It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[NBAfan]

You realise that weather is roughly climate at a specific place and time right? A snapshot.

Stronger hurricanes is a trend, not weather.
Screwy rainfall patterns, not weather.
Heat waves, if addressed as trend or global phenomena, not weather. If incidental and local can be weather, and shouldn't enter the discussion.

If you can show me a climate scientist using a hot day in august as an argument supporting Global Warming, we'll talk.

Well, I don't have a problem with that then.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I don't have a problem with that then.

That is great to hear.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Did someone mention breaking the Laws of thermodynamics? The ones that are applicable to systems which aren't getting massive amounts of energy input from various sources (e.g. a nearby star, etc.)?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I really wouldn't believe that. India's weather changes due to ENSO.

Also, the following statement made me roll my eyes. It's just another "global warming" proclamation that breaches the laws of thermodynamics.

I dont see any thermodynamic law being broken there.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well I just pointed out the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems with no net energy input.

See: the Pyramids. They clearly break the internet law of ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[BasketCase]

Stronger hurricanes is

A weather trend.

Screwy rainfall patterns

Are screwy weather.

Heat waves, if addressed as trend or global phenomena

Are a global collection of weather incidents.

Climate is weather worldwide over a long period. Weather is not climate--but climate is weather.

BLAM



Crap. I think that was somebody's head exploding......who was it?? Machinae, ya got a sponge mop handy???

If you can show me a climate scientist using a hot day in august as an argument supporting Global Warming, we'll talk.

Climatologist James E. Hansen from NASA
Climatologist James E. Hansen (and others) using weather to prove climate change

The take-home message from climate scientists and meteorologists, not surprisingly, is that heat waves — and new record highs — are ever more likely while unusually cold stretches — and new cold records — are ever less likely. Such a trend has already been measured over the 48 contiguous states. And there’s every sign this will continue, according to a new study led by Stanford University team. (The image below is from that study.)

Keep in mind this isn’t exactly news. Back in 1988, this was a core message of James Hansen of NASA, who compared the impact of global warming on year-to-year conditions to the progressive loading of a pair of climate “dice” toward hot outcomes.

There it is. How do climate scientists measure climate change? By measuring weather in lots of places. They predict that a warmer climate will produce warmer weather--and they use incidents of warm weather as confirming instances that support the prediction of a warmer climate.

 

[Dale]

Well, then, you better get out there and publish your findings. You'll be famous.

Is that your answer to everything? That's the third time you've said that to something obvious I've said.

We see this weather pattern in south-east Australia EVERY summer. A large high cell plants itself over SE Aust rotating counter-clockwise pulling dry hot wind from central Aust over Melbourne and Tasmania. A large low cell (rotating clockwise) will develop in the Great Australia Bight. What are the predominant conditions during this weather construction for SE Aust? Dry, hot and windy. That's when our worst bushfires occur and temps go over 40C.

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, explain how the moist air moves from the cold low pressure cell to the hot high pressure cell? Or are you saying the first law of thermo doesn't apply?

Well I just pointed out the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems with no net energy input.

See: the Pyramids. They clearly break the internet law of ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics.

Don't be ridiculous, you're just spouting incorrect nonsense. Only the second law refers to isolated systems, and only that entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system. The other three laws are completely applicable, including the first where it states energy cannot be transferred from cold to warm.

Plus, there general agreement that the Earth system can be regarded as a closed system for intents and purposes. Even Wikipedia gets them right, so go have a read.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Is that your answer to everything? That's the third time you've said that to something obvious I've said.

We see this weather pattern in south-east Australia EVERY summer. A large high cell plants itself over SE Aust rotating counter-clockwise pulling dry hot wind from central Aust over Melbourne and Tasmania. A large low cell (rotating clockwise) will develop in the Great Australia Bight. What are the predominant conditions during this weather construction for SE Aust? Dry, hot and windy. That's when our worst bushfires occur and temps go over 40C.

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, explain how the moist air moves from the cold low .pressure cell to the hot high pressure cell? Or are you saying the first law of thermo doesn't apply?



Don't be ridiculous, you're just spouting incorrect nonsense. Only the second law refers to isolated systems, and only that entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system. The other three laws are completelpplicable, including the first where it states energy cannot be transferred from cold to warm.

Plus, there general agreement that the Earth system can be regarded as a closed system for intents and purposes. Even Wikipedia gets them right, so go have a read.

Search wiki about the topics "convenction" and "sea breeze".

If you are too lazy to do so i will put it in a nutshell: Hot and lighter near land air goes up leaving a low pressure zone which is filled with colder humid air from sea. In fact at the end hot air warmed by land ends going tothe sea but through higher atmospheric layers.

You are right about Thermodynamics applying allways, however to apply a general physical laws to reality you need to know much more than the literal law to know how and what applies to what, so you need to know the whole picture in order to not fall into silly simplifications.

 

[Tee Kay]

Is that your answer to everything? That's the third time you've said that to something obvious I've said.

Because unlike some people here I don't pretend to be knowledgable. However, I do know from knowledgable people that what you say is suspect, so I'll leave it to them to refute you.

 

[Dale]

Search wiki about the topics "convenction" and "sea breeze".

If you are too lazy to do so i will put it in a nutshell: Hot and lighter near land air goes up leaving a low pressure zone which is filled with colder humid air from sea. In fact at the end hot air warmed by land ends going tothe sea but through higher atmospheric layers.

You are right about Thermodynamics applying allways, however to apply a general physical laws to reality you need to know much more than the literal law to know how and what applies to what, so you need to know the whole picture in order to not fall into silly simplifications.

Sea breezes can only occur when the opposing wind speed is less than 8 knots. In the SE Aust summer example I gave, this isn't the case. The SE high and the SW low compress the synoptic tightly, causing a very strong northerly to be pulled from northern QLD/NT across SA/NSW/VIC.

Because unlike some people here I don't pretend to be knowledgable. However, I do know from knowledgable people that what you say is suspect, so I'll leave it to them to refute you.

Just because you might disagree with something I say, does not make what I say "suspect". Oh and why not use what you really mean, and say "wrong". And please point out to me where I've said something "suspect" which was apparently "refuted"?

 

[GamezRule]

He said he is not knowledgeable on the topic, but even from what he does know, he can tell you are wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

A claim that somebody is wrong is useless without the "why". Science is all about the "why".

 

[GamezRule]

The entirety of science is worthless once it reaches a stubborn mind.

 

[BasketCase]

Yup. Problem with that snippet being, I say it's the alarmists who are being stubborn. Me, I demonstrate above-average flexibility simply by saying climate change is neither all good nor all bad--I don't fit into either faction.

 

[Dale]

He said he is not knowledgeable on the topic, but even from what he does know, he can tell you are wrong.

As he (and you) have said, he is not knowledgeable about the science. This means he is only knowledgeable about the alarmism and politics of the subject. Therefore he is not qualified to say whether the science I've presented is right or wrong.

 

[Berzerker]

Because unlike some people here I don't pretend to be knowledgable. However, I do know from knowledgable people that what you say is suspect, so I'll leave it to them to refute you.

I dont think he's pretending

 

[Tee Kay]

Therefore he is not qualified to say whether the science I've presented is right or wrong.

Then again, the IPCC, every scientific organisation of repute and 95% of climate scientists who are qualified say you are wrong. Oh right, they're all lying and/or incompetent.

 

[Dale]

Then again, the IPCC, every scientific organisation of repute and 95% of climate scientists who are qualified say you are wrong. Oh right, they're all lying and/or incompetent.

I'm still waiting from a previous thread for evidence of this. That wiki page someone linked proved nothing. A couple of Govt institutions, a couple of unis, and some scientists. Out of the tens of thousands of institutions and unis, and the many thousands of scientists in climate science (or related field).

So where's the real list of who is in this 95%? I'm actually pretty interested to see it. I still believe it's a myth created by warmistas to try to peer-pressure people into believing AGW, but seeing a real list would probably make me think twice.

 

[NBAfan]

Then again, the IPCC, every scientific organisation of repute and 95% of climate scientists who are qualified say you are wrong. Oh right, they're all lying and/or incompetent.

IPCC's temperature rise rate predictions are wrong. Their species extinction report is also wrong. There is also the story of an IPCC guy saying that their claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was false. They said that to scare governments into taking action faster.

Then you have this thing called Climategate.

 

[MobBoss]

The entirety of science is worthless once it reaches a stubborn mind.

Or finding out that ones self-appointed prophet of global warming is a hypocrite of mythic proportions not to mention the idiotic comments he makes on occasion.

Go big Al, go.