The Nation continues to suffer under global warming's icy grip

[brenthutch 388]

"The April average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 49.7°F, which was 1.4°F below the 20th century average. April 2013 ranked as the 23rd coolest such month on record and marked the coolest April since 1997 when the monthly average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 48.0°F."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2013/4

[lawrocket 3]

I wonder how the raw data looks in comparison with the raw data in the past.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rickjump1 0]

Now I know I'm sticking with oil and staying away from butterfly poop- powered truck stocks.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[brenthutch 388]

It is interesting to note, that it took about a week longer than usual to publish the national data. I'm sure there was a lot of hand wringing and double checking going on before this narrative busting info was put out. Also from the same report:

"The April average precipitation for the contiguous U.S. was 2.90 inches, 0.47 inch above average, and tied with 1953 as the 19th wettest April on record."

"April snow cover extent for the contiguous U.S. was approximately 480,000 square miles, 209,000 square miles above the 1981-2010 average and the 5th largest April snow cover extent in the 47-year period of record."

[kallend 1,672]

www.businessinsider.com/science-of-climate-change-2013-5

I expect these are people that don't believe the USA is the world and that one month represents a long term trend.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Remster 24]

livendive

Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

But that means it can't be warming if its not the hottest!

Remster

[lawrocket 3]

Here's the March global report:
[Url]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/[/url]

Dave - this is all done with adjusted data, right? Do you know any resource showing raw data history?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

lawrocket

Here's the March global report:
[Url]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/[/url]

Dave - this is all done with adjusted data, right? Do you know any resource showing raw data history?

Can you elaborate as to the adjustment you're talking about?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[brenthutch 388]

livendive

Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

Or that observed temps have departed to such an extent from predictions that it invalidated all of the IPCC's climate models.

[livendive 8]

brenthutch

***Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

Or that observed temps have departed to such an extent from predictions that it invalidated all of the IPCC's climate models.

lol - You say that like you have some amount of credibility on the topic. If you can't understand the concepts of "trend" or "global", you clearly have no sense of scientific method. Your posts are still entertaining on the bias front, but when you refuse to acknowledge the success of the Prius, or Tesla, and can only claim "victory" on the basis of either completed discredited sources or unrepresentative sample sizes, you'll have to forgive a bit of scepticism on anything you say involving actual science. The day you present a credible alternative theory, I'll pay attention.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 18]

livendive

******Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

Or that observed temps have departed to such an extent from predictions that it invalidated all of the IPCC's climate models.

lol - You say that like you have some amount of credibility on the topic. If you can't understand the concepts of "trend" or "global", you clearly have no sense of scientific method. Your posts are still entertaining on the bias front, but when you refuse to acknowledge the success of the Prius, or Tesla, and can only claim "victory" on the basis of either completed discredited sources or unrepresentative sample sizes, you'll have to forgive a bit of scepticism on anything you say involving actual science. The day you present a credible alternative theory, I'll pay attention.

Blues,
Dave

He is as qualified as you are to comment on this

You realize that, right?


I doubt it

Sorry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

rushmc

*********Hands up - Who's surprised that brenthutch *didn't* mention that, globally, this past March was the 9th warmest on record? Or that the first quarter of this year (January through March) was the 8th warmest on record?

Shocker, I know.

Blues,
Dave

Or that observed temps have departed to such an extent from predictions that it invalidated all of the IPCC's climate models.

lol - You say that like you have some amount of credibility on the topic. If you can't understand the concepts of "trend" or "global", you clearly have no sense of scientific method. Your posts are still entertaining on the bias front, but when you refuse to acknowledge the success of the Prius, or Tesla, and can only claim "victory" on the basis of either completed discredited sources or unrepresentative sample sizes, you'll have to forgive a bit of scepticism on anything you say involving actual science. The day you present a credible alternative theory, I'll pay attention.

Blues,
Dave

He is as qualified as you are to comment on this

You realize that, right?


I doubt it

Sorry

The only qualification required to post is an unblocked dz.com account. Expecting people to take you seriously, on the other hand, requires occasionally thoughtful posts.

Attached are three pictures. One of them shows the DJIA over the last year. Most reasonable people would agree that it's trending up. However, some people seem to think that any small dips in that graph means there is no such trend. For example, yesterday (also attached), the DJIA dropped slightly. Does that mean the trend doesn't exist? What brenthutch has done here is even worse. Looking at one month of US-only data and trying to infer something about the bigger picture from this very small sample size is like looking at yesterday's Disney stock (attached) and claiming the market is crashing. It's intentionally distorting the facts to promote a completely illogical conclusion and is undeserving of any respectful consideration.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

It's intentionally distorting the facts to promote a completely illogical conclusion and is undeserving of any respectful consideration.

Nuh Ungh

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,464]

>He is as qualified as you are to comment on this

Anyone can comment here.

In general readers decide who is more qualified to comment on a topic. When you have two sides, one of whom cites recent peer-reviewed studies, and the other who replies with are "I'm sticking with oil and staying away from butterfly poop- powered truck stocks" and "Nuh Ungh" - it's pretty easy.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>He is as qualified as you are to comment on this

Anyone can comment here.

In general readers decide who is more qualified to comment on a topic. When you have two sides, one of whom cites recent peer-reviewed studies, and the other who replies with are "I'm sticking with oil and staying away from butterfly poop- powered truck stocks" and "Nuh Ungh" - it's pretty easy.

I was commenting to him, (just as you did here to me)

I am claiming nothing
He is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

billvon

butterfly poop

Don't forget "unicorn farts." Really convincing and mature discourse, indeed.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[brenthutch 388]

Don't take my word for it. Look at the IPCC's models and then look at NOAA's observations. When a models predictions do not comport with observation (aka reality) the model is WRONG. It does not matter how big of an asshole the critic is or how saintly the advocate is, the theory is WRONG. Grow some balls and some brains and get over it.

[kallend 1,672]

brenthutch

Don't take my word for it. Look at the IPCC's models and then look at NOAA's observations. When a models predictions do not comport with observation (aka reality) the model is WRONG. It does not matter how big of an asshole the critic is or how saintly the advocate is, the theory is WRONG. Grow some balls and some brains and get over it.

So you're still having trouble telling the difference between climate and weather.

f=ma is wrong too. But it's still better than no model at all and allows us to design airplanes, helicopters, ships, trucks and cars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

brenthutch

Don't take my word for it. Look at the IPCC's models and then look at NOAA's observations. When a models predictions do not comport with observation (aka reality) the model is WRONG. It does not matter how big of an asshole the critic is or how saintly the advocate is, the theory is WRONG. Grow some balls and some brains and get over it.

At what point did anyone describe any model as 100% infallible? Every single model in the world has some degree of uncertainty. When all of the IPCC models predict the same observable trend, and no critics offer a better alternative theory, the logical thing to do is look for revisions to the models that will accomodate observations, not to ditch them entirely in favor of "whatever happens happens". That's how science works. Predict, observe, revise as necessary, rinse, repeat. Your version seems to be more of "consume, ignore, rinse, repeat".

The models predict warming. There's uncertainty as to the feedback loops, and to the role that clouds will play, but the world is certainly warming. The models correctly predict retroactively and pretty well in recent years too, thus the best theory we have at this point in time is that humans are facilitating global climate change. When a batter is hitting .400, do you fire him? Or bench him in favor of the better hitter you don't have? Only if you're deliberately trying to do the wrong thing.

Also, my balls and brains are just fine, but it warms my heart to hear you're thinking of them. Also, I'm married. Sorry.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]. When all of the IPCC models predict the same observable trend, and no critics offer a better alternative theory, the logical thing to do is look for revisions to the models that will accomodate observations,

[winsor 189]

kallend

***Don't take my word for it. Look at the IPCC's models and then look at NOAA's observations. When a models predictions do not comport with observation (aka reality) the model is WRONG. It does not matter how big of an asshole the critic is or how saintly the advocate is, the theory is WRONG. Grow some balls and some brains and get over it.

So you're still having trouble telling the difference between climate and weather.

f=ma is wrong too. But it's still better than no model at all and allows us to design airplanes, helicopters, ships, trucks and cars.

E=mC^2 +/-3dB

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

When a models predictions do not comport with observation (aka reality) the model is WRONG.

That is incorrect. Predictive models are not expected to correctly predict future observations 100 percent of the time. Increasing confidence levels for prediction intervals results in wider intervals, decreasing the overall usefulness of the models.

A weatherman could say, with 100 percent confidence, that the high temperature tomorrow will be between -460º and 9941º F. He would be guaranteed to be correct, but his prediction would be completely useless. He might only be 90 percent confident that the high temperature will be between 75º and 85º F. (Note: I'm not a meteorologist, so I don't know the actual width of a 90 percent confidence prediction interval provided by current weather models.) While the smaller prediction interval is expected to cover the actual high temperature only nine out of ten times, it is a far more useful prediction.

If we monitored the weatherman's predictions (at the 90 percent confidence level) over an extended period of time and found that the intervals only covered the observed values 60 percent of the time, we would be justified questioning the accuracy of his model. A model that provides the expected proportion of accurate predictions is not wrong.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,672]

winsor

******Don't take my word for it. Look at the IPCC's models and then look at NOAA's observations. When a models predictions do not comport with observation (aka reality) the model is WRONG. It does not matter how big of an asshole the critic is or how saintly the advocate is, the theory is WRONG. Grow some balls and some brains and get over it.

So you're still having trouble telling the difference between climate and weather.

f=ma is wrong too. But it's still better than no model at all and allows us to design airplanes, helicopters, ships, trucks and cars.

E=mC^2 +/-3dB

Yes, but very difficult to use in airplane design.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[D22369 0]

Also, my balls and brains are just fine, but it warms my heart to hear you're thinking of them. Also, I'm married. Sorry.

***

ahhh, yer married, did Errin get a coin purse to hold em in? and you think too much

Roy

Ps: hope to see you guys soon, been a while

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.