Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Climate change, part of the problem with the AGW proponents, is that cold weather is never evidence of climate change, as it gets the response, “climate is not weather.” What’s the problem with that, well, the problem is that every example of warmer weather is in fact used as evidence for climate change.
  2. Not unrelated to the above.
  3. In fact, 25, oops, 15 year trends aren’t, apparently, significant either.
  4. An interesting data point.
  5. Chile, Haiti and the Chicago school.
  6. Of Cuba.
  7. GM vs Toyota and the government response to recall.
  8. If you need another reason why government shouldn’t be involved at all in healthcare.
  9. That defence is an indictment.
  10. Mech art, very cool.
  11. For those who key on Ms Palin.
  12. Tactics and praise. And aside: I played a little ASL when I was younger, enough to realize how very cool it was. I never got very good at it however.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    #1.

    Actually ‘snowy weather’ is not a ‘cold winter’. Maybe it’s just me but I thought it was common knowledge that snow is actually a warm weather event in winter. When it is very, very cold it rarely snows.

    Weather is technically climate. Any given days weather is technically a data point on the trend curve we call climate. I’m unaware of any graph or serious evidence used by climate scientists that is built by only averaging warm days and ignoring cold ones. Every avg temperature graph published incorporates the exceptionally cold days as well as the warm ones into its calculations. Do you have evidence otherwise?

    BTW, I like how the site you cite asserts that Sam Champion is a ‘liberal weatherman’. Like old Marxists, I see the right wing has trutly adopted the art of naval gazing. What’s next, ‘liberal’ supermarkets versus ‘conservative’ ones? (Ohhh wait, that would be Target vs Wal-Mart).

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Actually ’snowy weather’ is not a ‘cold winter’.

    Misleading. Dallas for example (and DC) has had an unusual amount of snow. That takes sub-zero (C) temperatures to accomplish which are rare in those areas for any length of time. Snow is a warm weather event in Minnesota and further North. In Texas and Maryland it is a cold weather event. And you knew that.

    My point is that even climate scientists point to unusual warm weather with remarks like (global warming contributed) but skeptics cannot point to unusually cold spells with counter remarks without scolds chiming in with “weather is not climate.”

  3. What’s the problem with that, well, the problem is that every example of warmer weather is in fact used as evidence for climate change.

    By whom?

    Chile, Haiti and the Chicago school.

    I love how they throw in “Chile also has some of the world’s strictest building codes” almost as an afterthought. You know what strict building codes are, Mark? That’s right, regulations. Government ones. *gasp*

    Paul Krugman points out that Chile’s economic success cannot be fairly attributed to Friedman here.

    If you need another reason why government shouldn’t be involved at all in healthcare.

    WTF? The government poisoned alcohol and therefore should never provide health care coverage? That’s a cautionary tale against prohibition and the war on drugs, not against universal health care.

    For those who key on Ms Palin.

    Can’t watch it now, but the problem with Palin isn’t a lack of charm. If only. Beauty and charm she has. It’s intelligence, education, and possibly empathy that she lacks.

  4. Boonton says:

    Actually snow is predicted by global warming models. Warmer air means more water evaporating off the oceans, more water vapor means more snow falls when its hit by cold air. The recent ‘megasnows’ I’ve seen here fit this pattern, including, I noticed, that the megasnow rapidly melts as the storm is followed by warm days.

    But more often than not global warming advocates will ‘fair balance’ their comments with caution that you will never be able to attribute any particular snow storm, hurrican or warm day to global warming. We have had actual conservative ‘think tanks’ throwing ‘snow parties’ because they think one or two snow storms actually contradicts global warming. Pot, Kettle, black Mark. Pot, kettle, black.

  5. Boonton says:

    Speaking of taking a single datapoint, which side has been yelling ‘global cooling’ based only on one unusually warm year a few years ago?

    Also see http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Snow in the South always melts quickly. Chicago this year has had a larger amount of snow. But its melting slower than in the previous decade (that is the 90s) to a casual observations.

    But more often than not global warming advocates will ‘fair balance’ their comments with caution that you will never be able to attribute any particular snow storm, hurrican or warm day to global warming.

    I’d replace “more often than not” with “occasionally.”

    Pot, Kettle, black Mark. Pot, kettle, black.

    Huh? Do I get to start blaming you personally and hold you accountable for the antics on the left?

  7. Boonton says:

    Actually it is ‘more often than not’. The one incident cited of the ‘liberal weatherman’ (whatever that means) aside.

  8. Boonton says:

    Regarding #3
    My modest contribution was a simple calculation (thanks to Wolfram Mathematica), No statistically significant warming since 1995, that I wrote in December 2009 and that was reposted on Anthony Watts’ blog which increased the nonzero but relatively modest TRF’s reach by one order of magnitude.

    I’m a bit unclear here. Why would we want to exclude data we have (pre 1995 temps) from a data set and force a calculation with just 15 observations? Yes if in 1995 an invisible UFO activated a shield between us and the sun that would indeed be consistent with ‘no sign. warming since 1995’. But ‘no significant warming since 1995’ is also consistent with the currently accepted theory that warming is not a straight linear relationship but rather one with plenty of random walks. What justification is there for rejecting the standard hypothesis here?