Two nights in a row

Global warming has failed us here in Macon. For the past two nights we’ve tied record lows, 58 and 64, both previously set in 1937.


  1. bird says:

    Thank Goodness Erick! You’ve disproved global warming with your anecdotal evidence!!

    And I was worried about this report showing the dramatic loss of arctic sea ice .

    The good news is I can forgot about that hocus-pocus from the liberal elites in favor of the reassurances of the oil industry executives and their think tanks!

    I can go back to enjoying my watermelon, and it’s wonderful side effects this 4th, and focus my energies on rehabilitating McCarthy’s image after the Holiday!

  2. Progressive Dem says:

    Two Nights in a Row….Really this has to be the lamest post ever. Just go stick your head (further up your ) in the sand.

  3. Romegaguy says:

    I saw the title for this thread and thought it might be about Macon massage parlors

  4. BubbaRich says:

    Do you know when the average high in Atlanta is over 90 degrees? Never. ANY 90 degree temperature, in April or July, is always above average. I haven’t kept up with the temperature in Macon, but I suspect the highs have been well above average for months there just like Atlanta. Unless Erick is shipping hot air to Atlanta.

  5. Doug Deal says:

    You do realize that the “average temperature” means that half the days are warmer and the other half are cooler than the average temperature?

    Also, the high and low temperature are generally meaningless numbers, as temperatures could spike to 90 in late morning and a cold front could bring rain and send the temperatures to 60 by early afternoon. If it is really dry, the mid afternoon could reach 110 degrees and the nights could approach 50 (go to the desert). Which one is representative of the real temperature? Neither.

    The most recent monthly satellite temperatures have been released, though, and oops it’s getting cooler yet again. Why is it that every month some “new high” comes out, the news media talk about drowning cities and dying polar bears, but when world-wide temperatures plummet to 30-40 year lows (the maximum length of the satellite record) not a word?

  6. BubbaRich says:


    Care to share your source for that satellite number? I see something much different at Goddard, the agency that actually calculates that:

    Not that it matters to reality, anyway. Those numbers show a general increase in temperature across the globe. Atlanta’s substantial local warming does not itself confirm or deny the global picture. I do, however, think it’s amusing to see TV weathermen (and radio, especially WGKA) go out of their way to talk about anything but the well-above-normal heat, and the massive drought we’re still in in Atlanta. I bet most people think it went away this spring, since it rained occasionally, and nobody on TV or radio was pointing out that it was raining much less than it would in even a regular year, which was even worse following a record drought the year before.

    But anyway, I’m not going to accuse you of making up your own numbers, but I do bet that you heard from some talking head or blogger about some number that you can use out of context. Care to share your source of the numbers, and your original source of the information. If they’re different, that is.

  7. Bill Simon says:


    Do you suppose that our planet Earth exists in a big bubble that has no other force of energy acting upon it except the forces of energy generated from within that bubble?

  8. BubbaRich says:

    No, Bill, why, are TV people lying about that, too?

    Don’t tell me you’re a global warming denier trying to go another direction. Solar irradiation is an interesting subject for scientists, but it’s also fun for pseudoscientists. You can use this as a guide to help sort them out: has a lot about cosmic radiation if that’s what you’d like to talk about. You might be surprised to find out that real scientists actually take those things into account in their work. That makes sense, since well over 99% of the energy in the earth’s climate and weather comes from the sun.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    You do realize that “Real” Climate is one of the most partisan websites in favor of global warming hysteria.

    The problem with climate “scientists” is that they eschew the statistical methods used by just about every legitimate science and created their own way of “normalizing” and “correcting data.

    They do not even publish their raw data in any means that is easy to decipher. The very people auditing their methods have met with road block after road block in obtaining the raw data and have only recently been making in-roads with people like Hansen at NASA. You know Hansen from his call for jailing people who disagree with him for “crimes against humanity”.

  10. Doug Deal says:

    On of the things you can see in the data provided above is that there is very little signal and a whole lot of noise. About the only thing you can see through it all is the large el-nino events.

  11. A Typical White Person says:

    “You might be surprised to find out that real scientists actually take those things into account in their work”

    WHO decides the criteria for WHO gets designated to be a “real scientist?”

    ‘Cause, you know, Al Gore is considered to be a “real scientist” by a lot of screwballs on the Left.

  12. BubbaRich says:

    UAH is home to one of the big nutcases who makes his career opposing global warming. But even he opposes most of the loonier claims.

    I guess if you want Al Gore to be a scientist, you can say that. I tend to look at him as a public relations guy, kinda like the CEO of a large corporation. Although instead of selling a product, he’s selling reality. Y’all have convinced me that y’all ain’t buyin’ reality.

    Doug, I hadn’t heard that quote from Hansen, but you got it substantially wrong. He was in favor of prosecution of oil company executives who knowingly lie about the effects of their products. I don’t think you’d have a problem with that, would you?

    Does it bother any of y’all that the loony loudmouths have to change their story every few months? I remember back a couple of years ago when it was “global warming is not happening and is impossible.” Then the loonies, even Rush Limbaugh, changed to “it’s happening, but it’s just a little bit, and humans aren’t causing any of it.” Now it seems to be “It’s happening a lot, but it’s mostly not humans doing it, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.” Eventually it will converge with the truth, as it’s getting harder and harder to fix any problems in this.

    Do any of you idiots drive an SUV 50 miles to work every day by yourself? I hope so, so I can enjoy the high gas prices.

  13. jsm says:

    “Although instead of selling a product, he’s selling reality.”

    What a load of crap. Al Gore is selling a THEORY which is finding fewer and fewer everyday who believe it. I think the key word there is “selling” anyway. Gore is making a killing on this nonsense, and he’s not decreasing his “carbon footprint” one bit.

  14. Doug Deal says:


    Go ahead be intellectually dishonest. Cherry picking bad arguments from some people in the past and applying them as a broad stroke against everyone you disagree with is about the lowest form of argument.

    Science is also about asking questions. Without questions, it is nothing more than a religion. As a general rule, scientists are supposed to be working to falsify conclusions of other scientists.

    Climate does not work on the scale of years or decades or even centuries. Climate scientists are telling us to be scared to death by a perceived change that is far below the precision of the instruments available when the bulk of the data was collected. They then try to augment that data with proxies like tree ring width that have even less precision.

    I would love to see global warming actually studied by real scientists, but until now, it has been studied solely by people who have flunked out of hard sciences.

  15. BubbaRich says:


    I don’t know if you’re being dishonest or dumb, but I don’t have time for this right now. Climate actually does work on the scales of years, decades, and centuries. Scientists do work to falsify their own conclusions and the conclusions of others. The scientists do very well at the hard sciences (where do you get your news from, Limbaugh? Hannity?). The percieved changes are enormous compared to the noise in the data. Maybe you should try to work through

    and once you’ve mastered that, you can insult scientists again. You’ll be an interesting case for MY scientific research, at least.

  16. Doug Deal says:


    Real Climate equates to using a partisan rag to get your news. Try something else, and perhaps original thought would help. Oh wait, sorry, don’t want to suggest the impossible.

    Very little of value can be gleaned from the URL you posted. The assumptions are laughable, and the conclusions ridiculous. Of particular note is the reliance on unproven models to “prove” something about the systems they do not model very well.

    Secondly is the reliance on end point bias in the less than precise temperature record to increase the magnitude of the temperature rise. This is patently bad science.

    Thirdly, this site takes heavily from the most extreme data (that massaged by Hansen himself) and virtually ignore data from less sensationalistic sources.

    But if you wat to use the National Enquirer of climate blogs as your source, by all means.

  17. BubbaRich says:

    You don’t seem to be able to follow the discussions of real climate scientists on there. You know, they actually respond to ignorant kooks like you in the comments, have you tried?

    I have to guess that you’ve never even looked at the site yourself. It doesn’t really fit your description very well, as it tends to confirm, refute, or say the data available is irrelevant to claims all over the spectrum. But you nutcases will say anything to discredit people using real science and real data, when you don’t agree with their conclusions. And their conclusions are fairly tentative, too, which leads me more to believe that you’ve never read the site. Or maybe y’all think that you can shout loud enough politically so that real science — the real world, that is — can’t be heard.

    Is there any particular conclusion on that blog that you would like to challenge? I’ll even take your challenge over there, look up the results I can find myself, and blog whatever questions I can’t find the answer to. It’s your call. Of course, it needs to be more specific than “they use data I don’t like and ignore data I like!!!1!!!!”

    Oh, and my research is studying how the human brain works. Less complicated than the climate, or fewer atoms involved, at least.

  18. Doug Deal says:


    So you disagree with the characterization that the site is extremely political? That is no surprise considering the tone of your comments. Any web site that has a page dedicated to “How to argue with a skeptic” is not a scientific resource, it is a political forum.

    Unlike some, I do understand the science very well. My academic discipline (Chemical Engineering) is probably the best combination of heat, mass, and momentum transfer, physics, process control, chemistry and statistical methods for understanding the processes in the earth’s climate. I am unimpressed by resume, but I respond well to facts.

    The fact is that everything from the data collection methods, assumptions, science and models used by climate scientists are suspect, and have large uncertainties that seriously undermine the reported observations. If I would submit any of this type of “research” to my professors as a project, I would have failed miserably.

    Historically, thermometers have not been very precise. At best there was a +/- 0.5K variance just due to the fact that it had to be read off of a painted analog scale. Further, how meticulous and consistent do you think individual record keepers were with taking their readings in 1880, or 1920, or even 1960? The temperature of a single day can vary as much as 50F, how well would their non automated temperature records captured the average day? Even today, the quality of surface stations is spotty at best, including things as ridiculous as placing them in the exhaust of an A/C unit or on a buildings rooftop. When your data is suspect, your conclusions are suspect.

    Then there is coverage. How many temperature stations do you think there were in the artic circle in 1880? How many in Siberia? How about the middle of Africa? Middle of the Indian Ocean? Australia? Colorado? When your process is suspect, your conclusions are suspect.

    We could very well be moving into a catastrophic warming period due to CO2 emissions alone, or we may be headed into a little ice age due to solar inactivity. The reason why I attack the Climate nuts (a.k.a. environ-mentals) is because they are the ones making statements that do not bear the weight of scrutiny. The fact is that there is way too much uncertainty to draw any conclusions. Further, the time scale of climatic changes, even those put forth by the most crazed enthusiastic supporters at “Real”Climate are far from immanent. Only a fool would act to cripple economies and cause human suffering never before seen on Earth for a hunch.

    If you want to see real disasters, have us guess wrong and act to cool the planet while we go into a cooling period. Nothing causes death like cold weather.

  19. jsm says:

    Even the Europeans know the global warming hype is just that:

    A cold spell soon to replace global warming

    Gore won’t debate them, either:

    Gore Dodges Repeated Calls to Debate Global Warming

    “Gore’s reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the – from the standpoint of climate change alarmists – unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a “crisis.” At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.”

  20. jsm says:

    This one’s good, too:

    Gore gets a cold shoulder

    “But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures – related to the amount of salt in ocean water – was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

    “However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

    “‘We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was,’ Dr Gray said.”

  21. Doug Deal says:


    I would take ANY science that comes out of the former CCCP, with a grain of red salt.

    They have some good scientists, but they have a lot more kooks than even we do. However, there is building evidence of a possible cooling trend, but as always there is no certainty, hence the need to wait in see, instead of jumping to conclusions.

  22. BubbaRich says:

    Debates on scientific issues are extremely bad. Even creationists are occasionally perceived as winning debates with real scientists.

    Gray tells some huge lies in that article, jsm. It takes about 5 minutes of serious research to see how humans can easily make climate changes through relatively small amounts of gases and particulate matter. Here’s a good article about Gray and the science. It doesn’t go into too much depth on the science, but it does a good job exploring the personalities and the way they fight about this issue.

  23. jsm says:

    “Even creationists are occasionally perceived as winning debates with real scientists.”

    Comments like this tell me exactly where you’re coming from, Bubba. I doubt you could define the term, “real scientist.”

  24. BubbaRich says:

    Well, in that particular sentence, I didn’t mean anything by it except for the obvious dichotomy of “creationist” and “real scientist.” Even though we’re in Georgia, I can assume you know the difference.

  25. BubbaRich says:

    To avoid hijacking this thread, I’ll just say that you perfectly illustrate the dichotomy. Your three statements are more wrong than you usually hear from any creationists. I advise that you continue to avoid any real science, and DEFINITELY avoid teaching your…’facts’ to anybody, especially children.

    Interestingly, I’m in France and went to a museum this week showing lots of the evidence that’s been found in this area of Neanderthal Man as well as our ancestors, Cro Magnon.

  26. jsm says:

    Bubba, you’re not the first to call me “wrong” without debating the facts, and you still haven’t defined the term, “real scientist.”

  27. Doug Deal says:


    Don’t take it personally, Bubba always leads with the dismissive insult, then quotes “Real” (or some other anti-capitalistic left wing hate site) on pretty much everything he posts.

    I am suspecting that he is just a script bot.

  28. BubbaRich says:

    jsm: You’re very, very wrong. You are so wrong, it’s hard to know where to start.

    Your claims:

    (1) we haven’t seen any true evidence of neanderthal man, either.

    This is so wrong that it’s hard to know exactly how to correct it. But I’ve seen plenty of good evidence of neanderthal and archaic homo sapiens here in France in the last week. I’m curious why you picked Neanderthal, since they are not likely our ancestors.

    (2) We haven’t seen any evidence that can explain why the sun wouldn’t have already swallowed a 4.5 billion-year-old earth, either.

    Again, you’re not making much sense, here. What does the age of the earth have to do with the sun swallowing it up? The sun is, of course, even older than the earth.

    (3) We can’t explain why there are human footprints found in layers of dirt that have supposedly pre-human era fossils in them, either.

    Have you been getting your science from Kent Hovind?


    I don’t know what upset you so much. I have not yet made any “dismissive insults,” and I certainly didn’t lead with any such thing. I led with science. You seem to understand science pretty well on the other thread, where you corrected the type of errors jsm is making several months ago.

  29. Doug Deal says:


    You lost me when you started being personal and accusing people who were against the ADA as wanting to do harm to blind people.

    Believe it or not, pretty much no one is motivated to do harm to people who are in difficult situations to begin with. However much I would like to see people donate to charity and volunteer to make the world a better place, forcing them at the point of a gun (which is what every action by the government comes down to) is worse than the original problem.

    People have a right to be stingy, lazy, uncaring, self centered or a whole host of other flaws. Those that don’t like it can just work harder to make up for it.

    Anyway, I am not really upset, I was just engaging in escalated reciprocation.

    To get back to this thread, thought. My point is not to take joy in wrecking poor people living on low lying islands in order to help my powerful buddies at the big oil companies. Really, I just believe that there is a lot of doubt out there and real uncertainty, and the only way to be sure with something like climate is to give it time. 10-20 years is simply not enough.

    I think the global warming proponents do themselves a serious disservice by allow people like Hansen, Tamino, and others to hijack the science for their own purposes. A more friendly and less shrill face would lend a lot more credibility.

  30. Doug Deal says:

    Bubba and jsm,

    As for the at 4.5 billion year earth, there are few things in paleo science that are more certain. The process they use to date rocks is not radio-carbon dating (which is nothing more than a shot in the dark, since we have to assume the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere) uranium-zircon dating has no such assumption.

    Zircon is a mineral created by the ionic bond of the metal Zirconium and a silicate Ion. It is extremely durable, has a reasonably high melting point and is throughout pretty much every rock on the planet.

    It has another remarkable feature, it is capable of completely eliminating lead from it’s lattis structure so that when formed, zircon has virtuallt no lead content. This is unremarkable, except for the fact that zircon includes Uranium. Over time, this uranium breaks down into lead through natural decay. Not only that, it breaks down through two pathways. U238 breaks down to form one isotope of lead while U235 breaks down to form another.

    These decay pathways have very known half-lives and the self redundancy allow scientists to pin down the date of crystaliztion to as low as .1 percent (but as high as 1 percent). An example would be Say 4.45 +/- 0.05 billion years. Which is the age of the oldest Ziron crystals every found.

    The Earth may be older, but it cannot be younger than it’s oldest rocks.

Comments are closed.