Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats

Global Warming: Heat Waves (Yes) – Rollercoasters (No)

with 48 comments

The heat wave in the middle U.S. is now moving into the East.  We had plans to take my son and a friend to ride rollercoasters at Dorney Park in Allentown, PA this Friday but the forecast is for 100F temperatures and heat indexes (what it feels like when adding in the humidity) likely reaching 110F.  We must cancel because at these temperatures, it just is not safe for children to be out there waiting in lines.  Sadly, last year in July we canceled a trip to Six Flags Great Adventure for the same reason: 100+ temperatures and high humidity.

Get used to the heat waves because they are going to become more frequent and more intense in the future.

Humans are overloading the air with too much carbon and that this carbon is causing the planet to dramatically warm. Increasing carbon will cause this warming to continue. (For perspective, the amount of CO2 that is added to the air every day by human activities, primarily from burning fossil fuels, is equal to the amount of oil spilled by 8,000 Gulf Oil Spills per day.) Virtually every publishing scientist and all international science academies agree.

The physics of increasing heat-trapping gases tells us:

1) We will experience more heat waves and these heat waves will become even hotter

2) Higher latitudes (toward the poles) will warm the most while lower latitudes (tropics) will warm less

3) Winters will warm faster than summers

4) Nights will warm faster than days

Recently, NOAA (2011) issued the latest 30 year climate normals for the United States, and as expected, points #2, 3, and 4 are evidenced in the graphics below:

Latest 30 Year US Climate Normals for Max T and Min T

Seasonal Changes in US Normal Temperatures

Most locations have warmed and the greatest increases have occurred in higher latitudes, during winter, and during the overnight hours.  Just as heat-trapping greenhouse gas warming should do.

Central Park “new normals” have been posted by the National Weather Service (NWS) forecast office of New York City and appear below:

Central Park, NY Changes in Normal T and Precipitation (NWS, 2011)

NY City has gotten warmer and wetter as would be expected due to increases in human emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.  Warmer air can hold more moisture so we are causing the atmospheric “sponge” to be bigger.  When that sponge is “squeezed” by storms, more rain falls when it is warm and more snow falls when it is cold.  (It should be noted that increased snowfall in winter does not contradict global warming.  Even with global warming it can still be cold enough to snow during winter although it is true that winters are getting shorter in length and snow cover is disappearing earlier in the year.)

* I am very disappointed that the NWS forecast office for the NY City/Long Island Metro region made no mention on their home page nor Face Book page that human-caused climate change was the primary reason for the observed warming and increased precipitation.  If the NWS does not connect the dots for us, what chance do we have to make informed decisions?

So what can New Yorkers expect in the future as humans keep pumping more and more heat-trapping gases into the air?  New York summers in the future are likely to be similar to summer in South Carolina and Georgia today.

What NY Summers Will Be Like In The Future (, 2010)

The number of heat waves will also increase:

Summer Heat Waves Will Increase (Ibid)

Imagine as many as 25 days where temperatures reach 100F or higher in NY City during summer.  Do you want to be out and about in that weather?

NY City is no exception.  The figure below shows heat waves are expected to increase all across the US in the next few decades.

Number of Hot Seasons Will Increase in the US (Diffenbaugh and Ashfaq,2010)

According to Stanford University scientists Diffenbaugh and Ashfaq (2010):

“In the next 30 years, we could see an increase in heat waves like the one now occurring in the eastern United States or the kind that swept across Europe in 2003 that caused tens of thousands of fatalities. Those kinds of severe heat events also put enormous stress on major crops like corn, soybean, cotton and wine grapes, causing a significant reduction in yields.”

Think it is hot now?  You ain’t seen nothing yet!  What can you do?  Be more energy-efficient (see my personal examples here and here), tell people about how this hot weather will become the norm and that much worse heat waves are coming, and demand that carbon be priced in a way that will allow renewable energy choices such as wind and solar to become more price-competitive with coal and oil.

We need to reduce our emissions of carbon for the sake of our public health, national security, and economic competitiveness. Surely it is foolish to base our economic energy needs on sources that are dwindling in supply and increasing in price when, instead, we could move toward energy efficiency and cheaper-by-the-year, infinite sources such as the sun and wind. If we stay addicted to fossil fuels and do not begin investing in those technologies now, we will be buying them from China in the future instead of selling it to them, and, we will shake and bake while doing so.

Written by Scott Mandia

July 21, 2011 at 5:49 am

Posted in Uncategorized

48 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Will? No, we’ve got evidence of it occurring in Aust already;

    The physics of increasing heat-trapping gases tells us:

    1) We will experience more heat waves and these heat waves will become even hotter

    2) Higher latitudes (toward the poles) will warm the most while lower latitudes (tropics) will warm less (nothing for Aust as BOM)

    3) Interior continental locations will warm more than coastal regions

    4) Winters will warm faster than summers

    5) Nights will warm faster than days (or, as this happens, the diurnal difference will decrease)

    How Monckton continues to assert some doubt, I’ll never know.


    July 21, 2011 at 7:41 am

  2. That’s total political bullcrap. The earth has gone through hot and cold cycles for millions of years and will always to so. You’ve fallen for a false religion. Winters are colder than ever. You’ve attached yourself to a group of political hacks that continually try to find a way, or an excuse, to raise taxes for the benefit of the already elitist wealthy.
    Check this out and set your mind at ease. The sky is NOT falling.

    Robert Taylor

    July 21, 2011 at 8:14 am

    • That’s total political bullcrap.

      I think you’re referring to the paragraph following that sentence.

      Above that sentence, I see facts and figures. Below that sentence, I hear crazed ravings about “raising taxes”.

      Who’s being “political” exactly?

      — frank

  3. lol Robert.
    Please show me the standing scientific paper that refutes the greenhouse effect or demonstrates an irrefutable natural explanation for the noted warming – especially that over the past 30yrs when solar activity has slumped.
    There’s a whole heap of crazed crackpots writing blogs, Robert, I want to see genuine scientific evidence.


    July 21, 2011 at 8:19 am

    • I agree…a lot of crazed man-made global warming crackpots. We all are aware of the skewing of numbers to fit this false hypothesis. Emails between fellow warmers have exposed this in the past. “Make the numbers fit” is apro pos. Read the article I sent you to become better informed. I, too, want to see genuine scientific evidence that’s tested and re-tested without predetermined results. This, as I said, is one huge political scam that is NOT real.

      Robert Taylor

      July 21, 2011 at 10:07 am

      • Robert, you seem to be unaware that the global warming deniers have given up denying that the earth is warming drastically. They now simply deny that the cause is CO2. You semm to not like science. Is it fear of that which you don’t understand?

        Ross Cann

        July 21, 2011 at 10:20 am

      • Robert,

        Begin here. Truly digest these simple points and then go to the real deal here. The four reports to read are at the bottom of that page. Absolutely read the first report. If you do not read these things you have no chance on blogs to have an informed conversation. If you disagree with points made at these two links then please have supporting evidence and not rhetoric.

        Scott Mandia

        July 21, 2011 at 10:33 am

      • Firstly, I linked to genuine data, you, a blog – please… Any idiot can write a blog, but not everyone can collect, verify and analyse data.
        What do you know that numerous independent investigations missed? Please, let me know – I’m all ears for genuine evidence of fowl play by scientists with data-sets and how, seemingly magically, numerous other data-sets not included in this “climategate” BS somehow verify the same conclusions – such as those I’ve linked to above? Don’t link to blogs, simply claim all the investigations were a whitewash (with providing genuine evidence) or refer me to climategate books that you were silly enough to buy, but show me hard evidence – read the reports from the investigations and demonstrate how they all were flawed and thus your conspiracy theory remains valid. I bet you won’t (or can’t) do this, but will evade the question with other baseless accusations.
        Here’s a great quote by Tim Minchin that I seem to refer to far too often for people like you, “Science adjust it’s views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.”If you show me hard evidence, then I will be convinced that there may be some truth to this crazed conspiracy, otherwise it’s clear you’re simply denying the observed evidence to perpetuate some false world view.
        As for the grant nonsense, please – could you be anymore laughable? How many years has FOXNews been beating your brain to mush so as you would continue to repeat their meme within critical analysis?
        I’m certain you’ve never actually read a research paper in a quality science journal, but I invite you to do so. In every one, I bet you will find that they explicitly outline where their funding came from and any potential sources of conflict may exist. It’s not a perfect system – nothing is – but it is traceable. Please explore the wealth of information at hand – dig through all the copious studies that continue to stand up within the peer-review literature that support anthropogenic climate change and show me where they were funded by renewable energy fat cats or the green-communist ninjas. I’ll think you might be on to something if you can do that. If not, again, you’re denying the evidence to support a faith position.
        Some names I may suggest (although their work has failed to stand up against independent examination) would be Michaels, Soon, Idso and Singer – have a look who’s putting bread on their table and then work that grey-matter ever so little to come to a genuine sceptical position.

        Scott, sorry, but I’m getting off this ride. I’m sick of feeding the trolls and this one is particularly bad – he doesn’t even seem aware that NO scientist questions the greenhouse effect of CO2, that CO2 concentrations values have resulted from the industrial revolution (demonstratively our fault as fossil sourced carbon has a different signature to that of other sources) or even ever heard of the quaternary glaciation. He’s obviously clearly a hater of reason which has provided these lovely devices that he now pollutes with his nonsense and will provide greater likelihood of a longer life than his ancestors.

        I’d be embarrassed if I were caught out bombastically spewing out such obvious rubbish, but I guess it doesn’t bother everyone.

        Sorry again Scott, I’m over this ridiculous, indeed endless, “debate” and I must step out.

        Mandia: No problem, Moth. Sometimes you just have to call it like it is.


        July 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm

  4. “The earth has gone through hot and cold cycles for millions of years and will always to so.”

    There have been much warmer and much colder periods, that is true. Those temperature changes had physical causes however; they didn’t just happen. The direct cause of the glacial/interglacial episodes that have occurred over the last few millions of years, for instance, is very likely variations in the Earth’s orbit (coupled with amplifying feedbacks like rising/lowering GHG’s). Saying “the Earth has gone through warm and cold periods before” doesn’t tell us *anything* about what is causing the recent warming of the last century. You need a physical explanation. Anything else is just mystical mumbo-jumbo. Climate doesn’t *want* to move to any particular point; it has to be forced there by a physical process. The only forcing that makes any sense for the recent warming is rising GHG’s.

    “Winters are colder than ever.”

    Not true at all. This past winter in the NH it was no where near the coldest. I know there was a lot of hype about a few places that had very cold weeks or months, like the UK and the Eastern US, but overall temps were close to average for the winter. There was also a fixation on snowfall as if it were a great proxy for temperature, but it really isn’t. The world is actually a lot bigger than your backyard; peeking out at it doesn’t give much insight into what is happening globally. The Arctic was exceptionally warm the last two winters; where was coverage in the media? This year will almost certainly rank in the top ten warmest years, since the strong La Nina is over and temps are already going back up.

    Btw, your link consisted of a revisionist history of Piltdown Man and some lies about Mike Mann and Phil Jones. For instance, it says this about Mann:

    “In addition, he had used primarily tree rings to estimate the unrecorded temperatures of the past. But the tree rings of the late twentieth century showed a cooling trend. So, he spliced in the actual thermometer recordings, without a note of explanation.”

    That is an outright lie. The papers in question clearly show BOTH the thermometer data AND the proxy data, as separate lines on the graph. The proxy data ended in the early 1980’s, so that line ends there as well. There was about 100 years of instrumental data side by side with the proxy data. There was never any splicing of data. Not that I expected accuracy from a link that also despairs that people accept evolution, but I would be embarrassed if I had posted such a scientifically illiterate article as evidence.

    Robert Murphy

    July 21, 2011 at 10:09 am

  5. Ouch, hit a nerve. Sorry ’bout that. Where exactly is the absolute truth that mankind, not the natural climate, is causing global warming? There isn’t any! It’s all silly guesswork. There’s not ONE absolute, final proof of what you believe (have ‘faith’) in. I’ll stick with nature and not some silly guess work by “experts” such as yourself. You might want to look back to the 60’s where the Club of Rome was predicting an upcomine Ice Age. Embarassed…not at all on this end. Nature rules as always…not non-intellectual hubris as you and others exhibit.

    Robert Taylor

    July 21, 2011 at 10:19 am

  6. “Ouch, hit a nerve. Sorry ’bout that.”

    You should be more sorry for spouting scientific nonsense. 🙂

    “Where exactly is the absolute truth that mankind, not the natural climate, is causing global warming?”

    If you’re looking for absolute proof, science isn’t the field for you. If you want overwhelming evidence however, read the science journals.

    “There isn’t any! It’s all silly guesswork.”

    Science may be silly to you, I agree. Guesswork it is not.

    ” There’s not ONE absolute, final proof of what you believe (have ‘faith’) in.”

    True. There are however multiple lines of independent evidence that all points to rising GHG’s as the cause of recent warming this last century, and particularly the last half century.

    “You might want to look back to the 60′s where the Club of Rome was predicting an upcomine Ice Age.”

    Almost no scientists were predicting a immanent glacial period (we’ve actually been in an ice age for the last few million years) in the 60’s or 70’s. In case you wanted to know what the facts actually were.

    “Nature rules as always…”

    And the physics of greenhouse gases obey the laws of nature. It’s the deniers who want to ignore physics.

    “not non-intellectual hubris as you and others exhibit.”

    Says the man who evaded every point I made up-thread. Now why is that? lol

    Robert Murphy

    July 21, 2011 at 10:29 am

    • Oh, so now you’re saying we’re still in an Ice Age. Isn’t that special? As far as all those “published scientists” you reference, how many of them are on grants (welfare for scientists) that owe allegiance to the grantors to write agreeable reports? I’m sure, many of them are. To think mankind can affect climate is similiar to saying that the earth is the only probable planet in the universe which supports life. You ‘warmers’ take yourselves way to seriously.

      Robert Taylor

      July 21, 2011 at 10:39 am

      • Robert Taylor
        You are displaying more ignorance. Scientists don’t depend on grants. They are salaried employees of Universities and to a much smaller extent employees of non-profit research institutions..
        I am amazed at your posting that you would go to so much trouble to publicly display your ignorance. Your remarks about ‘faith’ put me in mind of Luther’s famous dictum, “reason is the enemy of faith.”
        You are way out your league here.

        Ross Cann

        July 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm

      • @Robert Taylor: Others here are more polite, but I somehow doubt that you truly believe the clueless drivel you spout. FOAD, troll.


        July 22, 2011 at 6:43 pm

  7. “Oh, so now you’re saying we’re still in an Ice Age.”

    We are. Did you not know that? We’ve been in one for the last few million years. There are glacial periods and interglacial periods within it, but both poles have had prominent ice caps throughout.

    ” Isn’t that special?”

    If you say so. It’s not exactly controversial.

    “As far as all those “published scientists” you reference, how many of them are on grants (welfare for scientists) that owe allegiance to the grantors to write agreeable reports?”

    Like Roy Spencer? He gets all his money from grants, and he has vociferously and loudly spoken against the consensus on climate. Your conspiracy theories are better suited to “Coast to Coast” than here.

    “To think mankind can affect climate is similiar to saying that the earth is the only probable planet in the universe which supports life.”

    Nonsense. There is no logical connection between one and the other. Believing that human beings are incapable of affecting climate is however the height of hubris.

    “You ‘warmers’ take yourselves way to seriously.”

    We take the science seriously too. If you did, you would have not *again* evaded the points I made in my first post. 🙂

    Robert Murphy

    July 21, 2011 at 10:57 am

  8. Thanks for another excellent post, Mr. Mandia. One quibble–I’m not sure how well the comparison between CO2 emissions and Gulf oil spills works, given that it is a simple weight comparison (I mean, yes, it sounds bad, but then to me it is confusing). I would suggest instead (or in addition) couching both in terms of CO2–daily global CO2 emissions versus the CO2 that would be produced by burning all the oil in the Gulf spill. That admittedly is hard to describe simply, so maybe some more thinking would be required. – Regards, Tom Gray, Wind Energy Communications Consultant

    Tom Gray

    July 22, 2011 at 8:56 am

  9. So, scientists do not directly get grants. They work for universities that receive grants…splitting hairs, it appears. Their salaries are paid by universities that are then able to pay those salaries due to the grants involved. Is that what you’re attempting to say? It’s the same old story…follow the money trail.
    And, no I didn’t know we were still in an Ice Age…about 99% of the populace wasn’t aware of that either. I guess you’re saying that because there’s ice at the poles, we the 99.999% of the world’s population still experience an Ice Age. I’ll pass that on.
    The earth will continue to repeat its cycles and you, the pinheads, will claim that it’s due to man’s greediness and industry even in the past when, at some point, there was no humankind. I can’t wait to read your next prediction of global catastrophe. Let me give you one to work on: The earth is shrinking because the over-populating of the planet is causing too much displacement on the earth’s crust, mantel, et al. I’ll betcha Gore would be all over that one, too!!!
    Oh, and have a nice day.

    Robert Taylor

    July 22, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    • Robert Taylor
      You are now resorting to silly name calling and displaying more ignorance.
      I will leave it at “he who attempts to debate with a fool becomes a fool.”

      Ross Cann

      July 22, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    • Scientists cannot get rich from public grant money. However, those that advise private think tanks certainly can.

      I blogged about your myth here and here. Again, I ask you to read before you post.

      Or, just drive through the faculty parking lots of science-funded universities and see for yourself. Few BMWs there.

      Scott Mandia

      July 22, 2011 at 8:22 pm

      • As I previously stated – it’s simply feeding the troll in replying.. As you know, all funding is recorded in the the literature and Robert will not look up and demonstrate that this shows dodgy practices because he knows deep down that he won’t find it.
        He must ignore the observations to preserve his preconceived, largely faith-held, position.
        There isn’t a truly intellectual debate to be found with Robert – he will only Gish Gallop and mindlessly repeat the same point until you lose interest, only to claim a false victory.
        I’d say he requires no more attention than the level of evidence he provides.


        July 22, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    • “And, no I didn’t know we were still in an Ice Age…”

      And now you do. We are in the interglacial part of it, but an Ice Age is defined by the presence of ice sheets at both poles. Your “passing” on that info doesn’t change the facts.

      “The earth will continue to repeat its cycles…”

      It’s not cycles; there are forcings causing climate changes. If it is warm for a while the only thing that will cause the earth to cool is a cooling forcing, and if it is cold the only thing that will make it warm is a warming forcing. It doesn’t just “happen” because climate wants to regress to some kind of climate mean.

      “and you, the pinheads, will claim that it’s due to man’s greediness and industry even in the past when, at some point, there was no humankind.”

      If you actually read up on what actual climate scientists have said, you would know how silly your statement is. Past climate changes are well documented and the natural forcings that caused them are increasingly being understood by climate scientists. It is precisely *because* climate has changed a bit in the past that we can be confident that climate sensitivity is not very low. Really, the entire field of paleoclimatology deals with past climate change due to non-anthropogenic causes.

      “Any yes, many “scientists” were predicting a new global ice age.”

      Nonsense. I dare you to provide more than a handful who were actually studying climate science and who claimed we were headed for an immanent glacial period. Posting the same couple of Newsweek and Time articles doesn’t count. I want actual papers in journals.

      Arguing from total ignorance is not really helping your posts here. And I notice, yet *again*, you have not answered any of the points in my first post. I have not forgotten. 🙂

      Robert Murphy

      July 23, 2011 at 7:37 am

  10. Sucking up to govt. grants. Great article.
    Any yes, many “scientists” were predicting a new global ice age.

    Mandia: There were very few scientists worried about an ice age but even in the 1970s most were researching CO2 warming. See for yourself.

    Fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil stand to lose revenue if carbon emissions are restricted so they certainly would dole out money to any scientist that was working on a landmark anti-AGW paper. Over the years, ExxonMobil alone has kicked in millions and millions of dollars to deny the science. Surely a company that shows billions in profits per month has a few dollars to spend on real anti-AGW research that has a much higher credibility rating than the anti-science information campaign that they have bankrolled since the mid-1990s. Furthermore, every scientist and every journal stands to become instantly famous if AGW is overturned. MUCH more incentive to be anti-AGW! However, AGW is settled just as the earth is round and smoking increases chances for lung cancer and fossil fuel companies know this.

    Andrew Revkin writes about the Global Climate Coalition in an April 2009 article:

    A group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming. “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
    Its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted. “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

    The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

    Robert Taylor

    July 23, 2011 at 5:04 am

    • Your link repeats the made up “quote” allegedly from a 1974 National Science Board report:
      “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next ice age.”

      Problem is, that’s a splicing of *two* different documents, separated by two years, in reverse order. IoW, it’s a lie.

      The first sentence is a from a 1974 report and says, “”During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”. They never say a new glacial era is immanent. They also state, “”The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century”. And they also say, “The state of knowledge regarding climate and its changes is too limited to predict reliably whether the present, unanticipated cooling
      trend will continue, or to forecast probable changes in precipitation if the trend persists.”

      Click to access sciencechallenge00nati.pdf

      (page 25)

      The next part of the spliced, fabricated quote is from a 1972 report, and it says:

      “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the earth’s reflectivity. At the same time, increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the earth’s surface. When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount.”

      Click to access patternsperspect00nati.pdf

      (page 55)

      Notice it was saying that the next glacial could be here in the next 20,000 years. Why was that snipped from the quote on your link? Why were sentences from two different documents two years apart spliced together to make it look like scientists were saying a new glacial period was immanent when they actually said no such thing?

      Now why is it your source propagates such a blatant lie? Does it bother you at all? If you are truly skeptical, this is your opportunity to rectify your ignorance. It’s not too late; 5 or 6 years ago I bought into most of the so-called “skeptical” claims. It’s up to you.

      Robert Murphy

      July 23, 2011 at 8:06 am

  11. Peer-review data can be false if not ‘goofy’ according to NPR interview:

    Robert Taylor

    July 23, 2011 at 8:04 am

  12. Global temperatures have been ‘cooling’ the last several years.

    Robert Taylor

    July 23, 2011 at 8:08 am

    • A similarly foolish thing to say:

      “My 7 year old son has been growing since he was born. I know this because he is much taller now. However, in the past four weeks, I have faithfully measured him each day and there has been no change. Therefore, I must conclude that my son has stopped growing.”

      See my Global Cooling page and learn about why a few years does not make a trend. In fact, it takes about 17 years to have the CO2 signal rise above the weather noise.

      Scott Mandia

      July 23, 2011 at 8:14 am

    • Nonsense. Last year was the warmest on record for most data-sets (including satellite), the last ten were the warmest ten on record. Your link, which you already posted up-thread, does not provide *any* evidence it has been cooling the last few years. Why did you post it? It doesn’t even mention recent temperatures.

      Robert Murphy

      July 23, 2011 at 8:16 am

  13. Of course it’s up to me…and I and millions of others aren’t falling for this politically-based ‘science’. You’ve lost the supposed moral high ground with all of the omissions, lies, fabrications and skewed data which has been reported.
    Your agenda, coupled with the nonewz compliant media no longer works.

    Mandia: You refuse to read and learn anything and are obviously just trolling to get a rise out of people who take the time to try to educate you. Your comments will be held in moderation and only posted if they add to the discussion.

    Robert Taylor

    July 23, 2011 at 8:13 am

  14. “Of course it’s up to me…and I and millions of others aren’t falling for this politically-based ‘science’”

    What do you think of the fabricated quote you linked to above? Are you OK with that lie? If so, that says a lot about you. “Moral highground”, indeed.

    Robert Murphy

    July 23, 2011 at 8:18 am

  15. I was wondering Mr. Taylor if you could explain to us how you and “others” are such the experts on this “debate” when EVERY SINGLE scientific organization sides with where the evidence is taking us. Even the AAGP who cater to the Oil fanatics have decided that they could not deny the evidence anymore. Maybe you should take a look at this list and decide for yourself what group denying facts and evidence puts you.

    Without knowing what advance degrees you hold (I hold a master’s degree in Chemisty), you give off the impression that not only are you smarter then all of the tens of thousands of scientists working on this but you seem to dismiss them as kooks, conspirators, and dumb. There was a great post at Starts with a bang about this:

    Being skeptical of science is great. It’s what science is built on, but to flat out look the other way on facts and trends is pretty much summing up your scientific background. Not to mention playing your hand on your real agenda.

    I also just want to think it’s “normal” for the Earth to warm as fast as it is in the last 100 years says something about your analytical thinking too.


    Ryan C.

    July 23, 2011 at 8:58 am

    • I think Mr. Taylor has left the building. No use arguing with someone who won’t be back.

      Robert Murphy

      July 23, 2011 at 9:15 am

      • Hopefully

        I’m new to this blog but already I can see it’s filled with intelligent people. A question i’ve always pondered… What drives people to blatantly disregard fields of science where an overwhelmingly abundance of evidence is given for a particular theory. And these same people have no problems ever denying what say their doctor tells them but when science experts say something to them they reject as if we don’t know what we are talking about. Why are doctors more trusted then scientist?

        Mandia: Welcome, Ryan. There are many reasons and I highlight what I think are the top three. Please be sure to read point #3 at the top three link I suggested.

        Ryan C.

        July 23, 2011 at 9:52 am

    • hehe… just noticed AAGP should be AAPG… I type too fast!

      Ryan C.

      July 23, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    • The AAPG is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. I was a member for 20 years before I left the oil business. The members are all earth scientists and, as such, the causes of global warming are obvious and indisputable.
      Scott lists 3 good reasons for deniers like Mr. Taylor.
      From my remaining oil industry contacts I know Exon/Mobil is spending around $200 million a year on denier propaganda. That buys a lot of web sites, consulting fees, etc. for denier PR efforts. Information spending on the side of science is not even a drop in the bucket in comparison.
      In the case of Taylor, however, his position comes from fundamentalist religious beliefs. He may well be a “young earth creationist.” It is not possible to have a rational discussion with this type.
      Scott is correct to bar him from posting futher nonsence.

      Ross Cann

      July 23, 2011 at 3:56 pm

  16. [Mandia: Inflammatory and adds nothing to the discussion]


    July 23, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    • What is inflammatory?

      Ross Cann

      July 23, 2011 at 7:05 pm

      • In general? Or are you referring to the deleted comment?

        Tom Gray

        July 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm

  17. What is inflammatory?
    I was referring to the post by “Jenny”. Perhaps I misunderstood that Scott was deleting the post and labeling it inflamatory, as opposed to Jenny saying something in the previous posts was inflamatory. That is probably my eror.

    Mandia: Yes, Jenny’s comment was not constructive.

    Ross Cann

    July 23, 2011 at 8:08 pm

  18. Too much blogspace & effort into this Robert Taylor thing. The virtue in suffering fools does not go very far.

    I am an occasional visitor here. Have there been posts on indications of Climate Disruption — warming in particular — based on observations of other that temperatures or indications thereof?

    In Latin class in High School, I learned that «data» is a plural noun. It is wisely noted these days that the singular form is «anecdote». In this sense, I remember when I was a kid beginning to observe things, that trees were starting to come into leaf in early May (central Michigan, mid-1940’s). Now, according to my brother who still lives there, this happens in April.

    How about Apple Blossom Time? How about smelting? When do the sugar maples start producing worthy sap?

    Maybe a tad further south: How many days of snow cover per winter?

    I am sure there are a skillion-and-one phenomena that could be tracked. I, due to my good fortune in having work to do and also due to my inherent sloth, have not been searching for them being tracked. Has anybody here, less occupied and less slothful, searched for them?

    David F Collins

    July 24, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    • You said it well: it’s too much effort spent on the willing deaf eared. He’s not interested in clarity, but so sure of his own conclusions that he will simply berate until others have grown bored trying to talk to him. It’s a waste of effort that drains the well-meaning.

      For a great example of what you speak see Rosenweig et al. (2008):


      July 24, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    • Also, one other really big pointer apart from temperatures is the melting of the Arctic sea ice. IMHO, that’s the most obvious indicator the deniers really don’t have an answer for.–Regards, Tom Gray, Wind Energy Communications Consultant

      Tom Gray

      July 24, 2011 at 9:48 pm

      • There is a site tracking the arctic sea ice:

        The melt is currently on track for an all time record. This creates a very strong positive feedback for further global warming.
        It is probably intimately involved in the 120,000 year cycle of continuously repeating ice ages that have occurred in the last 5 million + years.

        Ross Cann

        July 25, 2011 at 10:27 am

  19. As you note , there are many effects of the rising temperatures.
    The important thing is that the temperatures are being measured with great precision around the globe.
    If you are interested go to:

    Ross Cann

    July 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm

  20. Moth: Thanks for the pointer to the NATURE article! I have made a note of it, and when time allows I will look it up at the library (public libraries are still open in Chicago). Yeah, they are doing what I hoped, looking into a plethoraful of phenomena. I guess it is like wild blueberries in a blueberry patch in season in the North Woods: look anywhere carefully, and you will find those tiny but incredibly delicious wild blueberries. (Strange, that so many people seem to not like those blueberries!)

    Tom Gray: I agree; even I have been aware of the sea ice decrease — and for sure, it is major. Trouble is, it takes a while to see that it is not just the values themselves, but what has happened to the second and third time derivatives thereof, and that is what is scary. In the various studies of archaic climates and their shifts, we see no such dramatic derivative shifts.

    Ross Cann: Thanks for the pointers; again, I am at least somewhat aware of the matter. I do wonder, though, how much of Climate Disruption is temperature-driven, and what are other factors that drive it, at least in part independently? Solar Energy In ≥ Terrestrial Energy Out is a highly significant function of atmospheric greenhouse gas buildup, but with all the accumulation of that unbalance energy, I highly suspect that not all of it goes into temperature alone, and that all the disruption by the unbalance energy, it all results from the global ΔT.

    Thanks, folks, for considering my puzzlements.

    David F Collins

    July 25, 2011 at 11:52 pm

  21. […] the hacked emails.  There is unequivocal evidence that the planetary system is warming and the pattern of warming shows that increases in heat-trapping gases are to blame.  The oceans and air are warming, ice is […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: