Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on January 11, 2019, 08:47:57 PM
-
just happened ....
I had no idea and haven’t heard a peep about this.
Here is the article I just read
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html
-
Just more proof of man made globular warmulating
-
If
Liberals socialists can make money on it, it's AGW, if not it's weather.
-
Just more proof of man made globular warmulating
Global warming is so 2010. It's Climate Change. Busy hurricane season? Climate change. Freezing in Florida? Climate change. Rain in Cali? Climate change.
-
Global warming is so 2010. It's Climate Change. Busy hurricane season? Climate change. Freezing in Florida? Climate change. Rain in Cali? Climate change.
You forgot:
"I caught the flu because of climate change."
"The earthquake was because of climate change."
"Business is down because of climate change."
"I don't have rent money because of climate change."
-
From the same article.
None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend. Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. Another point is both February 1998 and February 2016 were peak El Niño months so the record declines are starting from high peaks—but it's also true that there have been many other peak El Niño months in the past century and none were followed by such dramatic cooling.
It would be more significant if it wasn't such a short term.
The traditional definition of climate is the 30-year average of weather.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-above-average-temperatures-climate.html
-
It’s a “balanced” article, not anti man made climate change.
The more you read the scientists who are less impressed with consensus, who aren’t trying to shoe horn all data or hypothesis into the AGW narrative, the more you realize we really don’t know the extent of our impact on global temps.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to stop dumping millions of tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and/or changing the chemical composition of of the atmosphere. Not knowing the impact should be enough reason to tread lightly.
-
(https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg)
-
One of those things is not like the others.
-
Again, I fully believe the climate changes.
I also fully believe that we puny humans have diddlely-squat to do with it.
-
It’s a “balanced” article, not anti man made climate change.
The more you read the scientists who are less impressed with consensus, who aren’t trying to shoe horn all data or hypothesis into the AGW narrative, the more you realize we really don’t know the extent of our impact on global temps.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to stop dumping millions of tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and/or changing the chemical composition of of the atmosphere. Not knowing the impact should be enough reason to tread lightly.
I'm not arguing for or against man made global warming. Two years is an anomaly when talking about climate.
-
Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it.
"Does not rely on observed warming"....
That sounds like a lot of (bad) economics I know about....
-
Mistaking models for reality and confusing probabilities/statistics for reality is a common thing.
Conflating them with reproducible empirical science is also a thing.
I’m not knocking statistical analysis , it’s just in a different category.
-
My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story.
That is a good point and I ignored it.
-
One of those things is not like the others.
Correct. Obviously, then, the data are wrong, so we'll just adjust it to fit the models.
There, wasn't that easy? Don't be a denier.