Boy the trees budding out sure are pretty.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
There are at the very least, nine birds killed across America a year to generate your so called 'green' energy.
Nine lives, maybe more, probably less, but you're guaranteed to pissed somebody off with your choices.
Nine lives, maybe more, probably less, but you're guaranteed to pissed somebody off with your choices.
Whoa. What the heck @syskatine? I woke up to 36 degrees and a wind chill of 25 this morning. It's going to be in the 50's today and near freezing tonight. Is this the crazy wacky extreme weather that man-made global cooling/warming/climate change folks talk about? I was almost convinced this was the hottest February on record.
It was actually hot last night at bedtime, so I opened the windows and woke up freezing. How do you know this won't be an abnormally warm Feb.? I know you're being snarky, but if you'd like to start aggregating Februaries I'm all ears. Unlike some people, I don't judge facts by whether I want them to be true. I'd love to see and hear evidence that there's no climate change, or that it's a natural thing that has nothing to do with man. It just seems that the skeptics recycle tobacco and ozone skeptics' arguments.
And, since you're a paramedic, I won't have to argue with you over whether you're qualified to make tricky climatalogical conclusions.
I'd take some time posting some stuff for you to read outside of your normal comfort zone if I thought you'd actually put some time into learning. But since you are a lawyer who is so well versed in climate science that you emphatically state the science is settled, likely because of your own rigorous review and analysis of the available science and not just parroting party talking points (you? Never!), doing so seems like a waste of time.
As for February temps, here's some data for you. It goes way back to the prehistoric time of 1938. Definitely shows global cooling/warming/climate change in all of its glory. If we adjust the actual temperatures upward like the climate scientists do, we'll definitely see a warming trend.
http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_TulsaIntlArpt_Tulsa_OK_February.html
He really understands the science. It's common methodology to use a tiny sliver of the available information to prove your hypothesis.
I plugged these in excel and Highest Temperature, Average Minimum Temperature, Average Maximum Temperature, and Mean Temperature all show a slight warming trend. The Warmest Minimum Temperature show a substantial warming trend.
I remember growing up in OKC. I went to school at Casady K-8th grade. Every winter, it was not a question of whether or not the lake would freeze, it was a question as to when the ice would get thick enough that the students could walk across it, rather than walking around it. Coach Sears would take his big metal pipe out and test the ice by slowly making his way across, while pounding on the ice and trying to break through. Once he determined it was safe, students were allowed to make the mass exodus across the lake.
I no longer live in OKC, but I don't live that far away, and I do pay some attention to Oklahoma weather. I'd be willing to be that the Casady lake has not frozen in over a decade, much less had thick enough ice to walk on.
I moved to Dallas in '92. When I moved here, it seemed that we always had at least 2-3 episodes of ice/snow that shut the city down every winter. In recent years, it seems like that number has dropped to 0-1 (none in the last 2 winters).
If you tell me that the average temperature is not higher than it was 30-40 years ago, I'm going to tell you that you are simply wrong. Now, I understand that this could be explained by normal weather fluctuations that have occurred since before the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It is possible that we are in the midst of a warming trend, and that things will begin trending in the opposite direction sometime in the next decade.
But, it is also possible that the weather has a normal history of warming and cooling trends, but the current warming trend is not normal and is man-made (to some degree).
One thing I am sure of is that man-made pollution is real and that certain countries contribute more to it than other countries. I, also, believe that there are ways to slow the rate at which we are negatively affecting the atmosphere around our planet. Whether you believe in global warming, or you don't, I can't understand why anyone would be opposed to encouraging all people to find ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and trend toward more renewable sources of energy.
I no longer live in OKC, but I don't live that far away, and I do pay some attention to Oklahoma weather. I'd be willing to be that the Casady lake has not frozen in over a decade, much less had thick enough ice to walk on.
I moved to Dallas in '92. When I moved here, it seemed that we always had at least 2-3 episodes of ice/snow that shut the city down every winter. In recent years, it seems like that number has dropped to 0-1 (none in the last 2 winters).
If you tell me that the average temperature is not higher than it was 30-40 years ago, I'm going to tell you that you are simply wrong. Now, I understand that this could be explained by normal weather fluctuations that have occurred since before the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It is possible that we are in the midst of a warming trend, and that things will begin trending in the opposite direction sometime in the next decade.
But, it is also possible that the weather has a normal history of warming and cooling trends, but the current warming trend is not normal and is man-made (to some degree).
One thing I am sure of is that man-made pollution is real and that certain countries contribute more to it than other countries. I, also, believe that there are ways to slow the rate at which we are negatively affecting the atmosphere around our planet. Whether you believe in global warming, or you don't, I can't understand why anyone would be opposed to encouraging all people to find ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and trend toward more renewable sources of energy.
3 or 4 years ago in NE OK, the snow storms were the worst I've ever seen in all of my 50 years on this planet (including when I lived in KC). The snow was so deep, it went past my waistline and went above our fence line.
A few years back a global warming rally was snowed out in DC.
That's when all the commies that went over to the green movement changed the lingo from global warming to climate change.
These things go in cycles, just like it has for thousands of ears.
A few years back a global warming rally was snowed out in DC.
That's when all the commies that went over to the green movement changed the lingo from global warming to climate change.
These things go in cycles, just like it has for thousands of ears.
I'll throw you a bone. Even the most brilliant science expert lawyer needs some help from time to time.
Based on actual February temps measured from TUL and those forecast for the remainder of the month, February 2017 will be an abnormally warm February with an average high temp of 63.4 F. Since 1938, two years have had a warmer average high temp, 1976 at 65F and 1954 at 64.2 F. The average mean temp follows the same based on actual and forecast temps with 1976 and 1954 coming in warmer in that same order.
It is interesting to note that the trend since 1998, when the "warming hiatus" is thought to have started by the "deniers," the trend is toward cooler temps with the average high temp decreasing by 3 F and the average mean temps decreasing by 4 F over those 19 years of Februarys.
Hiatus is not real. Like saying in 2012 that there is no equity premium since the SP500 hadn't topped 2007 highs yet.
Look at the past 19 years. For all of the alarm, that warming trend is indeed slight and it only covers data from 1938. There were some warmer years at the beginning of the 20th century that flatten that farther.
I didn't claim the "pause" was real. I posted about a factual trend based upon a date proposed by scientists to be the beginning of a cooling trend. What is the trend in the TUL temps since 1998? If it can only get warmer, why is that trend cooler? If that cooler trend continues, how will it impact the overall trend since 1938? We both know the answer to that question, so why party line game this?
Besides, relying on a data set as insignificant as the past hundred years seems a bit myopic in the grand scheme of Earth, don't you think? I'm sure there's an equity premium or similar analogy you can come up with for that.
You'll have to consult our resident statistician @CBradSmith to determine what we glean from a 19 year sample.
Obtuse. Carry that 19 year trend, which is roughly 24% of the data in that TUL data (actually more if you remove the NR years) out over some additional years, and what happens to the trend since 1938? I suspect you know the answer but don't wish to post it as it goes against the narrative. That's cool.
If we can't consider a trend toward cooling based on 19 continuous years of data out of 78 total years as something real, how can we claim a warming trend based on 150 years out of 4.5 billion total years?
I'll drop the adversarial stance on this topic for serious dialogue. I'm not a denier. In fact, humans probably contribute to warming in some degree, even if just through urban heat island effect. How much we contribute and what the overall impact is long term are the questions I don't see answered. The politicization and subsequent monetization of climate "science" gives me heartburn as both sides are now very bias greedy.
My main issue of contention is the alarmism used to attempt to justify hasty and potentially harmful regulations. We've heard since the late 60's that the oceans will rise 10 feet in the next 10 years if we don't do something RIGHT NOW. I'm not saying we don't need to do something. It's inevitable that we will have to move to renewable energy sources as our supplies of oil appear finite. But we can also move toward those goals in a well planned and economically sound way and I don't think alarmism is useful in accomplishing change in that manner.
My dude, we can't conclude anything from ANY amount of Februaries in Tulsa, but the dataset you posted certainly isn't a nail in the global warming coffin.
Those 150 years are the relevant years when the independent variable (human industrial activity) began.
I'm in agreement here. The politics of the issue are beyond stupid. Insisting on convincing everyone that global warming is real and focusing solely on regulating down emissions is like if Pro-lifers insisting everyone convert to Catholicism and only focusing on Roe v Wade.
I don't think anyone here is against renewable energy. That's the consensus we should work from.
I just enjoy debating global warming because it is fun if you can actually keep the focus on the science and policy.
The only independent variable in that 150 years is human industrial activity? Actual science disagrees with you. Completely.
I like debating the science and policy as well. The actual data shows that we aren't in imminent danger of anything, but watching the alarmism is entertaining.
It's not even science anymore, it's a cult-like religion geared towards keeping the 'created from nothing' to a >$30B money train rolling.
But all religion needs to feed the masses, although the guise changes, the motives don't. You see the communion ITT. Get in line, slurp it down.
http://takimag.com/article/ghost_inside_your_haunted_head_david_cole#axzz4ZcqfWA9k
"California governor Jerry Brown in August 2015, responding to calls from GOP presidential candidates to build new dams and renovate old ones:
"I’ve never heard of such utter ignorance. Building a dam won’t do a damn thing about fires or climate change or the absence of moisture in the air and ground of California. If they want to run for president, they had better do eighth grade science before they made such utterances.""
"California governor Jerry Brown in August 2015, responding to calls from GOP presidential candidates to build new dams and renovate old ones:
"I’ve never heard of such utter ignorance. Building a dam won’t do a damn thing about fires or climate change or the absence of moisture in the air and ground of California. If they want to run for president, they had better do eighth grade science before they made such utterances.""
If it is even an actual variable in the climate. Every day I wake up to a giant burning gas ball illuminating the city that I suspect has something to do with the temperatures on this planet. Maybe even more than CO2.
Come on man. The science is settled. The sun does cause global warming. Care to move on to more debatable variables?
Are yesterday's temps still proof of MMGW? Will they still be proof tomorrow when it is 28?
I can't keep track of the trending dates that I am supposed to use as proof.
I can't keep track of the trending dates that I am supposed to use as proof.
Yes. No. Try to keep up. Any data point that supports a particular argument is proof. Any data point that goes against a particular argument is a discrepancy. This has been true for centuries.
As the day has moved along it's not too bad. Little windy, but pretty nice for late February. I bet it will get really hot around the fourth of July.
Sure. I was just getting the big glowing orb out of the way. I don't agree that the science surrounding the sun's effects is settled though.
Let's talk about the CO2 levels. How accurately do ice core samples reflect CO2 levels several hundreds of thousands of years ago, 10,000 years ago, and even 100 years ago? If we looked at ice cores formed today in 500,000 years, would the CO2 be at the 400 ppm level that instruments measure? Some scientists say no, and have some very good scientific reasoning as to why
When compared with other means of CO2 data, ice core data actually falls kind of flat, no pun intended. Since a majority of CO2 level comparisons rely on modern day instrument sampling vs ice core data, the validity of the ice core data as a comparison to hi tiech instrument sampling must be rigorously examined with all variables accounted for. This is the first potential error that I see in the climate modeling based on the CO2 "hockey stick."
Check out this very well written article on the use of ice cores and other means of historical data gathering concerning CO2. It's one of the better ones out there. It tackles the evidence without any of the bullshit emotion that seems to plague both sides these days. I promise that even if you don't agree with it, it isn't a waste of time by some Breitbart writer. If you Google the author's name, all kinds of stuff with "denier" comes up and the blogs are quite hilarious. There are quite a few reasonable discussions of his you can read through that Google search.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
Ah, the Federalist, where sellouts have criticized every government policy that could negatively impact big business' bottom line for several decades now.
Thank God we have patriots like Scott to defend Big Oil and let them draft his policies. He would give Harold Hamm a rimjob on the state capital lawn if Harold told him to.
