Over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/over-2000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the...

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:



AGW causes snow.

AGW causes rain.

AGW causes hot weather.

AGW causes cold weather.

AGW causes PMS.

AGW causes traffic congestion.

AGW causes bush fires.

AGW causes refugees.

AGW causes poor literacy skills.

AGW causes baldness.

AGW causes premature ejaculation.

Clear?

muso wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 8:33pm:




And so remember how we were told we were going to fry in hell and the ski fields wouldn't have any snow and the kiddies wouldn't know what snow was and etc etc etc, think back, I'm not talking about thinking back to two years ago when the global warming cult moved the goal posts yet again and decided that now cold weather was global warming too, I'm saying remember back a bit further 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:
Yeah, well:
Quote:

You will have faith, because that's what you do. I'd look for more credible sources.

# wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 9:00am:



Source: NOAA National Weather Service and HamWeather records center


Do you think Watts makes up his own statistics?

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:


Well, you can check the details on Watts' own site if you like. He freely admits that he doesn't have a degree, no climate credentials and is funded by the Heartland Institute.

Come on, you know your way around Watts' site, so you don't need any links.

Quote:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

The game of definitions begins 

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:
Watts is interpreting information. Something for which he has no credibility.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:



not the best example, since Andrew Bolt has been proven time and time again to 'just make this stuff up'

'Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?

A. First, that didn’t come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking.'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/

seems fair to me.

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:


Never heard of it. Anyway, talking about people is off topic. We're talking about the OP, which was basically this argument:

"Oh look, it's snowing. Global warming therefore doesn't exist"

It's a pretty falacious argument for obvious reasons. 

Lee, In your own words, describe the Greenhouse effect, and why you think it doesn't exist.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:34am:
No, you don't.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:34am:
No; Watts' interpretation of NOAA data is not to be trusted.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:34am:
You certainly do.

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:21am:
As far as I can tell, he has no qualifications beyond high school. He studied electrical engineering and meteorology but, as far as anyone has been able to find out, didn't graduate. For a while, he worked as a weatherman; does that make him expert?

See:
Sourcewatch
Desmogblog and, for a bit of context;
Watching the Deniers.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:



and in this parallel world...lets call it Hypocrisy Central for want of a better name, quoting warmist propaganda blogs is superior to quoting WUWT.....

  only a Gorebot could have such brazen hypocrisy...or a censor moderator LOL

No; it leads to "Why should we believe one over the other?"

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:

Qualifications make the legitimate world go round!

Are you seriously trying to argue they don't mr time-waster! (TIME WASTERS NEED NOT APPLY!)

Is 79 statistically relevant?

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about. It would depend on context.

Wow; doesn't seem like a scientist among them. Merely bloggers like Watts.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:34am:


Yes, you definitely contribute to that.

# wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:



The blogs to which I was referred.

lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

I presume the answer above is to my question: # wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 7:25pm:

You really are getting yourself tied in knots, aren't you?

Anyhow, your question was about Anthony Watts. Anthony Watts has no connection with science; quite the opposite, in fact. Your complaint is that I didn't refer you to scientists for information on Anthony Watts.

Would you like to clarify the logic behind your complaint? 

lee wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

Right. Ummm ... What would you expect that a scientist would have to say about the likes of Anthony Watts?

Remember your question: lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:21am:
Why would you need a scientist to answer that question?

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:
They're relevant as sources of information to answer lee's question: lee wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

His obsessive whining is a mystery to me. Nobody else has come up with any other sources of information.

Sometimes, I wonder why I bother. 

lee wrote on Dec 17^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Wow, dismissive daddykins much!????! 

'How effective is AR5 and the summary for polfcymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful? The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the model predictions, which is far from being the case.

Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models? Even if it does it in several places in the report, it lacks too often the critical attitude that should be expected, sometimes eluding rather than facing embarrassing questions. The SPM does not address in a proper way the issue of the reliability of the climate models.'

extract : http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360

by Professor Pierre Darriulat

From a link on Watts.

The whole paper is well worth the read.

Of course everyone who disagrees with the Church of AGW is a denialist.

muso accepts the physics, Prof Darriulat is a renowned physicist who does not accept the Climate Change Cargo Cult.

Have you seen this  news - not related to the current chat?

'A scientific mission ship, trapped in dense pack ice off East Antarctica, is still awaiting rescue after a Chinese icebreaker failed to reach it.

The Snow Dragon icebreaker was itself stalled by heavy ice, officials say.

It had been trying to cut a path through the ice in order to help the research vessel reach open water.

The Russian Academic Shokalskiy, which has been trapped since Christmas Day, has 74 on board and is being used by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.

They are following the route explorer Douglas Mawson travelled a century ago.
'Too thick'

One of the leaders of the expedition, Chris Turney, earlier tweeted an image of the Snow Dragon icebreaker - also known as the Xue Long - on the horizon as it approached the research ship. '

read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25523952

It would seem an earlier story on the Antarctic having an increase in ice by both extent and volume may be correct.

I know the difference between weather and climate. But when first posted, queries were made as the the volume of ice. It was believed by some to be a mere thin surface.

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2013 at 5:40pm:

I not speak english please explain 5 billion circle word jerk