The average temperature in Indianapolis thus far this July is 70.4 degrees. If that figure holds, which it may because the forecast for the final three days of this month are daytime highs below 80 and nighttime lows in the 50s, that would set a record. The current record average low July temperature for Indianapolis is 70.6 degrees in 1947 with the runner-up 70.9 degrees in 2009.
This comes just two years after Indianapolis set the record average high monthly July temperature at 84.0 in 2012 and a third place finisher of 82.0 in 2011. So during the last six summers we in Indianapolis will have two of the hottest Julys on record and two of the coldest.
What does that mean for global warming? Not a damn thing. It's weather, not climate. You can't forecast long term changes in the climate based on changes in the weather. Even the 140 plus years that official temperature records have been kept is a tiny, tiny fraction of time, a sampling of weather not of climate. Long term warming and cooling trends last tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer. You can't take a tiny segment of time (which is 140 years) and make accurate conclusions about climate trends.
My alarmist friends are the first to make the distinction between weather and climate when a climate realist points out colder than normal temperature records. Yet they have no problem using hotter than normal weather when it works to support their global warming theory. Remember all the articles and columns using the hotter than normal summer of 2012 as proof the alarmists were right, that the planet is getting warmer?
Of course when the global warming theory developed holes a few years ago the alarmists cleverly tried to shift the debate to "climate change" instead. Of course, that is a "heads I win, tails you lose theory" as the planet's climate has always been changing throughout its 4.5 billion year history. If the climate on our dynamic planet suddenly stopped changing - now that would be something to worry about.
Bottom line, the climate alarmists are hypocrites. They want to use weather when it works for them, but to ignore it when it doesn't. It's not an intellectually honest approach, but what the heck, the alarmist agenda has never been about saving the climate, it's been about promoting an environmental agenda using scare tactics.
2 comments:
Things have cooled significantly, in climate terms, since the planet was hurtling through space ablaze...
‘Other molecules’ outnumber CO2 molecules by approximately 2500 to 1.
When a molecule of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a photon of terrestrial EMR it immediately (less than 0.1 microsecond, hyperphysics calc is about 0.1 nanosecond) bumps into other molecules handing off the added energy in a process called thermalization (some spell it thermalisation). Once it has handed off the energy it cannot emit a photon.
Thus the only influence that added CO2 can have is to cause the absorption/thermalization process to move slightly closer to the emitting surface.
Why isn’t thermalization (or thermalisation) mentioned in IPCC reports?
Two natural drivers have been identified that explain measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2>0.9 (95% correlation) and credible values back to 1610. Global Warming ended before 2001 http://endofgw.blogspot.com/. The current trend (from a graph for longer than a century) is down.
The method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are provided at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and references.
CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.
Post a Comment