Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
Black widows don't bother me at all, but I had years with recurring nightmares of brown recluses.
Do you remember it being colder
- Thread starter Howboutthemdawgs
- Start date
Yes, I was prepared to do that, fortunately, power just came back on. Now wind is picking up and ice and limbs falling everywhere. We will see how long power stays on
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
Climate Change Indicators: Seasonal Temperature | US EPA
This indicator describes trends in average temperatures for each season across the United States.
The above link is for the average across the US. Notice how the blue lines (winter) are extending above and below the annual trend lines? Winters seem to be the most variable, but the trend across seasons is still pretty obvious. Here is a map of just the winter months by state or region:
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
Maybe it's just me but the map doesn't seem accurate to me. Nevermind me, I just noticed it's the CHANGE. Carry on.
And here is the 175,000 year trend: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4805 Looks we are right on the track with the past 1,600 years. Shocker. Where we at with the PDO? BTW, my graphic is based on quantifiable and falsifiable data that is tangible in nature. USGS not so much. I know very well how many weather stations are located in the west, and where, and the statistical confidence that comes from extrapolating a point in time data point over a large area.Climate Change Indicators: Seasonal Temperature | US EPA
This indicator describes trends in average temperatures for each season across the United States.www.epa.gov
The above link is for the average across the US. Notice how the blue lines (winter) are extending above and below the annual trend lines? Winters seem to be the most variable, but the trend across seasons is still pretty obvious. Here is a map of just the winter months by state or region:
View attachment 72930
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
I don't even know what you're trying to say...you think analyzing mineral deposits from *four* caves to estimate temperatures from 10s to 100s of thousands of years ago is somehow more accurate than using actual temperature readings from the last 50 years from literally thousands of data loggers??And here is the 175,000 year trend: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4805 Looks we are right on the track with the past 1,600 years. Shocker. Where we at with the PDO? BTW, my graphic is based on quantifiable and falsifiable data that is tangible in nature. USGS not so much. I know very well how many weather stations are located in the west, and where, and the statistical confidence that comes from extrapolating a point in time data point over a large area.
And you're basing this off of your own observations of said weather stations?
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
From my own observations of over 55 years, here in Pa. the winters are definitely warmer than they used to be. When I was younger than 20, we got successive snows that piled on top of each other. We had snow cover for most of the winters, until March at least. It used to start in October every year with the first 1" to 3" snowfalls, usually when the leaves were still in color. 98% of our rifle buck season openers had snow on the ground back then, and we got several more snows through the 2-week rifle seasons. No more. We're lucky to see snow in rifle season anymore. Many recent seasons we could hunt in nothing more than a sweatshirt once the sun came up. The colder mornings recently warm up to 40 to 50 degrees - sometimes warmer. Driving deer becomes a hot exercise, where guys peel down to T-shirts. That would never happen in years past.
Yes. Minerals deposited from dripping water over a temporal period that captures multiple phases of multiple oscillations as well as changes in Earths orbit and axis is not subject to the same statistical shenanigans as temperature sensors placed in locations that have undergone dramatic changes in land use and convoluted and nebulous statistical analysis.
53 years does not capture a complete cycle of the pacific decadal oscillation, does not capture a complete Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, does not capture the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, and it only captures about 7 PDO cycles.
It also does not demonstrate in anyway that co2 controls climate, and it is another good example of correlation does not equate to causation, unless you are practicing religion.
If you look beyond 53 years, and beyond politically driven psycience, the weather and climate are perfectly normal and expected, but that's not scary so.....
Mortenson
5 year old buck +
I remember the big snow storms of the 80s. I also remember in pictures the big ones of the late 70s. Why? Because big snow is memorable. I don't remember all the mild, normal weather of my childhood in the 80s. It wasn't memorable. But we do have old pictures showing some very warm Christmas weather back then. Our gun opener has always been right around 11/18. Some of those have been as low as zero and some have been in the 60s. Chris's first deer hunt was that November opener a couple years ago and I searched back for an old thread where I stated it was 7 F that day. We had a 22" snow in Feb of '11 I think. Pretty sure it was a record. The year I moved to this house in '13 we had cold and snow all damn winter. I had a thrown out back and didn't shovel my driveway wide enough in Dec. Snow after freaking snow kept falling and piling up for 3 months. Because of social media accounts and cell phones & memory cards we capture memories differently nowadays. Nobody is going to admit they recall the pleasantly average winter of '69. Looking at extended forecasts now, it looks as though January here will come in well below average for temps. Everything I said is anecdotal, I get it. I should've just said what West Fork did. It was on the tip of my tongue, but he beat me to it. lol
Yes, it is getting warmer and drier in the west. Nothing anyone can do. A 1,600 year warming-drying trend within a 20,000 year warming-drying trend. We will all die. In less than 5,000 years we will hit peak insolation of the northern latitudes and begin the journey back to glaciation, the people will return, the Hopi and others will go back to being ancient Pueblonians and the politicians will get more wealthy as they take credit for the great weather.
It's going to be great!
It's going to be great!
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
You would probably do better than using a disinformation hack who has fundamental misunderstandings of experimental modeling at best, or dishonestly selects past studies at worst. And no, I am not going to spend time going through why this guy is wrong when so many others have already done it:
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data
Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to...
Skeptical Science Search Results
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com
As far as your claim about CO2 not "controlling climate"...I think I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant affects climate.
Here is a great paper that goes into why CO2 is a driver of climate change: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025044
There are literally thousands of research papers that either directly or indirectly measure the effect of CO2 on the environment. Many of these are conducted in controlled environments (to remove extraneous variables) and many are conducted in field conditions all over the world. There are climate scientists all over the world that are not getting their funding from the US or even Western Nation governments who are coming to these same conclusions.
This is a now 10 year old video, but I think does a pretty good job of quickly going through some of the most common misconceptions of global warming:
Hoytvectrix
5 year old buck +
First it was "the earth is not actually warming".
Then it was "well, the earth is warming, but it was doing that anyways and humans aren't the cause".
Next it will become, "human's might be causing it but there is nothing we can do about it" or "it is too expensive to address now...spilt milk and all that".
People can debate the extent that human's are affecting our climate. Experimental models will try and predict to what extent that effect is having on the climate, and they will tend to get more accurate over time as more data are collected. In the meantime, instead of debating about what can be done from a public policy standpoint, we are having to spend time and energy debating if it is even happening. I don't think you have to be a climate alarmist and think the sky is falling or our kids' generations are permanently screwed because you acknowledge a near consensus among scientists. Healthy skepticism is a great thing. At this point, there are industries (and people running blogs/websites) that benefit from being counter to what the rest of the world thinks is going on.
Then it was "well, the earth is warming, but it was doing that anyways and humans aren't the cause".
Next it will become, "human's might be causing it but there is nothing we can do about it" or "it is too expensive to address now...spilt milk and all that".
People can debate the extent that human's are affecting our climate. Experimental models will try and predict to what extent that effect is having on the climate, and they will tend to get more accurate over time as more data are collected. In the meantime, instead of debating about what can be done from a public policy standpoint, we are having to spend time and energy debating if it is even happening. I don't think you have to be a climate alarmist and think the sky is falling or our kids' generations are permanently screwed because you acknowledge a near consensus among scientists. Healthy skepticism is a great thing. At this point, there are industries (and people running blogs/websites) that benefit from being counter to what the rest of the world thinks is going on.
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
Great post. Our memories are the least accurate data point we can use. By far
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
CO2 driving climate change has been thoroughly debunked. Most in the sky is falling crowd don’t even believe that anymore.You would probably do better than using a disinformation hack who has fundamental misunderstandings of experimental modeling at best, or dishonestly selects past studies at worst. And no, I am not going to spend time going through why this guy is wrong when so many others have already done it:
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data
Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to...climatefeedback.org
Skeptical Science Search Results
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.skepticalscience.com
As far as your claim about CO2 not "controlling climate"...I think I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant affects climate.
Here is a great paper that goes into why CO2 is a driver of climate change: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025044
There are literally thousands of research papers that either directly or indirectly measure the effect of CO2 on the environment. Many of these are conducted in controlled environments (to remove extraneous variables) and many are conducted in field conditions all over the world. There are climate scientists all over the world that are not getting their funding from the US or even Western Nation governments who are coming to these same conclusions.
This is a now 10 year old video, but I think does a pretty good job of quickly going through some of the most common misconceptions of global warming:
It is a marker that lags behind the change. It’s like checking a lab at the doctor. It’s a sign of something, not the cause.
Foggy47
5 year old buck +
I live in OZ six months out of the year.....and MN when it's not cold. We are what you might call "snow birds".
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
Do you have 2 separate friend groups, one in oz and one one MN?
I already did do better, I showed you 175,000 years of climate variability and told you how it is going to go for the next 5,000 years. Your links do not discount or discredit the historical records as reported by Tony or the thousands of quantifiable reconstructions not based on a computer model.
unfurl="true"]https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...manipulating-data-tony-heller-steven-goddard/[/URL]
Skeptical Science Search Results
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.skepticalscience.com
Your links are for idiots. I have about 30 years in as a professional scientist working with paleoendemic plant species in hot and cold deserts, and along with that comes a great deal of time spent with indians and archaeologists who know climate better than most dickheads at nasa.
Why would I mean "affects" when every uneducated pseudo-religious climate zealot says co2 controls climate? No, I mean controls. Who would care about a negligible effect? see above.
And that's just another paper based on conputer models, and not just computer models, but computer models from 2005, which were even worse than what they have now. You think you can model the most complicated and poorly understood system on the planet using a computer? What kind of cartoons did you watch growing up?
Really, post one. Let's see these "thousands of papers" I have yet to see a quantifiable and falsifiable study that concluded co2 affects on climate or the environmental as a whole. Do you know who else tried this argument with me? The communication majors, who don't think I understand science in spite of my degrees and their own lack of.
Do you know how science works? Do you know how it works in reality? Every single one of those "thousands" of papers is based on the same three principle studies that are based on computer models and a poor understanding of climate. The only reason there are "thousands" of papers is because starting in the 1990's, there was a big push to direct all research funding towards anything co2. Mike had a soil study he was trying to get funded, something that would actually be of use to the world, and he had no luck. So Mike threw "co2" in the title and it magically got funded.
Ooh a video from a tuber, ten years old, and full of strawman arguments. Oh my, I guess there is no arguing with it is there?
So tell me, which oscillations did they account for in the computer models (GCMs) in 2005? (the answer is 0.)
How many oscillations are they able to account for today in the GCMs? (not quite 1)
What do oscillations do? Well they control climate on decadal and centennial times scales which is what is relevant to humans, according to science.
