Meggie Mac: Frankenstorm Proves Climate Change Is Real!
Political analyst Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is challenging widespread GOP skepticism about climate change in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.
“So are we still going to go with climate change not being real fellow republicans [sic]?” McCain wrote, via Twitter, around midnight as the storm was slamming ashore.
Makes as much sense as claiming climate change to be true or false based on a really hot or cold day.
As in: no sense at all.
Ah, to be the large-breasted offspring of a failed presidential candidate. I wonder what it’s like to earn one’s living by uttering nonsense all day.
Speaking of which, here’s David Brooks endorsing Romney. It’s almost enough to make you consider voting for Obama.
I’m joking of course. But you know what I mean.
she’s pimping the storm like her daddy pimped his military service
it’s who they are
happyfeet (502829) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:00 pm“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”?
This moment brought to you by M Twain.
Gazzer (5f8b88) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:02 pmWhat happened to global warming? Seems like an important shift.
LASue (2b0ffb) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:10 pmI don’t know what she means by climate change: As far as i know, no republicans are arguing that the climate doesn’t change.
i guess what she means is if only she’d kept her fat ass off of all those jets all those years all those people would still have homes and stuff like the 9 ones she had growing up
happyfeet (502829) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:14 pmHard to know; different people seem to have different opinions. Mine is that there exists global warming or “climate change”; that the dangers articulated by many appear be overblown; that we should be taking steps to deal with the problem that are beneficial anyway (reduce dependence on fossil fuels and so forth); but that we need not panic and destroy the economy over unproven fears.
Also, that weather is not climate.
You probably will find some Republicans who deny climate change or global warming occurs at all, but I think far more people fall into the category described above: sure, it exists, but relax.
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:19 pmI heard a smart guy compare dealing with global warming to the decision to buy fire or earthquake insurance.
Nobody buys earthquake insurance because the deductible is too high. Sure, an earthquake will destroy your home, but at a giant cost and a $10,000 deductible, the insurance company will go out of business before you collect enough to make it worth it. Fire insurance, though, is worth it, because the cost of dealing with the potential problem is bearable.
You don’t sacrifice everything to address global warming unless you have better evidence that the world will end if you don’t. But why not do the things that don’t cost too much and make sense anyway?
Kinda far afield from the point of the post, I suppose, which is to mock Meghan McCain.
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:22 pmpeople should do the things what “make sense” given their circumstances i think… once our pitiful inept and deeply silly government starts down the road of prescribing what makes sense it invariably humiliates itself by making a complete hash of everything
happyfeet (502829) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:27 pm20 ounces of fail
happyfeet (502829) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:29 pmI won’t comment on Ms. McCain since I find her to be tragically shallow and stupid. If her dad were a Democrat, she would be exactly the type of young woman that Obama has tailored his reelection message to.
Let me just say that I finished reading the David Brooks piece that Patterico linked us to, and it likely represents the apotheosis of his namby-pamby split-the-baby type of moderate Republicanism. To save anyone else the agony of trudging through his piece, his endorsement is basically as follows: Obama’s agenda would be better for the country, but he has poisoned the well so much that the mean House Republicans will never want to work with him and nothing will get done. Meanwhile, Romney is insincere so he will ditch the harder-edges of his conservatism and agree to all the “proper” things such as raising taxes on the rich and scaling back the Ryan budget cuts.
I mean, how silly is Brooks’s worldview that he is pining for a return of a Richard Nixon Republican, minus the red-baiting, the press-bashing, and the Watergate scandal?
JVW (f5695c) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:40 pmi hope brooks is wrong about romney but i have absolutely no reason to think that he is
happyfeet (502829) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:42 pmYou missed a few “!!!!1!!”
Erick Brockway (f475a7) — 10/30/2012 @ 10:43 pmI’ve been posting this alot:
Chris Landsea is the expert on trends in hurricane damage. He resigned from IPCC because of claims that “climate change”/AGW was increasing hurricanes without any basis. Landsea is not an AGW skeptic (like I am).
SPQR (768505) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:06 pmJVW : “Red-baiting?” There were real Reds. “Press-bashing?” The press deserved to be bashed! “Watergate?” You got me there!
Michael M. Keohane (3c96e7) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:15 pmI would like to add a bit of sanity to this topic. The storm was caused by a weak hurricane running into a very large and serious cold front that was steering in the approximate same direction, both laden with moisture. The cold front is actually hugely larger than the hurricane, but it lacks intensity. The hurricane sweeps the cold air into near land as the cold jet stream does the same to the small hurricane, destroying the hurricane in the process, but propelling the very cold moisture and ice inland like a bolo let go. The gulf stream was seasonally warm. The jet stream was COLD.
pat (75b00c) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:15 pmThis is called weather. These storms were once far more frequent. And just as destructive in the 30’s when residential housing was discouraged in vulnerable areas.
JVW, your analysis of Brooks’ endorsement is similar to what they Left said about O in ’08:
Sure, we realize he’s against (example: Gay-Marriage), but he’s only saying that to get the Bubba-vote, and he’ll come back to his true beliefs once in the Oval Office.
Brooks is as big a projectionist as his friends on the Left, and just as sincere.
Kinda with PP on this:
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Really Sucks! (2bb434) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:18 pmIf Brooks is in favor of something, I got to look at what he’s against – except I know what I believe in, and it’s not what he’s slinging.
Sandy: Don’t forget that for every hour this storm tracked up the East Coast hovering over the Gulf Stream, it was building energy and intensity from the warm water of the ‘Stream.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Really Sucks! (2bb434) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:23 pmIf it had come ashore in FL or GA, it would have been just a big rain-storm, and would have died fairly quickly.
But building all that energy by staying out at sea, and then “mating up” with a Nor-Easter – Katie bar the door!
I guess Brooks may be right about Romney’s administration, but that’s still a damn sight better than the last four years have been.
Let no one vote Romney thinking he’s the perfect guy for conservative consistency. But pretty much anyone who is serious about our country’s future knows he’s the right choice in this election.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:42 pmbrooks + mcclame = 00
mg (31009b) — 10/30/2012 @ 11:52 pmthe underwater topoography of the offshore area and the timing of the full moon causing higher tides didn’t help reduce the damage by the storm either.
i’ll believe in AGW when mankind is more powerful than the sun. i figure AGW is part hubris, because people want to believe they have that sort of power over nature, but more so the usual leftist desire to tell people what to do and how to live.
i also think that many of the more strident proponents of AGW, as well as PETA, ELF, etc, flat out hate humanity and modern civilization, and want to destroy both.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:14 amMegan is just another person who thinks geological time is measured in decades, and isn’t old enough to have enough of those decades to know better.
It is a scientific fact, accepted by nearly all climate scientists, that the global warming we (may) have seen is way insufficient to affect hurricanes. Even the ones who think Global Warming is a Problem.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:27 amI doubt Michael Mann thinks global warming affects the number or severity of hurricanes. But maybe Megan will change his mind.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:30 amAh, to be the large-breasted offspring of a failed presidential candidate.
Large-breasted blonde daughter of a brewery owner, you mean. Ahh, to be thirty years younger. Naah, I’d still go for the girl with boobs and brains. I’ll buy the beer.
nk (875f57) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:52 amactually, Mann does try to claim that AGW causes more and more severe hurricanes, it’s just that it’s not true.
science!
redc1c4 (403dff) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:08 amI have actually engaged with intelligent AGW advocates (Yes, I know what an oxymoron is) by pointing to an especially cold
dayerrweekerrmontherr half a year, in Chicago, and been told that AGW is not about anything that dramatic because then it would mean the end of the world.Where’s Kevin Kostner?
nk (875f57) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:09 am“Political analyst Meghan McCain…”
LOL!
That was funny.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:21 amI wonder what it’s like to earn one’s living by uttering nonsense all day.
Watch Fox and wonder no more.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 10/31/2012 @ 3:19 amGood one, Disco Stu! “|
Icy (e9ce64) — 10/31/2012 @ 3:30 amDon’t worry, LASue, I got your point.
Icy (e9ce64) — 10/31/2012 @ 3:33 amMiss Meghan makes Brooks look like a conservative by comparison.
And Brooks, with his “vote Romney because the composition of Congress favors him” is just this side of totally pathetic.
Icy (e9ce64) — 10/31/2012 @ 3:39 amBrooks, Meghan McCain == 3 boobs
All equally pertinent.
Jcw46 (752544) — 10/31/2012 @ 4:16 am“small bore stasis”. Does Brooks even know what the words mean?
nk (875f57) — 10/31/2012 @ 4:38 amMeg, cows are contributing to AGW. Lay off the feed bag.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/31/2012 @ 4:41 amI agree with your action plan Patterico, I don’t necessarily agree with your view about warming. The data show that the 15 or so years of rising temps (if that data is correct) has now been followed by an equal number of years of temps being stable. (Before that there were a number of years of temps going down, which lead to the “new ice age coming” in the 70’s).
Joe Bestardi said back in the summer that we were repeating a pattern seen in the 1950’s which included a number of hurricane hits to the northern seaboard:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-07-31/Joe-Bastardi-WeatherBELL-Analytics/56623728/1
The public has no memory and no critical thinking, the majority are clucking hens like chicken little, “The sky is warming the sky is warming!!”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/31/2012 @ 5:18 amHey, give David a break! Brooks could hardly keep his job(s) as the go to “house conservative” on many TV shows and as a syndicated “right leaning” columnist if he enthusiastically endorsed a
elissa (e165fe) — 10/31/2012 @ 5:19 amProgressiveMarxist two elections in a row could he?You probably will find some Republicans who deny climate change or global warming occurs at all, but I think far more people fall into the category described above: sure, it exists, but relax.
I don’t know any that deny that climate changes over time. There are many that deny global warming, or more specifically, AGW.
For the most part, people object to the dishonest and flawed methods used by the alarmists, the proposed spurious which shockingly seem to be the same for global warming as it was for the impending global cooling, and the mockery of science and reasonable disagreement from the AGW alarmists, politicization of junk/advocacy science, and general asshattery from proponents.
JD (436368) — 10/31/2012 @ 5:29 amPatterico – your comment closely matches the opinions of most skeptics A) that the earth is warming B) that co2 is probably contributing something to the warming though something significantly less than attributed by the AGW proponents.
The AGW proponents dont do the science any favors by making up claims with little or no scientific support, such as 1) the increase in intensity of hurricanes are increased by GW, 2) the ability to reconstruct temps 1,000 years ago with greater accuracy than the margin of error in a standard thermometer, 3) the regional MWP (not global mwp) was caused by an extreme weather event lasting over 300 years existing over only one small part of the globe.
Joe (ea8609) — 10/31/2012 @ 6:03 amThere is a reason meteorologists remain the largest single profession where the majority do not believe in AGW.
Adding to your comments – The huff post is running several articles today on the theory that the cat 1 Sandy hurricane is due to AGW – the articles and most of the posted comments are devoid of any credible science – as paraphased by JD – the comments are mostly junk advocacy science, All essenstially debunked by hurricane experts.
Joe (ea8609) — 10/31/2012 @ 6:08 amWhy? We can come here and read your inanity in less than a couple of minutes. BTW, since you’re so “well informed”(or at least you believe you’re well informed), where do you get your news?
hatey hateman (794c75) — 10/31/2012 @ 6:11 amIf you will recall, the International Man of Parody fancies himself a JournoLista.
JD (318f81) — 10/31/2012 @ 6:49 amChrisChristie is all over the cnn pimping Sandy like she was a roofied up thai lady boy it’s quite a performance but it makes me uncomfortable to watch
happyfeet (502829) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:09 amYour link to the science article is a very good example of how much of the AGW science is junk/advocacy science. Debunked by experts in the specific fields, in this case hurricane experts. This is consistent with Mann’s claim that he was a nobel prize recipient, or his response to mcShane that the confidence level was 99% that the MWP was cooler than today based on 55 data sets while tossing 40 data sets. No credible statistics expert would ever reach that conclusion, certainly not 99% or even 80%. One of the reasons we have skeptics is that so much of the science is at best advocacy science.
Joe (ea8609) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:14 amTrue fact. Bewbs make you smarter.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:28 amSometimes your comments are a little uncomfortable to watch, too, feets. Like the one at 7:09. Cory Booker and Barack Obama are also out “pimping the storm” (your words.) New Jersey was hit very hard by the storm’s devastation, people are suffering, and the damage is in the billions. There’s a difference between leadership and helpless whining. (See New Orleans). Most people who look at Gov. Christie over the last three days are seeing competent non-partisan leadership for the state he governs, I think.
elissa (e165fe) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:31 amnot Meghan though she’s still dumber than a face tattoo for some reason
maybe her ones are defective
happyfeet (502829) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:33 amRemedial reading, Power Point on paper published 2004:
http://co.water.usgs.gov/drought/workshop200501/pdf/mccabe.pdf
Glossary:
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:35 amPDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation
AMO – Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
I think Christie is bloated with self-importance he’s used the “I don’t give a damn about politics” line way more often than someone what didn’t give a damn about politics would
happyfeet (502829) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:37 amMegan McCain, brainiac. She’s right; Late October hurricanes like this have never happened before.
Yup. Never happens.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:50 amWe agree that he’s bloated–he needs to lose 200 pounds. Beyond that, IMO you’re just being purposely hostile and insensitive both to him and to the citizens of New Jersey with no apparent other benefit. Frankly, all your passionate political opinions have carried less interest and weight for me since I found out you were not even voting in this election, happyfeet. Sorry.
elissa (e165fe) — 10/31/2012 @ 7:54 amI tried to vote I tried really hard but I moved last year So I had to do more forms which I did then I got a new job for next year and then I found out they wanted me to start sooner than “next year” they wanted me in january so I was in a pickle cause of my heart yearned for to see the America of my youth – what to do? – I decided to give immediate notice at my job and get out on the road since winter was nigh and I live in a state what is bluer than the most brilliant sapphire you could ever hope to see
happyfeet (502829) — 10/31/2012 @ 8:06 amMeghan McCain! Three, THREE boobs in one!
peedoffamerican (4269b6) — 10/31/2012 @ 9:30 am“Makes as much sense as claiming climate change to be true or false based on a really hot or cold day.”
Your anti-intellectual schtick is getting old.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/nyregion/for-years-warnings-that-storm-damage-could-ravage-new-york.html?ref=nyregion
“The warnings came, again and again.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:11 amFor nearly a decade, scientists have told city and state officials that New York faces certain peril: rising sea levels, more frequent flooding and extreme weather patterns. The alarm bells grew louder after Tropical Storm Irene last year, when the city shut down its subway system and water rushed into the Rockaways and Lower Manhattan.”
sleeeepy, your incoherent comment schtick is getting old.
SPQR (768505) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:12 amThe anti-science party beclowns itself again, I see. I suppose you have to be able to flush knowledge down he toilet faster than a cow on an ex-lax diet to forget the goreists predicted 10 years ago that snow was a thing of the past.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:19 am48. Hope your things are out already:
http://www.iris.edu/seismon/last30.html
Scroll down for Queen Charlotte Islands, Alaska, Kamchatka, Oregon, Baja California, all the way ’round the ‘Ring of Fire’.
Notice anywhere things aren’t moving? A little pent up strain?
If your stuff is still in harms way, get different stuff.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:31 amChildren just aren’t going to know what sun is
The winning strategy, the only thing these klown Kar residents can think up these days, is to convince themselves mebbe people just won’t remember how they’ve been lied to.
That’s what Obama’s banking on.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:32 amWhen we get the next big earthquake in California, that will be blamed on global warming, too.
Also when the Cubs win the World Series.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:56 amyou just remindered me I never got any museum wax for a few things before I left
happyfeet (6c5df7) — 10/31/2012 @ 11:22 am56. Alaska is mainly old hunks of Chile and California. Not really recognizable chunks, anymore.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/31/2012 @ 11:37 amWhat’s the percentage of scientists in relevant fields who argue against an anthropocentric cause for global warming?
12%? 15%?
The actual percentage is 3.
FEMA
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/fema-case-study-difference-between-democrats-and-republicans
“Heck-of-a-job” Brownie thinks Obama acted to quickly.
brilliant.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/31/2012 @ 11:44 amSleeeepy, get a real job.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 11:48 amSincerely, thanks for the Mother Jone’s propaganda broadside.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 11:51 am58. “The actual..”
Poincaire is generally acknowledged as the last mathematician to have been abreast of all areas of the discipline(as well as contributing to others).
He died a century ago. The explosion in pure and applied science has left those worthy of the appellation specialists in narrow niches of the universe.
The general sense here is that you wouldn’t know a ‘scientist’ from the pud in your right hand.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:02 pmsleeeepy, you don’t get it. There isn’t any basis for claiming that we’ve seen an increase in hurricane destructiveness due to AGW regardless. Landsea was on the IPCC panel on the very topic. He’s not a AGW skeptic. You pretended to argue against a strawman only shows that you are as ignorant as this topic as every other topic you hold an opinion on.
That AGW activists argue that there is a causal effect, and argue it so loudly, when even the IPCC work does not support it, shows that the AGW crowd is not doing “science” at all. Its propaganda.
SPQR (768505) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:03 pmThanks for the reference to Landsea.
http://cires.colorado.edu/events/lectures/landsea/index.html
Landsea: “It is not disputed (by this speaker) that anthropogenic forcing has been the cause of at least a substantial portion of the observed warming during the 20th Century. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak windspeeds has occurred and will continue to occur if the climate continues to warm. However, whether greenhouse gas warming is related in increases in tropical cyclone activity is NOT the most relevant question. One needs to address instead: What is the SENSITIVITY of tropical cyclone intensity, frequency and overall activity to greenhouse gas forcing? Is it indeed large today, or is it likely to be a small factor even several decades from now?”
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Here’s his resignation letter. Read the comments. I learned from both. Maybe readers of this page would learn something, but I doubt it.
SPQR “AGW crowd is not doing “science” at all. Its propaganda.”
The AGW crowd in this case means 97% of scientists involved in research. The debate over hurricanes is a debate among members of that 97%.
Here’s Pielke
cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000325follow_up_on_landsea.html
and here
cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001338witanagemot_justice_.html
An adult in a sea of children.
and gary, it has nothing to do with whether I would “recognize” a scientist. Landsea looks like a bowling instructor from Cleveland who just flew back from Waikiki.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/31/2012 @ 12:57 pmEvidently, sleeeepy, you’ve learned nothing.
SPQR (768505) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:08 pmSlurpy has no desire to learn, SPQR. Appeals to authority and faux consensus is all its got.
JD (436368) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:17 pmIf he were capable of learning, he wouldn’t be slurpy.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:22 pmhttp://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/10/26/michael-mann-falsely-claims-he-was-awarded-nobel-peace-prize
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:25 pmGlenn linked this appropriate comments about how the media is slinging out the AGW propaganda.
SPQR (768505) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:45 pmIf we’re going to start talking about all the things slurpy don’t get we’ll be here all century.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/31/2012 @ 1:58 pmAGW causes Cubs to win the Pennant?
Now I know that AGW is a crock, for that will never happen (eat your hearts out Cubbies – if any of you still have one).
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/31/2012 @ 2:02 pmBio before: “He shared the Nobel Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007”
After: “He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”
The links to Pielke are to Jr not Sr. You really should read him.
Here he is on Mann and the Nobel.
Again, it’s very good.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-is-wrong-with-embellishing-science.html?m=1
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/31/2012 @ 2:10 pmMichael Mann is a lying POS!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 10/31/2012 @ 2:27 pmIt’s not the science, it’s just the acclaim.
Just another narcissist.
70.AGW causes Cubs to win the Pennant?
Now I know that AGW is a crock, for that will never happen (eat your hearts out Cubbies – if any of you still have one).
Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 10/31/2012 @ 2:02 pm
When the Devil turns the airconditioning way up high.
nk (875f57) — 10/31/2012 @ 9:56 pmThat “97%” claim is bogus. What a surprise.
Even Andrew Cuomo has been careful not to cite global warming. His warning that we need to expect more such storms, and adjust our infrastructure with that expectation in mind, doesn’t depend on global warming. We’re just going back to how things were until the 1950s, when the world was significantly colder than it is now, and NYC could expect at least one hurricane a year.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/31/2012 @ 10:19 pm63. “Landsea looks like a bowling instructor from Cleveland who just flew back from Waikiki.”
Go, and peruse the catalogue, for example, George Mason U. Climate Science degrees. They have a few courses of study, one entails a “Physical Science concentration”, something less than a minor in physics and the math required.
Your average engineer, and we number hundreds of thousands, has a better grounding in pure pure physics.
In evaluating Mann’s 1998 paper, Dr. Wegman, chair of George Mason’s Statistics department, deplored ‘Climate Sciences’ departure from orthodox and coordinated study of that discipline in its secular pursuit of discipline.
The same goes for its study of physics. The school creates and teaches its own applied courses and maintains no intercourse with the departments pursuing pure sciences.
GIGO.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/1/2012 @ 1:26 amObviously we can make understanding anthropogenic climate change as difficult as we choose owing to the complexities involved.
But it doesn’t have to be so. From H.S. we recall Hansen’s Law indicates the solubility of carbon dioxide, the villian, in water is inversely related to temperature.
Therefore as the earth heats, putatively due to fossil CO2, more CO2 is released from the oceans heating the surface more still. All other effects ignored, this is a positive feedback loop.
The oceans contain 50,000 times the CO2 that the atmosphere currently holds. Not only should the Earth’s temperature runaway to Venusian levels it should have done so in the past(the atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2).
Yet the Earth seems to have at least temporarily ceased to increase in temperature while atmospheric CO2 continues to increase linearly.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/1/2012 @ 12:44 pmThat was an excellent link, milhouse.
JD (436368) — 11/1/2012 @ 12:47 pmI did not read all of Milhouse’s link, but I liked this:
Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.
That sounds about right.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/1/2012 @ 1:32 pmThanks for the link, Milhouse. I wondered where that phrase came from.
-Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.
That also caught my eye, MD.
Felipe (3243af) — 11/1/2012 @ 2:18 pmBloomberg endorsed Obama today, because of climate change.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/1/2012 @ 2:19 pmDRJ – liberal fascists heart liberal fascists.
JD (d2dac5) — 11/1/2012 @ 2:36 pmAt least 0bama doesn’t pretend to be a Republican.
Bill Thompson was the first Democrat I’d voted for in 25 years, because if I must have a D mayor, I’d rather he have a D after his name.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 11/1/2012 @ 2:40 pmMan, you have to love the NYT’s sad insistence on the relevance of New York City to the rest of the country. In the article that DRJ linked to, the reporter speculates that Bloomberg’s endorsement may help shore up Obama’s standing with independents. Yeah. Independents in Denver, Orlando, Cincinnati, Reno, Dubuque, Richmond, and Green Bay were just waiting to hear what the mayor of New York City had to say before making their final determination
Bloomberg is also quoted as saying that he endorsed Obama because the two “agree on the major issues of our time,” namely climate change, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and gun control. People like Bloomberg deserve to have their entire fortunes collapse under a wrecked economy, or, better yet, confiscated and redistributed to the proletariat.
JVW (f5695c) — 11/1/2012 @ 2:48 pmAmen, JVW
JD (d2dac5) — 11/1/2012 @ 3:06 pmMilhouse @74:
“The 97% is bogus”
From the link “Perhaps[!] a few[!] may[!] say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase.”
Then follows a discussion of the Doran Survey. But let’s ignore that survey.
http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern
“Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that “currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming.” The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause.”
skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=24
“In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject “global climate change” published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg – focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Benny Peiser repeated Oreskes survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don’t reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser’s list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
You really should read Pielke Jr.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 11/1/2012 @ 3:16 pmhttp://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com
Of course the world is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age. And it seems very likely that it’s warmer now than it was in 1912, though thanks to the data being fiddled with we can’t actually prove it. It’s no surprise that almost all scientists asked about that would agree with it. What’s that got to do with the questions of 1) whether there’s any warming going on now; 2) if so, what’s causing it; 3) if so, is it a good thing or a bad thing; 4) if it’s a bad thing should we be worried; 5) if so can we be doing anything about it; 6) if so, should we.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 11/1/2012 @ 3:50 pmNow you’ve gone and confused sleeepy, Milhouse. After he stole a perfectly good link – which he did not understand – from RealClimate.
SPQR (768505) — 11/1/2012 @ 3:51 pmPenn State’s college newspaper don’t miss page 7.
Bwahahaha. I’m hurting myself laughing.
SPQR (768505) — 11/1/2012 @ 5:42 pmAnd if sleeeepy really paid attention to Pielke Jr, sleeepy would have spotted this.
SPQR (768505) — 11/1/2012 @ 5:51 pmA longer essay by Pielke Jr for the literate.
SPQR (768505) — 11/1/2012 @ 5:56 pmSPQR,
If you read the article, or anything else by the man, you’d know he agrees that AGW is a documented fact. He’s not in a panic about it, because he thinks it can be managed, if we choose to do.
You might want to read this
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/skeptic-reviews-climate-fix.html
You might want to pay attention.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 11/1/2012 @ 9:18 pmSo what? When did he become the arbiter of reality?
The fact is that we have no idea what the temperature was like 100 years ago, so saying that it’s warmer now is only a guess. And if it is warmer now, we don’t know why. But we can confidently say that it’s good; the earth is too cold, and could do with being a degree C or so warmer. If we knew how to safely achieve such a warming at a reasonable price it would be a good idea to do so. But we don’t.
The big question is not whether it’s warmer now than 100 years ago, or why, but what it will be like 100 years from now, and why. And the answer is we have no idea. If we knew, then we could decide whether it was good or bad, and if we decided it was bad we could decide whether there was anything we could do about it, and then whether we should.
We can be pretty sure it’s warmer than it was 200 years ago, because 200 years ago it was bloody cold. Thank goodness the Little Ice Age is over, but the fact is that we had nothing to do that warming, any more than we did with the cooling that preceded it. If we had engineered the end of the Little Ice Age it would be one of the proudest human achievements, but we didn’t.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 11/1/2012 @ 9:53 pmSlurpy is funny
JD (d2dac5) — 11/1/2012 @ 9:57 pmsleeeepy – What is the earth’s optimum temperature? Is it warmer or cooler than today?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/1/2012 @ 10:00 pmSince he is taking so long to respond daleyrocks, he must be having trouble finding what the answer is from his hero lying global warmists so he can parrot it back to us.
peedoffamerican (38ddac) — 11/2/2012 @ 12:02 amHillmouse @92: “The fact is that we have no idea what the temperature was like 100 years ago”
Christ on a MF raft…
“The National Weather Service’s (NWS) Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) has been in operation since the late nineteenth century, providing daily observations of temperatures and precipitation using standardized equipment and methodologies. These data are the primary source of data for climate studies for the United States. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Army (Surgeon General Network) began recording daily weather at its forts, many of which continued recording data until the mid-1800s. The Smithsonian Institution managed a volunteer observer network in the mid- to late-1800s, and the U.S. Army Signal Corps in the Department of War established an observer network in the early 1870s, incorporating both volunteers and soldiers. These station networks evolved into the Cooperative Observer Program of the United States Weather Bureau, formed in the early 1890s within the Department of Agriculture. Signal Corps observers frequently became the original Weather Bureau observers. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) holds many of these historical records on microfilm. As part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP), these records were scanned and indexed, and are available online to the research community”
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 11/2/2012 @ 9:03 amhttp://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/iswscr2011-02.pdf
sleeepy, I’ve been reading both Pielke’s commentary on AGW for many years. Unlike you, I actually understand what they’ve been writing, rather than pretend to as you do. I’ve been following the AGW issue and debating it for more than fifteen years.
And by the way, Milhouse’s comments are going right over your head.
SPQR (768505) — 11/2/2012 @ 9:06 amA very specific point. There were frequent hurricanes hitting the northern Atlantic seaboard in the 1950’s when the temp was going down. This is an established fact for which there is all the data needed. Any thinking that hurricane Sandy is linked to global warming is about as logical and scientifically based as the idea that Sandy was caused by Martians. There is no data and no history to suggest otherwise. (Channeling Michael Crichton).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2012 @ 9:31 amIf you’ve read Pielke then I’m sure you’ve read him in Foreign Policy
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/climate_of_failure
Climate of Failure
Environmentalists are just now waking up to the reality that if we’re going to stop global warming, we’re going to have to be a lot more politically savvy.”
Sadly, that won’t help with some people.
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:03 amWhat are you so afraid of, sleeeeepy?
elissa (d23274) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:06 amFixed it for ya, twink!
Media Mutters (721840) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:07 am==if we’re going to stop global warming==
Are you serious?? I can’t even stop a small parade of ants which pass through my family room every spring and fall.
elissa (d23274) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:09 amB-b-but, Briffa’s Yamal tree-ring proxy data(albeit cherry picked)shows sleeeeeeeeeeeepy is an idiot. Consensus! Shall we go to some pine cone proxy data for a second opinion?
Media Mutters (721840) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:12 amMedulla Mumbler, when was the thermometer invented?
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:18 amsleeepy, I am sure you can point us to the calibrated network of temperature recording stations, across the globe, in 1912 …
The reality, as Anthony Watt has shown, is that we have a poor record of current temps much less a century ago.
SPQR (7f0329) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:26 amSlurpy is a moron
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578089413659452702.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
JD (3691f1) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:28 amOh Great Comatose One:
As many people have mentioned, the technology and methods for temperature measurement have changed markedly since records began to be kept – and most striking is the introduction of the “urban heat-island effect” into the equation that essentially makes comparisons to 19th-Century land-temps meaningless.
Perhaps your time would be better spent helping Michael Mann polish his Nobel Prize.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:28 amHow well do thermometers work when placed next to an artificial heat source, d!psh!t! I’ll not bother linking any articles on monitoring station audits, because—racist and anti-science. GFY!
Media Mutters (721840) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:30 amOnly certain tree rings count
JD (3691f1) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:33 amBill Clinton: ‘I May Be The Only Person In America, But I’m More Excited About Obama This Time’.
Icy (dced15) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:36 am— Next Tuesday may well prove him right.
Did they check Bill for “wood”?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:38 amCheck sleazy for brain activity! Although its dictation ventricle for DNC talking points seems to be working.
Media Mutters (721840) — 11/2/2012 @ 10:45 am1. And outside the USA? The USA is not the globe, you know. 2. Are the raw data available, or only the massaged data? You have heard of “climategate”, haven’t you? They destroyed the raw data, you know. Until someone else collects them again and makes them available, we will have no idea what it was. 3. What can we compare these historical data to today? The locations where they were taken are almost all being warmed now by artificial heat source and urban heat islands.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 11/2/2012 @ 11:19 amOnly certain tree rings count
Comment by JD — 11/2/2012 @ 10:33 am
They all count except the ones that don’t.
Inspiration for that was from a news blurb I heard that said some of the subways are working again in Manhattan except those that aren’t.
More political savvy, like trying to find ways to talk China, India, Mexico and other countries into making their people starve?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2012 @ 11:19 amI hope that pun was intended.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 11/2/2012 @ 11:21 amPS: What “hide the decline” really proved was that tree rings are not reliable proxies for weather. It discredits not just that particular data set but the entire field of dendroclimatology or whatever they call it.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 11/2/2012 @ 11:23 amSee Bloomberg’s Business week cover!
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/2/2012 @ 1:44 pmI cherished as much as you’ll receive performed proper here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish. however, you command get bought an nervousness over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell undoubtedly come further until now again since exactly the similar nearly a lot often inside of case you shield this hike.
credit cards people poor credit uk (21695b) — 11/3/2012 @ 10:44 amIn other news:
Weiner pops up on Twitter again – New York Post
Anthony Weiner is back on Twitter
Anthony Weiner Twitter Account Is Back: Former Congressman Tweets For Hurricane Sandy Relief
The story:
Anthony Weiner, along with his wife, Huma Abedin, and Chelsea Clinton – they live in the same building I think – the apartment was obtained for Anthony Weiner by Bill and/or Hillary Clinton – visited Far Rockaway, which has been half destroyed by the storm.
(Subway service by the A train is cut off, although the MTA trucked in 18 subway cars to start the portion of the system on Far Rockaway running (it goes both left and right from where the A train enters Far Rockaway and half of which was the A train and half a shuttle. They say it will take – a month, months, my guess is at least half a year to rebuild the subway connection.
FEMA is not very good, as I think the CBS Evening news reported. They put stuff 3 miles away for people without cars and anyway there’s a gasoline problem. They ask people without power to go on the Internet. They don’t know where the people with problems are.)
Anthony Weiner tweeted a link:
This is his very first (genuine, nondeleted) tweet since Weinergate in June 2011.
This is a YouTube video that included a phone message left by a devastated resident of the Rockaways over a montage of scenes from the hurricane-battered neighborhood, the New York Post reports.
“Citywide office” means: Maybe only Public Advocate, although, of course, Weiner himself would prefer Mayor, if he thought it was do-able..
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/8/2012 @ 1:26 pmfrom “Behind the News” by WABC’s (Channel 7) Bill Ritter:
By the way, odd-even starts tomorrow in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk County. It’s been going on for some time in New Jersey, and rocklaand County has a 10 gallon limit I think. Mayor Bloomberg says that only one quarter of the gasoline statuions are open.
They get gas, open and sell out. Earlier I heard Gambling on WOR talking aboyut claims that there is enough gasoline.
I think part of teh problem is that people used up their gasoline so more than a regular day’s suopply is needed every day.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/8/2012 @ 4:40 pmAll of those people affected must be “people of color”, like in N.O., cause the re-elected one said so…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/8/2012 @ 4:56 pm