Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Record Heat Wave? Not in Virginia.

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The U.S. State Climate Extremes Committee established by the National Climatic Data Center has updated and refined its national database of climate extremes. Now anyone can conduct a Web search to find the dates of extreme climate records in their home state. The chart above shows the numbers for Virginia.

Notice how the hot-weather extremes occurred in 1900 and 1954, the cold-weather extreme occurred only 27 years ago, while the extreme rain and snow events occurred in the 1990s. Whatever may be happening to the world as a whole, Virginia does not seem to be suffering any undue extremes of heat and drought.

No meaningful lessons can be drawn from this data regarding climate change globally — Virginia constitutes too small a percentage of the earth’s surface. What the data should do, however, is inoculate people against drawing conclusions (as a certain other blogger who shall go unnamed, but whose initials are PAG has done) based upon this summer’s heat wave. Yeah, it’s hot. But it’s been hotter before.

— JAB

Update: I have changed the headline because the original lent itself to the misleading impression (as seen in the comments) that I was denying that temperatures were rising in Virginia. I don’t know if average temperatures are rising or not. I am saying that our recent heat wave is not unprecedented.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Here’s the Washington Post’s weather expert. Need I say more?

    How statistically unusual was the heat wave?
    By Jason Samenow
    For some commentators, the recent heat wave signified nothing – other than a few extra drops of sweat.

    Take Washington Post columnist George Will, who was completely underwhelmed by the recent spell of sweltering temperatures.

    “How do we explain the heat? One word: summer,” he said on ABC News’ This Week Sunday morning.

    The blog Watts Up With That also attempted to downplay the heat – arguing hotter temperatures occurred during the 1930s.

    Watts took a swipe at Capital Weather Gang [bold text indicates my added emphasis]:

    “[CWG is] trying to make a run of the mill summer heat wave seem like an event of unprecedented global warming proportions. It isn’t, and not even close compared to weather records history of the past.”

    But the numbers reveal this heat wave was, in fact, extreme if not extraordinary.

    Our analysis, while conceding comparing temperatures from today to the 1930s has complications, showed the recent heat wave was comparable to if not hotter than anything from the 1930s.

    Weather hobbyist Don Sutherland, who participates on the AmericanWx.com forums, posted a compelling analysis demonstrating the exceptional nature of the recent heat in D.C. I’m reproducing part of it here-

    If one examines the facts, the recent outbreak of heat was not a “run of the mill summer heat wave.” At the height of the heat wave, some cities in a region encompassing the Great Lakes. Ohio Valley, Tennessee Valley, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic regions saw high temperatures crest 3-4 standard deviations above normal.

    With Mr. Watts taking a shot at The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang, a closer look at the heat in Washington, D.C. is in order.

    Some key statistics:

    June 28: High: 96° (1.464 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 7.160%

    June 29: High: 104° (2.801 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 0.255%

    June 30: High: 97° (1.631 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 5.145%

    July 1: High: 99° (1.965 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 2.471%

    July 2: High: 95° (1.297 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 9.732%

    July 3: High: 98° (1.798 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 3.609%

    July 4: High: 99° (1.965 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 2.471%

    July 5: High: 100° (2.133 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 1.646%

    July 6: High: 100° (2.133 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 1.646%

    July 7: High: 105° (2.968 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 0.150%

    July 8: High: 102° (2.467 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 0.681%

    June 28-July 8, 2012 Period: Mean High: 99.5° (2.057 Sigma above the June 28-July 8 Average High for the 1981-2010 base period); Statistical Probability: 1.984%

    Consecutive 100° Highs: 4 (Statistical Probability of such an Occurrence during the June 28-July 8 period: 0.00000734%)

    [In my opinion], any person possessing reasonable knowledge of meteorology, climatology, and/or statistics could only reject the hypothesis that the recent heat wave was not an extreme event.

    D.C.’s heat wave followed exceptional year long warm event in continentall U.S.

    On the national level and in a longer term context, wunderground’s Jeff Masters noted the last 13-months of record-setting temperatures across the continental U.S. reflects “one in 1.6 million odds” according to NOAA.

    But some have voiced concerns about that number.

    Climate blogger Lucia (of the Blackboard) called it a “meaningless statistic” describing flaws in that way it was calculated.

    Similarly, atmospheric scientist Michael Tobis, who blogs for Planet3.org, wrote: “I don’t doubt that something very odd is going on [with U.S. temperatures] but the number represents a common elementary statistical error and is in this case excessively alarmist.”

    Lucia took it upon herself to perform a revision of the NOAA/Masters analysis and still found this warmth represents an exceptionally rare event : “The probability of the recent event really is quite low . . . I am getting a probability less than 1 in 100,000…”

    Related: NOAA scientist: 80 percent chance recent heat records due to climate change

    By Jason Samenow | 04:31 PM ET, 07/10/2012

  2. reed fawell Avatar
    reed fawell

    Back in the 70s I use to regularly in January/February hike up Little Devils Staircase and climb waterfall ice. Wonder when that was last done?

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Yes, it’s definitely warmer than the 1970s. That was a strong cooling period. Back then, the alarmists were predicting a new ice age. Fortunately, we didn’t get it.

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Operative words: “Our analysis, while conceding comparing temperatures from today to the 1930s has complications, showed the recent heat wave was comparable to if not hotter than anything from the 1930s.”

    Weather goes through long-term cycles. What we’re experiencing now is comparable to the 1930s, with a modest boost from higher C02 levels. Yes, it’s getting warmer, but not nearly as much as the alarmists predicted. Global temperature trends are at the low, low end of what the IPCC projected.

    As for Virginia, the impact is pretty hard to detect. I would wager that we’ll see a bigger effect from rising sea levels locally than rising temperatures.

    1. reed fawell Avatar
      reed fawell

      You got to be careful with rising sea levels too, particularly the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, its rising. If you do rip rap every few years to keep your front yard that plain. But, As a kid in the 50’s, I hunted duck blinds on islets, perhaps an acre each. A 1910 or so map on my wall shows those islets an island comprising some 300 acres. My 1850 map shows them a Peninsula, a 800 acre point. And this rising of the water level did not happen over the last 60 years. I took place over the century before. Indeed its been happening for millennium. The Bay is a sinking river, for goodness sake. And of course England was fine grape country in Roman times.

  4. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    And it’s been cool and rainy in London. But that doesn’t count.
    The absolute arrogance of the “scientists.” How old is the earth? What are average temperatures? How many scientists are looking for bigger taxpayer-funded budgets?

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    see if most scientists in the world tell you that smoking cigarettes will give you cancer but they cannot definitively “prove” it – then it would be a world wide conspiracy among scientists to destroy businesses and jobs especially if the companies that would be destroyed said so.

    Flash forward to a time where scientists say that “smoking” fossil fuels could kill the earth and we once again find it to be a nasty world-wide conspiracy of scientists whose sole motivation is to get more funding…

    so I wonder what else that scientists say is also a global conspiracy to fool people?

    I’m amazed. It’s not one or two scientists in some weird think tank. Nope…it’s scientists around the world….scientists in NOAA and NASA… scientists in Universities around the world.

    it’s one thing to be a “skeptic” but it’s quite another to be a damned fool.

  6. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Jesus. You have four data points. No meaningful conclusion can be draw from them, whatsoever.

    If there is a warming trend, that will depend on average temps, not peak temps. You can have a significant warming trend without setting any new Max temps for a long time.

    Last week there were thousands of new Max temps set, just not in one particular location. Among g those records were many new high low temperatures.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Ray, You’re exactly right, “No meaningful conclusion can be drawn” from four data points.

      Did I draw any conclusions about warming trends? Here’s what I said: “No meaningful lessons can be drawn from this data regarding climate change globally — Virginia constitutes too small a percentage of the earth’s surface.

      You’re also right, “If there is a warming trend, that will depend on average temps, not peak temps.”

      Did I argue otherwise? No, I warned against drawing conclusions based on one summer’s heat wave. “What the data should do, however, is inoculate people against drawing conclusions … based upon this summer’s heat wave. Yeah, it’s hot. But it’s been hotter before.”

      So, you really agree with me — even though you can’t bring yourself to admit it.

  7. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    You have a voluminous body of knowledge that has been thoroughly considered not by one or two guys sitting in a cave but by scientists around he world who have spent most of their lives working in this field.

    and now we have squads of lay people with little or no training looking over charts and numbers and playing amateur scientist.

    Again, we’re not talking about two guys with degrees from the University of Phoenix promoting some cockamamie theory that the rest of the world’s scientists are saying is crap. It’s the other way around.

    MOST of the worlds scientists say that ( a lot more than some observation records) all point to the same inescapable conclusion.

    The following “climate indicators” present data from each of the datasets featured in the 2009 Climate Assessment Chapter 2 sidebar “How do we know the world has warmed?”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/

    Now look at the name NOAA. Are we saying that NOAA is engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to doctor climate data?

    really?

    there might be some debate on causes and certainly on what do do about it but the book on whether the earth is warming or not or finished.

    what boggles my mind is that we’re talking about people with PHDs who have spent their entire career studying this , thousands of them around the world and they’ve done way more than look over a few temperature charts so then we have people that has no real background who have not spent their lives in the field who think that you can look at a few temperature charts and figure out that the scientists – around the world – are lying and engaged essentially in a global conspiracy.

    This is part of a bigger picture where people have lost faith in govt and institutions – not without some justification but to jump the shark and join the lunatic Luddite fringe boggles the mind.

    Scientists can and are wrong… they back up often and rethink…and they argue vociferously among themselves about the work and yes.. some of them lie and cheat and falsify their work – but the PREPONDERANCE of EVIDENCE – convinces MOST scientists AROUND THE WORLD – and the skeptics basically hang their hat on a global conspiracy theory to explain why there is such concurrence with the scientists.

    I don’t know how many of you have smoked or know people who have but for many if not most, they go through this idea that smoking might cause cancer in some – but not them. They live in denial because the truth is too awful to accept so they rationalize – every time they light up. They’ll point out that there folks who died at 100 that smoked their whole life. They’ll point out that no scientific study has ever showed a 100% rate of occurrence of cancer from smoking.

    And do any of you remember what happened when Scientists first said that cigarettes caused cancer? Do you remember what happened between the cigarette companies and the scientists who said that smoking was deadly?

    do you see any parallels now?

  8. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    “what boggles my mind is that we’re talking about people with PHDs who have spent their entire career studying this , thousands of them around the world and they’ve done way more than look over a few temperature charts so then we have people that has no real background who have not spent their lives in the field who think that you can look at a few temperature charts and figure out that the scientists – around the world – are lying and engaged essentially in a global conspiracy”
    How many of these scientists are not scientists? How many climate experts have degrees in social science? Also, how many of the climate experts receive funding based on their claims? I trust academia about as much as I trust Wall Street- and that sure is not very much.

  9. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: not enough data….

    well.. no… there is a LOT of data and people with substantial education in analyzing data have looked at a lot more data than just peak air temps or average air temps for one state for one year.

    they’ve looked at millions of observations, worldwide, for decades, if not centuries – air temps at different altitudes, oceans, glaciers, etc and it is their consensus that the earth is warming and that it’s likely due to more than just natural influences.

    then we have a bunch of citizen lay people without scientific degrees… looking at tiny slices of air temps both in terms of time, geography and one dimension – peak / average air temps…

    and coming to a conclusion that challenges the millions of observations that trained scientists are analyzing and because it differs, it means the scientists are lying.

    so now, everyone is an amateur scientist who can perform climate change analyses and if they disagree with the consensus conclusions that hundreds of full-fledged scientists came to, then it’s a global conspiracy of scientists who have fudged the data in nefarious and dishonest ways … I’m told…. so that they can get more funding….

    this is the state of our politics these days.

  10. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: “how many scientists are……”

    how come we don’t ask that question about other kinds of science?

    how some we don’t ask that question of scientists involved in Cancer research?

    this is an attack on science… basically

    in terms of “trusting academia”…

    the people who found the answer to polio? the folks who thought up Hubble? the folks who make breakthroughs in DNA and bio-physics?

    why do we focus on one particular type of science to accuse it of fraud – not one guy or two quacks (like in the cold fusion kerfuffle) but we’re saying the dimensions of the “fraud” are Global and INCLUDE NOAA and NASA and others.

    Why were the scientists who discovered the Ozone Holes not accused of being not “real” scientists who were “doctoring” data so they could get more funding and perpetrate a fraud that caused billions of dollars of losses when we had to switch to different refrigerants?

    Now days, we have the same “deniers” going back and saying that getting DDT out of the environment ….. to save Eagles… and other birds … was a fraud… that DDT does not cause eggs to thin – that a lack of calcium in the diet of the eagles caused it and that if you feed eagles calcium supplements, that their eggs don’t crack.

    this is what we are dealing with now days….

  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    What are you saying here, Larry? That it’s the scientific “consensus” that the 2012 U.S. heat wave confirms “global warming?”

    We already know that it’s warmer than it was 100 years ago. But we also know that it’s only marginally warmer than it was in the 1930s. We also know that global temperatures have remained pretty much stable for the last 12 years, a fact that was not predicted by the climate models and now begs for explanation. The people whose opinions I respect acknowledge that C02 emissions are responsible for some warming, that this cyclical peak might be higher than the previous cyclical peak as a result. But any open-minded person would acknowledge that we still have not identified all the climate-change variables — and to pretend that we have is to practice a conceit much like that of the Catholic Church circa 1500 regarding the structure of the solar system.

    The debate is not whether C02 accounts for some increase in global temperatures. The debate is (1) whether we’re heading toward catastrophic global warming and (2) what to do about it. The first is a scientific question and, guess what, there is no consensus. Man-made global warming, yes. Catastrophic man-made global warming, no. The second question isn’t even a scientific one. It is a political one.

    So please spare me the hokum about skeptics accusing scientists of lying, etc. Direct those comments to Rush Limbaugh. But not to me.

  12. reed fawell Avatar
    reed fawell

    I see parallels, but they are different from Larry’s. And this is not about politics or science either. Its about human nature. When a group of “experts” start talking about the preponderance of the evidence, or the some “case being closed”, WATCH OUT. Usually they are wrong. And in very material degree, irrespective of their field of expertize.

    Before WWII, most all Military Experts “after long study and deep experience” assured themselves and their masters that aircraft carriers, amphibious landings, and armored blitzkrieg corps had little relevance to modern war fighting. What a price we paid for that expert advice!

    Similarly, great innovations in science most always explode the prevailing wisdom of the scientific academy who then fight tooth and nail against “the heresy.”

    40 years ago the “Experts” told us Green Energy was the wave of the future, despite the fact it had up to then earned only 3% of the market. Today, 40 years later, despite untold billions of our taxpayer dollars going to Experts and Subsidized special interests, Green Energy still has “earned” 3% of the market. Despite all this, the Experts are still feeding us the same line.

    Why – many reasons – not least, I suspect the primal human drives – every human still needs his religion, his sense of belonging to his tribe, his need to feel relevant (indeed important), and his need to find a way to eat.

    I have no idea what causes global warming and cooling. But I do suspect its been going on since Genesis, and that whatever its causes may be, they are far to powerful and complex for the “Academy” to figure out, much less do anything about.

  13. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” What are you saying here, Larry? That it’s the scientific “consensus” that the 2012 U.S. heat wave confirms “global warming?”

    No. That Global Warming is real and is occurring no matter what isolated 2012 observations are.

    lay people checking the weather in 2012 to determine if there is or is not Global Warming in abeyance of scientific consensus overall is not “analyses” much less confirmation of anything.

    there is no significant disagreement among most scientists in the world – and the deniers say that this consensus “proves” a global conspiracy.

  14. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” start talking about the preponderance of the evidence, or the some “case being closed””

    the vast majority of scientists who DO believe that we DO have GW do not saw “case closed”.

    there is much we don’t know as to the scope and scale and extent of it nor how it will play out – much less what we might be able to do about it.

    Like the Ozone Hole issue – there was not absolute certainty ..there was doubt but there were also troubling changes and big questions of risk vs taking expensive action..and if you did..would it have any effect other than just costing a lot of money.

    There were NO ASSURANCES at all.. that’s the essentially nature of science.

    but that’s not a reason to reject science. That’s LUDDITE to do that.

    If you put a standard on science that it must provide you with incontrovertible proof before something bad happens then you’ll lose every time because basically what you’re saying is a lot like how folks in Medieval dealt with science and scientists who expressed views that could not be absolutely proved.

    We no longer physically burn at the stake, but we do have a modern version of it – witness the “skeptics” who basically reject science – on a global scale – all around the world scientists are not “real” scientists or they are liars and crooks…. because they dared to say that we actually do have global warming.

  15. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Larry, but warming is a relative thing. By contrast, we know that the proper temperature of a human being is 98.6 F. So if I have a temperature of 96 F or 101 F, I may well have a medical problem. But if someone argues human internal temperature has migrated up ore down, I become skeptical especially if that someone is seeking money from taxpayers to conduct research.
    Similarly, we don’t know what the proper (average or median) temperature of the earth, much less any particular place on the earth is. And we don’t know what the historic swings are. We have reasonable records for what – 150 – 175 years. How do we know those records do not reflect an aberration?
    We could be within one standard deviation of “normal” or we could be four. Then toss in a people and organizations, including NOAA and NASA, that claim they need more funding and employees because of global warming, and I get suspicious. Add to that, the big push the same types of people were making for global cooling within my lifetime, and I get very skeptical.
    Then, if that weren’t enough, toss in Wall Street and companies that have plans to arbitrage the so-called “remedy,” carbon credits, and I struggle to wonder why this is not a huge scheme to screw the average American.

  16. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” The debate is (1) whether we’re heading toward catastrophic global warming and (2) what to do about it. The first is a scientific question and, guess what, there is no consensus. Man-made global warming, yes. Catastrophic man-made global warming, no. The second question isn’t even a scientific one. It is a political one.”

    ” The debate is (1) whether we’re heading toward catastrophic ozone hole and (2) what to do about it. The first is a scientific question and, guess what, there is no consensus. Man-made ozone hole, yes. Catastrophic man-made ozone hole, no. The second question isn’t even a scientific one. It is a political one.”

    it’ pretty clear to me that if we had to do the Ozone Hole all over again – we’d not do anything because the question became “political”.

    what a bunch of hooey……

    we’d have a permanent and expanding ozone hole right now if we went about it the same way we are now going about dealing with GW.

    we’re doing the OPPOSITE of “learning”. We’re starting to look like the Planet of Apes.

  17. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    The difference between the ozone hole and global warming is that the ozone hole could be patched with investments on the order of magnitude of billions of dollars on the part of industries that emitted flurocarbons (or whatever the chemicals were) . When it comes to global warming, we’re talking trillions of dollars and the global economy. Sorry, it demands a higher standard of proof before you start re-engineering the global economy.

  18. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” The difference between the ozone hole and global warming is that the ozone hole”

    you did not KNOW that on the FRONT END of the science – that’s my point.

    what you seem to be implying is that if the cost to fix is “low” that the science will be accepted as valid but if the cost is high then the science will be denied.

    there were “deniers” with the ozone hole also if you recall and they made the same basic economic argument that the cost of the changes was unnecessary because the science was “faulty”.

    I would assert that if we had Ozone Holes today that the same thing would happen to them as to GW and from the same deniers.

  19. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” , I become skeptical especially if that someone is seeking money from taxpayers to conduct research.”

    for cancer? vaccines? hubble telescopes? Come on TMT….

    “Similarly, we don’t know what the proper (average or median) temperature of the earth, much less any particular place on the earth is. And we don’t know what the historic swings are. We have reasonable records for what – 150 – 175 years. How do we know those records do not reflect an aberration?”

    would you, as a layman, ALSO weigh in on what proper research should be for Cancer or for using Hubble to scan the heavens?

    What makes you so much more qualified to question one area of science?

    “We could be within one standard deviation of “normal” or we could be four. Then toss in a people and organizations, including NOAA and NASA, that claim they need more funding and employees because of global warming, and I get suspicious. Add to that, the big push the same types of people were making for global cooling within my lifetime, and I get very skeptical.”

    you’re saying that “funding” is the primary driver – in one particular science and globally. What makes you believe that only one area of science suffers from this and thus is not trustworthy?

    “Then, if that weren’t enough, toss in Wall Street and companies that have plans to arbitrage the so-called “remedy,” carbon credits, and I struggle to wonder why this is not a huge scheme to screw the average American.”

    Wall Street is opposed to GW because they fear it will destroy their existing investments in things that might be implicated as causes of GW.

    The Koch Brothers and the American Petroleum Institute and other fossil fuel lobby’s are NOT suggesting carbon credits at all. They are promoting “denial” of GW itself … much like the Cigarette companies did when science implicated cigarettes in lung cancer.

  20. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Guys – when “science” first tells you that eggs are bad for you and then later than they’re not or that mercury in tuna is really bad for your child do you question the science or believe that a global conspiracy to obtain more funding was behind the conclusions ?

    When a NOAA computer model tells you that a hurricane will hit Savannah, Georgia as a cat 4 and instead it hits Beaufort as a cat 2 – do you think their computer model is so flawed that it is not to be trusted for future hurricanes?

    Would you personally try to figure out why their Hurricane model missed it’s prediction?

    I can’t quite figure out why, for climate science, people with no scientific background believe they can second guess what experienced scientists with advanced degrees and years of experience believe.

    Would you read through the literature on Mercury in Tuna and decide that the warnings were overblown because the scientists were trying to get more funding?

    When I change the context of some of the GW “concerns”, it really does point out just how ridiculous the skepticism is… when it’s coming from people with no background who are questioning not one or two scientists but dozens, hundreds, around the world.

    it’s totally bizarre. I genuinely fear for the future of other science that people will start to question.

    It’s HEALTHY to be a skeptic – it’s around-the-bend when you think a whole community of scientists are in cahoots on a global conspiracy.

    When you as a skeptic recognize that some of your fellow GW skeptics are also the Agenda 21 crowd.. it ought to set off warning sirens….

  21. reed fawell Avatar
    reed fawell

    You guys are far ahead of me on this one. Perhaps I have not read deep enough into the subject, or found the right sources.

    But what I have read (Washington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists, for example), leaves me cold. Much seems written by zealots. Some borders on hysterical. Little of it seems open to further scientific inquiry or debate.

    Far to often it seems written by Eric Hoffer’s Classic True Believer – the closed minded ideologue. The more you know about subject the more suspect the “expert opinion” becomes. At best, it seems told as a one sided story – without nuance, paradox, skepticism, countervailing view. It reminds me not so much as science but simply as political talking points planted by someone with an agenda who is offering it in the disguise of impartial fully objective science rendered by Higher Authority. And the Publisher publishes the same kind of material over and over again, compulsively, as if waging a campaign. This is not science I can believe in.

    In addition, I get the impression that this higher authority constantly referredto broaches no disagreement within its ranks. That, far from being in the business of probing objective scientific inquire, it derives it power from monolithic opinion working a closed circuit agenda, where internal dissent and open free flowing engagement is not allowed .

    Perhaps the problem lies with the messengers, rather than the scientists behind the science. Whatever the source, the impression I get is that either you see it their way or you typically get what amounts to a challenge to your intelligence, morals, or some other perceived character defect.

    Then, of course, there is always the contrary view published on WSJ’s opinion pages. The views make more sense to me, and the vast majority of that opinion is written by self confessed outcasts from the Temple, irrespective of their previously distinguished work within it.

    In short, based on my limited experience, much of what the modern Academy appears to be saying on this subject of Global Warming seems as relevant, dynamic, and creative as the 19th century French Academy was to the trailblazing modern art going on all around it.

    And this impression is too bad, because global warming and cooling seems one constant we have good reason to believe in generally. By the way, I highly recommend the Book Heaven’s Breath. Doesn’t deal with Global Warming, but with the incredible complexity of related forces at work.

  22. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I just have a fairly simple approach. I generally accept what a consensus of scientists say even when I don’t like what they say instead of believing that for the things I disagree strongly with that there is a worldwide cabal of scientists conspiring to “fool” us so they can get more money for research.

    I can’t even write the above without snickering…..

    the scientists could be wrong. They’ve been wrong before. But what happens if they are right and we don’t believe it?

    What is the reasonable path when there is great risk but also serious doubt?

    the earth IS getting warmer and the seas WILL rise …
    but right now – we are so divided on the question that we are incapable of agreeing on even modest consideration of anything. Virginia, for instance, does away with the panel that was merely going to consider what impacts a rise in sea level would cause.. just to make an inventory. We simply deny that it will happen at all.

  23. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Why do I challenge scientists on global warming? I am not a scientist, but raise issues largely based on several factors. One is the prior consensus of the scientific community that there was global cooling and we were likely facing a new ice age. The consensus disappeared. Oops. And now we have scientific consensus on global warming. It’s a credibility issue.
    Two is the politicized nature of the global warming consensus. Environmentalism has become the secular success to religious belief for many on the left side of the political spectrum. If we must be careful of the establishment of religion, why is this secular religion exempt (sort of like separation of church and state, except for black churches that have free reign to mix politics and religion).
    Three science has a long history of changing and tweaking views – sometimes jumping to the alternative. There is none of this in climate science.
    Four, the strongest supporters of global warming are seeking political power and money. I am always skeptical of people seeking authority over others and other people’s money.

    1. reed fawell Avatar
      reed fawell

      Amen to that, Brother!

    2. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! And Bingo!

  24. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT – you #3 appears to reverse your view of #1.

    Science goes through twist and turns.. why do you say that ONE of them out of several is THE one that lost you?

    #2 the politicization was brought to the issue by the skeptics – the environmental movement has been ongoing for about 40+ years. What changed that justified the skeptics who blame the scientists in the name of “environmentalism”?

    #4 – oh geeze. show me the particulars that climate scientists have sought authority and money any more or less than any other field of science.

    You making Luddite arguments here. You’ve turned on science and your reasons for it are weak and lame (IMHO of course).

  25. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    LarryG believes that unsettled science is infallible. There must be something wrong with his mind. Perhaps phrenology can help. LarryG – can you please provide a contour map of your head to help us with this scientific examination of your mind? And, if it’s not his mind that’s off – perhaps it’s his physiology. I’d recommend a good blood letting through the use of leeches.

    Anyway, all this hype over CO2 is wasted time. Cold fusion will soon create nuclear powered cars.

    http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

    1. reed fawell Avatar
      reed fawell

      Yes, indeed, Superstition and Frenzy are alive and well in the Academy –

      The Most Famous Ten Wrong Scientific Discoveries represent the tip of a massive and absurd Iceberg still afloat in the minds of men.

  26. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Meanwhile, I must award this column a coveted 4 lighthouses designation.

    Jim Bacon first takes a few climate readings from the way back machine. He uses these to write a column entitled, “Where’s the Warming. Not in Virginia.”. Jim wraps up by disavowing any meaning in the data by declaring that, “No meaningful lessons can be drawn from this data regarding climate change globally …”.

    As mentioned, this to and fro earns Jim a 4 lighthouses award. Unfortunately for Jim, this is the lighthouse in question:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_No_Point_Light_(Maryland)

    Yes, Point No Point Light epitomizes this column.

  27. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Actually, science is quite often “unsettled” and I point out again that the ozone holes were not proved irrefutably but there was a “consensus” that there could well be a serious problem and action was deemed needed even though there were no guarantees as to outcome and people did act in response to it rather than accusing the scientists of nefarious motives and behavior. The same thing occurred with cigarettes and lung cancer.

    you don’t need a brain scan to see that things have gone off the rails when people who have no training in science are accusing scientists of dishonorable behavior on a global conspiratorial scale. The “conspirators” are said to include NOAA, NASA, Universities, foreign governments, the US govt and even those who publish peer-reviewed journals.

    it’s totally bizarre… in my view.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      LarryG – Another climate change denier has come forth. Listen to what this Luddite has to say:

      “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
      “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

      “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

      He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”.

      Oh my Gaia! Who is this apostate?

      Why, it’s James Lovelock – scientist, inventor of the Gaia “theory” and one of the original global warming alarmists.

      Maybe we shouldn’t rush to re-engineer the global economy just yet.

      http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

  28. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Indeed:

    ” “The CFC Ban: Global Warming’s Pilot Episode””

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

  29. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    when we say “we” ….”know” or do not “know”, if the “we” is lay people it’s one thing, if it is Scientists with advanced degrees and a career of experience, it means something else.

    It..USED TO BE….that when Scientists concurred about something, it was assumed that they had looked into it on a much deeper and analytical level than the average lay person and it had some merit – even if scientists views were evolving over time – it still was considered a deeper understanding than a lay persons.

    Now we have amateur scientists who don’t have a degree in a hard science reading stuff on the internet and concluding something in a few minutes or days that scientists can take years to do and even then admit that there still are gaps in knowledge and contradictory data BUT – the overall body of knowledge – for a large number of scientists moves them to some level of concurrence about what probably is true.

    For instance, it really is no longer disputed by sane people that the earth IS warming and sea levels ARE rising.

    There are questions about how fast and how much and what the mechanisms are that are behind it but we also know – you actually do not need to be a rocket scientist at all to put together 20 years of warming at current trends to realize that there could be serious changes to weather that could result in droughts as well as more violent weather.

    the way this will likely end is that we’ll start to see more and more weather extremes. More droughts. More Drechos. More violent “micro-bursts”, etc … and higher and higher storm surges and inland flooding… 500 year floods every 10 years, etc and the preponderance of actually events will become harder and harder to deny – and the deniers will disappear into the woodwork to re-write history and claim “see, we told you so”.

    but for right now, we’re essentially held hostage by gridlock.

  30. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Please note: I have changed the headline because the original lent itself to the misleading impression (as seen in some comments above) that I was denying that temperatures were rising in Virginia. I don’t know if average temperatures are rising here or not. I am saying that our recent heat wave is not unprecedented.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      I hereby rescind my award of 4 “Point, No Point Lighthouses”.

  31. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Thank you!

    one more point. The “science” is NOT “unsettled”.

    The vast majority of Scientists are fairly comfortable with the current body of knowledge.

    What is “unsettled” is the non-scientists and the “deniers” that don’t believe the science.

    If the scientific community was split down the middle and controversy within the scientific community raged – then you can make the “unsettled” statement truthfully but when science is in consensus and it’s non-scientists that are denying… it’s not the science that is not “settled”.

    if you want to look at RECENT WEATHER (as opposed to Climate), listen to what NOAA says:

    ” Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.”

    Now … COMPARE this statement with someone saying that it’s been much hotter (or much cooler) for a month in Virginia.

  32. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    the way this will likely end is that we’ll start to see more and more weather extremes. More droughts. More Drechos. More violent “micro-bursts”, etc … and higher and higher storm surges and inland flooding… 500 year floods every 10 years, etc and the preponderance of actually events will become harder and harder to deny …..

    ====================================
    I don’t bother arguing with the deniers.

    I just ask them what evidence would it take to change their mind.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      What evidence would it take to convince me that we’re experiencing more extreme weather events?

      More extreme weather events.

    2. reed fawell Avatar
      reed fawell

      A robust market for Noah’s Arks – That would do it for me. No, wait a minute, how could it do it? Noah’s flood came before the “Carbon Crisis.”

  33. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the problem with waiting for more extreme weather events is the same problem you have when you suspect you have cancer but you won’t deal with it until your head turns into a giant prune and then you’re finally “convinced”.

    The Luddites refuse to look downstream. They’re too busy covering their eyes and saying “Nah Nah Nah”.

    When people use the word “Prudent” to describe what you might do if you’re not sure of the future but you do know bad stuff could happen… what is “prudent”?

    Prudent is not in the vocabulary of the “deniers”. The deniers are much more like the Agenda 21 folks. They are so convinced of what they want to believe that anyone who contradicts them is part of the conspiracy.

Leave a Reply

Read More