Why do Global Warmists get ocherry pick specific weather...?

Question

events to immediately ascretain that global warming was culprit of said weather event? When an unusual weather event or isolated incident occurs, global warmists somehow link it to global warming? First off, I am in Texas, I am a degreed certified meteorlogist, and I have heard among the most ridiculous reasoning behind the cool and very wet weather patterns this summer. Those who conoct these laughable theories have no training in weather. In fact most meteorologists I know, many have Docotorates and decades of experience and research under their belts are not global warmists. Another example, the 2005 was the busiest Hurricane season in recorded history. Global warming was cited as the culprit. Last year and this year were severely BELOW AVERAGE, yet the global warmists are no where in sight. If globa warming is the cause extreme weather patterns, when they abate, global warming is NOT the cause? You cannot cherry pick!!! Back up your claims with pertinent facts. I am waiting.

beau wrote: "even a year or two of unseasonably warm or cold weather is not an indication of the centuries-old overall global warming trend".

It aint huh? Then you imply that global warming is inherently natural, if its a multi-centurial cycle. Since we know industry didnt exist prior to say 130 years ago. Right? Then you say the media doesnt cherry pick events to buttress GW theories? I'd beg to differ. I see it everyday.

Answer 1

I've never seen "science" where data is selected to fit the conclusions like for global warming.

Today's temps are nothing new. They fit the same pattern as 100 - 200 - even 300 years ago. Warmers use only the last 100 years because it bests fit their conclusion that the industrial revolution caused man made warming.

Answer 2

You have to recognize that the "Global Warmists" look at longer range trends - 10 year and 30 year patterns, typically. I think you're cherry-picking by looking at the last 2 years and declaring that there's no upward trend. As much as I question a lot of the anthopogenic aspects of the global warming story, there's at least some good science in measuring the overall increase of temperatures over the past few decades.

Answer 3

You can see the non cherry-picked pertinent facts for yourself.

Obtain the GHCN data for say the last 100 years, select a standard base period, optionally adjust for homogeneity and elimination of outliers (makes little difference), calculate annual temperature deviation from the mean, use a ten point moving average and what do you get....

The hottest years on record based on a 10 year average deviation from a 1950 to 1980 base period (recent years have less than 10 forward points and 2007 is a partial data set)...

2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1944

Run the numbers for yourself or have a look at this table I prepared earlier (1Mb file, look at columns 1 and 2 in table 2) - http://profend.com/temporary/HCGWCCR-TempAnoms1880-2019.html

Some more facts...

● Hottest century on record (so far) - 21st
● Hottest decade on record (so far) - 00's
● Hottest year on record (so far) - 2007
● Hottest season on record - winter 2006/7
● Hottest month on record (dev from m) - Jan 2007

As a meteorologist you'll be aware how naturally occurring greenhouse gases ensure our planet is habitable by warming it some 33°C. Could you please explain the difference in the role played by naturally occurring greenhouse gases and anthropogenic ones in relation to the concept of global warming.

Answer 4

There is a problem with the way science is practiced today.

Did you know that just in one year there was more than $40 Billion dollars spent on Global Warming alone? Just imagine that?

With $40 billion dollars we could have solved all of Africa's problems in one big swoosh! If AIDS was found to cause global warming, they would have already developed a vaccine by now!

When a science dept gets $2 million dollars annually for studying the climate crises, what dept head will possibly demand the truth? They'll want to keep the problem going!

There may need to be a major audit of the system which causes this kind of problem. Scientists will need to be made accountable and put in history books when they willfully encourage a hoax that no one forgets them and the damage they could do to the world's economy.

Answer 5

"Global Warmists"? What the H*** is a "Global Warmist"?

I don't think comments like "It was hot today because of Global Warming" mean anything except that free speech is still a more or less protected right in some countries. It's to be viewed in the same light as the postings here about "there ain't no global warming unless you prove it to ME". "Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, the scientists arent smart enough to distinguish it from manmade effects" "There's global warming on Mars" and "Scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970's" (my personal favorite)

Answer 6

Cherry picking facts has created the illusion of truth for Michael Moore among liberals, so why not the Global Warming bunch?

Answer 7

Not only do they cherry pick, they try to hide their mistakes. A story broke just today showing how a mistake in an algorithm mis-reported data (by NASA no less) on high temperatures. Not only are we nowhere near record temperatures, the 5 highest temps reported this century were BEFORE world war 2, when there was significantly less industry.
Read the article...

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

Answer 8

And the few, uncredited anti-Global Warming advocates don't 'cherry-pick' their answers. What a joke.
You should pay attention to the past 100 years, not the past 1 or 2. You should also pay attention to what climate/environmental scientists say. not whatever local yahoo you're listening to. For instance, I remember reading that the lead climate scientist at NASA defended the fact that the climate is warming to a degree humans and other mammals aren't able to adapt to.
You're from TX? So am I but I'm still very aware that oil industries contribute a huge amount of financial incentive to deny any real problem so I look for environmental reports from scintists around the globe.

Answer 9

I believe a "degreed certified meteorologist" would be more enlightened about the facts of global warming.

Genuine global climatologists certainly don't "cherry pick," as indeed the trend must be tracked for decades or centuries before any conclusions can be drawn.

Any "degreed certified meteorologist," even those from Texas, would understand that a day, a season, even a year or two of unseasonably warm or cold weather is not an indication of the centuries-old overall global warming trend.

Answer 10

Climate scientists do not cherry pick localized, short term weather variations and attribute them to global warming. Mainstream media and Bloggers do. You as a Meteorologist should know this.

Furthermore, if warmer temperatures have an effect on hurricane activity they will do so regardless of whether the warmer temperatures are anthropogenic or not. All we can conclude from the lack of hurricane activity over the past two years is that an increase in global mean temperatures such as we have seen over the past century may or may not have an effect on hurricane activity, which we already knew. Again, you're a meteorologist, you should know this better than me.