If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   279 days without snow means that Des Moines has shattered a snowless record set in 1889. Thanks, global warming   (blogs.desmoinesregister.com) divider line 162
    More: Scary, Des Moines, global warming, cold fronts, snow, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

3343 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2012 at 6:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-08 07:46:35 PM  

Mugato: That's EXACTLY how global warming works!


Yes, I'm beginning to see the trend

i1057.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-08 07:48:39 PM  
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-12-08 07:48:42 PM  

Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: 279 days? That's not even close to a record. Des Moines has had streaks of no snow that lasted hundreds of thousands of years.

0/10


0/10 for being true.
 
2012-12-08 07:50:48 PM  
Tampa FL just reached its highest high of this and last century but that's how global warming works. I guess.
 
2012-12-08 07:52:37 PM  
So.
What was happening in 1889?
Global warming?
 
2012-12-08 07:53:30 PM  

WhippingBoy: What caused the lack of snow in 1889?


Krakatoa
 
2012-12-08 07:55:01 PM  
Not this derp again.
 
2012-12-08 07:59:35 PM  

QT_3.14159: WhippingBoy: What caused the lack of snow in 1889?

Krakatoa


6 years too late, my friend.
 
2012-12-08 08:02:28 PM  

ClavellBCMI: QT_3.14159: WhippingBoy: What caused the lack of snow in 1889?

Krakatoa

6 years too late, my friend.


No. First the gases released cause some minor warming in year 1, then in years 2 - 4 it's colder and wetter than normal because of all the ash in the atmosphere. Then as the atmosphere rebalances it dries out and causes 2 warmer and drier years. Duh.
 
2012-12-08 08:02:40 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Mugato: That's EXACTLY how global warming works!

Yes, I'm beginning to see the trend

[i1057.photobucket.com image 850x637]


lol, 2005-2012

For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.
 
2012-12-08 08:06:30 PM  

Mugato: Tampa FL just reached its highest high of this and last century but that's how global warming works. I guess.


TAMPA RULEZ!!
 
2012-12-08 08:07:00 PM  

Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: Mugato: That's EXACTLY how global warming works!

Yes, I'm beginning to see the trend

[i1057.photobucket.com image 850x637]

lol, 2005-2012

For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.


No, it wasn't. 1998 is claimed to be the warmest

i1057.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-08 08:08:25 PM  

Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: 279 days? That's not even close to a record. Des Moines has had streaks of no snow that lasted hundreds of thousands of years.

0/10


Everywhere on earth has had wet spells and dry spells, cold times and warm times - if you look back far enough. The world appears to be warming a bit during the present period. It might be from man-made causes, but other factors should also be investigated. And should the planet actually go up or down a couple degrees in this century, it will certainly have consequences, both good and bad. Whatever happens, mankind will do what it always does... deal with it.

Many are easily frightened, believing that warming will have mostly negative consequences. They may be right, but temperature fluctuations tend to include benefits. We will survive it, and we will adjust. That's how we roll. Cooling will have greater consequences, for we will lose habitable areas and croplands will be greatly diminished. Cooling equals famine. Cooling equals FLorida becoming less muggy. Goes both ways.
 
2012-12-08 08:08:36 PM  

DesertDemonWY: i1057.photobucket.com


i.imgur.com

Not that it will change your mind.

Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.


Plus, that.
 
2012-12-08 08:10:00 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: ...but other factors should also be investigated.


JHFCOAPS, you think they aren't?

/why do I even bother?
 
2012-12-08 08:13:30 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: Mugato: That's EXACTLY how global warming works!

Yes, I'm beginning to see the trend

[i1057.photobucket.com image 850x637]

lol, 2005-2012

For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

No, it wasn't. 1998 is claimed to be the warmest

[i1057.photobucket.com image 600x350]


It depends on the temp. record used.

Of the three surface temperature records (HadCRUT3, NASA GISS, and NCDC), only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. For NASA GISS and NCDC, the hottest year on record is 2005 

And if you had the graph from 1980-2012 why did you use the cherry picked one before?
 
2012-12-08 08:17:33 PM  

fatassbastard: DesertDemonWY: i1057.photobucket.com

[i.imgur.com image 500x341]

Not that it will change your mind.

Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

Plus, that.


Measured warming rate, 1997-2012 0.0 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1952-2012 1.2 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1990-2012 1.4 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1860-1880 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1910-1940 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1976-2001 1.7 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (1990), 1990-2025 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (2007), 2000-2100 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate by UEA (2012), 2000-2100 4.0-6.0 Cº/century
 
2012-12-08 08:23:50 PM  
Earlier reports indicated today would be the 278th day without snow, but Donavon said the weather service checked its records again Saturday and released previous reports had the number of days wrong.

ONCE AGAIN THE GLOBAL WARMING ILLUMINATI ARE CAUGHT IN A LIE AND HAVE TO BACKTRACK. HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THEIR LIES IN THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA TO HELP GATHER THEIR BILLION$$$$ IN RESEARCH DOLLAR$$$$$????
 
2012-12-08 08:25:15 PM  

Baryogenesis: DesertDemonWY: Mugato: That's EXACTLY how global warming works!

Yes, I'm beginning to see the trend

[i1057.photobucket.com image 850x637]

lol, 2005-2012

For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.


I actually misread the blue caption on that graph as "30 day trolling mean" - I can't imagine why.
 
2012-12-08 08:26:01 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: 279 days? That's not even close to a record. Des Moines has had streaks of no snow that lasted hundreds of thousands of years.

0/10

Everywhere on earth has had wet spells and dry spells, cold times and warm times - if you look back far enough. The world appears to be warming a bit during the present period. It might be from man-made causes, but other factors should also be investigated. And should the planet actually go up or down a couple degrees in this century, it will certainly have consequences, both good and bad. Whatever happens, mankind will do what it always does... deal with it.

Many are easily frightened, believing that warming will have mostly negative consequences. They may be right, but temperature fluctuations tend to include benefits. We will survive it, and we will adjust. That's how we roll. Cooling will have greater consequences, for we will lose habitable areas and croplands will be greatly diminished. Cooling equals famine. Cooling equals FLorida becoming less muggy. Goes both ways.


The downsides of climate change outweigh the benefits.
Stern Review, Economics of Climate Change (pdf)
Positives and negatives of global warming
 
2012-12-08 08:27:33 PM  

justGreg: fatassbastard: DesertDemonWY: i1057.photobucket.com

[i.imgur.com image 500x341]

Not that it will change your mind.

Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

Plus, that.

Measured warming rate, 1997-2012 0.0 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1952-2012 1.2 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1990-2012 1.4 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1860-1880 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1910-1940 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1976-2001 1.7 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (1990), 1990-2025 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (2007), 2000-2100 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate by UEA (2012), 2000-2100 4.0-6.0 Cº/century


Please look up positive feedback and get back to me.
 
2012-12-08 08:32:37 PM  
 
2012-12-08 08:37:01 PM  
Can someone pull a graph starting in like year 10,000BC? Seriously. I'm curious, I have no idea what it would look like, but starting in the 90s or even 70s for that matter is far too small a sample size.
 
2012-12-08 08:37:28 PM  
It has been a very mild Fall here in Wisconsin, but what concerns me the most is the lack of moisture coming off a very dry Summer. We need the cold weather to kill the mosquitoes.
 
2012-12-08 08:41:38 PM  
Oh hogwash, every single world wide respected GOP leader has called this bullshiate from the getgo, its just more liberal wahwah hype to scare up liberal govt programs that bleed us dry.
 
2012-12-08 08:42:28 PM  

Baryogenesis: justGreg: fatassbastard: DesertDemonWY: i1057.photobucket.com

[i.imgur.com image 500x341]

Not that it will change your mind.

Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

Plus, that.

Measured warming rate, 1997-2012 0.0 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1952-2012 1.2 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1990-2012 1.4 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1860-1880 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1910-1940 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1976-2001 1.7 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (1990), 1990-2025 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (2007), 2000-2100 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate by UEA (2012), 2000-2100 4.0-6.0 Cº/century

Please look up positive feedback and get back to me.


You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.
 
2012-12-08 08:44:29 PM  

CruJones: Can someone pull a graph starting in like year 10,000BC? Seriously. I'm curious, I have no idea what it would look like, but starting in the 90s or even 70s for that matter is far too small a sample size.


A 30 year sample size actually isn't too short to talk about climate trends. Remember, we're talking about the effect that human CO2 emissions have on global temperatures. Longer time scales have different forcings to consider, like orbital fluctuations driving past ice ages and interglacial periods. Looking at a 10,000 year timescale won't help us figure out what will happen in the next 10, 25, 50 or 100 years.

But, for reference:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-08 08:50:26 PM  
I have a house in Providence, RI that I payed $80k for back in 95, I'll let it go for the first $400k that walks in.

The price goes up when the celsius hits 135〫
 
2012-12-08 08:50:57 PM  

tonguedepressor: Oh hogwash, every single world wide respected GOP leader has called this bullshiate from the getgo, its just more liberal wahwah hype to scare up liberal govt programs that bleed us dry.


Please move to a low-lying coastal city.
 
2012-12-08 08:50:59 PM  

giftedmadness: Too much snow? Global warming.

Not enough snow? Global warming.


can't please anyone.
 
2012-12-08 09:00:06 PM  

justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.


The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:

www.skepticalscience.com
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2012-12-08 09:16:00 PM  
We it does feel kinda strange working outside in the garden this time of year.....k/.dar
 
2012-12-08 09:16:20 PM  
I only care about global warming and how to increase my chances of it to continue. I HATE the winter and everything about it here in Illinois. Last winter was the best winter ever since it snowed 4" one time and had highs below freezing for a total of 3 weeks.

/going out back to start a fire to make it warmer, even if by just a little bit
 
2012-12-08 09:18:07 PM  

Krieghund: Lsherm: Two records over a hundred years apart?

Wait...what does this have to do with Gun and Roses?


Nice... I cannot 'funny' this on my phone, but still... Nice.
 
2012-12-08 09:18:15 PM  

Rindred: tonguedepressor: Oh hogwash, every single world wide respected GOP leader has called this bullshiate from the getgo, its just more liberal wahwah hype to scare up liberal govt programs that bleed us dry.

Please move to a low-lying coastal city.


Why, so I can pay tolls like you?
 
2012-12-08 09:21:36 PM  

LisaNeedsBraces: ClavellBCMI: LisaNeedsBraces: Where I am, it's -22C with a windchill of -27C.
Translation for the Americans: it's -7.6F with a windchill of -16.6F.
I would welcome ANY warming right about now ;)

MAN UP! Back in my youth, I'd have called that a heat wave for December (I remember going to school one day when the temp was -35F, and the wind chill was -53F, and this was in Wisconsin, NOT Alaska)!

I'm from Alberta, Canada - and agreed, this is NOTHING yet...usually January & February are the worst. I guess I'll complain then :)


I hear ya, live in Calgary and I'm not whining yet dammit!
 
2012-12-08 09:24:45 PM  
40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality
 
2012-12-08 09:34:50 PM  
Not that this says anything about global temp trends, but it got up near 60 in DC today. Back to cold, wet and miserable tomorrow.
 
2012-12-08 09:45:51 PM  

WhippingBoy: What caused the lack of snow in 1889?


The Krakatoa eruption? I know that happened in 1886 but Des Moines is always a few years behind the trend.
 
2012-12-08 09:46:13 PM  

Baryogenesis: justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.

The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:


Pretty much every other scientific discipline would laugh at the idea of claiming "studies have shown" when they really mean "speculative academic papers based not on observational data but on unvalidated computer models have claimed". Gotta love climate science, where the bar is low but the arrogance is high.
 
2012-12-08 09:53:12 PM  

bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality



Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.
 
2012-12-08 09:55:08 PM  

tonguedepressor: world wide respected GOP leader


You believe in unicorns, too, don't you?
 
2012-12-08 09:55:39 PM  

justGreg: Baryogenesis: justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.

The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:

Pretty much every other scientific discipline would laugh at the idea of claiming "studies have shown" when they really mean "speculative academic papers based not on observational data but on unvalidated computer models have claimed". Gotta love climate science, where the bar is low but the arrogance is high.



Um, that graph IS based on observed data.

Problem?
 
2012-12-08 09:56:17 PM  

LisaNeedsBraces: Where I am, it's -22C with a windchill of -27C.
Translation for the Americans: it's -7.6F with a windchill of -16.6F.
I would welcome ANY warming right about now ;)


How are you doin?
 
2012-12-08 09:56:48 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality


Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.


Both are irrelevant. The only thing that we have to determine is how much of Americas GDP can be siphoned off to the rest of the world with Global Warming as a reason.

Then when that is settled they will move on to the next issue that only the UN can handle and it also will magically involve a tax on western countries to shift money to the less developed world.

Progressives haven't had a new idea since Margaret Sanger and Hitler were in charge, its still the same old song and dance,
 
2012-12-08 10:00:55 PM  
As someone that has enjoyed those 279, let me say thanks!
 
2012-12-08 10:01:31 PM  

archichris: common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality


Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.

Both are irrelevant. The only thing that we have to determine is how much of Americas GDP can be siphoned off to the rest of the world with Global Warming as a reason.

Then when that is settled they will move on to the next issue that only the UN can handle and it also will magically involve a tax on western countries to shift money to the less developed world.

Progressives haven't had a new idea since Margaret Sanger and Hitler were in charge, its still the same old song and dance,



ctboom.com
Oh, noes! It's the PROGRESSIVES!!!
 
2012-12-08 10:01:51 PM  

justGreg: Baryogenesis: justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.

The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:

Pretty much every other scientific discipline would laugh at the idea of claiming "studies have shown" when they really mean "speculative academic papers based not on observational data but on unvalidated computer models have claimed". Gotta love climate science, where the bar is low but the arrogance is high.


So, your argument is "it's wrong because I say it's wrong"? I mean, you could find a paper that shows low sensitivity or argue that there are some negative feedbacks not being accounted for, you know, something with substance. But no, you'll go with "climate science is a crock because I read a blog post that said so" and not even bother confirming your assumption that ALL climate sensitivity studies are based on computer models (why is that bad exactly?). I love how intellectually honest climate deniers are.

Climate sensitivity from empirical observations

There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.
 
2012-12-08 10:03:37 PM  

i upped my meds-up yours: WhippingBoy: What caused the lack of snow in 1889?

The Krakatoa eruption? I know that happened in 1886 but Des Moines is always a few years behind the trend.


ba-dump-TSH
 
2012-12-08 10:11:08 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality


Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.


And with how much precision can the last couple centuries be correlated against 4.5 billion years of the geological record?

We have great coverage and resolution in recent times. But you risk losing the forest for the trees...
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report