Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Hulme on BEST and peer review | Main | Curry on BEST »
Monday
Oct312011

Snow in New England

Heavy snow in New England has brought chaos, with trees still in full leaf leading to branches being brought down across roads and power lines. This is apparently the first time the region has had heavy snow in October since 1869.

You can guess what has caused it.

Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, last February linked monster snowstorms with climate change, "This is what the models project," he said, "that we see more of these very large snowfalls."

I can't help but be a little surprised that global warming is going to lead to earlier and heavier snowfalls.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (174)

Here is an excellent technique to test climate models.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong

Calibration–a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance–had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. “As far as I can tell, you’d have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated,” says Carter.

That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott–he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions. “When you have to keep recalibrating a model, something is wrong with it,” he says. “If you had to readjust the constant in Newton’s law of gravity every time you got out of bed in the morning in order for it to agree with your scale, it wouldn’t be much of a law But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work.”

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterferd berple

zed: your

Mmmm - God forbid I'd do something like I did on this very thread and name a source....

Yes, god forbid, as the one source you quoted, supports my contention. That is, that no source predicted an increase in snow or cold due to global warming. Your source states precisely my point, that predictions prior to 2008 were for a decrease in cold and snow in the winter period.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

So do you concede that concensus is likely to approximate to a theory being correct or not?

No. You do. I am pointing out that the consensus was the reverse of what you claim, and was utter piffle. You, however, reckon a consensus does prove something. So go ahead: find us the Luddite consensus, and demonstrate that the third-rate minds of climate science have always forecast heavier snowfalls. That's what you told Andrew he should jolly well have known.

Or confess that hardly any of them thought so, and that the "consensus" of less snow was in fact humiliatingly wrong - which is what the rest of us have been saying.

You see, Zed, when you can't understand what you yourself write, much less what others write, you paint yourself into these corners and wind up looking not just foolish but dishonest.

Make a big effort, Zed, and admit that you and your priesthood's consensus on this one is in fact an utter crock. You will then be on your way to enlightenment, although at this glacially slow pace you won't be around to achieve much of it.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

ZDB "Simulations under present (end of the 20th Century) and future conditions (end of the 21st Century with SRES A1B scenario)" That whole 'end of the 21st Century' bit from the title passed you by, huh?

Classic troll behaviour. Trolling comment based on abstract snippet without reference to the paper for which the link was provided. Either ZDB read the paper, in which case he knows (from knowledge of the content) that the comment is a troll comment, or he didn't read the paper, in which case he knows (from ignorance of the content) that the comment is a troll comment.

The literature almost uniformly declares that factors such as snow depth, snow cover extent, and the ratio of snow to overall precipitation are highly correlated to the changes expected from their climate models, such that global warming will decrease snow, except at extreme latitudes of altitudes.

Since we are talking about new England, here is a typical example: "Changes in the Proportion of Precipitation Occurring as Snow in New England (1949–2000)"
Huntington, Thomas G., Glenn A. Hodgkins, Barry D. Keim, Robert W. Dudley, 2004: . J. Climate, 17, 2626–2636.

For the troll's sake, yes I did notice in the title that it's historical, but that, of course, is not my point: This is more to the point:

"The ratio of snow to total precipitation (S/P) is a hydrologic indicator that is sensitive to climate variability and can be used to detect and monitor hydrologic responses to climatic change...We expected that warmer air temperature would be associated with a decrease in S/P ratio as more precipitation occurred as rain versus snow. Our results generally are consistent with this hypothesis, particularly for the northern sites...A significant decrease in snowfall has been reported for two sites (Keene and Berlin) in southern and northern New Hampshire, respectively, during the latter half of the twentieth century (Hamilton et al. 2003). This would suggest that the observed trends toward decreased S/P ratio during the latter half of the twentieth century are associated with this hemispheric-scale pattern of climate variability that has resulted in warmer winter temperatures and decreased snowfall. The association between atmospheric circulation and S/P ratio is evident when comparing the inverse relations between these time series...The S/P ratio is a sensitive hydrologic indicator variable that can be used to detect and monitor hydrologic response to climate variability in the future. Significant trends in S/P ratio lend strength and confidence to hydrologic model prediction because they demonstrate that empirical observations are consistent with model predictions. The correlations between S/P ratio and precipitation and between S/P ratio and temperature are consistent with sensitivity to past and future climatic change."

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory

http://www.suite101.com/news/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory-a394975

Industrialized Nations World's Lowest CO2 'Polluters'

Indeed, the map at which JAXA spokesman Sasano was pointing had been expected by most experts to show that western nations are to blame for substantial increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, causing global warming. But to an officious looking TV interviewer Sasano turned greenhouse gas theory on it's head.

According to UN science the greenhouse gas theory says more CO2 entering the atmosphere will warm the planet, while less CO2 is associated with cooling.

Gesturing to an indelible deep green hue streaked across the United States and Europe viewers were told, "in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels."

Sasano proceeded to explain the color-coding system of the iconic maps showing where regions were either absorbing or emitting the trace atmospheric gas. Regions were alternately colored red (for high CO2 emission), white (low or neutral CO2 emissions) and green (no emissions: CO2 absorbers).

Bizarrely, the IBUKU maps prove exactly the opposite of all conventional expectations revealing that the least industrialized regions are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet.

Yes, you read that correctly: the U.S. and western European nations are areas where CO2 levels are lowest. This new evidence defies the consensus view promoted by mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had long claimed that, "there is a consensus among scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are harming global climate."

The Japanese satellite map shows regions colored the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.

By contrast the bulk of the regions colored red (so-called 'carbon polluters') were in undeveloped, densely-forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterferd berple

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:11 PM | Justice4Rinka

So do you think concensus over a theory is indicitative of it probably being correct or not? Lots of great ranting from you, but nothing on the old yes/no front.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Warming to bring more snow?

That explains why the warming is leading to increased snowfall in Greenland, increasing the glaciers.

As things get warmer and warmer we will get more and more snow. Straight line climate projections will then show that pretty soon we will have snow miles deep and it will be an ice age. Climate science 101.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterferd berple

Zed

"hard-left socialism a la Mr. Orwell"

You do know that 1984 and Animal Farm were satirical, I hope..

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

For those who think ZDB cannot answer questions: She can. She simply repeats the rosary/mantra, misquotes her bible verses, and ignores reality.
Evasion and deception are hand maidens of faux faith like AGW.
ZDB depends on them implicitly.
Her goal is not to add facts or insights to a conversation. ZDB's goal is to maintain her faith in AGW.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

"The literature almost uniformly declares that factors such as snow depth, snow cover extent, and the ratio of snow to overall precipitation are highly correlated to the changes expected from their climate models, such that global warming will decrease snow, except at extreme latitudes of altitudes."
Oct 31, 2011 at 3:12 PM | ScientistForTruth

And makes those projections for the end of the 21st century. Come on SFT, it's not that hard. Unless, I suppose, you're one of those people who are not very good at admitting they were wrong. In that case, I suppose, it would be quite hard for you.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

"You do know that 1984 and Animal Farm were satirical, I hope.."
Oct 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM | James P

And you do know that both were written within the context of George Orwell's personal hard-left socialism. I hope....

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Zed

You do like your pigeon-holes, don't you? Like most sensible people, Orwell's opinions were modified by life and experience, particularly WW2. He wrote this in the middle of it..

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Or, better still..

Link

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Zed.wrote

"And you do know that both were written within the context of George Orwell's personal hard-left socialism. I hope...."

Given that his hopes and dreams had been traduced by evidence gathered from real world observations (too much like old fashioned, Feynmanesque science for "conSensus" troobeleevahs), my personal take is that he'd changed his mind by the time he wrote these volumes. Only a DeadHead would have kept the mortally discredited faith despite the ravages of truth eh?

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterSayNoToFearmongers

*sighs*

It's the same pattern of quote mining, cherry picking and sheer pig-headedness on this as it is with every other subject with you lot.

He worked on the Tribune from 1944 until his death. Do you know what the Tribune is? this period covered the writing of both books mentioned.

Here's a biography confirming he maintained his socialist views to the end:

^ Woodcock, George (1967). The crystal spirit: a study of George Orwell. London: Jonathan Cape. p. 247. ISBN 0-947795-05-7.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Ah, Bishop, you are not very cynical otherwise you would not say 'I can't help but be a little surprised that global warming is going to lead to earlier and heavier snowfalls.'

A cynical prelate, or any wizened primate for that matter, would observe that within 2 to 3 years of some bad weather events catching a lot of attention, global warming will be established as the cause. Some pundits, unwilling to wait for the modelling to catch up with the events, might rush out their press releases etc earlier than that in order to attribute the same blame. Neither event should occasion surprise. Of course, conflicts in such pronouncements may be dealt with by recourse to 'regional phenomena', 'natural variation', or plain old-fashioned silence. Some such apparent conflicts are listed here by way of illustration: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/02/paired-comparisons-in-climate-claims.html - including a more snow/less snow pair.

Oct 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

"Do you know what the Tribune is? "

Yes, thank you. And I think it's usually referred to as 'Tribune' without the definite article. He wrote the piece I linked to for it.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

zed: your

And makes those projections for the end of the 21st century. Come on SFT, it's not that hard. Unless, I suppose, you're one of those people who are not very good at admitting they were wrong. In that case, I suppose, it would be quite hard for you.

Hard for you, isn't it?

The current snow and cold is inconsistent with previous projections, as your own source show ably shows.

The current snow and cold was not projected, until after the snow and cold happened. That would indicate, at the least, that prior projections were not skillful.

I stil have not seen any computer model that shows an increase in snow and cold, due to global warming, either previous to or after 2008. Only speculation.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

Which part of the first word of my previous post did you not understand, Zed? Here it is again:

No.

And here's what followed:

You do. I am pointing out that the consensus was the reverse of what you claim, and was utter piffle. You, however, reckon a consensus does prove something. So go ahead: find us the Luddite consensus, and demonstrate that the third-rate minds of climate science have always forecast heavier snowfalls.

It's a deep hole you've dug for yourself, Zed. You either have to join thoughtful people and discard the foolish idea that consensus can ever prove anything, or you have to fake up a consensus that says warming was agreed to lead to more snow. Either way you look shrill and stupid.

The least humiliating way for you to weasel off the hook you've needlessly created for yourself would be for you to whine that a consensus of mediocre third-rate minds obviously isn't worth diddly squat. You could thence go on to argue that a climate scientists' consensus being exposed as nonsensically stupid doesn't undermine the consensus argument, because climate scientists are simply too stupid to take seriously.

Unfortunately, while solving your immediate problem, this would leave the rest of your world view in tatters, but stupid is its own reward, I guess. Maybe you could run away and pretend it isn't happening? You do strike me as a bit of a denier.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

It was a good try to pin Zed into actually answering a question which when answered would contradict the very point they were trying to make in the first place. That is why they have countered with the usual "I've got a life, unlike you" or "you prove something else first" or just going missing, which is their usual response. If anything, it's proved that Zed is psychologically unable to admit being wrong, which makes him/her/it simply a zealot, not an informed debator. We all knew that, but it's informative to see it demonstrated once again, and amusing to see them wriggle on the pin.

You can never argue someone out of a point of view they weren't argued into in the first place, so let's cut the oxygen of this little attention-seeker.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"Which part of the first word of my previous post did you not understand, Zed? Here it is again:
No."
Oct 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Justice4Rinka

In which case it doesn't matter to you if there's a concensus on the part of climate scientists about something - so why are you asking for it if it doesn't prove anything? You're trying to criticise climate scientists, claiming there was no concensus, but claim concensus is invalid anyway.

Madness....

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

"That is why they have countered with the usual "I've got a life, unlike you" or "you prove something else first" or just going missing, which is their usual response."
Oct 31, 2011 at 4:14 PM | TheBigYinJames

Ah yes, the classic victory of those who truly live through their computer. You are quite prepared to spend all day on it, so anybody who doesn't is 'failing to engage' or 'running away'.

I'll give you a clue. I do other stuff. It doesn't mean anything. Trying to claim it does makes you come over as rather insular and needy.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Zed, how hard can it be for you to admit that scientists were wrong in their winter snow predictions pre 2008? Admitting that does not mean the end of the world. You can still continue to say, that early snow or heavy snow or increasing snow could be seen as extreme weather patterns.

But really, it can't be that hard to admit, that scientists got their predictions wrong, can it? Trying to deny that is pointless and makes you look like a stubborn person, who always has to be right in everything.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered Commentervieras

ZDB "And makes those projections for the end of the 21st century. Come on SFT, it's not that hard. Unless, I suppose, you're one of those people who are not very good at admitting they were wrong. In that case, I suppose, it would be quite hard for you."

Incapable of reading aren't you? Here it is again, in case you missed it in your haste to write a trolling response.

"The ratio of snow to total precipitation (S/P) is a hydrologic indicator that is sensitive to climate variability and can be used to detect and monitor hydrologic responses to climatic change...We expected that warmer air temperature would be associated with a decrease in S/P ratio as more precipitation occurred as rain versus snow. Our results generally are consistent with this hypothesis, particularly for the northern sites...A significant decrease in snowfall has been reported for two sites (Keene and Berlin) in southern and northern New Hampshire, respectively, during the latter half of the twentieth century (Hamilton et al. 2003). This would suggest that the observed trends toward decreased S/P ratio during the latter half of the twentieth century are associated with this hemispheric-scale pattern of climate variability that has resulted in warmer winter temperatures and decreased snowfall. The association between atmospheric circulation and S/P ratio is evident when comparing the inverse relations between these time series...The S/P ratio is a sensitive hydrologic indicator variable that can be used to detect and monitor hydrologic response to climate variability in the future. Significant trends in S/P ratio lend strength and confidence to hydrologic model prediction because they demonstrate that empirical observations are consistent with model predictions. The correlations between S/P ratio and precipitation and between S/P ratio and temperature are consistent with sensitivity to past and future climatic change."

For any trolls with very little brain, and for ZDB who is clearly very challenged at comprehension, let's try to explain in very simple language what this means. It means that climatologists saw a decrease in the snow-to-precipitation ratio as indicative of a global warming signal pre-2000 and post-2000. No, not just at the end of the 21st century, but looking ahead from the beginning of and throughout the 21st century as well. The models for global warming were being seen to be validated by twentieth century data showing a decline in the S/P ratio over a few decades. The models most certainly did project reduced snow with global warming in the near term, not only in the long term, otherwise validation of the model to data in the relatively short term would have been absurd (rather than just wrong). The models did not project earlier onset of snow, increasing snow cover and depth, monster snow storms etc in the near term and the complete opposite in the long term.

If ZDB thinks otherwise he should produce references, just as I have. All we've heard from him to date is that the IPCC reports projected higher precipitation. Well, whose arguing with that? This seems to be a classic bait-and-switch, or else a strawman. If it was a one-off then one would put it down to an off day, but this is a course of conduct for this commenter, and that pushes it into being troll behaviour. Increasing precipitation does not infer increasing snowfall, and there is a vast amount in the literature showing that the models project (under the AGW hypothesis) increasing precipitation, but less snowfall, except at high latitudes and high altitudes.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

I am needy Zed, what I need is for you to answer the question. Gimme! Gimme!

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I have learned a lot from this exchange....the models used in the last IPCC and before did not predict the last few years of harsher winters in the Northern hemisphere, just as we know that they are constantly way above the actual recorded year-round temperatures. Basically, whatever was predicted by the last IPCC is badly off the rails in just about every case...and yet hengist and ZDB try to defend it. Cult behaviour, no more no less. It's like arguing with Jehoveh's Witnesses...except that ZDB and Hengist probably have no concept of Heaven to look forward to.

The problem that few people acknowledge is that we will not know if there is a real climate change until about 30 years have elapsed....until then, it is impossible to distinguish signal from noise...and we do not really know if 30 years is long enough. 2-4 degrees of systematic climate change in an environment where you can have 20-30 degrees change every day is very hard to detect, unless you are BBD or Zed

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

One always gets to a point with really inept trolls where you start to pity them.

At no point have I suggested a consensus makes something either right or wrong, Zed. It's you that does that. Remember? All those "scientists" who are so infallibly smart they can't all be wrong? The fact there's a consensus proves they're right?

They all agreed there would be less snow in consequence of CAGW. And now they all agree there will be more! So which consensus do you agree with, Zed? The new one, the old one, or both at the same time?

This is what happens to you, Zed, when you form stupid, unreflected-on views based on your ignorant prejudice and tribal leftist hatreds, or indeed upon what we take to be trendy and right-on groupthink. Before the internet, you could have got away with it in the manner Orwell described. Nowadays it's not so easy for you to screw up and then lied about ever having screwed up.

What a deeply pitiful case you are. You don't understand what is written here even when you wrote it.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

"Gosh - wouldn't have thought you supported hard-left socialism a la Mr. Orwell. Learn something new every day.

It's truly sad that you are so keen to display your lack of knowledge on such a wide variety of subjects. You truly are a Polyidiot.

You recognised that the quote was from 1984 but totally missed the point. As usual. Orwell was indeed a socialist. He was also a great and varied thinker who recognised evil wherever he found it. Try reading him. 1984 and Animal Farm are both hugely critical of the socialist group-think and rewriting of history you clearly adhere to.

But where you do get the idea that Orwell was "hard-left" from? You are a very odd person. Animal Farm alone is a critique of the hard-left.

Well done for spectacularly missing the point, as usual.

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

cognitive dissonace, thy name is zed.....

Oct 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

"The key theme here seems to be borderline autistic."

That is grossly wrong and insulting and I take ZedsDeadBed's words to amount to an illegal act in law upon formally protected persons. If instead of Autistic the derogatory identification had been gender or race or religion or ethnicity and so on, or overtly disabled such as blind or deaf, this matter would be clearer.

To make the situation clear: ZedsDeadBed demonstrates ignorance of Autistic traits and in stereotyping social behaviour of others who I am quite sure are not Autistic ZedsDeadBed is asserting a false behaviour on Autistics at the same as implying that behaviour and the individuals are bad.

If ZedsDeadBed is implying that exceptional attention to detail and immunity to social pressure, dealing in things and information, not people, he might be correct but dragging in the fact that a small proportion of all people may have those traits and are considered by the majority to be mentally impaired, is not acceptable.
(I suggest it is the lack of attention to detail which marks bad science and government)

As a commenter here and as Autistic, I demand ZedsDeadBed retract immediately.

I was going to comment but now I cannot for fear of being identified. That is an actual harm.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn

@ diogenes

Hengist at least had the sense to slink off with his tail between his legs when he saw which way the debate was going.

Zed not as smart as Hengist, and it's quite clear s/he is mining posts only for stuff to misconstrue and from which strawmen can be created.

In a way that would distress the likes of Stephen Schneider, Zed has decided to be dishonest, but hasn't succeeded at being effective.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

From the Urban Dictionary;
"Trolling: Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can."

Or;

"There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups: People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble. Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark of the clueless newbie..."

And Wiki;
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Basically, trolling is a pastime. Responding to it, even with the perfect riposte, extends the pleasure of the troll.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Diogenes

"concept of heaven"

OT, and repeating myself (sorry Bish) but there's a neat dissection of that here:

Socialist fun

I think it was lost on Zed.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

While you can make good case for global warming causing increased snowfall in already very cold regions (Chicago in January, Greenland icecap), it is nonsense to say snow will increase during times of the year when it is normally too warm for snow. There was nothing exceptional about this storm in itself but what was unprecented was the date it occurred. AGW in October should only produce more rain and certainly not record snow.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterColin MacDonald

John

Don't let it get to you. The original remark says far more about Zed than it does about you.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

stuck-record
I do hope you're not a Christian. Zed doesn't like Christians using the word 'idiot'. Says it's rude.
!!!

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Simple Seeker,

Indeed, the intent is almost always to disrupt or deflect the discussion from the thread topic into side issues and irrelevancies.Any agenda being pushed a very secondary motive, it's mainly, 'I dislike what they are discussing, so I will prevent that discussion at all costs.'

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:13 PM | John

I was steering clear of this thread as I really have to get stuff done now, but you've called to my attention that I screwed up.

Sorry about that.

It's a term I use in the way you described, but I forgot that it also describes real people just trying to get by in the World with a condition they have to work to overcome.

No offense was intend to people with autism. Perhaps a little offense intended to many who post here, but as James P points out, the comment definitely reflects upon me.

Again, my apologies - didn't think that one through, and should have done.

Oct 31, 2011 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

well said, zed.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

Re criticisms of the Bishop's post for misleading people into thinking Mann was commenting on the latest snowfall, I think the phrase 'last February' in the quote rather goes against that! The Bishop should not be blamed for people's careless reading.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

On topic.

Claiming that cold anomalies in a decade of standstill temperatures supports a theory that claims both to be impossible is exactly Orwellian. Or is this CAGW 2.0?

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Good start, ZDB.
Now take the next step.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Zed, good you're here so I can ask again:

What are you doing / have you done to reduce your carbon footprint? What is it now? How much more can you reduce it?

These are not rhetorical questions, I really want to know.

You have maintained a number of times that we are afraid to face the reality of what you consider essential cutbacks to save the planet; that we feel threatened personally and therefore have taken a skeptical stance. So what is it about your lifestyle that is supposed to be so threatening - that is, if you're not a hypocrite - well, at least we know you eat well. Did you cook the food? You could save some co2 if you became a raw foodie, you know.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterKendra

"Perhaps the Bishop should read Time Magazine's useful primer on how GW brings heavy snow
Strange I don't recall Bishop Hill noting the heatwave in the first week of October topped 30degrees and broke records."--Hengist

The Time Magazine article is not a primer, nor a science lesson, nor a model. It is nothing more than unquantified hand-waving proctoganda and doesn't begin to explain how the Earth can evaporate water for good-sized rainstorms to the tune of 0.84 quadrillion BTUs in one place, then turn it into snow somewhere else at an energy change of 0.96 quadrillion BTUs. The system would not be in balance. Water to water vapor to rain is possible. Water to water vapor to snow in record amounts can't be maintained without assuming the Earth is cooling.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Zed
Up at least a couple of notches in my estimation.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

@ Les Johnson

... we would still believe that the sun orbits the earth, and that relativity does not exist, and that the world was created in 7 days and species are immutable; as these ideas went against the existing consensus.

Nobody ever claimed that the world was created in 7 days. The book of Genesis states that God created the world in 6 "days" and on the 7th day He rested.

Oct 31, 2011 at 6:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Prof. Micheal Mann is right in a way. The models do predict increased variability and extreme weather, so any new record is a confirmation of the models.
Sir Karl Popper noted the same about Marxism. The "theory" was so all-embracing, that every event was confirmation, and nothing could contradict it. As a result Popper designated the demarcation between science and pseudo-science being falsifiability. A theory that cannot be contradicted in pseudo science.

Oct 31, 2011 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterManicBeancounter

Two quotations sum up the current state of climate science.

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. - Niels Bohr.

It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow.

Models can always be made to predict the past and CO2 is the climatologist's hammer. Therefore everything that happens is consistent with CAGW, even if it is only predicted in retrospect.

Oct 31, 2011 at 7:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

A theory that predicts any possible outcome, just as Dr. Mann's does, is no theory -- it is BS.

As for "global warming", let us not forget that probably 95% of the people don't care too much about it one way or the other as they go about their daily lives. But on the same hand, they do observe and anyone stupid enough to spout out that this, that, or another thing will happen and it is clear that is has not in their eyes, it will be the subject of derision.

So saying that we are having "global warming" while they are shoveling out the snow on their front walk in late October is not a particularly clever thing.

Already the US Congress is riding hard on the Green Agenda, and once Obama and his buddies are forced out of office in about a year, that will put an end to it.

I also expect to see a sharp backlash in Europe, mainly driving by the handling of the Euro crisis.

Oct 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Roy

Models can always be made to predict the past

No, they are not predicting the past, they are describing the past. Predictions are forward looking, that is, in the future. Telling me about what happened yesterday is not a prediction. Telling me what will happen tomorrow is.

The only test of a theory is prediction. Otherwise you are merely describing.

Oct 31, 2011 at 7:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>