Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Weezy]

UCS is a hack organization. Shouldn't even require consideration. Of course, that doesn't stop people from using them for actual information.

 

[BartW]

Should have gone back further than that so it can illustrate how climate changes all the time, without the help of man.

Non sequitur

This is a concept you have yet to grasp.

.

 

[BartW]

The Climate Progress article states on several occasions that this storm was stronger than it otherwise would have been because of Climate Change.

To make that point it quotes a scientist who off the cuff attributes half of the effect to climate change.

To be clear, he didn’t attribute ‘half of the blizzard’ to climate change. He attributed half of the 2F sea surface temperature anomaly to climate change.

It cites a chart that looks at change in participation since 1958 (hence why I posted the rebuttal questioning why start with 1958).

Like I said, the National Climate Assessment has precipitation figures going back to 1900. The particular figure from my Climate Progress article goes back to 1958 because that was ‘the past 50 years’ in its original Karl et al. 2009 paper.

Your blog attacks a different figure which may or may not have been put out by UCS (we can’t tell since your blog doesn’t properly cite anything and just links to some random unrelated article). I’m guessing not because the two figures are nonsense and look like they were thrown together in excel. Pretty unprofessional work…

The conclusions of the article are built upon selective use of studies and stretching basic relationships ("the most robust finding in physics" type stuff) to explain why this storm and all future storms should be impacted by climate change.

What do you mean “selective use of studies”? It is simple physics. And yes, all weather is impacted by climate change. You must be overthinking it because that's essentially tautological.

Likewise, the Bill Nye article makes the same basic claim.

My larger point is NOT that the storm disproves climate change - it is that climate change evangelists themselves point to individual weather events as PROOF of climate change just as skeptics point to individual weather events as PROOF that climate change is bogus.

Both sides are wrong when doing so.

Ummm nowhere does the article say that this blizzard is PROOF of climate change. I’m sure you can quote Al Gore or someone, but climate scientists continually warn against over-emphasizing individual weather events (or even yearly global temperature records).

As you can see, the articles is saying all future intense storms will be linked to climate change. I can only guess that future mild storms will be ignored by both sides.

There’s really nothing wrong with what you’ve quoted. All future storms, period, are affected by climate change. Mild storms are data just the same.

As context for the 100th time - I'm not a denier of climate change. I do prefer to see some balance in the debate though and articles like the Climate Progress don't help.

There’s nothing unfair about the article. I didn’t call you a climate change denier. However, you did manage to cite one.

Interesting - of course the method must be flawed and the author meets all the classic signs of denialism...

Yeah, coincidentally, you did manage to cite one of the fringier deniers. I’ve never seen hndog’s site but ‘Steven Goddard’ (clever pseudonym or intentional deception?) is so sloppy he got booted from Anthony Watts’ WUWT (or more aptly, WTFUWT?) denier blog. And thems some pretty low standards…

 

[BartW]

Several of these are not "facts vs what the public believes".

For example, using animals for research is not a scientific fact or finding - it is a moral/ethical decision on which the public and scientists disagree.

Likewise the question about childhood vaccines being required is a policy decision; not a science fact. A better question would be to ask about safety, not whether or not society "should" require some treatment.

This second issue permeates the whole energy section.

With this type of research it's easy to see why skeptics are skeptical. When scientists become policy makers we have to question basis for policy and recognize that policy is more nuanced and has more externalities than simply addressing the concern of the scientist.

Yes, I realize some of the questions are about opinions and not just facts. The figure title is quite clear.

If only more scientists were policy makers… we might actually base more policy on science!

PEW

That's what happens when science goes astray and becomes a political tool and depends on government funding.

Because without government funding science would cease to exist :crazy:

I wonder what the poll would have been like for acid rain, tobacco carcinogenicity, asbestos, HAARP, and all those grand science conspiracies…

 

[BartW]

SIAP. Just ran across this and thought I'd throw it in here.

"Hottest Year On Record?" Think Again! Meet 'Seasonally-Adjusted' Seasons | Zero Hedge

Yet another scientific authority calls 2014 the hottest year on record

NOAA
NASA
JMA
WMO
BEST
HADLEY

 

[volinbham]

To be clear, he didn’t attribute ‘half of the blizzard’ to climate change. He attributed half of the 2F sea surface temperature anomaly to climate change.

I changed the language but the point is the same - he is making an off the cuff remark that is treated as a fact point. It is not yet the article builds of that point.

Like I said, the National Climate Assessment has precipitation figures going back to 1900. The particular figure from my Climate Progress article goes back to 1958 because that was ‘the past 50 years’ in its original Karl et al. 2009 paper.

So does the data to 1900 show the same dramatic increase for New England? My guess is no.

Your blog attacks a different figure which may or may not have been put out by UCS (we can’t tell since your blog doesn’t properly cite anything and just links to some random unrelated article). I’m guessing not because the two figures are nonsense and look like they were thrown together in excel. Pretty unprofessional work…

It is not my blog. The UCS took the same "since 1958" study and presented it so I assume the blog was in effect addressing the same study in the article you linked. I love the "the didn't properly cite anything" critique. Must be BS right if they didn't cite it. Do you think the biog fabricated the data/chart? How have you concluded the charts are nonsense? Seriously - do you think they are fabricated?

What do you mean “selective use of studies”? It is simple physics. And yes, all weather is impacted by climate change. You must be overthinking it because that's essentially tautological.

Simple physics says the reaction happens. However any particular weather event is subject to many more variables. For example, plenty of articles attribute drought to climate change. Are we to assume that even if climate change causes drought or exacerbated a drought that any precipitation during said drought would be heavier than otherwise expected because the drought occurred in a warmer world than one where climate change was not occurring? The larger point is that these articles continually present the same mantra - less rain than normal? that's consistent with climate change. More rain than normal? That's consistent with climate change. So the tautology is that these articles take ANY specific weather event and throw together some studies to make the point that what we are seeing is evidence of climate change.

Ummm nowhere does the article say that this blizzard is PROOF of climate change. I’m sure you can quote Al Gore or someone, but climate scientists continually warn against over-emphasizing individual weather events (or even yearly global temperature records).

There’s really nothing wrong with what you’ve quoted. All future storms, period, are affected by climate change. Mild storms are data just the same.

What I quoted was a a priori statement that any future big snowstorm can be attributed to a generally warmer earth. Basically a gauntlet claiming any future weather event can be explained by climate change and using it as a data point otherwise is misguided. As I noted above, lower than "normal" precipitation is attributed to a warmer world. Higher than "normal" precipitation here is attributed to a warmer world. Sure the reasons are different but when one of these articles is written they just pick a different set of articles to support the underlying claim. That is what I mean by cherry picking.

The very first paragraph of the article directly implies that the NE storm was bigger than normal because of climate change. If you want to nitpick that they never said PROOF then so be it but you are in denial of the message in that article. It is clearly implying this storm was bigger than it otherwise would be because of climate change.

There’s nothing unfair about the article. I didn’t call you a climate change denier. However, you did manage to cite one.

Yeah, coincidentally, you did manage to cite one of the fringier deniers. I’ve never seen hndog’s site but ‘Steven Goddard’ (clever pseudonym or intentional deception?) is so nutty he got booted off of Anthony Watts’ WUWT (or more aptly, WTFUWT?) denier blog. And thems some pretty low standards…

The blog entry cited by Hndog is someone named Paul Homewood. I don't know his credentials but his claim should be easily tested.

What is the explanation for the adjustments to the raw data from the temperature stations? I understand adjustments need to be made from time to time but will you ever acknowledge that smoothing data and filling data is an imperfect science and once you start adjusting and correcting for you are beginning a bit of a house of cards?

More generally, do you ever apply the same skepticism to analyzing a study that confirms your views to one that doesn't?

 

[volinbham]

Yet another scientific authority calls 2014 the hottest year on record

NOAA
NASA
JMA
WMO
BEST
HADLEY

2014 wasn’t a blowout, and wasn’t vastly hotter than all other contenders — but most authorities, examining the data, do consider it to have likely been the hottest year on record. So far.

settled science...NEXT!

The World Meteorological Organization’s analysis, though, tallies together the climate records maintained by NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Center.

So these other guys said this and we looked at the data they used and agree.

How is this WMO announcement even news if they aren't collecting any different data?

Again, I'm approaching this not as a denier but someone amazed by the all out propaganda machine to sell, sell, sell the doom.

 

[volinbham]

How could I have left this part out of the article

In particular, so-called climate “skeptics” have called into question the hottest year designation, noting that NASA was only 38 percent certain of its conclusion, and NOAA 48 percent sure. Granted, it’s not clear what else they would have the agencies do: NASA only gives a 23 percent chance that the next contender — 2010 — was the hottest, and NOAA only an 18 percent chance. So even if you don’t like calling 2014 the hottest, giving 2010 that distinction makes even less sense.

Seriously would you consider anything to be certain or even likely if someone told you they were 38% sure?

It's more hilarious is the author's logic "well they've been even less certain about other years so there".

Are we really claiming that we are 38 - 48% certain that this was the hottest year?

 

[volinbham]

If only more scientists were policy makers… we might actually base more policy on science!

Given how policy through the years has been required to put ethical bounds on science (e.g. protection of human subjects), the endless belief among basic scientist about how what they research is so damned important that it should have endless funding and how narrowly focused scientists are (mile deep and an inch wide) - I think we are all damn lucky that scientists are not our policy makers.

CAVEAT: I am a PhD researcher.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

What in the hell were prehistoric humans burning to get us out of the ice age. Must of been some bad ish. Climate changes constantly, regardless if we were even here or not. Middle Eastern oil tycoons have began not using the dollar in all transactions. Our paper money no longer holds any gold value. It's value is dependent on oil prices and oil trade. So with these countries beginning to start not recognizing the dollar, we need to push alternative energy on the world that we create so we can keep our dollar as the main currency for energy transactions. If it were such a blantant, potentially catastrophic phenomenon, why are the only world power so damn concerned.

 

[volinbham]

So I'll just throw this out to Bart to destroy. That said, on the surface this looks like what I see in the articles from Bart. The author uses peer reviewed research to support the general conclusion of the article.

Is he correct in his conclusion? He certainly cites research that supports his claim.

If he's not right in his conclusion there are 2 core possibilities: 1) he is misinterpreting or intentionally misrepresenting the findings of the studies OR 2) he chose studies that support his conclusion while ignoring those that do not.

You decide

What Does Gavin Schmidt’s ‘Warmest’ Year Tell Us About Climate Sensitivity to CO2? | Watts Up With That?

 

[KentheOrange]

There’s A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

Where are the scientists in AAAS? These people are mostly educators and students.

 

[BartW]

I changed the language but the point is the same - he is making an off the cuff remark that is treated as a fact point. It is not yet the article builds of that point.

Globally sea surface temperatures have increased (a bit more than) 1F due to climate change. That is ~half of the 2F sea surface temperature anomaly that fed the nor’easter. What, specifically, is your issue with his statement?

So does the data to 1900 show the same dramatic increase for New England? My guess is no.

Bad counterexample

In Flooded UK, Guardian Warns ‘Climate Change Is Here Now’
U.K. Reports Warmest Year on Record and Fourth-Wettest in 2014

"Provisional rainfall totalled 1,297.1 millimeters, fourth-highest on record dating to 1910, with five of the U.K.’s six wettest years taking place since 2000 amid rising global emissions and climate change."

It is not my blog. The UCS took the same "since 1958" study and presented it so I assume the blog was in effect addressing the same study in the article you linked. I love the "the didn't properly cite anything" critique. Must be BS right if they didn't cite it. Do you think the biog fabricated the data/chart? How have you concluded the charts are nonsense? Seriously - do you think they are fabricated?

Why do you think it’s the same study? Just because of the 1958 date? The Karl et al. 2009 figure uses a different metric and has an entirely different representation. It looks nothing like the alleged UCS figure from that blog.

And if it is the same study, do you think Karl et al. 2009 was suppressing data? If so, why was it not also suppressed in the National Climate Assessment?

I think the figures are fabricated because the y-axis on the first one is (labeled?) wrong and the second one shows the correlation between global temperature and US precipitation. That’s like SandVol claiming Greenland’s temperature record is the same as the global temperature record. Pretty elementary mistakes… plus the sloppiness… yeah, it looks more like the work of “Steven Goddard” than a UCS publication. I could be wrong though.

Simple physics says the reaction happens. However any particular weather event is subject to many more variables. For example, plenty of articles attribute drought to climate change. Are we to assume that even if climate change causes drought or exacerbated a drought that any precipitation during said drought would be heavier than otherwise expected because the drought occurred in a warmer world than one where climate change was not occurring? The larger point is that these articles continually present the same mantra - less rain than normal? that's consistent with climate change. More rain than normal? That's consistent with climate change. So the tautology is that these articles take ANY specific weather event and throw together some studies to make the point that what we are seeing is evidence of climate change.
What I quoted was a a priori statement that any future big snowstorm can be attributed to a generally warmer earth. Basically a gauntlet claiming any future weather event can be explained by climate change and using it as a data point otherwise is misguided. As I noted above, lower than "normal" precipitation is attributed to a warmer world. Higher than "normal" precipitation here is attributed to a warmer world. Sure the reasons are different but when one of these articles is written they just pick a different set of articles to support the underlying claim. That is what I mean by cherry picking.

We’ve already agreed that geography plays a role. Different regions have different climate predictions. This is evident in the NCA. It just so happens the northeast (and the UK) are regions where we expect more increased precipitation.

The very first paragraph of the article directly implies that the NE storm was bigger than normal because of climate change. If you want to nitpick that they never said PROOF then so be it but you are in denial of the message in that article. It is clearly implying this storm was bigger than it otherwise would be because of climate change.

The blizzard does not in-and-of-itself prove climate change. The blizzard is consistent with climate change.

The blog entry cited by Hndog is someone named Paul Homewood. I don't know his credentials but his claim should be easily tested.

What is the explanation for the adjustments to the raw data from the temperature stations? I understand adjustments need to be made from time to time but will you ever acknowledge that smoothing data and filling data is an imperfect science and once you start adjusting and correcting for you are beginning a bit of a house of cards?

Nothing is perfect. From Judith Curry’s website: Understanding adjustments to temperature data

I don’t pretend to know the specific algorithms, but if JC herself doesn’t smell conspiracy that’s good enough for me

More generally, do you ever apply the same skepticism to analyzing a study that confirms your views to one that doesn't?

Yes, I see plenty of pro-AGW bleeding heart liberal hogwash that doesn’t pass the eye test. Likewise I see lots of articles on other topics that ultimately agree with my position but for terrible reasons. So it goes

So these other guys said this and we looked at the data they used and agree.

How is this WMO announcement even news if they aren't collecting any different data?

They all use slightly different methods to interpolate temperatures. I believe WMO just uses the raw data from the other three.

Again, I'm approaching this not as a denier but someone amazed by the all out propaganda machine to sell, sell, sell the doom.

Yes, the propaganda machine is amazing.

“If we address climate change, the economy will crash and burn forever!”

Boilerplate…

How could I have left this part out of the article
Seriously would you consider anything to be certain or even likely if someone told you they were 38% sure?
It's more hilarious is the author's logic "well they've been even less certain about other years so there".
Are we really claiming that we are 38 - 48% certain that this was the hottest year?

Been there done that

Given how policy through the years has been required to put ethical bounds on science (e.g. protection of human subjects), the endless belief among basic scientist about how what they research is so damned important that it should have endless funding and how narrowly focused scientists are (mile deep and an inch wide) - I think we are all damn lucky that scientists are not our policy makers.

Well I’m not suggesting they be both simultaneously. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather base policy on actual science rather than ‘whatever feels right’. I can attest to that last poll, especially regarding land use.

As an interesting aside, the present schism between most scientists and anti-environmentalists largely evolved from ethics disagreement over the Cold War nuclear arms race.

CAVEAT: I am a PhD researcher.

Good for you, really. What field if I may ask?

 

[BartW]

So I'll just throw this out to Bart to destroy. That said, on the surface this looks like what I see in the articles from Bart. The author uses peer reviewed research to support the general conclusion of the article.

Is he correct in his conclusion? He certainly cites research that supports his claim.

If he's not right in his conclusion there are 2 core possibilities: 1) he is misinterpreting or intentionally misrepresenting the findings of the studies OR 2) he chose studies that support his conclusion while ignoring those that do not.

You decide

What Does Gavin Schmidt’s ‘Warmest’ Year Tell Us About Climate Sensitivity to CO2? | Watts Up With That?

LOLWUWT

It reads like a typical SandVol article. Yall's collective BS filters continue to dissappoint. I'll go out on a limb and say it's mostly (1).

Destroying random crap from the denialist blogosphere is not worth my time. If you wish, pick a specific point from that article, research it yourself, then get back to me with your argument.

Seeing as you are a research student you should have access to the original manuscripts, right?

 

[BartW]

Good news everyone!

Jimmy The Groundhog Bites Mayor, Signifying That Winter Will Last Forever

Happy late Groundhog Day east coast

 

[volinbham]

LOLWUWT

It reads like a typical SandVol article. Yall's collective BS filters continue to dissappoint. I'll go out on a limb and say it's mostly (1).

Destroying random crap from the denialist blogosphere is not worth my time. If you wish, pick a specific point from that article, research it yourself, then get back to me with your argument.

Seeing as you are a research student you should have access to the original manuscripts, right?

Nice dodge.

Here's the basic question: is he misrepresenting the findings of the works he cites? If so how.

I posted this because he uses published research to reach a conclusion in the same manner the article in Climate Research does.

(as a side note I don't view ThinkProgress and it's offshoots is an unbiased source and clearly the article you posted began with conclusion first followed by selected studies and interpretations of findings to support said conclusion - BOTH articles cherry pick research to support an a priori conclusion)

I'm not a student, I'm a faculty member.

 

[volinbham]

Globally sea surface temperatures have increased (a bit more than) 1F due to climate change. That is ~half of the 2F sea surface temperature anomaly that fed the nor’easter. What, specifically, is your issue with his statement?

My problem with it is how the broader conclusion that the impact is specifically quantified but this quantification is not subject to any peer review. The bigger conclusion of the amount of impact is an off-the-cuff guess yet it is treated in the article as science fact. When "deniers" do this they are attacted

Bad counterexample

Why? If precipitation cycles over our history both pre and post the ramp of AGW then it weakens the conviction that heavier precip since is the result of climate change. That was the point of the blog.

Why do you think it’s the same study? Just because of the 1958 date? The Karl et al. 2009 figure uses a different metric and has an entirely different representation. It looks nothing like the alleged UCS figure from that blog.

And if it is the same study, do you think Karl et al. 2009 was suppressing data? If so, why was it not also suppressed in the National Climate Assessment?

I think it is the same because the exact same figure in the Climate Progress article is used in it (UCS used the figure).

I said nothing about data fabrication. I simply said the the conclusion of the increase in precip since 1958 COULD be partially explained by beginning in a period of relatively low precip or low correlation between amount of precip and temperature. Had we looked at say 1900 to 2009 the magnitude of the change recently would not be as large.

That is what I understand the point of the critique to be.

Karl may have said "let's check the last 50 years" but clearly in climate change research you starting point impacts the magnitude of a trend you see.

I think the figures are fabricated because the y-axis on the first one is (labeled?) wrong and the second one shows the correlation between global temperature and US precipitation. That’s like SandVol claiming Greenland’s temperature record is the same as the global temperature record. Pretty elementary mistakes… plus the sloppiness… yeah, it looks more like the work of “Steven Goddard” than a UCS publication. I could be wrong though.

I have no idea if fabricated. I agree that sourcing would help. See above for the point that was trying to be made.

We’ve already agreed that geography plays a role. Different regions have different climate predictions. This is evident in the NCA. It just so happens the northeast (and the UK) are regions where we expect more increased precipitation.

The blizzard does not in-and-of-itself prove climate change. The blizzard is consistent with climate change.

Here's my main beef. Virtually every observed weather event could be presented as "consistent with climate change" depending on which studies you choose to include in the article.

That is the tautology in action. That is my main critique of the Climate Progress article. It is clearly implying that the blizzard was worse than it otherwise would be due to climate change AND indicates in the last paragraph that this same article can and will be written for any future weather event.

Nothing is perfect. From Judith Curry’s website: Understanding adjustments to temperature data

I don’t pretend to know the specific algorithms, but if JC herself doesn’t smell conspiracy that’s good enough for me

So long as JC agrees with the party line you take her word. When she goes off the reservation she is to be questioned eh?

Yes, I see plenty of pro-AGW bleeding heart liberal hogwash that doesn’t pass the eye test. Likewise I see lots of articles on other topics that ultimately agree with my position but for terrible reasons. So it goes

I'm not talking about obvious BS - I'm talking about scientific studies and conclusions. I've posted elsewhere in this thread research demonstrating that reviewers suffer from confirmation bias and are much harsher on research (to the point of nitpicking method) for conclusions that do not match their world view and more importantly; more lenient on research that does.

Do you scrutinize all this research or just studies that don't fit the IPCC narrative?

They all use slightly different methods to interpolate temperatures. I believe WMO just uses the raw data from the other three.

But they are all working from the same data set right? If so, the bigger surprise would be them reaching different conclusions.

Yes, the propaganda machine is amazing.

“If we address climate change, the economy will crash and burn forever!”

Can't bring yourself to see how it happens on Team Hot, eh?

Boilerplate…

Been there done that

I can't find a post on that page that addresses the 38% certainty.

That WaPo science writer is horrible BTW. I read the piece where he tries to explain the 38% and he clearly doesn't understand how to discuss statistical findings.

From the explanation he linked we see this:

The greatest assurance of the hottest year was 2014 at 48% sure, 2010 at 23% sure, etc. etc.

Now the explanation is that well we are between 1.5 and 3 times more certain that 2014 was the hottest year as opposed to 2010.

Problem? That still doesn't provide the level of certainty with the conclusion. If I'm 10% one event was the most of what I'm measuring and 30% another is then yes one is 3x more certain but neither has any real level of certainty.

According to the WaPo articles the findings are either .04 degrees C hotter or .02 degrees C hotter.

We know when comparing data points that differences can be 1) mathematical (.04 higher), 2) statistically different (some level of confidence that .04 is indeed different than zero given the constraints of the data collection), and 3) meaningful differences.

In the case of the WaPo articles all I can conclude is they achieved level 1.

Is .04 D C hotter a statistically significant difference? What are the confidence intervals? What is the value of the test statistic? Less than 50% certainty in the conclusion certainly raises some questions.

Well I’m not suggesting they be both simultaneously. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather base policy on actual science rather than ‘whatever feels right’. I can attest to that last poll, especially regarding land use.

In general I prefer policy to be based on facts more than feelings but facts aren't always facts (see Food Pyramid) and there is a danger not considering all the impacts of policy because one is obsessed with the science part.

For example - the EPA coal mandates (5 years ago or so) completely ignored economic impact and omitted cost/benefit studies.

The policy makers who had a particular agenda simply presented "science facts" like number of kids who might not get asthma" to justify the policy but that was never weighed against number of kids who may be harmed by economic conditions, etc.

Policy has and should have may facets and constituents.

Good for you, really. What field if I may ask?

I've been a marketing faculty member for 25 years.

 

[Sandvol]

Yes, I realize some of the questions are about opinions and not just facts. The figure title is quite clear.

If only more scientists were policy makers… we might actually base more policy on science!

PEW

Because without government funding science would cease to exist :crazy:

I wonder what the poll would have been like for acid rain, tobacco carcinogenicity, asbestos, HAARP, and all those grand science conspiracies…

Kind of funny you've lumped some legitimate concerns in with the loony tune. Acid rain legitimate although over blown unnatural pollutants-still producing NOX and SOX, tobacco-where are we now? still legal just taxed more no medical funding, asbestos-legitimate medical, HAARP-loony tune, AGW-loony tune.

 

[tumscalcium]

.

That's cute. It would make sense of global warmkng, cooling, change of whatever it is today was cancer. But it's not. Your lack of understanding the difference between weather and climate is hilarious. Your lack of understanding that the earth isn't 150 years old is even more hilarious. Your lack of understanding the earth constantly changes is hilarious. You equating the earths climate to cancer is just stupid.

Try harder man. Have you gone outside recently or are you still afraid of changing temperatures and rain?

 

[volinbham]

More of that science and resulting predictions. I'll note this is a major policy maker who is taking massive leaps

Playing Politics with the Weather | National Review Online

Two days earlier, McCarthy was in Aspen, Colo., with a different message. Here it was about helping snowboarders. “Shorter, warmer winters mean a shorter season to enjoy the winter sports we love,” she said in an essay entitled “We Must Act Now to Protect Our Winters.” “If we fail to act, Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, Texas, by 2100. Amarillo is a great town, but it’s a lousy place to ski.” True, Amarillo is as flat as a pancake, and the nearest ski resort is 210 miles away. Then there’s the effect of elevation on climate. Aspen is a lot higher than Amarillo.

No fear mongering there - nope, not one bit.

 

[volinbham]

Awesome - it's on the WH's blog

We Must Act Now to Protect Our Winters | The White House

Can anyone defend this statement as anything more than pure speculation?

If we fail to act, Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, TX, by 2100.

This is from the head of the EPA - you know the supposed scientific-based policy maker.

 

[volinbham]

And a bit more - just some back of the envelope calculations but if it's good enough for Climate Progress it should be acceptable here.

EPA Chief: 'Aspen

According to the website usclimatedata.com, temperatures and snowfall in Aspen and Amarillo compare as follows:

Aspen
Annual high temperature: 55.8°F
Annual low temperature: 28.3°F
Average temperature: 42.05°F
Av. annual snowfall: 179 inch

Amarillo
Annual high temperature: 70.9°F
Annual low temperature: 43.7°F
Average temperature: 57.3°F
Av. annual snowfall: 19 inch

For the climate of Aspen to resemble that of Amarillo, a temperature swing of 15 degrees and a 13-foot drop in annual snowfall would need to take place over the next 85 years. Even the most catastrophic models of global temperature change in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not predict a temperature increase of 15 degrees.

 

[Sandvol]

And a bit more - just some back of the envelope calculations but if it's good enough for Climate Progress it should be acceptable here.

EPA Chief: 'Aspen

Bart? You there?

 

[myrobbins7]

Action-movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would be a “terminator” for climate change and asked state governments to follow Narendra Modi’s “actions” as Gujarat Chief Minister to achieve sustainable development goals.

Arnold Schwarzenegger says will be climate change ‘terminator'; lauds Narendra Modi | The Financial Express

From the man who owns his own jumbo jet...The joke is that he still believes he's relevant.

 

[Grand Vol]

And a bit more - just some back of the envelope calculations but if it's good enough for Climate Progress it should be acceptable here.

EPA Chief: 'Aspen

I'm pretty sure he'll cite a big tobacco article or something in response.