For some reason, Accuweather's global warming blog rejected a couple of my posts. Anyways, here they are (out of context). I'm going to do an explication of the amazing Magnuson/Benson winter freeze and spring thaw data (for lakes and rivers) very soon. It's one of the most potent data sets demonstrating the full reality of global warming and potential consequences.
The following I attempted to post to this thread: Montana Warming?
A more egregious exemplar of cherry-picking could likely not be found
than your post above. To ascertain and comprehend a climatic trend
in the erratic year-to-yearness of the dates of spring thaw and winter
freeze on lakes and rivers requires a compendium of data over decades
from multiple sites. Such in fact has actually been done numerously
and numerically:
Warming Trend Seen In Late Freeze, Early Thaw Of Northern Waterways, Say Science Researchers
Losing Winter As We Knew It (a PDF document)
Trends and Variability for Ice Cover on Inland Lakes (a PDF document)
Lake Ice and Why It's Important in a Warming World (a PDF document)
Perusal of the above documentation will reveal a figure showing that
New Hampshire freeze/thaw timing is likely not in a zone as yet
greatly affected by climatic warming. It is the 3rd reference, the
11th panel.
MY CONCLUSION: Your conclusion is wrong. It is wrong because
of an apparent need to overlook, ignore, or to not acknowledge
relevant data and research. That indicates a lack of a systematic
appreciation of the information that is required to understand the
issue, and may indicate a motivation to mislead others for a political
persuasion or philosophical reasons.
The collapse of civilization IS on the table. You can read my blog
for one reason why.
Just in case you thought Paul Ehrlich
was wrong
(A note to Mark Paquette:
Do you REALLY think that increased solar activity is driving an
increase in atmospheric water vapor (RH)? If so, please call Frank
Wentz and have him explain how the system works. Please.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The other one I posted to this: Launch of New CO2 Observing Satellite Fails
Harry L.: It's been real popular in conservative skeptical circles (it already having been shown that unthinking global warming skepticism has a clear political polarity) to celebrate the loss of OCO. Such a viewpoint is ignorance personified. OCO would not "prove" global warming; OCO was intended to better quantify a very-difficult-to-quantify climate variable. Such a remarkable advance would have provided a much better understanding of the impact of CO2 on climate, allow better targets for reductions and projections of changes due to climate -- including those which might impact human population, as described in my blog posting:
Just in case you thought Paul Ehrlich was wrong
If you want to read what OCO was going to do (and why I think NASA will likely try to build another one):
Orbiting Carbon Observatory Investigates Mystery Of The Missing Sinks
Of course, if you don't think that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a climate driver, then you won't understand any of this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The AW spam filter catches anything with two or more links. Brett doesn't look through the spam cache too carefully, so I took to sending a separate comment after each multi-link one asking him to find it and post it. That's worked for me on all but one occasion, and in that instance a follow-up note did the job. It's a pain to have to pay attention to make sure my comments actually show up, but to be fair a blog like that gets a vast amount of spam.
Well, thanks for that explanation, but I've sent them multiple notes and haven't heard a word back. Now rather than one post, I guess I'll write several!
Post a Comment