STUDY: 'Global warming' has made weather better for most in USA...

[MickeyW]

ince Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. But it won't always be that way, according to a new study.

Research shows Americans typically — and perhaps unsurprisingly — like warmer winters and dislike hot, humid summers. And they reveal their weather preferences by moving to areas with conditions they like best.

A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago.
Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. -- but don't get used to it, study says - LA Times

 

[sookster]

How is us being in more pleasant weather, being more comfortable outside, be a good thing? Because of convenience? Might as well warm the planet up if I have better weather to MY liking? I mean, forget the research upon thousands of scientists, as long as I can go outside and tan everything must be better.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

If only it was 75FH in Alaska 5 out of 12 months!

 

[Threegoofs]

'Murica!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrT]

ince Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. But it won't always be that way, according to a new study.

Research shows Americans typically — and perhaps unsurprisingly — like warmer winters and dislike hot, humid summers. And they reveal their weather preferences by moving to areas with conditions they like best.

A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago.
Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. -- but don't get used to it, study says - LA Times

I know that you don't care about the rest of the world, because why should you unless it is a reason to criticize Democrats, but you should realize that a temporary relief for America will only get worse over time.

 

[MickeyW]

I know that you don't care about the rest of the world, because why should you unless it is a reason to criticize Democrats, but you should realize that a temporary relief for America will only get worse over time.

We just went through a 3 day hot spell here......and broke records set in.............wait for it........................the 1930s.

Climate change happens and is cyclical. Get worse how? Too hot, bad air? It's happened before. Too cold, ice age? It's happened before too. Computer projection models are merely a guess....not an absolute.

I've been saying this for 35 years now.....GW is a scam, to instill fear and create wealth and power ........for some. Follow the money.....Albore is doing pretty well with his charade and scientists are acquiring a lifetime of funding for their pet projects.

 

[Steve Case]

Temperature isn't what's being used to scare people.
Sea level is. I do a daily news search on "sea level".
Here's a recent example of what's out there in a steady
drone:

Study on sea level rise assesses potential impacts on Queen Anne's

"...sea level rise of 2 feet by 2050; a sea level rise of 4 feet by 2100..."​

That comes to 18 mm/yr and 14.5 mm/yr respectively.
The current reported rate is 3 mm/yr and there's no
evidence of any acceleration in the rate that will reach
those numbers. It's as if the predictions are being
made out of whole cloth.

 

[Steve Case]

'Murica!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My father-in-law grew up on a farm in Minnesota and he talked like
that. He flew the photo recon missions over Iwo Jima in World War II.
Ever-so-smart liberals like you who make fun of people with a rural
accent really do piss me off.

 

[MrT]

We just went through a 3 day hot spell here......and broke records set in.............wait for it........................the 1930s.

Climate change happens and is cyclical. Get worse how? Too hot, bad air? It's happened before. Too cold, ice age? It's happened before too. Computer projection models are merely a guess....not an absolute.

I've been saying this for 35 years now.....GW is a scam, to instill fear and create wealth and power ........for some. Follow the money.....Albore is doing pretty well with his charade and scientists are acquiring a lifetime of funding for their pet projects.

Ah, so you're part of the older generation that has been convinced for 35 years that a scientific endeavor that continues to get more and more confidence each year is a scam. I get why you would want to hold onto that belief.

Listen, GW doesn't matter to you. It matters to your kids and their children. If you don't care about the rest of the world, care about your children because the current rate of climate change, while it may be "cyclical," is currently undergoing a cycle that is roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally. Put another way, changes that might normally take 500 years to occur will now take place in 100.

 

[longview]

Ah, so you're part of the older generation that has been convinced for 35 years that a scientific endeavor that continues to get more and more confidence each year is a scam. I get why you would want to hold onto that belief.

Listen, GW doesn't matter to you. It matters to your kids and their children. If you don't care about the rest of the world, care about your children because the current rate of climate change, while it may be "cyclical," is currently undergoing a cycle that is roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally. Put another way, changes that might normally take 500 years to occur will now take place in 100.

You are so lost in your own dogma, you cannot even get the alarmist math correct.
If the cycle is,

50-100x faster than what would occur naturally.

then a change that might normally take 500 years would take place in between 5 and 10 years.

 

[MrT]

You are so lost in your own dogma, you cannot even get the alarmist math correct.
If the cycle is,

then a change that might normally take 500 years would take place in between 5 and 10 years.

That's what I get for thinking that I can do math in my head.

But you're right, it is even more dramatic than I originally posted. As for those who would like some evidence to support the 50-100x claim, I would point you to the ice core data regarding CO2 concentration, which goes back 850,000 years. The last time that the CO2 concentration rose 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000), it took approximately 5000 years.

 

[longview]

That's what I get for thinking that I can do math in my head.

But you're right, it is even more dramatic than I originally posted. As for those who would like some evidence to support the 50-100x claim, I would point you to the ice core data regarding CO2 concentration, which goes back 850,000 years. The last time that the CO2 concentration rose 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000), it took approximately 5000 years.

But we are not seeing any changes in temperature or sea level anywhere near those kind of ratios.
Let's look at your post #9 again to see if your were talking about CO2.

Listen, GW doesn't matter to you. It matters to your kids and their children. If you don't care about the rest of the world, care about your children because the current rate of climate change, while it may be "cyclical," is currently undergoing a cycle that is roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally. Put another way, changes that might normally take 500 years to occur will now take place in 100.

You are saying the current rate of climate change is roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally.
CO2 is not climate change, it can cause some minor warming,
but can you cite any reference that shows the climate is changing 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally?

 

[MrT]

But we are not seeing any changes in temperature or sea level anywhere near those kind of ratios.

Are you sure about that one?

Let's look at your post #9 again to see if your were talking about CO2.

You are saying the current rate of climate change is roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally.
CO2 is not climate change, it can cause some minor warming,
but can you cite any reference that shows the climate is changing 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally?

Here are a couple of articles on that front

Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years - Scientific American

 

[longview]

Are you sure about that one?



Here are a couple of articles on that front

Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years - Scientific American

Working with subjective numbers is always fun, but Science must deal will real numbers.
For temperature, most sources would agree that the warming observed between 1910 and 1944 was
mostly natural. I will use the GISS J-D global table, (while they abuse the data, it is still useful for hyperbole.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
1910 to 1944, Delta .67 C in 3.4 decades, rate of warming .19 C per decade.
1978 to 2015, Delta .79 C in 3.7 decades, rate of warming .21 C per decade.
The recent warming is faster, but not even by a single multiple.
Well maybe the sea level has accelerated.
The headline from the Washington Post sure sounded ominous,

Seas are now rising faster than they have in 2,800 years, scientists say

The Scientist say, at the end always adds a National Enquirer quality to the story.
Well has the sea level rise accelerated?
NOAA has tide gauges with history all over the world,
Sea Level Trends - MSL global stations trends table
If you go to the bottom of the table and select "all" you can see all the stations
how long they have been active, and their trends.
If you look at the graphs for the individual stations, they do not show much acceleration,
and I doubt any have doubled the rate of the increase.

 

[MrT]

The Scientist say, at the end always adds a National Enquirer quality to the story.

Meanwhile "Longview says X because of math he did on the back of a napkin" adds a great deal of persuasiveness to the argument.

 

[longview]

Meanwhile "Longview says X because of math he did on the back of a napkin" adds a great deal of persuasiveness to the argument.

So are you going to address the data? The "math" is straight forward,
you can try to point out any error if you like!
Once again, GISS J-D column
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
1910 anomaly temperature -42 or,-.42 C
1944 anomaly temperature 25 or, .25 C
Difference .67 C, time elapse 34 years or 3.4 decades.
(still with me? I know the "math" is difficult.)
.67 C / 3.4 decades= .197...C per decade.
Same thing for recent warming.
The rates are not that different!
Also did you find any sharp sea level accelerations?
anything even close to doubling the rate of the rise?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Are you sure about that one?

Here are a couple of articles on that front

Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years - Scientific American

But what does it take for the alarmists to consider the possibility that they could be being force fed a lot of hooey on this stuff? We've been seeing these dramatic predictions now since the 1980's and none of them--count that again NONE of them--ever turn out as the scientific computer models predict. Already the scientists realize their spiel re global warming has fallen apart so consistently that they have had to change the language to keep their funding coming in on schedule. So instead of global warming, the code word is now "climate change."

The ice caps were supposed to have been gone years ago, remember? But they're still there. The Arctic ice cap grows and recedes as it has done for millions of years. The Antarctica ice cap has grown steadily since the 1980's. The sea levels were supposed to be a terrible problem now, but they aren't are they. And this despite the fact that the CO2 levels are much higher now than they were in the 1980's. We were supposed to have been devastated by a huge increase in hurricanes, and instead they have decreased.

Sometimes it might be a good idea to step back and realize that the people trying so hard to sell the whole AGW or Climate Change schtick are enriching and empowering themselves greatly, but so far they have not merited a great deal of confidence or credibility with what they are pushing.

 

[humbolt]

Working with subjective numbers is always fun, but Science must deal will real numbers.
For temperature, most sources would agree that the warming observed between 1910 and 1944 was
mostly natural. I will use the GISS J-D global table, (while they abuse the data, it is still useful for hyperbole.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
1910 to 1944, Delta .67 C in 3.4 decades, rate of warming .19 C per decade.
1978 to 2015, Delta .79 C in 3.7 decades, rate of warming .21 C per decade.
The recent warming is faster, but not even by a single multiple.
Well maybe the sea level has accelerated.
The headline from the Washington Post sure sounded ominous,

The Scientist say, at the end always adds a National Enquirer quality to the story.
Well has the sea level rise accelerated?
NOAA has tide gauges with history all over the world,
Sea Level Trends - MSL global stations trends table
If you go to the bottom of the table and select "all" you can see all the stations
how long they have been active, and their trends.

If you look at the graphs for the individual stations, they do not show much acceleration,

and I doubt any have doubled the rate of the increase.

Whoa. You're using actual data? Okay. Well, if you rotate those graphs 90 degrees to the left, they paint an entirely different picture now, don't they? Yup. A line straight up, almost. We'll all be under water in a couple of weeks at that rate.

 

[longview]

Whoa. You're using actual data? Okay. Well, if you rotate those graphs 90 degrees to the left, they paint an entirely different picture now, don't they? Yup. A line straight up, almost. We'll all be under water in a couple of weeks at that rate.

I hate it when my graph axis move around!

 

[bubbabgone]

You are so lost in your own dogma, you cannot even get the alarmist math correct.
If the cycle is,

then a change that might normally take 500 years would take place in between 5 and 10 years.

That's the problem.
How to frame the predictions.
They have to be scary, for sure.
But do you make them so they affect those currently alive?
Or do you make them so they'll happen far enough in the future that there'll be no one around to remember they were bull**** 80 years ago when they were made.
But ...
We saw how the models have tanked yet there are some who insist the models were right.
That brings us to the importance of who controls the dialogue and how successful they can be promoting their cause.
Which brings to mind the State Attorneys General who are working to incarcerate AGW dissenters.

 

[bubbabgone]

Whoa. You're using actual data? Okay. Well, if you rotate those graphs 90 degrees to the left, they paint an entirely different picture now, don't they? Yup. A line straight up, almost. We'll all be under water in a couple of weeks at that rate.

I hate it when my graph axis move around!

You guys are too self-limiting.
Have you never considered using logarithmic scales in your graphs?
You can make those babies sing & dance.
Or how about using white ink on a white background to conceal unfortunate data?

 

[longview]

That's the problem.
How to frame the predictions.
They have to be scary, for sure.
But do you make them so they affect those currently alive?
Or do you make them so they'll happen far enough in the future that there'll be no one around to remember they were bull**** 80 years ago when they were made.
But ...
We saw how the models have tanked yet there are some who insist the models were right.
That brings us to the importance of who controls the dialogue and how successful they can be promoting their cause.
Which brings to mind the State Attorneys General who are working to incarcerate AGW dissenters.

A friend once said, that the only thing that kept Y2K from getting to be a good crises,
was it had an expiration date!
The boundary conditions of the AGW issue have always been fuzzy,
and I don't think that is an accident.
There really is enormous uncertainty about how all the variables work together.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Record floods in Texas, 500 year drought in California, blizzards in the North East, and record heat in the Pacific Northwest.

Oh, sure, the weather is just great.

 

[bubbabgone]

But what does it take for the alarmists to consider the possibility that they could be being force fed a lot of hooey on this stuff? We've been seeing these dramatic predictions now since the 1980's and none of them--count that again NONE of them--ever turn out as the scientific computer models predict. Already the scientists realize their spiel re global warming has fallen apart so consistently that they have had to change the language to keep their funding coming in on schedule. So instead of global warming, the code word is now "climate change."

The ice caps were supposed to have been gone years ago, remember? But they're still there. The Arctic ice cap grows and recedes as it has done for millions of years. The Antarctica ice cap has grown steadily since the 1980's. The sea levels were supposed to be a terrible problem now, but they aren't are they. And this despite the fact that the CO2 levels are much higher now than they were in the 1980's. We were supposed to have been devastated by a huge increase in hurricanes, and instead they have decreased.

Sometimes it might be a good idea to step back and realize that the people trying so hard to sell the whole AGW or Climate Change schtick are enriching and empowering themselves greatly, but so far they have not merited a great deal of confidence or credibility with what they are pushing.

Al Gore predicted an ice free arctic by 2013.
What does that show?
For one thing, it shows Al Gore got fat on hooey.
So what can we conclude?
I'd say for those like fat Albert, hooey can become an acquired taste ... perhaps even an addictive one.

 

[longview]

Record floods in Texas, 500 year drought in California, blizzards in the North East, and record heat in the Pacific Northwest.

Oh, sure, the weather is just great.

Well it is weather, what is the saying, if you don't like the weather, wait a minuet!