Saturday, August 16, 2008

Chicago: Fewest 90-degree days since 1930

Poot! The continuing slide and downfall of the stupid, bungling global warming theory. Again, this is empirical data, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The alarmists site empirical evidence all the time when it suits their purpose.

Oh wait...we’ve been told that colder temperatures are a sign of “warming”...oops, forgot. Or the other revisionary trick is to say that this “cooling trend” is temporary and that in 10-20 years, global warming will no longer be “masked” by the cooling of La Nina.

Temperature data produces an oscillating waveform that will vacillate between colder and warmer periods. So the alarmists have actually (and finally) made a prediction that will hold true; it will eventually get warmer, and then later cooler, and then later warmer, etc. It’s sort of like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow, however.

Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930

August is the wettest and often the muggiest month of the year. Yet, summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century's opening decade. There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That's by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.

This summer's highest reading to date has been just 91 degrees. That's unusual. Since 1928, only one year—2000—has failed to record a higher warm-season temperature by Aug. 13.


Lindsay said...

Isn't the term used by most scientist "global climate change" because some areas will get hotter and others areas will get cooler? It's more about extreme weather than a simple increase in temperatures. I think that's the Achilles heel in your blog.

G.W. Denier said...

The original term used by most climate scientists was "anthropogenic global warming" (meaning manmade warming), but that morphed over the past several years into 'manmade climate change' to account for 'extreme weather events,' such as EXTREME COLD (which is obviously the opposite of warming). If increased CO2 is supposed to trap heat (as a greenhouse gas) then it stands to reason that the Earth should continue to warm up (isn't that what we're always is melting, glaciers are melting, North Pole is melting, more extreme tornados, hurricanes, etc.?).

Warmaholics are quick to jump on empirical evidence that seems to support the myth of manmade warming (i.e., hurricanes, tornados, ice melts, animal extinctions, etc.). But when counter-empirical data shows up (extreme record cold that is DEADLY), it's ignored or else explained away as part of 'extreme, manmade, worldwide climate change.' Same for scientific data...counter-warming scientific data is always ignored or poo-poo'd away as being 'outside the consensus.'

On the contrary, your point strengthens my arguments. The Earth in its long and storied 4.5 billion years has ALWAYS had extreme weather events of every form, including long before the Industrial Revolution.

Sorry'll have to do better than that to find an Achilles heel. I suggest opening your mind to the possibility that there are some unethical things going on behind the scenes here with the climate debate.

First and foremost, science is DEBATE at its very core, so for a politician to scream the debate is over is pretty much all I need to hear as a scientist to know that this is a boondoggle.

The climate HAS ALWAYS CHANGED. It will ALWAYS CHANGE. And climate change is natural. We've become arrogant to believe that we'll kill the Earth in 100 years using CO2, especially when we can't even accurately predict the weather five days out.