• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outragious climate headlines

longview

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,612
Reaction score
14,469
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Study: Warming may make New York feel like Arkansas in 2080
An article in Yahoo news had this headline.
Study: Warming may make New York feel like Arkansas in 2080
Click to expand...
The problem with such headlines is that the warming trends in New York are very low.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1950&lasttrendyear=2018
.1 F per decade, or roughly .6 F (.33C) higher by 2080.
To make the statement even less likely, there has been no max temperature warming in NYC since 1990.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1990&lasttrendyear=2018
The trend is negative, Climate is supposed to be how the weather acts over a 30 year period,
It looks like the max temperatures are coming down!
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Antarctica and “alarming” Sea Level Rise[/h][FONT=&quot]By Rud Istvan, WUWT reader KS of North Dakota emailed a request to ctm based on reading ‘alarming’ Wired journalism concerning $50 million being spent to further study the ‘dangerous’ Thwaites glacier in Antarctica. KS asked if WUWT could perhaps produce a factual overview. ctm asked me to provide it, since I had written an…
[/FONT]
January 8, 2019 in Antarctic, Sea level.
 
[h=2]Climate Alarmists Alarmed Public No Longer Panicked About The Climate, Demand More Doomsday Headlines![/h]By P Gosselin on 22. April 2016
Climate science critics Dr. Sebastian Lüning and professor Fritz Vahrenholt here present today some findings that climate alarmists are not very amused over: Climate alarmism has waned and is no longer making any headlines. The two co-authors of “The Neglected Sun” write at their site: ======================================== “People aren’t dumb. Climate alarmism just isn’t working. The […]
 
There are many other studies more in line with a 30 year span that concur/agree with climate warming.

IMO, it's unproductive to argue over CC here. Either you believe in climate science, or you don't.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There are many other studies more in line with a 30 year span that concur/agree with climate warming.

IMO, it's unproductive to argue over CC here. Either you believe in climate science, or you don't.
Click to expand...

It is because I believe in climate science that I believe there is no threat from claimed anthropogenic global warming. We "argue" here on behalf of science, and against advocacy masquerading as science.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There are many other studies more in line with a 30 year span that concur/agree with climate warming.

IMO, it's unproductive to argue over CC here. Either you believe in climate science, or you don't.
Click to expand...

True. Provided you know enough about it to distinguish actual climate science from climate politics.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There are many other studies more in line with a 30 year span that concur/agree with climate warming.

IMO, it's unproductive to argue over CC here. Either you believe in climate science, or you don't.
Click to expand...
It is not that the climate is not warming, or even what is causing the warming,
What is outrageous, is the prediction of rapid warming in a specific location, that has seen no Maximum temperature warming in the last 30 years.
Central Park 1989 to 2019,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1989&lasttrendyear=2018
ZERO trend!
Since the average temperature has increased, this tells us that 100% of the observed warming over the last 30 years
has been in the minimum temperatures, I.E. it is not getting as cold as it used to!
 
longview said:
Study: Warming may make New York feel like Arkansas in 2080
An article in Yahoo news had this headline.

The problem with such headlines is that the warming trends in New York are very low.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1950&lasttrendyear=2018
.1 F per decade, or roughly .6 F (.33C) higher by 2080.
To make the statement even less likely, there has been no max temperature warming in NYC since 1990.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1990&lasttrendyear=2018
The trend is negative, Climate is supposed to be how the weather acts over a 30 year period,
It looks like the max temperatures are coming down!
Click to expand...

longview said:
It is not that the climate is not warming, or even what is causing the warming,
What is outrageous, is the prediction of rapid warming in a specific location, that has seen no Maximum temperature warming in the last 30 years.
Central Park 1989 to 2019,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1989&lasttrendyear=2018
ZERO trend!
Since the average temperature has increased, this tells us that 100% of the observed warming over the last 30 years
has been in the minimum temperatures, I.E. it is not getting as cold as it used to!
Click to expand...

Wow!! That is a really nice example of dishonest cherry picking.

Looking over New York's 4 different temperature records I see that you have found a 28-year trend that is actually negative and a 29-year trend that is flat. But only if you just look at max temps in just one of the four records. Look at almost everything else and they show much more warming.
 
Buzz said:
Wow!! That is a really nice example of dishonest cherry picking.

Looking over New York's 4 different temperature records I see that you have found a 28-year trend that is actually negative and a 29-year trend that is flat. But only if you just look at max temps in just one of the four records. Look at almost everything else and they show much more warming.
Click to expand...
The Study specifically was saying that New York City could be like Arkansas by 2080, just 61 years from now.
What is more relevant, than the last 30 years, to show what might happen in the next 60 years.
The paper was attempting to paint a real world picture on what specific cities would feel like,
IF the climate warmed as predicted, by the high end of the range.
I was just showing that the actual data from New York, does not show the high temperatures increasing like they predicted.
One thing I think people misunderstand is that the idea that CO2 warming will warm both highs and lows is a relatively
new concept. In the 1800's the father of the greenhouse gas theory, Tyndail, was not concerned about CO2,
because it would largely lower the seasonal and diurnal temperature ranges.
This was pointed out in the opening paragraph of Arrhenius's 1896 paper, when he said.
A great deal has been written on the influence of the absorption of the
atmosphere upon the climate.
Tyndail in particular has pointed out the enormous importance of this question.
To him it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature that were
lessened by the circumstance.
Click to expand...
I suspect the idea to compare average temperatures between cities is a bit flawed to begin with,
as average temperatures of a city can be close to the same, while the temperatures that went into the average
can be vastly different.
Average Annual Temperatures for Large US Cities - Current Results
 
Buzz said:
Wow!! That is a really nice example of dishonest cherry picking.

Looking over New York's 4 different temperature records I see that you have found a 28-year trend that is actually negative and a 29-year trend that is flat. But only if you just look at max temps in just one of the four records. Look at almost everything else and they show much more warming.
Click to expand...
I looked again to see how far back the zero maximum temperature trend went, and stopped at 1983,
So from 1983 to 2018, Central park maximum temperature have not increased at all.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1983&lasttrendyear=2019
When people talk about how hot it is, do you think they are usually discussing the day's highs, or the days lows?
 
[h=1]IPPR lies promoted by BBC and Guardian[/h]Posted on 12 Feb 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 30 Comments
The self-styled “progressive” think tank IPPR has issued a ridiculously alarmist report today, This is a crisis: Facing up to the age of environmental breakdown. The report recycles various bogus scares, and contains obvious falsehoods such as • Since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times The IPCC says …
 
longview said:
I looked again to see how far back the zero maximum temperature trend went, and stopped at 1983,
So from 1983 to 2018, Central park maximum temperature have not increased at all.
Click to expand...

Wrong! From 1992 to 2018 the trend shows an increase. All you have done is cherry-pick a few more years that give you the trend you want. The vast majority of data from the four different temp records for New York show significant amounts of warming.

longview said:
When people talk about how hot it is, do you think they are usually discussing the day's highs, or the days lows?
Click to expand...

You are not seriously suggesting that this is a legitimate reason for only looking at max temps... are you?

:lamo
 
Buzz said:
Wrong! From 1992 to 2018 the trend shows an increase. All you have done is cherry-pick a few more years that give you the trend you want. The vast majority of data from the four different temp records for New York show significant amounts of warming.



You are not seriously suggesting that this is a legitimate reason for only looking at max temps... are you?

:lamo
Click to expand...

Who is cherry picking now?
But lets check how climate is defined.
Climate vs. Weather | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years.
Click to expand...
So for the 30 year defined average to now, there is ZERO trend.
Did the weather have temperatures that went down and came back up in that period,
sure, it happens every day, and every year, but that is weather.
Did the average warming (T-Max +T-Min/2) increase? Yes,
but if there was a ZERO trend in T-Max, then all of the warming was in T-Min.
This means that the lows did not get as low as they usually do.
The nineteenth century Scientist who said CO2 acted like the glass in a hothouse,
was not concerned about CO2, for the reasons we are seeing, yes CO2 causes average warming,
but with the majority of that warming occurring, in the nights and evenings of the cooler months.
If they really understood the mechanism of what CO2 does in the diurnal cycle, then this observation could be explained.
The simple answer is that CO2 is not behaving as they expect! But why are their expectations wrong?
 
Buzz said:
...But only if you just look at max temps in just one of the four records.
Look at almost everything else and they show much more warming.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to know how hot it got, I suggest you look at how hot it got.
Looking at how cold it got or what the average did, or how much snow fell or
what the temperature of the bottom of the ocean or some glacier in Antarctica
is really won't tell you.
 
Last edited:
Well, now we know...the dinosaurs became extinct because of all those :fart...
 
[h=2]Kids protesting to change weather are “heroic” but grownups in yellow vests are unnewsworthy[/h]
[h=3]Are children driving this or is the media?[/h]A bunch of children are being hailed as heroes for skipping a day of school in order to get better weather for their 120th birthday party. Imagine the thrill of importance for any 17 year old “said” to be wielding this power. This is rock-star stuff.
[h=3] How teenage girls defied skeptics to build a new global climate movement[/h][by Tara John, CNN] A thick smudge of gold glitter on her right cheek belied the fact that [Anna] Taylor, 17, has taken a leading role in organizing a protest that is expected to see hundreds of students walk out of class across the UK on Friday.
“Hundreds” eh? Keep that figure in mind.
[h=3]Meanwhile adults in yellow vests go to expense, effort and take risks to mass protest week after week and the TV ignores them[/h]As Rafe Champion says:What is happening in Paris? Not much according to the MSM.
“There appears to be a different story to be told, but who would know?”​
Week 13 and 50,000 people are still taking to the streets in an extraordinary leaderless protest. The Italian deputy PM personally went and met with the yellow vests and invited them to Rome. Police have had to block yellow vest protestors from crossing the border to join up with Italians. The French ambassador to Italy has been recalled, and the French government is officially “not happy”. President Macron is talking about holding a national referendum with 3 months of public debate on climate change, taxes, public services and democracy. France hasn’t had a referendum since 2005.
This phenomenon is entirely unprecedented but apparently not that newsworthy. It’s not like the media have spent twenty years telling us that everyone wants “climate action” and that was totally wrong. . . .
 
longview said:
Who is cherry picking now?
Click to expand...

I'm not cherry picking anything. You're the one who said that this specific record shows no warming since 1983. But the problem is that this is simply not true. Fact of the matter is that it does show warming that started in about 1992. I was just correcting your false statement.

longview said:
But lets check how climate is defined.
Climate vs. Weather | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Click to expand...

But that says that climate is "often" defined as 30 years. That doesn't mean it has to be 30 years. It could be 25 years, or it could be 40 years. And when you use either of those time periods then your flat trend disappears and becomes a positive trend.

longview said:
So for the 30 year defined average to now, there is ZERO trend.
Click to expand...

Yes... for one of four relevant temp records. And that is only when you look at just the Max temp trend starting in 1983 to 1990. Start that trend in any years before or after that time frame and it shows warming. Or look at either minimum or average temps over any time period and they all show warming. Plus... all of the other three records for New York City show a warming trend no matter what time period you use or whether it is minimum, maximum or average. And this is why you are a dishonest cherry picker.

longview said:
Did the weather have temperatures that went down and came back up in that period,
sure, it happens every day, and every year, but that is weather.
Did the average warming (T-Max +T-Min/2) increase? Yes,
but if there was a ZERO trend in T-Max, then all of the warming was in T-Min.
This means that the lows did not get as low as they usually do.
The nineteenth century Scientist who said CO2 acted like the glass in a hothouse,
was not concerned about CO2, for the reasons we are seeing, yes CO2 causes average warming,
but with the majority of that warming occurring, in the nights and evenings of the cooler months.
If they really understood the mechanism of what CO2 does in the diurnal cycle, then this observation could be explained.
The simple answer is that CO2 is not behaving as they expect! But why are their expectations wrong?
Click to expand...

Oh God... not the diurnal cycle B.S. again. When are you going to give up on this stupid argument?
 
Buzz said:
Oh God... not the diurnal cycle B.S. again. When are you going to give up on this stupid argument?
Click to expand...
When Groundhog Day ends?

I recall Mithrae explaining it yet again to him for the umpteenth time in this recent thread below, as I'm sure many others have too. But it's one of his favorite science denier conspiracy memes that he's addicted to, so he's not likely to give up his 'fix'.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...s-and-10-hottest-years-28.html#post1069287024
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
I'm not cherry picking anything. You're the one who said that this specific record shows no warming since 1983. But the problem is that this is simply not true. Fact of the matter is that it does show warming that started in about 1992. I was just correcting your false statement.



But that says that climate is "often" defined as 30 years. That doesn't mean it has to be 30 years. It could be 25 years, or it could be 40 years. And when you use either of those time periods then your flat trend disappears and becomes a positive trend.



Yes... for one of four relevant temp records. And that is only when you look at just the Max temp trend starting in 1983 to 1990. Start that trend in any years before or after that time frame and it shows warming. Or look at either minimum or average temps over any time period and they all show warming. Plus... all of the other three records for New York City show a warming trend no matter what time period you use or whether it is minimum, maximum or average. And this is why you are a dishonest cherry picker.



Oh God... not the diurnal cycle B.S. again. When are you going to give up on this stupid argument?
Click to expand...

And yet the high temperatures in Central park have a ZERO trend since the mid 80's!
 
longview said:
And yet the high temperatures in Central park have a ZERO trend since the mid 80's!
Click to expand...

Yes. The mid-'80s, right about when New York started renovating the park and installing irrigation systems to maintain all the grass fields.

http://assets.centralparknyc.org/pdfs/institute/CPC-Institute-Turf-Care-Handbook.pdf

There is a lot of interesting info and before and after pics in the link.

So... you are, in fact, using less than 5% of the data for New York City that happens to come from a very small island of cool in the middle of one of the biggest urban heat islands on the planet. And then you are ignoring all of the other 95% of the data to erroneously claim that New York City's max temps are going down.

In my book that is the height of dishonest cherry picking.
 
longview said:
And yet the high temperatures in Central park have a ZERO trend since the mid 80's!
Click to expand...

I wonder why....

Nice open space several square kilometers that has almost all of it's natural evapotranspiration left intact.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder why....

Nice open space several square kilometers that has almost all of it's natural evapotranspiration left intact.
Click to expand...

Wow!! Did you miss my last post right before yours or did it just go 1,261 meters above your head?
 
Buzz said:
Yes. The mid-'80s, right about when New York started renovating the park and installing irrigation systems to maintain all the grass fields.

http://assets.centralparknyc.org/pdfs/institute/CPC-Institute-Turf-Care-Handbook.pdf

There is a lot of interesting info and before and after pics in the link.

So... you are, in fact, using less than 5% of the data for New York City that happens to come from a very small island of cool in the middle of one of the biggest urban heat islands on the planet. And then you are ignoring all of the other 95% of the data to erroneously claim that New York City's max temps are going down.

In my book that is the height of dishonest cherry picking.
Click to expand...
Actually a Park within a city is a good reference, because that is where the temperature stations are supposed to be,
away from artificial heat sources and structures.
Likely an example of how the heat island effect runs up the official numbers.
 
[h=1]Panic Now, Or Die Horribly![/h]Posted on 18 Feb 19 by JAIME JESSOP • 15 Comments
Climate alarmists are becoming desperate. We’re not concerned enough about climate change, so they are going full out to try and create blind panic in the forlorn hope that we will be herded like sheep into taking action and/or consent meekly to the taking of drastic action, because we have become fearful, fed as we … Continue reading
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom