Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Quoting JFLORIDA:


Really? I would never expect the weather to behave exactly like inside my house's thermostat.

lol

Every winter storm, of course, brings the same stale jokes about Al Gore and ManBearBig

wrong..... Al Gore is stale.... not the jokes....

Scientists making things up in the arctic, if they say it's melting so much it will fund them to have careers their entire life time.  Called job security.

LOL!! Amy...

We in the Panhandle of Florida might have had our last chance for snow this last time around. All indications that the end of Jan into Feb is going to usher in a typical La Nina pattern into a mild winter....bollocks....sigh:(

Quoting Jax82:
The Earth = 4,540,000,000 +/- years old

Accurate record keeping = 100 +/- years old

IF even 100, I'd bet half of the world's reporting stations didn't exist in 1969.

Quoting HaloReachFan:
2010 tied for warmest year in Earth's history
Earth's warmest year in history occurred in 2010, NASA reported yesterday. The globe's temperature beat the previous record set in 2005 by just .01°C, so we should consider 2010 and 2005 tied for the warmest year on record. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also announced yesterday that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, with temperatures during 2010 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. I'll have a full blog post on the subject Friday morning.

Shouldn't this say since records started being kept in 1875?

Not if you're a GW advocate.

Quoting RitaEvac:
Scientists making things up in the arctic, if they say it's melting so much it will fund them to have careers their entire life time.  Called job security.

Yep.

Quoting smartinwx:


Not if you're a GW advocate.

...or if you know what the term "on record" means.

Average folks don't go to the Arctic nor does our politicians, so scientists make up charts and graphs and numbers and say whatever they want, because it's their word against the rest of us who don't, nor will ever go there.  So we have to believe them right? If they can persuade us, the governments will throw money to research and whatever else. 

This equates to Job Security....and they'll be invested in green energy and tell us to go green and they'll invent how it works and everything else, and then they will try to run the show.  It's a big club folks...and we aint in it.

Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 32

Quoting Neapolitan:"
Again, historical means have nothing to do with record highs or lows; such records are absolutes. (That is, absolutes from when records were first kept.) You state you realize they are absolutes--but then you go on to again talk about them being deviations from average. But, again, averages and means and anomalies have nothing to do with these records in this context."

Again...I don't know how better to explain it. You seriously don't think that simply having current global temperatures being above the historical average makes it more likely that record highs will be set as opposed to record lows, regardless of the current trend?

Maybe someone else can explain it better. I'm willing to agree to disagree at this point, but rest assured that I will bring it up again the next time the record high/low graphic and/or data is posted.

Okay, one final try. ;-)

You asked, "You seriously don't think that simply having current global temperatures being above the historical average makes it more likely that record highs will be set as opposed to record lows, regardless of the current trend?"

The opposite, actually; if we were discussing anomalies, record highs outnumbering record lows would drive up the historical average, making it less likely that we'd see anomalous highs. But we're not talking about averages. We're discussing records, where the only reference point is the previous record.

Look at it this way: when an Olympic runner sets a record for, say, the 100m, that's a record regardless of how much he beat the average 100m time by--and his beating that average is certainly not going to make it more likely he or another runner will set another record. ;-)

Quoting RitaEvac:
Average folks don't go to the Arctic nor does our politicians, so scientists make up charts and graphs and numbers and say whatever they want, because it's their word against the rest of us who don't, nor will ever go there.  So we have to believe them right? If they can persuade us, the governments will throw money to research and whatever else. 

This equates to Job Security....and they'll be invested in green energy and tell us to go green and they'll invent how it works and everything else, and then they will try to run the show.  It's a big club folks...and we aint in it.

I can use Photoshop pretty easily so I'm sure these scientist's could use it too.

(bangs head on keyboard, sticks straws in ears)

Hell if Enron could do it, why couldn't scientists in the arctic!!

Ice will exist in 2014 pal.

Quoting MichaelSTL:


I wonder what you will say when this happens (according to the second ice volume graph I posted above, September ice volume reaches zero in 2014):



Of course, you will declare that it is all made up - even if you were forcibly made to see it in person (probably would claim that you were drugged and put into a virtual reality machine - hey, they did the same thing with Apollo!).

rightttt... ice free in 3 years that makes sense... oh wait... no it doesnt

Quoting RitaEvac:
Average folks don't go to the Arctic nor does our politicians, so scientists make up charts and graphs and numbers and say whatever they want, because it's their word against the rest of us who don't, nor will ever go there.%uFFFD So we have to believe them right? If they can persuade us, the governments will throw money to research and whatever else.%uFFFD

This equates to Job Security....and they'll be invested in green energy and tell us to go green and they'll invent how it works and everything else, and then they will try to run the show.%uFFFD It's a big club folks...and we aint in it.

The same can be said of many things, no? I've never gone to the moon, yet I believe what science tells me is there. I've never been to the bottom of the ocean, yet I believe science where that goes. Heck, I've never been inside an internal combustion engine either, so I have to take the word of scientists about what's going on there. And I've never looked inside my chest cavity, but I think I'd believe what a thoracic surgeon told me about it.

At any rate, the big money is in Big Energy. Think how much more "job security" a good half of those AGW-believing climate scientists would have if they would only stop lying about global warming and go to work for ExxonMobil. Dumb money-grubbing scientists...

:-\

And why in the hell is it the north pole and never the south pole....maybe because there's too much ice down there so we don't want to talk about that.

Quoting aquak9:
(bangs head on keyboard, sticks straws in ears)

Oh, don't do that; save those straws for the Long Island Iced Tea... ;-)

Quoting Jedkins01:
Continue to blow your fuses, while I got some sleep.

By the way, the weather underground blogs were not created so people can freak out about the end of the world because they believe in an unproved hypothesis known as Global Warming.

Ahahahaha classic.

The only proof for global warming is every single piece of scientific evidence ever published, which you anti GW folk claim are all hidden agenda non sense.

Wake up already, the debate isn't if earth is warming, its how much are humans contributing and what can we do about it. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the more professional and educated agw folk look at alternate reasons for the warming, other than humans, rather than denying the warming.

Quoting Neapolitan:

The same can be said of many things, no? I've never gone to the moon, yet I believe what science tells me is there. I've never been to the bottom of the ocean, yet I believe science where that goes. Heck, I've never been inside an internal combustion engine either, so I have to take the word of scientists about what's going on there. And I've never looked inside my chest cavity, but I think I'd believe what a thoracic surgeon told me about it.

At any rate, the big money is in Big Energy. Think how much more "job security" a good half of those AGW-believing climate scientists would have if they would only stop lying about global warming and go to work for ExxonMobil. Dumb money-grubbing scientists...

:-\

Because their scientists, if they are smarter than everybody else they could run their own company (green jobs) instead of working for ExxonMobil.  Plus it's not a "clean energy" they might catch something.

What did the cavemen think when the last ice age started to abate,they grunted and groaned(they were thinking how can we stop AGW)

thank you JF- it's like all the seismos are stuck on a big PING

I promise I'll wait, Nea...

№ 99

Quoting MichaelSTL:
I thought this comment over at Climate Progress was interesting:

Let us not forget the cooling bias from the AO and NAO. They were in the negative phase most of the year, but made most impact in January, Feb, Nov and Dec. Cold Arctic air flowed onto the continents, decreasing the average mean temp there, but the warm air that flowed into the Arctic and dramatically raised the average temp up there did not affect the global average much since temps are extrapolated in GISS, and not even taken into account in CRU, causing a large cold bias. No wonder the CRU data are the new favorite set of the deniers. The very dataset that they %u201Cproved%u201D to be %u201Cfraudulent%u201D during %u201CClimategate%u201D. Funny how quick things change in the land of denial.

This makes the 2010 tie/record a lot more impressive and a whole lot more scary.

That is true, because if you look at the zonal means, it was very likely even warmer in the Arctic that it suggests, because it doesn't just level off like it shows:



In fact, it probably was more like this (shaded areas show where warming was underestimated):

Actually based on the GISS anomalies using the 250km extrapolation, shown below:



It doesn't seem that it is correct to assume that the extrapolated region should be even warmer than is shown. The highest anomalies are not at the highest latitudes and the data at the highest latitudes is in the 2-4 degC range. Very sparse data up there though.

Jesse Ventura has a show on Conspiracy Theories.....

I'm waiting for the one on ManBearPig...

Satellite temperatures of the mid-troposphere show that the globe has really crashed so far this winter and is now very significantly lower than last year at this time (cyan line). For the first 10 days of January we are actually running below the long-term average (orange line). If this continues, we may see global temperature turn in a below-average month to start off 2011.

Nice job, cut and paste

Quoting MichaelSTL:


Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

Conspiracy theorists are seeking to prove something they want to believe. Instead of scientifically following a stream of facts to a rational conclusion they collect bits and pieces and oddments, not to synthesize a robust alternative explanation, but more to crap on an official version or more cohesive theories. The fact that their interpretation of events, evidence, and testimony leads to more and more dubious explanations for the data, and impossible situations is unimportant. Contrary to Leman's assertion, this type of thinking is completely contrary to what makes good scientific, and probably journalistic investigation. 9/11 conspiracy thinking is typical of this, and rather than going into it here - and dammit I mean it - check out Bronze Dog's "Twoof is Wewative" coverage of recent crank arguments here. He sums it up nicely. These explanations rely on dubious facts and interpretation of events, and increase in complexity the explanation for how the towers fell or the Pentagon was hit astronomically. All of a sudden, rather than a reasonable explanation - planes hitting buildings, buildings catch fire, buildings fall, you have a range of theories from the hilariously absurd (holographic projection), to pointlessly complex (planned demolition).

Thank you STL. That explains it perfectly. AGW is a conspiracy theory. I knew it!!!

Quoting NRAamy:
Every winter storm, of course, brings the same stale jokes about Al Gore and ManBearBig

wrong..... Al Gore is stale.... not the jokes....

He wants to be taken "cereal"

we're not all going to be dead in 5 years.... 12/21/2012 is just around the corner....

post 145.... now you've got it!

:)