The fact is you can not produce even a cite from a scientist at NASA or other groups that support your cherry pickings and lousy conclusions you try to get from those cherry picks.
And to show you are not paying attention one of the ones that did not reply to **jshore **was watchwolf49.
I guess the points from **jshore **stand, and any other affirmations are just ponderings from people that in reality are doing their damnedest to ignore what the experts are reporting.
When you have data you don’t need experts, or you, to tell me what is up.
Like looking at the 100 year trend for global temperatures. Why would the north Atlantic be cooler after a hundred years of warming? That’s the area the gulf stream feeds warm water to. Warmer oceans should actually show up after a hundred years. Like those large areas of the Pacific.
What the fuck?
Maybe an expert can tell us why the actual reality doesn’t matter. Some of them are good at that.
We await your response. (good luck finding a canned answer to the above post, heh heh)
No seriously, his app won’t have an answer for that. So it might be a while.
No, it’s a basic criteria. You seem to have an observation based on the facts that runs contrary to the climatological consensus. So publish it, and then maybe we’ll grant it the same credence you grant, say, Michael Mann’s extensive library of published research (which includes some of the most-referenced and most-vetted scientific literature in the history of climatology - there are almost no papers that have undergone as much scrutiny as Mann’s “hockey stick”, and very few that have undergone such scrutiny have been so clearly vindicated by the evidence). Because, I’m going to be frank here.
I do not trust you.
I do not consider you a credible source. I do not think your interpretations are valid, I do not think your “research” has any bearing on reality, and I do not think that your claims would hold up to any scrutiny by people who are trained in scientific analysis in general and climate science in particular. I am not trained in scientific research.
Encouragement to take your shit and publish it. Fulfill the most basic requirements for a scientific hypothesis to be taken seriously before spamming it all over the forum.
Well, we have some rather annoying denialists who won’t stop propping up pseudoscience…
Your so-called cooling trend has been debunked by no less than two people in multiple threads on this forum. Give it a rest. As for the extreme cold, guess what: not that new. It’s certainly bizarre to present this as a “new” story when it’s at least four years old by now.
I don’t even know what to say to this. This is so fundamentally wrong that there’s really not left to do beyond shake my head and say, “Yep, that’s denialism in action”. You don’t seem to understand arctic amplification or are misusing the term; it simply refers to the fact that the poles, in particular the Arctic (the Antarctic has dampening factors), warm more quickly than the rest of the planet. I have no idea where you got this idea that “you can’t have global warming without it”. As for blaming anything on global warming… Well, newsflash: sometimes, when we blame things on global warming, it’s because global warming is causing them. Do you see why I don’t trust you to offer any sort of rational analysis of available data? At all?
Have you considered getting your head out of the tabloid press? You might be slightly less misinformed. But please, by all means, point out where scientists in peer-reviewed journals have blamed all of above on global warming.
I’ll wait. Just like I’ll wait for your explanation of why climategate is a big deal. :rolleyes:
You are completely clueless.
Yeah. However, coming to a rational conclusion based on the data in a highly complex system with a large error bar and a lot of statistical noise? That’s hard as hell. It’s something that many people just can’t do. And as said, if you think I’m going to trust you to provide a reasonable analysis of the data…
…
Dude, you fucking believe climategate is meaningful. What are you even doing here?
And thank you for showing how many (AFAIR it was posted by you too) contrarians were cherry picking the conditions of specific areas like the west north Atlantic to claim that there was no global warming.
The reality is that there are good explanations, and the IPCC in 2007 reported that the the north Atlantic was not going to warm as most oceans. AFAIK the simplest explanation is that one should not ignore that that west area of the North Atlantic that has not changed much is an area where the north pole ocean current enters the Atlantic ocean.
Nope, I post links to data, official data from sites you can’t possibly complain about. Anybody can look at the data, it’s not a mystery.
Like a hundred year anomaly map .09 warming
Or the hundred year trend map .79 warming
Compare to the graphs here
If you need somebody to explain it to you, you are in way over your head here
You’re skipping the part of that zone representation model that shows most of the world had a 0.2 to 0.5 C of warming, with a few areas having greater than that in warming and a few areas showing cooling.
The data clearly shows warming almost everwhere. There are certainly spots that aren’t as affected, and certainly gaps in locations for a complete picture - as well as gaps in our complete understanding of the climate model as a whole, but the one place that we have firm data: Over the last 100+ years, the globe has been warming.
You can argue with predictions (I certainly do) of doom and gloom and the proposed solutions (which I also do), but arguing that the data doesn’t bear out the fact that the globe as a whole is warming is a flawed premise to start with. On top of that, the weather underlying the climate will shift. Some places will get colder, some places will get hotter, and it will all find it’s balance at whatever temperature we are as weather the happens within our atmosphere that’s not fully understood.
The global temperature rise is an average temperature, after all. Even your provided map is made up of averaged zones.
Sorry, you are no expert, but thanks for trying.
“Reality”. Yeah, keep on pretending you know what you’re talking about.
Never mind that since the 80s, almost no patch of sea has warmed quite as extensively as the North Atlantic. This is absolutely explainable within climate science, and if you had spent 5 minutes on google, you would not have posted something like this. Well, actually, no. I take it back. You probably would have anyways, because, as you say,
:rolleyes:
Yes, because looking at linear trends in complex, chaotic systems, and disregarding any and all analysis of those trends is absolutely reasonable. I reiterate my previous statement: you have no idea what you’re talking about. Not the slightest clue. This is why statements like this:
Are so dumb. Because obviously, YOU need someone to explain it to you. YOU don’t get it! Look, lemme break it down. You are looking at individual (hand-picked) trend lines within a highly chaotic system, individual regions of the globe, and saying, “huh, that’s weird, therefore no climate change”. You have no idea what research has been done into the topics. You’re not the first one to notice it. It’s just that the people before you who spotted these anomalies thought to themselves, “okay, that’s weird, therefore I should go look and see why it is happening”. And they did. And that’s why you’re standing here with the scientific equivalent of your pants down trying to claim that your eyeballing the data trumps decades of peer-reviewed research.
And besides showing all that insults are your forte, you were wrong again, as usual.
The other main point I made stands, if this was pseudoscience then less evidence would be available for me to consult, as I pointed before it is coming out of the ears of researchers and the bulk of it shows that global warming is here, we are responsible in large part of the current one .
Pseudoscience has to rely then on cherry picks, with no support from experts for that, like professors of statistics who were offered the data blind and concluded that there is a warming trend and even advised that it was dishonest to use short recent trends to deny the overall trend.
Contrarians have to resort to blogessors, fraudulent tabloid press articles and discredited cherry picks to make their points. And this is because Pseudoscience runs out of good pickings very quickly. 
Then we agree, as I look at you in the same way. I don’t expect anyone to consider me a source. I’m not creating the data I link to. And if you think it says something different, that’s what a debate is all about. Don’t hold back.
if you think this sort of map shows December is showing a warming trend in the upper mid-west of the US, please explain why. (it’s a huge drop in temperatures)
Or why you disagree that this shows Colorado might be getting colder in January.
It’s called a debate.
5 minutes. Yep, that’s a long time. As said, you’re standing here with the scientific equivalent of your pants down trying to claim that your eyeballing the data trumps decades of peer-reviewed scientific research. Because you obviously don’t know what’s in the scientific research. You don’t have a clue because you never spent time looking at it, never spent a moment trying to see if what you were saying was wrong before spewing it all over this message board. Come on, man. You can’t do better than that? Seriously? You say you can look at the data and that is all you need. The data is temperature data from a highly complex, chaotic system. And actual research shows that your statement, “anybody can look at the data; it’s not a mystery”, is utterly wrong. Because you’ve done nothing but look at the data (and the odd denialist screed), and you’re constantly and consistently wrong.
The cite was there to show a graph from what the currents are in that area from the Woods Hole Oceanographic institute.
You are not an expert indeed, but I’m aware of what even people that investigate pseudoscience report about contrarians, they are not capable of identifying good evidence from the bad.
No, but you’re pulling your interpretations straight out of your ass. And I think they’re pointless cherry-picking, much like everyone else who took a serious look at them. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Give it a rest.
A debate with yourself, the experts from NASA GISS and others you cherry pick from are not impressed with your cherries as I cited, they are still reporting that there is no cooling trend.
No, that isn’t a “never mind” at all.
What you quoted says
So we see “since the 80s, almost no patch of sea has warmed quite as extensively as the North Atlantic” along with “to the mid 1990s the heat content of the subpolar North Atlantic actually decreased significantly”.
But even better, anyone can go check and look at the data.
Did the N Atlantic cool from 1950 to the mid 90s? The other data set Why, yes it did. (So did a lot of the Pacific)
Has it warmed since the 80s? Yes, yes it did. facts, they are awesome.
So if the N Atlantic cooled for 50 years, then warmed up for 30 years, what’s the long term result?
It’s cooler now than in the 20s
If all that heat is blowing off the water, it has to be going somewhere. Oh yeah, it warmed the arctic.
Just kidding. But seriously, if the oceans actually are cooler, where did the heat go?
Well, no surprise there, you are wrong again.
In fact, there are a lot of papers about these exact things being published right now. No less than six different “theories” about what caused the flatline for global temperatures are being debated as we type.
Like this paper in Nature
See? It doesn’t make me look bad talking about it.
Go figure it out yourself. You’ve shown zero initiative in actually understanding the data you keep on citing as if it had any actual meaning without interpretation, and I’m getting kind of sick of spoon-feeding you science you should be able to find on your own. Hey, here’s a trend for you - if you’ve been wrong on basically every single statement you’ve made throughout the thread, what’s the chances you’re wrong on your next statement? :rolleyes:
Oh we know, and it’s just terrible at actual data for a century, almost everywhere except Europe and some of the US.
As some would point out, global warming doesn’t mean everywhere will be warmer. Looking at the parts that are getting colder is not some useless exercise, as some seem to claim. In fact, as we see, noting the colder winters are bad enough to pull the entire global mean down to a flat line, that actually means something.
Especially the places that have to deal with the colder winters. That the experts predicted milder winters, that is the real turd in the punchbowl for the alarmists mentality.
Now calm down, you just finished lecturing on how we should listen to experts, not try to figure things out all by our idiot selves.
You can’t have it both ways.