Do alarmists and skeptics just naturally see things differently?

Trevor

2014-01-26 10:15:15 UTC

Environment Canada make weather observations publicly available for the last 50+ years, they’re available here (some are very large files and some are MDB files):

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/

Looking at Vancouver shows that over the last 50 years there has been an average of 17cm of snowfall each January, in a typical month there will be three days when it snows and there will be snow lying on the ground for eleven days. In recent decades these figures have reduced.

Temperature wise, it’s not unusual to have sub-zero temperatures both during the day and at night. The average daytime lows and highs are 1°C and 7°C respectively.

Jeff pointed out that it was 7°C-10°C when he got up, this would be unusually warm for an early morning (assuming he got up at a normal time and not mid afternoon), although not exceptional.

The current Vancouver weather doesn’t appear to be anything out of the ordinary. Whether you or Jeff is correct depends on just where each of you are, but taking the records for Vancouver as a whole then you are right that it is more likely to be above freezing then below.

To illustrate, where I live the temps are generally about 5°C below the forecast temps, that’s because the weather forecast normalises temps to sea-level and relate to urban areas, but we live quite high up in a rural location. So despite the fact that the forecast may give positive temps, we often get quite different weather.

If we look at the longer term temperature record, which dates from 1895, we can see that the average temperature in Vancouver has risen by about 1°C, meaning it’s in line with global averages, this would help explain the observed decrease in snowfall

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425004587730&dt=1&ds=14

Note: the data I referred to are the ones relating to observations taken at City Hall in Vancouver (chosen as it best represents the average of all reporting stations).

pegminer

2014-01-26 19:54:58 UTC

No, what it shows is that you and Jeff M see things differently regarding the climate of Vancouver.

It also shows that you're prone to jump to generalizations based on the flimsiest of specific evidence.

Why you would think that you could make a sweeping generalization based on a disagreement about Vancouver's climate is beyond me. I do know that such faulty reasoning leads you to many other erroneous conclusions, though.

Perhaps if you used more logic and actually thought things through, you might actually learn to stop rejecting science.

Jeff M

2014-01-26 10:23:28 UTC

The max temp for January 25th is about 7 on your graph. The mean temp this season is 6.9 while the max temp is 11.1. That is 4C greater. The min temp is about 1C greater. January/February is about the time we get snow in Vancouver. You live on Vancouver Island. Regardless, with me stating we usually get below freezing at this time, I may have been stretching the truth a tad but the point that it is warmer thsi season than usual still stands. And it was an argument to someone stating it was cold elsewhere so therefor GW doesn't exist more or less.

But you were correct in showing that I overstated it. I didn't look up the data myself before posting. The main point, however, still stands.

Note: You do not need to have temperature below freezing for it to snow.Regardless, as Trevor points out, there has been an average of 17cm of snowfall in January. Here is a link to the climate normals page for Vancouver International airport.

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=889&autofwd=1

The following information is pertinent to this thread.

Snowfall (cm): 16.6

Days with minimum temp under 0C: 12.3

Days with minimum temp under -2C: 8

Days with snowfall greater than 0.2cm: 3.7

Kano: If you clicked on the link above and viewed the stats for yourself you would see the above data listed. normally, during 1/3 of the month, temperatures fall below freezing for a certain time of the day. The average minimum is what was listed above. I am using what is known as data in my counter argument. What are you using?

?

2014-01-26 09:11:28 UTC

"Alarmist", as you call them, are capable of looking at the evidence presented before them and be willing to accept the evidence on the basis of the evidence itself. Sometimes they do not like what the evidence shows, but unless they have better evidence to show then they do not impose their own preconceived ideas as to what the evidence should be.

"Skeptics", in this case, could care less what the evidence shows and will toss it out when it goes against what they believe. Be it for God, money or ideology, "skeptics" cling to their beliefs no matter what the evidence to the contrary shows them. In other words, "skeptics", as you call them, lack the analytical skills required to move beyond their own perceptions.

Added****

Moe, you are kidding, right? The evidence speaks for itself and requires no leap of faith to acknowledge this. When you ignore the evidence you are simply putting faith in your own sense of being self right and this will somehow outweigh any evidence to the contrary.

Response to Ian - "Some snow falls in the higher-lying areas of Greater Vancouver, such as Burnaby Mountain, Coquitlam, and North and West Vancouver, every winter. It is less common in places close to or at sea level and, on occasion, there has been little trace of snow. There is a general misconception among visitors and residents of other parts of Canada that Vancouver does not receive any snow at all, but in fact there has never been a winter in which traceable snow has not been observed at Vancouver International Airport." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver

?

2014-01-26 14:59:56 UTC

We true scientists see it as an acorn falling from a tree. The greenies see it as, "The sky is falling!"

You can see that true scientist see everything as a natural phenomena.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

But you can't scare people with normal. You can't tax people if everything is normal. You have to make them feel guilty then hit them in the pocketbook.

Pindar

2014-01-26 12:12:38 UTC

Yes, the sane always view the world differently to the chronically insane.

?

2014-01-26 13:12:23 UTC

Probably. This problem is why we train scientists to do science rather than decide it in the court of public or personal opinion.

Ottawa Mike

2014-01-26 09:50:32 UTC

Yes, one group thinks the world is falling apart. Thus, any issue which seems to support this will be an attraction.

Kano

2014-01-26 15:28:39 UTC

Jeff M. is an expert on stretching the truth.

Moe

2014-01-26 09:14:49 UTC

That is apparent. We are all in for a treat, gymnastics isn't a winter sport but we are all about to witness gold medal performances in logic twisting.

Someone.. you are not accepting of evidence, you accept an interpretation that requires a level of faith reserved for religion.