The anti-science Warmists are really reaching for the stars with this meme
Ice storm paradox: It’s colder because the Earth is warmer
…..
Put very simply, here is what the predominant science says: Average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades. Some of the warming could be part of a natural cycle but, almost certainly, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels are a pivotal factor in intensifying the phenomenon. The starkest evidence of the temperature jump is the rapid melting of the polar ice caps and the disappearance of the world’s glaciers.
Climate scientists have said another key signal to watch for is a dramatic shift in weather patterns. It is close to impossible to attribute any single weather event – a snowstorm, a tornado, a hurricane – to temperature rise, but, once extreme weather becomes normal and what has been normal is no longer the norm, we will know we are in the throes of change that is likely irreversible.
It sure looks like that could be where we are now. In just the last couple of years, Americans have experienced epic tornados in the center of the country, a monster storm that flooded Manhattan and ravaged New Jersey, extended drought in the West that threatens agriculture and water supplies, and an unprecedented number of wildfires in forests dried to the flammability of kindling. This winter, frigid polar air has slipped south, freezing much of the country, while in Alaska the season has been unusually warm. There are piles of snow in Atlanta, but a dearth of snow in the Sierra.
I’m not going to provide a deep recitation of just how much is wrong with the excerpt, much less the entire screed. We’ve been through it time and time again, and the science-challenged Warmists will simply stick with their mindless cult-like dogma. The article even includes this pithy comic
Strange, it’s almost like the polar vortex never ever happened before or something. Or, that they blamed global cooling on the polar vortex (which should properly be called the Circumpolar Vortex). But, Warmists aren’t interested in science, earth history, real world data and observations, nor reality.
And, just to be clear, not that Warmists will read, comprehend, or listen, the debate is not on warming, but on causation. There has been 1.4F warming since 1850. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1997. The Warmists models have been proven wrong 95% of the time.
Our esteemed host wrote:
Actually, I’d say that the debate isn’t about causation, but about what we should do. If the warmists had posited rational ideas that didn’t impoverish people, perhaps they wouldn’t be attacked so relentlessly.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with trying to develop better technology to get more energy from solar and wind power — though the Obama Administration’s choices have been bad, bad, bad! — but when the warmists want to impose huge costs on the public for current electricity use because we use a lot of coal, And it’s kind of difficult to take the left seriously when they bemoan “income inequality” and then advocate policies that will increase costs on the poor.
Its hard to hear what the warmists say; their lifestyle blocks the sound.
Prime examples: jon carry and al gore. If they believed there was a imminent crisis they would lead by example.
Oh wait, maybe they are. They are just 1% elitists pissing on the peasants.
That is a good point, but I would say it is a separate argument, one which the Warmists abandoned long ago. They simply want to impose their fascistic version of Big Government, and need the cause to be anthropogenic no matter what. If they said “OK, we can disagree on causation, but there are certainly steps we can take because there are issues from a warming world that we agree on” they wouldn’t have the power to enact they Progressive agenda.
I think most Skeptics would agree that there should be research and development into alternative energy sources, in conservation, in better energy efficiency, dealing with an aging and open power grid, species preservation, and so many other things. Concerns over drought, flood, shoreline erosion, even sea rise. These things happen regardless of causation. Warmists still need Mankind to be mostly/solely Blamed in order to enact the taxation and fascistic government control, as well as restricting freedom and giving money to campaign donors.
Well said Captain, Well said.
Actually the editorial makes good sense.
Causation makes all the difference, doesn’t it? If burning fossil fuels and dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere causes no warming then it’s absurd to attempt to control CO2 emissions. If it’s all natural and we cannot change it than we must adjust. But you know and I know that global warming is caused by CO2 dumped into our atmosphere, and to slow the process we need to find a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or at least slow the addition. It has nothing to do with fascism or one world government, or any other far right wet dream.
The Earth HAS warmed the past 17 years. The oceans have warmed and the atmosphere has warmed, and there’s no reason to think it will stop.
“The earth has warmed in the past 17 years…” Really? Even if it did, that’s no proof it was caused by fossil fuel burning. Nice try, J. “The oceans have warmed, the atmosphere has warmed..” As they’ve been doing for the past 4 billion years. “But you know and I know that….” A phrase used by people desperate to hold on to their “beliefs”.
j,
You type more scheisse per comment than all the other regulars combined. “But you and I know…” is used by people desperate to hold on to their “beliefs”… Really?
I know, I know… the Earth is currently warming by undiscovered, if not unknowable, magical forces rather than the more obvious and scientifically valid greenhouse effect.
What the Earth was doing millions and billions of years ago doesn’t explain what’s happening today. The Earth, did not and does not heat and cool by magic but by physical processes. Why has the Earth been warming this past century?
Well J, considering that at least a few times in the past, the average global temps were higher than they are now. The Medieval Warm period comes to mind. CO2 levels then were lower than they are now AND no major CO2 emissions made by man either yet the temps were higher. Maybe it was magic. After all, it was the time of Merlin.
No, there are other forces that drive the climate, and mans activities are a very miniscule part of it.
Go look at the actual numbers of wild fires, hurricanes, droughts and tornadoes and maybe you will see that everything the warmists are saying is just fear-mongering and trying to keep the cash flow going.
Jeffrey destroys his own argument:
If we can adjust — and, given that the species survived warmer period in the past, it seems obvious that we can in the future — then we can adjust regardless of any cause. Why pursue programs which will impoverish the very people the left claim to support if it is unnecessary?
Jeff,
What is the concentration of carbonic acid in the ocean, quantitative method? What is the predominant acid causing acidification of the ocean? What has happened to all the CO2 we have produced? How does CO2 get to the upper atmosphere? Come on, answer the basic questions or shut up!!!
Jeffery writes:
This is known as a strawman. No one here other than Jeffery ever claims anything about “magic” so he props up an argument that no one uses in order to shoot that argument down in order to try and look superior. (Or at least advance a theory that is in his mind “superior.”)
But there are issues with that superior stance as well. Jeffery assumes that any theory that is put forth must be true unless it can be disproved. The problem with that is that despite admitting the falsification or data and conclusions, Jeffery still clings to the theory. It is not that the theory may be right or wrong, it is that people like Jeffery will never believe in fact that contradict the theory.
What the Earth was doing millions and billions of years ago doesn’t explain what’s happening today.
This is a classic example of AGW double speak. AGW’s will use so called “data” from the earth’s history to show the earth is warming and then say the data doesn’t explain or matter that the earth is warming today. Furthermore, even though the satellite day shows no increase in warming, Jeffery believes that the earth continues to warm.
(At this point in time, we expect Jeffery to insert a link to a site that uses false and discredited data to show the earth is warming. Once again, actual science and data doesn’t matter to people like Jeffery.)
Despite Jeffery claiming that the earth has warmed and cooled due to “natural causes” in the past, the earth’s (non-existent) warming today must be caused by something else.
You cannot argue with people who are as inconsistent as that. There is no “honest debate” that can take place. People like Jeffery lie, refuse to deal with data and only repeat AGW mantras as if the rest of humanity has to buy into their manure.
n,
There is no good evidence that the Earth was warmer than now during the past 50,000 years, certainly not since the development of human civilization. The so-called MWP was not global.
The Earth responds to physical processes and these determine whether the global temperature is warming, cooling or steady. These physical processes include volcanoes (cooling by the way of aerosols), the sun (more heat or less heat depending on its activity), albedo (the reflectivity), greenhouse gases (more trap the sun’s heat), Earth orbits (change the amount of sun energy reaching the Earth, and where), continental drift, sea currents etc. The Earth came out of the last ice age some 12,000 years ago (all natural – cyclic changes in the Earth orbit and solar activity), and will almost certainly enter another ice age in the next 50,000 years or so! Man as a species will certainly adapt to the changing climate – to the current rapid warming. But it will change our civilization and unlikely for the better.
Do you have evidence of these other forces that are driving the current rapid warming?
d,
Why do Coolists insist that slowing the generation of CO2 pollution will destroy economies? Do you have studies or economic models that support your claims?
Man the species will survive. After all, enough of us survived (just barely!) the cataclysmic Toba eruption some 70,000 years ago to keep the species going. And we survived the last ice age, so the human animal will survive global warming. But global warming will play havoc with our civilization. We can’t stop supervolcanoes but we can slow or stop global warming. Why wouldn’t we?
Except of course for studies that rely on the same data which AGW’ers use.
g2 typed: “Despite Jeffery claiming that the earth has warmed and cooled due to “natural causes†in the past, the earth’s (non-existent) warming today must be caused by something else.”
g2: No, no and no. The current warming must be caused by something. All I’ve asked is that you identify the natural processes that are causing the current rapid warming. You won’t because you can’t. It’s not the sun, or changes in the Earth’s orbit, or volcanoes, or cosmic rays making cloud blankets. In the early 90s the Earth cooled a bit from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. In 1998, the atmosphere warmed from a powerful El Nino that transferred heat from the Pacific Ocean to the air. La Nina’s, where heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the Pacific, has made the atmosphere cooler the past couple of years. These “natural processes” go on all the time, causing brief spurts of atmospheric warming or cooling that are reflected in the bouncing around of the surface temperature record. Yet, the trend continues up and up. The next El Nino year will set another surface temperature record. So what is your hypothesis for the continued rapid warming of the Earth?
jeff,
you can’t assume that if someone can not prove another cause for warming that your answer is the best. That is stupid. Now, answer my questions. As to the economy, you have to get your head out of the hole it is in.
Yes, yes, yes.
That is the point.
You claim that the earth has heated and cooled before solely due to natural causes and now you claim that the earth must be warming due to something else and discount the idea that the earth is warming (it isn’t) solely due of natural causes.
g2,
Natural is not the same as unknown, or magic. Cyclic changes in the sun’s output or in the Earth’s orbit, or supervolcanoes, or large bodies slamming into the Earth are all examples of natural phenomena that can induce significant climate change. What are the natural phenomena causing the Earth to warm rapidly now?
dave demanded:
“Now, answer my questions.”
Now, kiss my ass.
Jeffery,
You are the only one that has claimed that “natural” precludes “unknown.”
You are the one that continually brings the charge of “magic” into the discussion.
Tell me Jeffery, are you asserting that you or scientists understand everything in the universe and the interaction of those things?
Is that your position?
Says the guy who claims that everyone who disagrees with him won’t debate a topic.
g2,
No, scientists do not know everything. And it is possible that you will discover a new physical process to explain the current warming. It’s just that no one has yet. The greenhouse effect is still the most likely reason. The scientist that discovers an alternative explanation will become quite famous.
dave doesn’t debate, he demands. I am not obliged to treat him any better than he treats me.
Well that’s good. Otherwise we would have to stop all research on, well, I don’t know…… things like climate change?
Strike one.
It may not be a physical process but rather the interaction of processes. There is no need to “discover a new” process. After all, did you not just say that scientists don’t know everything? Would that not include the way things interact in complex systems?
Oh yeah…. strike 1(a): no current global warming. but I appreciate your continued repetition of that lie. Cults need members to repeat mantras.
Strike two.
Your position is akin saying “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”
Strike three.
“Most likely” is not the same thing as anything close to a certainty. In years past, it was thought that “most likely” the earth was flat.” How did that work out for you science deniers?
Next batter please.
You mean like repeatedly asking a question?
Like this guy who keeps asking the same question over and over that has been answered by many people here?
What are the natural phenomena causing the Earth to warm rapidly now?
Yeah, you may be right. Demand an answer to a question that has been answered over and over is pretty obnoxious. It really isn’t a debate when people do that. (Then again, I haven’t seen you answer david’s question while your question has been answered.)
Jeffy,
As you say the “So-Called” MWP wasn’t global. Um, first, it’s NOT so-called as it did happen. Second, it WAS global. Do a bit of research and you would know this.
And they wonder why the skeptics don’t take the warmists seriously.
You claim that the current rapid warming is caused by natural phenomena so I ask politely:
“What are the natural phenomena causing the Earth to warm rapidly?”
You have never answered.
I even supply you a list of options, including the sun, volcanoes and cosmic rays.
Your response is that the natural cause has not yet been identified and may even be an undiscovered process. Fair enough. But not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. Shouldn’t we examine the known processes before we throw up our hands and say it’s probably an unknown, new process or an unexamined combination of old processes?
You claim that since the climate has changed before by processes not related to man’s burning fossil fuels that it most likely is changing now by those same natural processes. You might be correct, but you have never discussed the specifics of even one natural process that might be involved. Shouldn’t we examine the known processes before we invoke an unknown, new process or an unexamined combination of old processes?
vs.
“Now, answer my questions or shut up.”, from a man who claims to be a physician but doesn’t understand the rudiments of acid-base chemistry, claiming repeatedly that free hydrogen ions do not exist.
Scientific debates are constrained by the known physical laws of the universe – if that is too high a burden, you are not wanting to have a scientific debate. That’s not to say that you won’t discover new physical laws of the universe.
Would you like to discuss d’s questions? Pick the one you find most relevant.
nightie (not that what you wear to bed is relevant),
Please supply your evidence about the MWP. The global component of the MWP shows an increase in average surface temperature of about 0.2C to 0.3C (but more than that in the North Atlantic). The global surface has warmed some 0.8C since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age. The Pirate refers to the 0.8C warming as trivial – what does that make the warming of the MWP?
And they wonder why climate realists don’t take the Coolists seriously.
Asked and answered.
This is a real problem with you Jeffery.
You get an answer that you don’t like and so you either try to ridicule it or just ignore it.
No one takes you seriously because you cannot or are unwilling to discuss anything using the very rules you demand others follow.
Cultists never take those who disagree with them “seriously.”
Of course, that has nothing to do with the truth of the matter, but you keep hanging onto the idea that not being “taken seriously” means that the idea should be dismissed.
After all, no one takes you seriously.
g2,
I don’t argue with you, g1, j, d, and p to persuade you, but to persuade others who might read this. I understand that the regs here are impervious to reason – I’ve seen it on other right-wing blogs as well. I’ve seen every repeated objection before, except d’s insistence that H+ doesn’t exist – that’s new.
Humor me and direct me to your or anyone’s answers to “What are the natural phenomena causing the Earth to warm rapidly?”
I understand that the regs here are impervious to reason – I’ve seen it on other right-wing blogs as well.
And we have seen the same intractable lack of logic on left leaning websites and from you.
The difference is that when we put out facts, you dismiss them and won’t address them.
And your question has been answered. It is not for me to go back and find what you refused to read or address.
g2,
“And your question has been answered. It is not for me to go back and find what you refused to read or address.”
Of course it has, lol.
Good to know that you have joined us in laughing at your inability to read and comprehend things that are said.
It is sadly humorous.
g2,
I am sure there are literally a dozen or so readers who would love to read your ideas on the natural causes of the current rapid warming period.
You can type lengthy collections of BS, but can’t spare a few sentences to defend your central hypothesis?
Sadly humorous. Sadly humorous, indeed…
[…] The New American Arizona Daily Star Washington Post Union of Concerned Scientists Political Outcast Pirate’s Cove National Review National Geographic Fox […]