About the same time thousands of Atlantans were stuck in their cars on a frozen freeway, NPR reports that the temperature in Seward, Alaska reached 61 degrees:
FEIDT: Alyeska is known for getting a lot of snow. The upper mountain averages more than 50 feet each season. But this winter is different. It's been nearly a month since any significant snow fell. And in January, the mountain, along with most of Alaska, endured two weeks of rainy, warm weather that's more typical of early June. The same weather pattern that sent the polar vortex diving into the lower 48 pushed warm air and moisture from the subtropics up into Alaska. The result? Temperatures that were hard to believe.
RICK THOMAN: Seward's 61 degrees, the warmest January temperature ever recorded.
FEIDT: Wait. Seward was 61 or 51?
THOMAN: Sixty-one.
FEIDT: What?
THOMAN: Six-one, yes. That's correct.
Now, the average high in July and August for Seward is just one degree higher, 62 degrees.
Computerized climate models have long predicted these sorts of counterintuitive weather patterns as a result of global warming; it's one of the reasons climatologists prefer to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming." Not all places will get warmer, but the climate pretty much everywhere will be changed somehow: some places will get more rain, others less rain. In general coastal areas will have higher sea levels. As higher temperatures and migrating insect infestations kill off trees, temperatures will get even higher, because vegetation is a very powerful cooling mechanism.
Locally, this winter's cold snap will help stave off the arboreal Armageddon facing Minnesota: up to 90% of the the emerald ash borers that have infested ash trees in Minnesota will be killed by the cold.
The old saw about the cold winters in Minnesota keeping out the riff-raff has a grain of truth after all.
16 comments:
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Do you have any other sources than this one? I'd like you to link some unbiased sources that are actually scientifically based.
Unbiased? You mean to say you will only accept information from people who are pro-agw in order to deem them unbiased.
Tell you what, take the 90 different CIMP5 climate model projections and compare them yourself to the HadCRUT4 surface temperature readings and the UAH satellite readings. You might learn something.
You might learn something.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
accept information from people
You are welcome to dispute the NAS and Richard Muller anytime you like. I don't think you are capable of doing so without bias.
take the 90 different CIMP5 climate model projections and compare them yourself to the HadCRUT4 surface temperature readings and the UAH satellite readings.
Explain your understanding of this and list your unbiased sources.
First explain your understanding of 'unbiased' and list your unbiased sources.
And for fuck's sake - LOOK AT WHAT THE AGW COMPUTER MODELS SAY VERSUS WHAT THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS SHOW.
That's what the above freaking means.
God damn you are a dense one.
I'll tell you what I'm going to do, GD. I'm going to give you a chance to explain that you understand what you wrote above. I don't think you do. I certainly don't pretend to be a climate scientist but it appears you are masquerading as one and have pulled a few things off of a right wing blog (see: biased source) and are now doing the usually bloviate/mouth foam. I could be wrong, of course, and maybe you understand more than it appears so here's your chance. Refuse, and I'm going to take what you wrote above and start emailing people who are climate scientists and have them explain what you are talking about. You wouldn't want to be embarrassed in front of your friends now, would you?:)
I'll tell you what you can do Mark. You can kiss my ass.
I am not pretending anything. I gave you a piece of information. I told you what the source of that information is. I told you that you can fucking do your own homework.
Whether I have any fucking clue what CMIP5, HadCRUT4 or UAH means has no relevance whatsoever on whether you can look up the shit your own fucking self.
You wanted another fucking source - here is the source - CMIP5, HadCRUT4 and UAH - that's where the data is to plot your own fucking graph.
Fucking moron.
Oh, I suppose this should apply to you then - right?
From now on, Mark, when you refuse to discuss beyond me, I'm just going to assume that you don't really understand the information I'm providing and lack the knowledge to make an intelligent argument.
But I don't understand what you wrote. Explain it to me:)
What I wrote is that the source material is available - do your own analysis.
I don't understand what those terms mean. Explain them to me and why I should compare them. So far, it looks like you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...
I don't think you do.
Projection.
I don't understand what those terms mean.
That's because your being an idiot. I won't play your game.
Post a Comment