3rd Coldest Winter in American History

[bshole]

After years of denial they finally admit that the pause is happening. They then turn around and double down on the man forced climate disaster mantra. Basically what the climate scientists are saying is that man forced global climate change is not falsifiable.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...921998-9fe5-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

A pause in the pace of global warming does not invalidate research that links climate change to human activity, national science academies in the United States and the United Kingdom said in a joint report last week.

While the science in some areas of climate change continues to evolve, man’s contribution to warming, sea-level increases and the decline in Arctic sea ice is “more certain than ever,” according to the academies.

This is more important than ever given that the supremes are setting up to rule on EPA meddling in the US Economy. This case is massively huge and has the potential to trigger massive losses in the stock market. It sickens me that so called scientists now have the clout to crumple entire economic markets by simple chicken littling with little to no evidence for their crackpot theories.

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear challenges to an Obama administration greenhouse gas regulation.

The program in question is the Environmental Protection Agency's permitting process for industry sources, which includes coal-fired power plants, chemical facilities and oil refineries.


In 2010, the EPA said its emissions standards for passenger cars "triggered" a need to regulate greenhouse gas pollutants under permits for new facilities because the gases were deemed an endangerment to "public health or welfare."

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is allowed to review permits to determine if necessary technologies that would help limit pollution are being used in the construction and powering of plants.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2...hs-epa-authority-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases

 

[Subyman]

Can't have a weather discussion without a full blown debate on global warming. It's cute how everyone has a PhD in meteorology.

 

[fskimospy]

Can't have a weather discussion without a full blown debate on global warming. It's cute how everyone has a PhD in meteorology.

One thing that's funny is that meteorology != climatology.

The OP tried to say that a cold winter in America was evidence against global warming. That is obviously stupid.

 

[Geosurface]

 

[Subyman]

One thing that's funny is that meteorology != climatology.

The OP tried to say that a cold winter in America was evidence against global warming. That is obviously stupid.

Both are in the same discipline Mr. Specific.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not sure, is it called global warming or American warming?

Amazing, the levels of dishonesty people exhibit to deny science.

Yeah, we don't want to deny science. Let's just skip to a completely futile and stupid gesture in the name of preventing climate change. Which shall it be today? Carbon tax, banning SUVs, high-speed trains to nowhere, or direct transfer payments to poor countries? Maybe taxpayer subsidies for alternative power presuming you've been able to finally decide whether you prefer to kill migratory birds with windmills or solar?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, we don't want to deny science. Let's just skip to a completely futile and stupid gesture in the name of preventing climate change. Which shall it be today? Carbon tax, banning SUVs, high-speed trains to nowhere, or direct transfer payments to poor countries? Maybe taxpayer subsidies for alternative power presuming you've been able to finally decide whether you prefer to kill migratory birds with windmills or solar?

Nah, let's just implement a cap and trade system.

Nice rage flameout though, you're always good for a few of those.

 

[Subyman]

Nah, let's just implement a cap and trade system.

Nice rage flameout though, you're always good for a few of those.

Just wondering, why even discuss climate change with people that deny it? They obviously haven't had a science course outside of high school. The major mechanisms behind climate change are well understood, its the long term ramifications that are being studied in the scientific community. That's where my comment came in. It is funny to me that deniers claim to have a grasp of all the concepts surrounding climate change needed to make an informed decision, the equivalent of a PhD or MS.

 

[Jaskalas]

Can't have a weather discussion without a full blown debate on global warming. It's cute how everyone has a PhD in meteorology.

The OP did not simply post on the weather. If he did that'd belong in OT.

This is P&N, all the news that's fit to politicize.

 

[glenn1]

Nah, let's just implement a cap and trade system.

Nice rage flameout though, you're always good for a few of those.

If climate change is that dangerous, why the half hearted pansy-ass measures like cap and trade? You're not driving structural change away from fossil fuels with that approach whatsover. All you're doing is shunting money to less developed countries selling offset credits or even further driving manufacturing and other carbon-intensive activities to those places outright. Which I don't really care about since I could give a rats ass if we lose a few more union jobs in the U.S., but do China, Vietnam, Bangaladesh, and other 3rd world countries really need more of our low-value add industrial sectors?

 

[fskimospy]

Just wondering, why even discuss climate change with people that deny it? They obviously haven't had a science course outside of high school. The major mechanisms behind climate change are well understood, its the long term ramifications that are being studied in the scientific community. That's where my comment came in. It is funny to me that deniers claim to have a grasp of all the concepts surrounding climate change needed to make an informed decision, the equivalent of a PhD or MS.

I will agree that a lot of that is pretty strange. I can't think of another scientific discipline where people claim to be more knowledgeable than experts in the field on such a regular basis. It's amazing how often you see people on here calling climatologists idiots or claiming they have made some elementary error, etc, based on basically nothing.

I understand the idea that debating someone who is clinging to climate change denialism like a religion might be pointless. The only problem is that we're stuck with these fools and in the end we need their help on climate change. Maybe it is useless for most, but I feel like some people can still be reached and we need everyone we can get.

 

[fskimospy]

If climate change is that dangerous, why the half hearted pansy-ass measures like cap and trade? You're not driving structural change away from fossil fuels with that approach whatsover. All you're doing is shunting money to less developed countries selling offset credits or even further driving manufacturing and other carbon-intensive activities to those places outright. Which I don't really care about since I could give a rats ass if we lose a few more union jobs in the U.S., but do China, Vietnam, Bangaladesh, and other 3rd world countries really need more of our low-value add industrial sectors?

Cap and trade schemes are a good market based answer for controlling emissions. This is well backed by research. You also at the same time invest in energy solutions that don't release carbon.

Basically, the easiest way of looking at it is if you have the cure to a terrible disease and you think that the solution is under box A or box B, which do you lift?

The obvious answer is that you lift both boxes.

 

[Subyman]

I will agree that a lot of that is pretty strange. I can't think of another scientific discipline where people claim to be more knowledgeable than experts in the field on such a regular basis. It's amazing how often you see people on here calling climatologists idiots or claiming they have made some elementary error, etc, based on basically nothing.

I understand the idea that debating someone who is clinging to climate change denialism like a religion might be pointless. The only problem is that we're stuck with these fools and in the end we need their help on climate change. Maybe it is useless for most, but I feel like some people can still be reached and we need everyone we can get.

I agree, which is why I finally got my family deferring to the experts instead of conspiracy websites, their Facebook feed, and faux news. Typically, the P&N board isn't a good place to reach people haha. A large part of my thesis was dedicated to climate change, and even I have gotten tired of talking to deniers (normally the same people that believe in the "great flood" with noah's ark and such.)

 

[Subyman]

If climate change is that dangerous, why the half hearted pansy-ass measures like cap and trade? You're not driving structural change away from fossil fuels with that approach whatsover. All you're doing is shunting money to less developed countries selling offset credits or even further driving manufacturing and other carbon-intensive activities to those places outright. Which I don't really care about since I could give a rats ass if we lose a few more union jobs in the U.S., but do China, Vietnam, Bangaladesh, and other 3rd world countries really need more of our low-value add industrial sectors?

Because it gives an economic incentive to reduce GHGs. That is the easiest way to motivate change within the global community.

 

[desy]

Hey BS
From your article
“The key point is that the stasis — slowdown — as people have termed it over the last 15 years, does not fundamentally invalidate our understanding of the human effects on climate.”
Further, its a slowdown, its still getting warmer just not as fast, its not ACTUALLY cooling

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

One arctic blast after another. I have never experienced weather this brutal and prolonged. I am very interested to see how global warming theorists spin this one. At this point it is getting a bit embarassing for them.

Thanks for disproving your own (wrong) thoughts. Because of global warming, that means there is more energy in our atmosphere, which means more storms, both summer storms and winter storms.

So your "brutal" winter is more proof of global warming.....good job proving yourself wrong!

Link

Link

 

[HomerJS]

I only had to read the title and recognize the misplaced arrogance that equates temps in the US this winter in any way to global climate.

Then I saw that worldwide map.

 

[dainthomas]

Thanks for disproving your own (wrong) thoughts. Because of global warming, that means there is more energy in our atmosphere, which means more storms, both summer storms and winter storms.

So your "brutal" winter is more proof of global warming.....good job proving yourself wrong!

Link

Link

The great thing about global warming is that literally every conceivable event is proof of it. Hard to go wrong there.

 

[ivwshane]

The great thing about global warming is that literally every conceivable event is proof of it. Hard to go wrong there.

^


Another "science expert" here!

 

[bshole]

Thanks for disproving your own (wrong) thoughts. Because of global warming, that means there is more energy in our atmosphere, which means more storms, both summer storms and winter storms.

So your "brutal" winter is more proof of global warming.....good job proving yourself wrong!

If that is true, why was the worst documented winter in America over 100 years ago? According to your "science", the more brutal winters should be happening now and not in the past.

 

[hal2kilo]

the upside is that apparently the cold weather has decimated some invasive insect species, so hopefully it'll be a nice summer.

I lived through the worst 3 winters of ,my life in Rogers Park (Chicago) back in the late 70's. 1 year record cold, 2 years record snow. Hell, that's why Bulandik lost to a Jane Byrn due to his lousey handling of the snow removal.

You can't pay me enough money to live in that God forsaken weather of the mid-west.

 

[Jaskalas]

I lived through the worst 3 winters of ,my life in Rogers Park (Chicago) back in the late 70's. 1 year record cold, 2 years record snow. Hell, that's why Bulandik lost to a Jane Byrn due to his lousey handling of the snow removal.

You can't pay me enough money to live in that God forsaken weather of the mid-west.

Do you remember the thermometer readings from those years?

My parents tell me they had highs of -20f in Rockford, IL back in the 70s. I'm curious if you recall it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Do you remember the thermometer readings from those years?

My parents tell me they had highs of -20f in Rockford, IL back in the 70s. I'm curious if you recall it.

Oh yea, I had to walk the dog first thing in the dark am. Many times it was below -20F with no wind chill. My sinuses would be frozen shut by the end of the walk. I swear the damn dog had no sense of cold, he could care less.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As it happens I live in one of the coldest major cities in the US (and the world, for that matter), and even I know that the premise of this thread is ridiculous.

January of this year, while very cold in the US, was the fourth warmest January ever recorded worldwide. http://www.weather.com/news/science...mest-record-continuing-warming-trend-20140220 The fact that it was very cold in North America doesn't overcome this reality, nor does it mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that global warming is not a reality.

 

[dphantom]

Just wondering, why even discuss climate change with people that deny it? They obviously haven't had a science course outside of high school. The major mechanisms behind climate change are well understood, its the long term ramifications that are being studied in the scientific community. That's where my comment came in. It is funny to me that deniers claim to have a grasp of all the concepts surrounding climate change needed to make an informed decision, the equivalent of a PhD or MS.

There is no one that denies climate changes. That is absurd. The major mechanisms are not well understood yet. Otherwise, our climate models would actually be accurate to a reasonable degree.

The argument has always been over how much GHG's contribute to warming or cooling. And the science is far from settled on that. Are we warmer today than in 1850? Probably. Are we warmer than the Medieval Warming Period? Probably not but more research needs to be done.

http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html