms (even in the US).3)Um..There have been 35 Cat 5 hurricanes recorded. 16 of them have occurred since 1970. That's 45%. In fact, the decade with the most Cat 5's on record is 2000-2009.4)There has not been widespread "cooking of the books" unless you mean the downplaying of data supporting climate change by those with a financial interest in "business as usual"

Thanks for your civil response to my less-civil post. I too have stuff to do, so this may be my last in this sequence.

1) The paper I linked to indicates that, in fact, global cooling DOES NOT "already look[] like it might be happening."

I am always open to data from good sources and would be happy if you would provide links to other scientific research that supports your statement. NB: Newspapers, blogs, and other general-reader publications do not qualify as "research."

2) Please provide a link to any scientific research from appropriate journals that shows a prediction from climate scientists that hurricanes would be more frequent and severe after Katrina.

This is not a rhetorical request; the very most I was ever able to find was a couple who conceded that, post-Katrina, hurricanes might be more frequent/severe; but they hedged so much that I couldn't honestly call their statements "predictions."

3) Having lived in a couple of hurricane-prone states, I've long thought of the storms as pretty random. IS global warming supposed to "cause[] much more severe weather"? Again, I can't recall having seen that in any relevant journal, but would be delighted (sincerely) to get a link.

4) Again, though I have heard about this I haven't actually seen it. Would truly appreciate appropriate links!

Thanks again. I keep an open mind in this area--which, once I started reviewing research, is how I switched from being a denialist to accepting AGW--and am ready to change my opinion(s) if and when the data change!

PS My exasperated response was specifically related only to the "on record" quibble, which to me seems a genuinely unhelpful addition to any of these discussions.

Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:

1) Global Cooling was the "in thing" in the 1970s.

No, it was not. Newsweek Magazine ran a story to this effect in 1975 that has become infamous for its misuse by partisan flacks like Hannity and others, and it's worked because of ignorant people like you. There was never anything resembling a broad consensus on the matter -- not even close -- and scientists' instruments have become a lot more sophisticated and their efforts more details and widespread in the past four decades.

I guess I should have read ahead to your 2, 3, and 4 so I would have known for sure that you're just trolling, but no harm, the article I linked to is worth a read.

Sally is known for making statements without being able to provide any evidence, so don't expect a response to this.

No Way - I know I hard about the Earth's temps not warming since 1996 or 1998 but my source for that is IPCC 5. That is my source for that contention.

harp

And as far as scientific journals (sources) predicting more frequent and severe hurricanes - I don't recall which exactly (perhaps all) but check out the IPCC reports (maybe 2, 3, 4 and 5) and I recall all predicted more severe and frequent hurricane activity. Again, Wilma was last major (Cat 3, 4 or 5) to hit mainland US since 2005.

It's 90 degrees right now in Minnesota in mid July! With 67% humidity! THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Correct that, it just went up to 91 degrees here.

I will state definitively that it is not possible to decide with 100% confidence that there is, or that there is not, global climate change over any window of time whatsoever. By extension, the question of suggested reasons for suggested changes is not definitively answerable.

Yes, I understand confidence intervals and sophisticated models. Having done modeling myself, what I understand is that I would need to know precise details of the models in question in order to make an informed interpretation of their results, and of the input data, and of the required quality of that data.

I could make an informed decision about climate change, but quite honestly I have determined that it isn't a wise use of my limited time. I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE ENOUGH TO MAKE A DETAILED INQUIRY INTO THE SCIENCE, which is the only way to make an informed decision...so I have no opinion. Furthermore, it is entirely useless to listen to the opinion of anybody who is not themselves a climate scientist. Furthermore, any real climate scientist will tell you that they can only answer very specific questions, and only with a certain measure of certainty, with a million-and-one qualifiers.

I can't stand when morons attempt to translate modeling of large-scale phenomena for the masses. It is an entirely useless exercise.

Look--EVEN IF there is detrimental climate change caused by human activity, at our current rate of global population growth, the climatological effects of any behavioral changes will quickly be more-than-offset by additional burdens placed on the system solely--SOLELY--as a result of that increased population.

Yes, I have seen the projections of when the world population is supposed to level off--maybe. Today, 7 billion. In 35 years, projected to be somewhere around 10 billion.

We have ALREADY fished out the oceans, depleted million-year-old aquifers, desertified vast areas by changing watercourses, fouled once-potable water sources, and forced marginal land into production through the application of petrochemical fertilizers and herbicides/pesticides.

There are ALREADY too many people on the planet. I once calculated it, and I forget the number I arrived at, but it was something like 147 additional people on the planet every minute of every hour of every day. Exactly how are behavioral changes going to compensate for that? They answer is that they're not.

They are not unimportant, because even without that future growth, we are screwed if we don't change how we behave, in the aggregate--and I'm not talking just industrialized nations, I'm talking about the Brazilian indians who burn down vast tracts of rainforest, I'm talking about uneducated Afghanis who dam rivers and create deserts, I'm talking about Indians living on the edge, who literally live amid their own excrement.

And by "screwed", I'm NOT INCLUDING ANY CONSIDERATION OF SO-CALLED CLIMATE CHANGE. FORGET ABOUT THAT, YOU DON'T NEED TO CONSIDER IT TO REALIZE THAT WE ARE SCREWED.

I also don't believe those who find "efficiencies" in how we do things to make a huge difference--I never, ever hear how all their great savings are offset by population growth.

So forget about so-called "climate change", and start thinking about the REAL elephant in the room--population size and growth.

If everybody in the world wants to be rich, and act rich--and make no mistake, most do--there have to be vastly less people on the planet. I would favor a world with only a billion people who all lived like kings, over a world with 10 billion who all lived a very measured, frugal life.

Living a measured and frugal life limits your range of experiences, options, and shapes your imagination in a direction that deals with the most pressing concerns--frugality, economy, and minimalism.

I will confess that I absolutely LOVE the idea of a B-1 bomber, the Tsar Bomba, the Saturn V, graphene, Lamborghinis, cold-water lobster plates, truffles, rose oil, Swarovski EL binoculars, Henry Moore sculptures, the Egg in Albany, Brasilia, the VLA, the Hubble, the study of philosophy and the classics, the Olympic Games, and other ultra-inefficient human enterprises.

To me, a world that includes all of those things--ALL of those things--is a better world than one that includes only some of them, or none of them. And make no mistake, they are all very inefficient.

I also love efficiency, but as an aesthetic, not as a necessary condition. I hypermile all the time in my tiny Honda; why do I do this if I love Lambo's? Because I love both ideas, speed, power, and style, AND efficiency, simultaneously. I love biking even more, because it's even more efficient, which I find terribly amusing. I do it because I like it, I like what efficiency means. I'm probably among the most efficiency-obsessed people you could ever meet--I walk/cycle everywhere, live in a small apartment with my family, buy stuff that lasts forever, buy tons of used/recycled stuff, love the local farmer's market and friend's gardens, etc.

But I wouldn't want anybody to be forced into liking what I like or being like me, by necessity. I can like it all, because it is all possible: efficiency AND inefficiency. That is what makes for a balanced individual at the level of individual psychology: I can, and have, ridden my bike to my eminently-impractical cosmology classes. I have flown jet fighters AND sailplanes. I have enjoyed boating in a tunnel hull, and in a 505. I love nuclear plants AND wind turbines.

This is the kind of free world that we need, not one where everybody is constrained in their activities and imaginations, by the necessity imposed by unchecked population growth.

And YES, we have done our part--no kids yet, and if we have one now, we will be below the replacement rate.

"Climate change"? It is, at best, a SYMPTOM and not the CAUSE of the PROBLEM: OVERPOPULATION.