tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post9056950421054504078..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Hot TimesEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59376781245212458522012-07-06T13:38:41.362-04:002012-07-06T13:38:41.362-04:00Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
and now, let the own...Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.<br /><br />and now, let the ownage begin.<br /><br />these statistics come from "A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events"<br /><br />these are the temperature highs in the United States for 1894<br /><br />Tucson, Arizona (106° F, 41.1° C)<br />Yuma, Arizona (113° F, 45.0° C)<br />Little Rock, Arkansas (103° F, 39.4° C)<br />Fort Smith, Arkansas (105° F, 40.6° C)<br /><br />New Haven, Connecticut ( 94° F, 34.4° C)<br />New London, Connecticut ( 90° F, 32.2° C)<br />Wilmington, Delaware (101° F, 38.3° C)<br />Washington, D.C. ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />Pensacola, Florida ( 93° F, 33.9° C)<br />Key West, Florida ( 90° F, 32.2° C)<br />Augusta, Georgia ( 92° F, 33.3° C)<br />Savannah, Georgia ( 94° F, 34.4° C)<br />Payette, Idaho (107° F, 41.7° C)<br />Lewiston, Idaho (105° F, 40.6° C)<br />Chicago, Illinois ( 96° F, 35.6° C)<br />Cairo, Illinois ( 95° F, 35.0° C)<br />Indianapolis, Indiana ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />Lafayette, Indiana (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Dubuque, Iowa (102° F, 38.9° C)<br />Keokuk, Iowa (102° F, 38.9° C)<br />Logan, Iowa (110° F, 43.3° C)<br />Topeka, Kansas (101° F, 38.3° C)<br />Elk City, Kansas (115° F, 46.1° C)<br />Dodge City, Kansas (106° F, 41.1° C)<br />Louisville, Kentucky ( 96° F, 35.6° C)<br />Lexington, Kentucky ( 93° F, 33.9° C)<br />New Orleans, Louisiana ( 99° F, 37.2° C)<br />Shreveport, Louisiana (101° F, 38.3° C)<br />Eastport, Maine ( 91° F, 32.8° C)<br />Portland, Maine ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />Baltimore, Maryland ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />Boston, Massachusetts ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />Nantucket, Massachusetts ( 85° F, 29.4° C)<br />Marquette, Michigan (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Detroit, Michigan ( 96° F, 35.6° C)<br />Saint Vincent, Minnesota (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Saint Paul, Minnesota (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Vicksburg, Mississippi (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Saint Louis, Missouri ( 98° F, 36.7° C)<br />Billings, Montana (103° F, 39.4° C)<br />Helena, Montana ( 94° F, 34.4° C)<br />North Platte, Nebraska (103° F, 39.4° C)<br />Omaha, Nebraska (106° F, 41.1° C)<br />Winnemucca, Nevada ( 94° F, 34.4° C)<br />Carson City, Nevada ( 90° F, 32.2° C)<br />West Milan, New Hampshire ( 90° F, 32.2° C)<br />New Brunswick, New Jersey (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Cape May, New Jersey ( 90° F, 32.2° C)<br />Santa Fe, New Mexico ( 84° F, 28.9° C)<br />Albany, New York ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />New York City, New York ( 96° F, 35.6° C)<br />Charlotte, North Carolina ( 93° F, 33.9° C)<br />Kitty Hawk, North Carolina ( 90° F, 32.2° C)<br />Bismarck, North Dakota (101° F, 38.3° C)<br />Williston, North Dakota (100° F, 37.8° C)<br />Cincinnati, Ohio ( 95° F, 35.0° C)<br />Columbus, Ohio ( 97° F, 36.1° C)<br />Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (104° F, 40.0° C)<br />Fort Sill, Oklahoma (108° F, 42.2° C)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25160616828704791132012-07-06T13:32:34.605-04:002012-07-06T13:32:34.605-04:00Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
" Kevin Trenber...Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.<br /><br />" Kevin Trenberth on the PBS news hour pointed out that an excellent marker is the balance between heat and cold records, which in the 1950s ran 1:1, in the last decade 2:1 and this year over 10:1. Something is happening out there folks."<br /><br />what is the source for this claim? I want to do my own analysis to see if they actually compared past weather events.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41774008174032381192012-07-05T14:32:00.167-04:002012-07-05T14:32:00.167-04:00Well, all speech is not permitted now. Libel and s...Well, all speech is not permitted now. Libel and slander. Shouting "fire" in a theater. Fighting words. Incitement to commit a crime.<br /><br />With AGW, if we wait until events drown out denialists, we will be faced with the task of trying to stop a landslide. What exactly would be the point of that?Jeffrey Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966839006518642902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61594877816819352082012-07-05T13:39:31.361-04:002012-07-05T13:39:31.361-04:00Jeffrey Davis,
How about, NO. I have a big proble...Jeffrey Davis,<br />How about, NO. I have a big problem with making speech--even dishonest, reprehensible speech--a crime. <br /><br />I have no problem holding Exx-Mob and others responsible for damages in civil court. And certainly, I believe that any damage that could have been avoided had we started mitigation in the mid '90s could be subject to litiation (since that is when the scientists at the oil companies started advising their masters to back off denial).<br /><br />When possible, err on the side of democracy.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43551685654572696182012-07-05T12:55:25.829-04:002012-07-05T12:55:25.829-04:00What's needed is something equivalent to the N...What's needed is something equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials for denialists. The Nuremberg Trials were trying to bring justice to bear on those responsible for around 20 million dead. (Not even addressing the deaths involved in military actions). <br /><br />Denialists are going to bring about many many multiples of that.Jeffrey Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966839006518642902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49065058633483291802012-07-05T02:06:09.087-04:002012-07-05T02:06:09.087-04:00a_r_i_d_s: Well, based on your denialist's quo...a_r_i_d_s: <i>Well, based on your denialist's quote, he certainly cannot write a simple sentence in English.</i><br /><br />I think it's possible that for some of these people the very act of writing makes them angry; their difficulty with squeezing out something resembling a sentence is deeply frustrating. It's no fun being incoherent. <br /><br />Lousy grammar is positively correlated with climate revisionism.dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1139668599643325132012-07-04T08:44:48.479-04:002012-07-04T08:44:48.479-04:00dbostrom quotes a denialist and then opines: "...dbostrom quotes a denialist and then opines: "Sometimes I think a lot of our problems come down to simple inability to read and comprehend."<br /><br />Well, based on your denialist's quote, he certainly cannot write a simple sentence in English.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86145214103194611902012-07-04T05:46:32.509-04:002012-07-04T05:46:32.509-04:00What heat? It was cold in the States, really reall...What heat? It was cold in the States, really really cold!! <br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/more-on-the-us-heat-wave-not-so-hot-if-you-look-around-at-other-locations/<br /><br />(Tags: climate revisionism, ...)cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6127709361110548002012-07-04T03:03:21.224-04:002012-07-04T03:03:21.224-04:00That was an AP story, Marco, not Fox's own pro...That was an AP story, Marco, not Fox's own product. But they did run it, at least.<br /><br />OTOH probably the written stories on their site get little traffic compared to the talking heads, so it would be interesting to know how the latter responded.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60923075628714883422012-07-04T02:06:49.786-04:002012-07-04T02:06:49.786-04:00May I point out that even Fox had a story that mad...May I point out that even Fox had a story that made sense?<br />http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/03/this-us-summer-is-what-global-warming-looks-like/<br /><br />Note in particular that John Christy gets one line to claim "it's all natural!", but this is followed by a mainstream opinion as the last word.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84573033205666883322012-07-03T20:21:29.357-04:002012-07-03T20:21:29.357-04:00Danger Mouse said:
"Commenter: Global warming...Danger Mouse said:<br /><i>"Commenter: Global warming doesn't exist.<br />There were a fair number of other commenters who took these idiots to task. It led me to think, though, what evidence do these deniers actually need? Is there really nothing that will make them think - hey, maybe this is real...?"</i><br /><br />Complete fantasyland comments show up everywhere (including here). <br /><br />I'm not talking about the comments where people argue specific points or raise questions about things they read (these comments are handled brilliantly at realclimate, and people can actually learn from them if they are accompanied by a substantive inline response). The one sentence comments where cranks simply declare "CO2 doesn't cause GW" or "GW doesn't exist" are utterly worthless. I don't know why anyone should even bother responding; what are we supposed to do, start from first principles every time? It's simply not worth acknowledging these comments.<br /><br />Proposed methods for dealing with them:<br /><br />1. Deleted by Moderators. Seriously, why not?<br /><br />2. Ignore them completely. Moderators delete all direct responses, because, hey, why not?<br /><br />3. Boilerplate response.<br />All comments of the "GW doesn't exist" variety are answered exclusively with a boilerplate response (preferably inline) such as <i>"Please read the following references [...]. You may ask specific questions about the material in the listed references. Any further nonsense comments from you will be deleted however."</i><br /><br />It may sound draconian, but I think one of the above needs to happen in order to make online discussion worthwhile. Out in the real world we marginalize crackpots so that everyone else can actually get things done. Do you try to convince the crazy people on street corners that the government isn't a reptoid conspiracy?<br /><br />The quality of an online discussion seems to be directly proportional to the diligence of the moderators weeding out trolls and keeping discussion on topic.<br /><br />Also: good on Trenberth for getting the last word and countering Ms. Woodruff's bullshit high-mindedness.<br /><br />-HAUS.MAUSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33904349761543392132012-07-03T19:04:38.647-04:002012-07-03T19:04:38.647-04:00If you want "interesting" comments, go r...If you want "interesting" comments, go read what happens when Nielsen-Gammon takes apart a "misinterpretation" of new findings concerning ice shelf loss published in the schizophrenic "Register:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/06/why-the-public-is-confused-about-climate-science-part-1327570/" rel="nofollow">Why The Public Is Confused About Climate Science, Part 1,327,570</a><br /><br />After Nielsen-Gammon leads readers through a painstaking comparison of various observations of ice shelf behavior and regional ice loss, the very first comment is:<br /><br /><i>This is all well and good, and interesting, but not surprising that models developed by computer-based, non-observational scientists without real observational data for the most critical parameters in their computer games are wrong.</i><br /><br />No visible trace of the information conveyed by Nielsen-Gammon.<br /><br />Sometimes I think a lot of our problems come down to simple inability to read and comprehend.dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73789460449197185272012-07-03T17:46:21.064-04:002012-07-03T17:46:21.064-04:00Watching Anthony Watts and his crew complaining an...Watching Anthony Watts and his crew complaining and trying to find convincing reasons as to why people should not take seriously the idea that hotter weather happening more frequently indicates climate change is also very amusing:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/the-kevin-trenberth-seth-borenstein-aided-fact-free-folly-on-the-usa-heat-wave/#more-66704Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90832989410153874122012-07-03T17:36:21.937-04:002012-07-03T17:36:21.937-04:00On this topic, there was a piece in the Economist ...On this topic, there was a <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21556798" rel="nofollow">piece</a> in the Economist about the melting of the Arctic. Some of the comments were mind-blowing. It goes pretty much like this:<br /><br />Article: The Arctic has warmed so much, commercial shipping is now viable.<br /><br />Commenter: Global warming doesn't exist.<br /><br />There were a fair number of other commenters who took these idiots to task. It led me to think, though, what evidence do these deniers actually need? Is there really nothing that will make them think - hey, maybe this is real...?<br /><br />Danger MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com