Thanks alot for sending your bad summers to us in OH and PA. Now we have mostly wet and cool (cold?) summers last couple of years.

[sarcasm]

The industries, or lack thereof, in your area are to blame. Since you're complaining about them now, one can assume you were satisfied with the summers when your state still had industries. The government came in to protect you and look what happened, your complaining about the summers.

[/sarcasm]

 

At least those of us in the Midwest, aka OH, PA, WV, and MI don't have to worry about relocating our towns.

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/alaska-on-the-edge-climate-refugees-20130515

 

[sarcasm]

The industries, or lack thereof, in your area are to blame. Since you're complaining about them now, one can assume you were satisfied with the summers when your state still had industries. The government came in to protect you and look what happened, your complaining about the summers.

[/sarcasm]

I don't know what you are talking about?!?

2014 was near pre-recession rates of auto production and 2015 will likely be a record year! I will need some examples on your "government came in to protect you" comment.

 

[sarcasm]

The industries, or lack thereof, in your area are to blame. Since you're complaining about them now, one can assume you were satisfied with the summers when your state still had industries. The government came in to protect you and look what happened, your complaining about the summers.

[/sarcasm]

HUH?

 

Temperature here now: 56F, average low in August here: 69F. Gotta love that global warming.

 

Temperature here now: 56F, average low in August here: 69F. Gotta love that global warming.

Gotta love misunderstandings of statistics and dynamic systems.

There is little debate that the earth is getting warmer. The debate comes from the cause (natural phenom is vs man-made). Even of you want to debate data before weather temps were made via thermometers, 2015 is still the warmest year ever recorded.

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-july-2015-0

 

Gotta love misunderstandings of statistics and dynamic systems.

There is little debate that the earth is getting warmer. The debate comes from the cause (natural phenom is vs man-made). Even of you want to debate data before weather temps were made via thermometers, 2015 is still the warmest year ever recorded.

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-july-2015-0

You still beating this dead horse?

 

The horse is alive and kicking.

 

You still beating this dead horse?

How is it a dead horse? Did something change since your last post on the topic? Was that your last post on the topic?

 

years ago, I found the current temprature graph, the one that looks like a saw tooth, I googled historical temprature data, and ignored the obviously politicaly one sided articals. I found two with that shape, one from siberia, and one on the antartic. one thing odd about them is the much larger temprature drop at a rugular interval after the saw tooth rise. and the regular intervals. I was of course ridiculed for that, but it seems now that the same charts are around again.

 

Gotta love misunderstandings of statistics and dynamic systems.

There is little debate that the earth is getting warmer. The debate comes from the cause (natural phenom is vs man-made). Even of you want to debate data before weather temps were made via thermometers, 2015 is still the warmest year ever recorded.

I am still not clear on Piltdown Man. And is it the earth or the sun that's the center of the universe?

 

2015 is still the warmest year ever recorded

Don't mean nothin' The recorded history of climate data is a pimple on the ass of a knat on an elephant. We haven't experienced the cyclic cooling .... and most here won't, especially me or my grandkids.

 

Scientists try to replicate results of studies that contradict man-made climate change. It didn't go well for the studies.

The researchers also found that a number of the contrarian studies simply ignored the laws of physics. For example, in 2007 and 2010 papers, Ferenc Miskolczi argued that the greenhouse effect had become saturated, a theory that had been disproved in the early 1900s.

In other cases, the authors found, researchers would include extra parameters not based in the laws of physics to make a model fit their conclusion.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...scientists-cant-recreate-bad-science/?ref=yfp

 

Don't mean nothin' The recorded history of climate data is a pimple on the ass of a knat on an elephant. We haven't experienced the cyclic cooling .... and most here won't, especially me or my grandkids.

Kinda worries me a bit if I consider that this year may have been the peak point and the majority of things to come will be getting colder for the rest of my life and the next many some generations to come.

I don't know about the rest of you but I for one find high heat way easier to cope and deal with than extreme cold.

When it's hot you can always find some place cooler even if it means digging a hole in the ground and crawling in it.
When it's cold you can't even dig a hole to get away from it.

 

Not to worry tcmtech. I couldn't tell you if we hit the zenith of warmth yet. Who knows what the nadir of cold will begin.

 

When the Ancient Aliens return, may be we can ask them what the climate was like when they built the Pyramids and other ancient monuments.

 

Scientists try to replicate results of studies that contradict man-made climate change. It didn't go well for the studies.

Nice link. Interesting read. I "cherry picked" some of the comments in their report.

We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny.

I'll wait for the same group to report on the "consensus" papers.

Writing collections of replications of past papers is not the norm, but it is difficult to get published in journals with a set of expected formats or because of high likelihood that one reviewer does not like the implications or conclusions. Some journals do not even allow comments.

Naw, that's not possible. Not drinking the cool aid ... not being published, there's no correlation there.

Here, we focus on a small sample of papers that have made a discernable mark on the public discourse about climate change; they were selectively picked for close-up study rather than randomly sampled for a statistical representation.

Yep, let's concentrate on the contrarian.

The merit of replication, by reexamining old publications in order to assess their veracity, is obvious. Science is never settled, and both the scientific consensus and alternative hypotheses should be subject to ongoing questioning, especially in the presence of new evidence and insights. True and universal answers should, in principle, be replicated independently, especially if they have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I concur.

There may also be flawed papers agreeing with the mainstream view, but they have little effect on the gap of perception between the public perception and the scientific consensus.

Yep, no need to examine them as they don't negatively affect our funding.

I still would like to know why NOAA won't change the data to reflect the installation errors of their CRN reporting stations that have been identified and they had agreed was a problem?

 

I'll wait for the same group to report on the "consensus" papers.

It's not hard to find reports on the consensus papers. Of course, all those papers are reviewed before publication. See John Christy and Roy Spencer.

Naw, that's not possible. Not drinking the cool aid ... not being published, there's no correlation there.

What's impossible? What's not correlated?

Yep, no need to examine them as they don't negatively affect our funding.

The stated purpose of the study was to examine conflicts with consensus papers. Can't do that by reviewing consensus papers. now can we?

I still would like to know why NOAA won't change the data to reflect the installation errors of their CRN reporting stations that have been identified and they had agreed was a problem?

Why should they? Is the data wrong? Can you show how it's wrong?

 

 

Why should they? Is the data wrong? Can you show how it's wrong?

Someone already has.

http://www.surfacestations.org/