Cap and Trade killer? October was 3rd coldest on record
Yep, the bad news is in for all the folks all worked up about that non-existent phenomenon known as Global Warming. It seems that, once again, the settled science shows the earth is cooling. October turned out to be one for the record books.
From NOAA.
National Overview:
* Temperature Highlights – October
* The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
* For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation’s nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
* Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
When the evidence is that the earth has actually been cooling for the past 11 years and polls showing people deserting the Global Warming short bus in droves, makes you wonder when the Warmers will realize they are going the way of the Flat-Earthers.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bill_Dupray and Bill_Dupray, Bill Dupray. Bill Dupray said: #tcot Cap and Trade killer? October was 3rd coldest on record: Yep, the bad news is in for all the folks all worked up a http://url4.eu/j98P [...]
Climatologists aren’t worried about global warming. They’re worried about global climate change brought on by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Models accepted by the global scientific consensus represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warn of oscillation in climate systems around the world resulting in higher highs and lower lows.
It’s very easy to pick evidence like a ‘cold October’ to prove that there is no such thing as global warming, but it’s irrelevant to the science driving the policy. Whether or not the policy, cap and trade, is a good thing, is another argument.
And once again, the ’settled science’ you link back to is published by thinktanks bought and paid for by fossil fuel energy interests, so it lacks credibility.
So are we trying to cool the planet when it heats and heat it when it cools? And is the contention that man-made greenhouse gases cause both?
In response to another comment. See in context »By referring to ‘the planet’ you’re off on the wrong leg. The planet is made up of a whole bunch of different climate systems. By adding to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we warm some of them, and cool others. Spotlight-seeking scientists and politicians may speak too often of the global temperature average. But that doesn’t change the answer to your question is that we shouldn’t be trying to do anything – we should inject less greenhouse gas, CO2, CH4, and so on, into our atmosphere because it makes the behavior of our planet’s climate systems more unpredictable. Consequences go beyond the possibilities of melting glaciers and polar caps, rising sea levels, worse hurricane systems, and include fluctuations in agricultural productivity, altering ecosystems, helping diseases migrate across climate zones.
I know that’s not simple, but it’s what the IPCC has been talking about beyond the Drudgetastic headlines for about two decades now.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dammit, Bill! Don’t you understand yet that when it gets colder, it means that there is Global Warming!?
Hello CWimms,
Yes that is correct, there are situations were due to increased absorption of solar radiation by the earth’ atmosphere and oceans, portions of the earth may actually cool. For example if the entire arctic ice sheet were to melt, it would result in the overall cooling of the north Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for an extended period of time. This would indeed results in cooler atmospheric temperatures in that region.
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool…”
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello, davidlosangeles,
Zing. Wow. Put it on the fridge. (Not that you should own a fridge if you believe ….)
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello CWimms,
Your non-response was clever as well, you completely avoided the substance of my comment, i.e. how “global warming” (i.e. the increased retention of atmospheric and oceanic heat by the earth) can cause local and regional cooling. Rather you focused on a rather limp formulaic riposte which lacked any substance. “Pas de touché”.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello davidlosangeles,
Yawn. I have better things to do. Seriously, if there’s any danger to the earth’s warming, it’s the hot air from the likes of you and yours.
In response to another comment. See in context »I know, we deniers are such simpletons.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dr. Dupray,
1) Yes, it was indeed the third coldest October in the UNITED STATES but it was not the coldest third coldest October in the entire world. Moreover, on the the page linked it also noted the following..”Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the Florida’s temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest such period (May-October)”. So, why did you not note that? That is called “cherry picking” data and it is not science.
2) Climatologists look at data over hundreds of years and over the entire world. Grabbing one isolate datum and trying to make the argument that it is proof of anything is simply non-sense and certainly not science.
3) The theory that global climatic change is occurring as a result anthropogenic emissions of GHGs does predict that it will get warmer everywhere all the time. Of course there are going to be ups and downs in local and regional temperatures.
4) Depending on the model, there are many scenarios where local or regional temperatures will decrease. For example, currently the Gulf Stream brings warm water north until it hits Greenland at which point it is diverted east by the Labrador Current towards northern Europe. This keeps northern Europe warmer than it would be otherwise. If the ice sheets over Greenland were to melt, it would change this pattern, preventing this warm water from reaching northern Europe, resulting in cooling.
Comment on your last point.
4) Depending on the model, there are many scenarios where local or regional temperatures will decrease. For example, currently the Gulf Stream brings warm water north until it hits Greenland at which point it is diverted east by the Labrador Current towards northern Europe. This keeps northern Europe warmer than it would be otherwise. If the ice sheets over Greenland were to melt, it would change this pattern, preventing this warm water from reaching northern Europe, resulting in cooling.
And you think that Cap and Trade will alter those dynamics?
Remember that the rest of the world isn’t playing ball here. The restrictions are only on American industry, not on Indian and Chinese industries. So let’s say that we enact the most draconian Cap and Trade possible and the other ‘Big Polluters’ crank out even more, how will that change anything? And how is it fair to Americans?
Also remember, and this is my primary concern, even if I were the Grand Poobah of the Fraternal Order of Climate Change Scientists, a true die-hard believer, there is simply no way to verify whether any of this legislation will have any effect whatsoever on the planet. There are too many variables. The Earth’s climate was changing before we got here and it will change after we are gone. If you cannot ever prove the impact of the law, under any circumstances, then it is, by definition, a fool’s errand.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
“Cap and trade”, how about “Bait and Switch”? Aside from the title, nothing in your posting addressed the issue of C&T. The entire substance of your posting was about the supposed death of the theory of “global warming” based on a single, isolated bit of information taken out of context. Your point is that there is no need for “Cap and Trade” since the world is actually cooling rather than warming. Now, you are shifting your argument that C&T will not stop global warming. So which is it?
In response to another comment. See in context »My points are both valid. There is no Global Warming so there is no need for Cap and Tax. Even if there were Global Warming, it is silly to think we can do anything about it through legislation in the United States Congress.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
Fair enough. Let us address each separately.
1) Your argument against the actuality of global warming based on the fact that the United States, as a whole, had a very cool October was shown to be specious and unscientific. You set up a straw man argument that the if global warming were true, it ought to be warmer everywhere all of the time. No one has ever suggested such a result. As a result, one average reading that is cooler than normal for one place at one time proves nothing.
2) Your method of analysis was flawed because you selected only data that supported your hypothesis and ignored data that did not. You only pointed out that US had a very cool October but failed to note that Florida had a very warm October or the average temperatures for this month anywhere else in the globe.
3) An additional methodological error was to look at the single result, the one you cited, out of context. One datum means nothing by itself. From temporal perspective it has to be put in the broad historical context of all previously recorded average October temperatures for US and other locations. It only within that context can a single datum be meaningfully interpreted.
4) Once more you have created a straw-man argument and tried to knock it down. No one claims that C&T all by itself, alone, in the US is going to arrest, much less reverse global warming. However, as one part of a much broader, global effort that includes technological and policy changes, it could do have an impact. If we accept global warming, something has to be done and C&T is one component of a solution.
There it is.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not simpletons – but confounding.
I am not a devote of global warming. I’ve written about the dangers of a religion that has grown around the topic which is troubling. I recognize that certain steps we might take to protect the environment can have damaging effects on the economies of third world nations that are not responsible for the problem – if there is a problem.
I’ve also read interesting evidence on both sides of the argument.
I come down on the side of being careful because, even if there is no global warming, we are, at the least, benefitting the quality of the air we breath.
What is concerning is how anyone can be so sure when smart scientists on both sides seem to make some compelling arguments.
Who do you benefit by taking so casual a point of view. What if your wrong? I’m not saying you are, but I can’t say you are not. The trouble is that there are severe consequences to be paid down the road if it turns out that you might not have had it quite right.
Even if you are correct, isn’t it kind of silly to argue that it must not be true because we had a cold October here? Do you really think that this is tells us all that much either way?
In some ways, I do envy those who can be so sure about things where it appears that there is, in reality, nothing but gray. You may be wrong, but at least you get to sleep better at night.
Bill, you are hilarious. I used to metaphorically “laugh out loud” at your posts; now I literally do.
And it’s a good thing, too; I really needed some cheering up today. Thanks!
I can’t be old– I still have a few dark hairs.
Glaciers from Mt. Kilimanjaro to the Andes to Alaska to the polar ice caps are in rapid retreat. What are you going to believe, the world’s ice cap over a period of a century or one October in most of the US?
Just because no one could conclusively prove the Earth was round didn’t mean it wasn’t.
Here’s a link to the NWS climate prediction for the next year or so. Note that it calls for warmer than normal, mostly much warmer than normal, temperatures:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions//multi_season/13_seasonal_outlooks/color/churchill.php