michsnowfreak Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 This was spun off from the "Lakes/OV region".... He tries to work AGW into just about every discussion on the sub-forum and I thought I would spare them another round by diverting discussion to this thread. There are several posters who try and work agw into every single discussion in there, and that is not the place for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michsnowfreak Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 You know, I hear all this talk about how STL's climate is changing at a much faster pace than cities to the north like Detroit. I decided to look up some stuff for myself. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive ~8 of STLs 10 warmest winters happened BEFORE 1932! STL's running average snowfall is HIGHER now than it was from the 1930s-1970s http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=avgsnow STLs avg mean temp is indeed warmer now than it has been previously...about a whopping 0.2F warmer than it was in the early 1940s http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=avgtmp STL and DTW are obviously 2 very different climates to begin with, and STL has not seen the increase in snow the last decade DTW has, but this is the same for both cities - Biggest period of snowlessness would be the 1930s-1950s, biggest period of anamalous cold the 1970s. There is no bigger contamination to the climate record, of ANY city in the midwest/northeast USA who have had records since the 1870s.....than the cold period of the 1960s-1980s, centered HEAVILY on the 1970s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 How on earth did you find this super secret thread Josh? Did that ultra hidden link tip you off? Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't spend a lot of time in this forum but it's been my understanding that it's mostly been used for climate change discussions on the larger scale. So, inevitably there is the issue about where to post about climate changes/trends for any given city or more localized regions. Personally I don't have a problem with those types of posts in the subforums as long as it stays on a basic level without getting too deep into the reasons for changes. Numbers are not debatable, reasons behind the numbers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Another round of January 60s on deck...looks like 2013 is going to make a run at taking the warmest year of all time title from 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Another round of January 60s on deck...looks like 2013 is going to make a run at taking the warmest year of all time title from 2012. Too bad intrade is banned in the US, I would still be willing to bet a $100 that it won't finish in the top 5. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roardog Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Too bad intrade is banned in the US, I would still be willing to bet a $100 that it won't finish in the top 5. Jon To be the warmest again, we would need the pattern to line up perfectly again. You couldn't ask for a better pattern for heat last year. The drought in the plains is a little scary though if it doesn't improve before Spring. That can make a warm pattern even warmer for anyone east of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Too bad intrade is banned in the US, I would still be willing to bet a $100 that it won't finish in the top 5. Jon To be the warmest again, we would need the pattern to line up perfectly again. You couldn't ask for a better pattern for heat last year. The drought in the plains is a little scary though if it doesn't improve before Spring. That can make a warm pattern even warmer for anyone east of there. I'll have to find the source when I get to my PC, but the march torch was sited as basically drying out the soil upstream and putting everything in place for a very warm year. That month alone guaranteed a warm year with the +10-15 anomaly. Regardless, it was the warmest year and we are not in the 1970's anymore... That's for certain. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Too bad intrade is banned in the US, I would still be willing to bet a $100 that it won't finish in the top 5. Jon To be the warmest again, we would need the pattern to line up perfectly again. You couldn't ask for a better pattern for heat last year. The drought in the plains is a little scary though if it doesn't improve before Spring. That can make a warm pattern even warmer for anyone east of there. I'll have to find the source when I get to my PC, but the march torch was sited as basically drying out the soil upstream and putting everything in place for a very warm year. That month alone guaranteed a warm year with the +10-15 anomaly. Regardless, it was the warmest year and we are not in the 1970's anymore... That's for certain. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'll have to find the source when I get to my PC, but the march torch was sited as basically drying out the soil upstream and putting everything in place for a very warm year. That month alone guaranteed a warm year with the +10-15 anomaly. Regardless, it was the warmest year and we are not in the 1970's anymore... That's for certain. Jon looks much better now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 looks much better now Patterns don't break easy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Patterns don't break easy.... to bring this full circle looks like 2013 is going to make a run at taking the warmest year of all time title from 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php?/topic/38696-BRRR!-CHINA' Post #2 It goes both ways apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 29, 2013 Author Share Posted January 29, 2013 I wonder how much co2 we could keep out of the atmosphere by shutting down NASCAR? Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 How long until the CO flooding is blamed on climate change if it hasn't been already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 How long until the CO flooding is blamed on climate change if it hasn't been already. Well at least they won't be talking about the drought...but not surprisingly, that wasn't blamed on climate change once the actual scientific evidence was reviewed. (though I'm sure plenty of media will still ignorantly blame the 2012 drought on climate change) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted September 17, 2013 Author Share Posted September 17, 2013 Jeff Masters will do so... If he hasn't already, its coming soon. He's already blabbing about 1 in 1000 year flood. Next he will allude that the dice are loaded and this is less than 1 in 1000 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Jeff Masters will do so... If he hasn't already, its coming soon. He's already blabbing about 1 in 1000 year flood. Next he will allude that the dice are loaded and this is less than 1 in 1000 year. There's been some attribution to heavy rainfall events in the U.S. due to climate change. Though most studies on them are not long enough for high confidence. We don't have nearly as strong of a precipitation record as we do a temperature record since the late 1800s. The media will do their typical hack jobs, but the science will speak for itself for those who actually want to read the papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 are there any skeptics on this board who aren't snow/cold hounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted September 17, 2013 Author Share Posted September 17, 2013 are there any skeptics on this board who aren't snow/cold hounds? Marietta isn't exactly a climate change alarmist and he lives in a place that gets pretty much no snow. Doesn't Anthony Watts live in Southern California? I'm surprised you ask this question on AmWx itself, this board is probably 95% winter weather supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Marietta isn't exactly a climate change alarmist and he lives in a place that gets pretty much no snow. Doesn't Anthony Watts live in Southern California? I'm surprised you ask this question on AmWx itself, this board is probably 95% winter weather supported. Yes, this part...and also, it should not matter regardless. The topic should be weighted by scientific evidence, not politics or a derivative of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted September 17, 2013 Author Share Posted September 17, 2013 Marietta isn't exactly a climate change alarmist and he lives in a place that gets pretty much no snow. Doesn't Anthony Watts live in Southern California? I'm surprised you ask this question on AmWx itself, this board is probably 95% winter weather supported. Yes, this part...and also, it should not matter regardless. The topic should be weighted by scientific evidence, not politics or a derivative of politics. Not a lot of weather enthusiasts come out of warm areas, people live there because they generally like uneventful weather. Tornado ally being the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Yes, this part...and also, it should not matter regardless. The topic should be weighted by scientific evidence, not politics or a derivative of politics. Unfortunately, it seems that attributing any random weather event to AGW without evidence is acceptable to a degree. If you were to assert that some heatwave had nothing to do with AGW, with no evidence (a dumb thing to do as well), you'd probably lose your head. There's a double standard in some circles when it comes to requiring proof of something, which is likely related to the politics surrounding the issue. Jeff Masters will do so... If he hasn't already, its coming soon. He's already blabbing about 1 in 1000 year flood. Next he will allude that the dice are loaded and this is less than 1 in 1000 year. Jeff Masters hasn't exactly been doing science any favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f2tornado Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 How long until the CO flooding is blamed on climate change if it hasn't been already. It's already being attributed in some circles like Forecast the Facts (hyper alarmists), and at a minimum usually given the typical, "possibly enhanced through CO2 warming" quip. The basic premise is a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. There has also been a marked increase in heavy rain events east of the Rockies since the late 70s. This makes it real easy for a person who has his mind set on climate change to connect these two but it's not that simple. Plains moisture largely comes from the Gulf or through evapotranspiration. Northern Gulf SSTs have been pretty stagnant over the past 100+ years which leaves ET which I can only assume had radically risen with irrigated agriculture and an increase in extreme transpiring crops like corn. Those mid 80s dewpoints in Iowa are not a natural phenomenon. It is quite possible this moisture is the source of increased heavy rain events east of the Rockies. Perhaps the PDO plays some role giving the timing of the ramp up in events. The attributing everything to CO2 climate change is annoying and downright lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Marietta isn't exactly a climate change alarmist and he lives in a place that gets pretty much no snow. Doesn't Anthony Watts live in Southern California? I'm surprised you ask this question on AmWx itself, this board is probably 95% winter weather supported. none of you see a connection with the large skeptic community here and the fact that most people on this board like cold/snow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Well at least they won't be talking about the drought...but not surprisingly, that wasn't blamed on climate change once the actual scientific evidence was reviewed. (though I'm sure plenty of media will still ignorantly blame the 2012 drought on climate change) That is a big problem with the media many always see headlines that blame a single event on climate change which takes away from the actual science. are there any skeptics on this board who aren't snow/cold hounds? I love snow the most out of all types of weather but how exactly does that hinder my thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 none of you see a connection with the large skeptic community here and the fact that most people on this board like cold/snow? The skeptic community here isn't large. Only when in comparison to blogs like skepticalscience which by their very nature will be skewed toward alarmist global warming hype. On the flip side, the skeptic community here is paltry compared to a blog like WUWT. Both types of blogs have their legit science on them, but you have to filter through a lot of crap and the general bias of the site to post about papers which support their thinking on climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 what do you define as "alarmist?" i get the feeling any sort of warmth is alarming to this crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 what do you define as "alarmist?" i get the feeling any sort of warmth is alarming to this crowd Those that are constantly promoting the idea that most extreme weather events are caused by climate change, the higher end of IPCC projection (or higher) on TCR and ECS, and the higher end of SLR by the end of the 21st century (or higher). Also typically focusing on the negative potential impacts of climate change rather than the net outcome (i.e. avoiding talking about any benefits). At least that is how I would define "alarmist". There really isn't a great word because saying "pro-AGW" doesn't really define anything. Just about all skeptics believe in some form of AGW/climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 what do you define as "alarmist?" i get the feeling any sort of warmth is alarming to this crowd To add to what ORH mentioned i also quantify an alarmist as someone who doesn't believe/understand natural variability and believes that all natural cycles are now over whelmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now