Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After a wicked hot spell in early July right now we're enjoying a late July and August cool down. Nights in the 50s and days in the upper 70s, cloudy and overcast. The whole country east of the Mississippi has been lucky avoiding drought and has had a very good growing season. If its like this until October nobody will complain.
Texas is just the opposite. We had a very cool summer up to August, now it is normal with 100+ temps. Overall, a nice summer though.
Christopher Monckton did a guest post on this site as to what the AGU's statement of climate science should have stated if they were a scientific organization and not a political authority group for activists.
I am going to post it in tandem with the actual AGU statement so you can see the differences to really contrast the problem with the AGU "Political" statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGU Actual Statement
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased
sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.
Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed
global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because
natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide)
from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate
system for millennia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***AGU Revised Statement***
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, but – as the AGU must now concede – not by much. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 0.03% before the Industrial Revolution to 0.04% today. Much of this alteration of 1 part in 10,000 of the atmospheric composition may have been caused by burning fossil fuels.
The world has warmed by 0.8 CÂş over the past 140 years, but a recent survey of the abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers on global climate change showed only 43 abstracts, or 0.3% of the sample, endorsing the notion that humans were responsible for most of that warming. The mean residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is 7 years, so the AGU must recognize that its earlier fears that anthropogenic emissions will influence the climate system for millennia have proven unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGU Actual Statement
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to
human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***AGU Revised Statement***
Observations show that recent modest increases in air and sea temperatures and in sea level have been well within natural variability. Atmospheric water vapor may or may not have increased: we lack the capacity to measure it accurately. Some (but not all) mountain glaciers have receded, and earlier claims that all ice in the Himalayas would be gone in 25 years have been withdrawn. Most of the world’s 160,000 glaciers are in the Antarctic, nearly all of which has cooled in the past 30 years.
Snow cover extent in the northern hemisphere reached a record high December value in 2012. There is no global measurement of permafrost, but its extent has probably changed little. Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and the AGU must apologize for having given only half the story before. These changes are within natural variability and need no further explanation, though humans may have had some small influence. The changes are consistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences but allow for some human contribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGU Actual Statement
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of
warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse
gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some
additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***AGU Revised Statement***
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions; that higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming and greater risks to society and ecosystems; and that some additional warming is unavoidable owing to past emissions. Yet the models have consistently over-predicted global atmospheric and oceanic warming. According to satellite measurements, for 16 years 8 months, or 200 months, there has been no global warming at all.
And, though some 0.2 CÂş warming should have occurred since January 2005 according to the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the satellite records show no global warming at all since that date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGU Actual Statement
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year
to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of
weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced
climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***AGU Revised Statement***
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counter-intuitive ways – some areas may experience cooling, for instance. Indeed, taking the mean of the monthly surface or lower-troposphere global mean surface temperature anomalies from all five principal datasets, the cooling has been global throughout the 150 months since January 2001, representing one-eighth of the present century.
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water, are currently no more frequent or intense than usual, and are unlikely to increase for as long as global temperatures continue to fail to rise as the AGU had formerly but erroneously predicted. Other projected outcomes, such threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), coastal infrastructure, and biodiversity, are also unlikely in the circumstances. The AGU must now agree that previous talk of ocean “acidification” was incorrect, since the oceans are and must remain pronouncedly alkaline for as long as they are buffered by the rocks in the basins where they lie. Benefits of a warmer world (if and when warming resumes) will include increased availability of agricultural land formerly under permafrost in northern latitudes; reduced storminess as temperature differentials diminish; and greater crop yields thanks to a general growth in the net primary productivity of the world’s trees and plants owing to CO2 fertilization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGU Actual Statement
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be
experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate
change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid
loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***AGU Revised Statement***
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, the AGU must now accept that no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of anthropogenic climate change significantly damaging. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic advantages than anticipated. Trans-polar navigation and mineral exploration will be facilitated. However, it is known that much of the loss of Arctic sea ice is attributable to natural influences, and half of that loss since 1979 has been compensated by increases in Antarctic sea ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGU Actual Statement
Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems
include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as
preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has
responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts.
Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change,
working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding
clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”
Adopted by the American Geophysical UnionDecember 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed
December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ***AGU Revised Statement***
Actions that could diminish the benefits posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include the substantial emissions cuts the AGU once advocated in a futile attempt to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming, which has proven to be remarkably poorly correlated with increases in CO2 emissions. The community of scientists must learn to recognize that it has no responsibility to promote a particular negative viewpoint on climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand why the predicted climate change is not occurring, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying results to decision makers and to the general public clearly, accurately, honestly, and without the previous negative prejudice for which the AGU must now humbly apologize.
Erroneous versions of the above statement were adopted by the American Geophysical Union in December 2003 and were revised and republished in December 2007, February 2012, and August 2013. In the face of the evidence, the AGU must now accept that its previous statements were inadequate.
Gives a bit of perspective to their claims doesn't it? It is a shame that a scientific based organization has become a puppet platform for activism.
I don't know what we're arguing about. I said January-June was tied for the seventh warmest. That is all I said. I gave you the proof. The end.
It just kills people like you when up is not down.
I responded to your quote, and I guess i have to post it again:
"...the country has seen above-average temperatures ... for the first six months of the year."
How in the hell can you make the leap that we have a warm year when we had a record setting cold spring??? It was so cold this spring, for so long, that farmers were unable to plant their crops until late, and were racing to get their fields planted in time. If you were honest, you'd say we had a warm June and July, and a record setting cold for months, giving us the second coldest spring in one hundred years, and not characterize the entire year as warm.
I responded to your quote, and I guess i have to post it again:
"...the country has seen above-average temperatures ... for the first six months of the year."
How in the hell can you make the leap that we have a warm year when we had a record setting cold spring??? It was so cold this spring, for so long, that farmers were unable to plant their crops until late, and were racing to get their fields planted in time. If you were honest, you'd say we had a warm June and July, and a record setting cold for months, giving us the second coldest spring in one hundred years, and not characterize the entire year as warm.
Amazing isn't it? I mean, you would think they would just go quiet, evade this fact, or try to excuse it, but.. no... they go on and mislead right to peoples faces about it. This is why they are sinking. There is too much evidence conflicting with them to argue their position reasonably, they now have to resort to extreme Alinksy tactics (beyond what they did before).
Give it time, they will once again be viewed as the crazy guy on the street corner going on about the end of the world coming tomorrow.
Exactly what did I mislead on? This is what I posted:
Can you tell me what in there is misleading to you? Is the problem that you can't read?
Again, misleading. Did you check the data they provided? Look a the map in your link. They are weighting specific regions to claim as a whole. You can read colors right? White is normal, blue shades to dark are below normal and red shades to dark are above normal.
So, what is the map predominately comprised of? Is there more white and blue or is there more red (ie signifying above normal). See, you fall for the same crap that most do when they read this garbage. They read the "summary" and then assume the data supports the summary. Now, if you go about "statistical" means and average based on the highest and lowest temps, it will show a "above normal" over all, but that is misleading, because then... well... we are claiming a regional "weather" aspect is climate.
You imply in your mention that the "country" as a whole has seen such rises, but this is false as I said previously, only "parts" have seen such and the "majority" of the country has seen normal or below normal temps.
So yes, you are misleading, but then again... so is the NOAA as they expect their readers to not ask questions, nor check what it is they are claiming. You are supposed to hang on every word and not be concerned about all those silly fact check details, you know... it boggs people down and all.
BTW Globe199,
This isn't the first time the NOAA has mislead people. They have been caught many times in misleading people concerning the data. Do you who know who works there and has been in charge of their administrations? Do you know those people and their political statements in the past? If all you do is inform yourself on government site summaries, well... you are going to be misinformed. Check their work sometime. When they make a given claim, go to the data, run the numbers yourself. Find out what methods they are applying, how they come to their "conclusions". You may be surprised, but then... maybe you won't? Maybe you want them to be correct in their claims because it fits in with your position? This is part of the problem with these activist researchers and politically involved organizations. The "cause" is more important than the science and their work consistently demonstrates this.
No, they are not "weighting" anything. Certain regions were cooler, certain regions were warmer. They are averaging temperatures across the contiguous United States.
From the article:
Quote:
As a whole, though, the country has seen above-average temperatures and above-average precipitation for the first six months of the year.
Can you read that? It's in English. Please read it. It's right in front of your face. Read it a few times if you need to:
Quote:
As a whole, though, the country has seen above-average temperatures and above-average precipitation for the first six months of the year.
It could not be simpler. Up is up, down is down. Done arguing with people who think otherwise or can't admit when they're wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
