Global Warming. Pah! Key West sets record cold temperatures

[phill4paul]

Climate Disruption!

It's only a "Disruption" now? Well, that certainly doesn't seem as bad as a "Change." I don't see what the the big deal is in that case.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's only a "Disruption" now? Well, that certainly doesn't seem as bad as a "Change." I don't see what the the big deal is in that case.

Next it will be a Climate Speedbump.

 

[Danke]

It's only a "Disruption" now? Well, that certainly doesn't seem as bad as a "Change." I don't see what the the big deal is in that case.

We're talking about GLOBAL Climate Disruption!!

 

[malkusm]

Side note, I don't like the whole "OMG record low temperatures LOL @ global warming" thing, because we're taking what the climate change alarmists do (cherry-picking data or taking a sample so small as to be meaningless) and doing that x1000, looking at a single observation instead of a short time series. It's maybe funny as a joke in our circle but it's a terrible argument to make generally.

 

[phill4paul]

It's maybe funny as a joke in our circle but it's a terrible argument to make generally.

There's no arguing with climate alarmists. Simply back away slowly and do not take your eyes off them until you are out of harms way.

 

[phill4paul]

We're talking about GLOBAL Climate Disruption!!

Good thing I live on an Oblate Spheroid.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

We're talking about GLOBAL Climate Disruption!!

To be fair that is more frightening than a global climate speedbump.

 

[XNavyNuke]

We're talking about GLOBAL Climate Disruption!!

I'm not the one talking about crossing the streams here. Total protonic reversals happens.
XNN

 

[XNavyNuke]

There's no arguing with climate alarmists. Simply back away slowly and do not take your eyes off them until you are out of harms way.

The same holds true for zealots of every stripe.
XNN

 

[Occam's Banana]

Climatology predictions suffers the same problems as economic predictions, to many variables and not enough accurate data.

Even if economists had perfectly accurate data and very few variables to deal with, the element of "human action" would STILL knock any of their predictive models into a cocked hat. As futile as the development of accurate, precise and long-term-predictive climatological models may be, that pesky "human action" thing is, at least, one "fly in the ointment" that climatologists don't have to contend with.

Some things are pretty well known. How the jet streams react to ocean currents, red tides in Eastern South America corresponding to distinct weather patterns in North America. It's like sociology, trends are easy, events are impossible.

I'm not convinced. Recognizing a trend happening is one thing, but how do you predict when or what a future trend will be? Regardless, modeling a sophisticated system is a fools errand.

I wouldn't say it's a fool's errand. Rather, let us say it's an errand that fools like to run. But not all who run such errands are fools. Attempts to model complex non-linear systems (especially those involving weather and the climate) have contributed enormously to the development of "chaos theory" and our understanding of non-linear dynamics.

And at least it's possible for climatologists to rigorously and objectively define their variables and data elements, and then reproducibly measure them with accuracy and precision. "Social" scientists (such as economists and sociologists) can't even do that much. Developing reliably useful predictive models of complex non-linear systems is enormously difficult, if not practically impossible. But when those systems involve the element of "human action," the task becomes essentially impossible. Unlike people, clouds and cold fronts don't "choose" to do whatever it is that they do - and they certainly don't make choices about what they do in the context of knowledge (or lack thereof) of past events or possible futures.

 

[anaconda]

It's not "Global Warming" anymore. Get with it. It's "CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!"

Yep.

Also, here's a good one for those who missed it:

 

[Henry Rogue]

Check out this cool video!

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/Requests/ENSO-1997-2000.mp4

I think i know the point you are making. I'm familiar with El Nino and La Nina a long with the jet stream and the Atlantic Conveyor.
My point was/is climate models are exaggerated at best.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

 

[Henry Rogue]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwPovyR9HY

Even if economists had perfectly accurate data and very few variables to deal with, the element of "human action" would STILL knock any of their predictive models into a cocked hat. As futile as the development of accurate, precise and long-term-predictive climatological models may be, that pesky "human action" thing is, at least, one "fly in the ointment" that climatologists don't have to contend with.




I wouldn't say it's a fool's errand. Rather, let us say it's an errand that fools like to run. But not all who run such errands are fools. Attempts to model complex non-linear systems (especially those involving weather and the climate) have contributed enormously to the development of "chaos theory" and our understanding of non-linear dynamics.

And at least it's possible for climatologists to rigorously and objectively define their variables and data elements, and then reproducibly measure them with accuracy and precision. "Social" scientists (such as economists and sociologists) can't even do that much. Developing reliably useful predictive models of complex non-linear systems is enormously difficult, if not practically impossible. But when those systems involve the element of "human action," the task becomes essentially impossible. Unlike people, clouds and cold fronts don't "choose" to do whatever it is that they do - and they certainly don't make choices about what they do in the context of knowledge (or lack thereof) of past events or possible futures.

 

[osan]

I suppose this, too, is Bush's fault.