And that is the problem of cherry picking, one misses the big picture.
I did no such thing.
I’ve never even hinted at that.
Do you have any cites that show the paucity of data for the globe? Most of the coasts and water data I have seen are fairly reliable. It’s the less habited and/or harder to reach areas inland (and the polar areas) that show less than a century of data.
The conclusion is that you do not listen to the experts anyhow, glad we figured that out.
By pointing to a small (relatively) area showing some cooling, you did. Focusing on the regional effects to dispell something that is global overall is not useful when dealing with an overall that is an average.
You have repeatedly dismissed climate change because the winters are getting colder which is at odds with a subset of global climate models. If that hasn’t been your aim in this thread, you haven’t communicated your aims clearly enough for any of the posters you’re arguing with to catch on.
You know, I get the feeling that almost any person in this thread could look at my last post and tell you not only exactly what I meant, but exactly why your response is worthy of scorn and derision.
I’m done here. You are not worth my time, or anyone else’s. I applaud anyone who keeps debunking your crap, but if I keep this up I’m probably going to say something that will get me banned, so I’m just going to put you on ignore, like I should have back when you claimed Climategate had any meaning.
take a look at the trend for winter, from 1992-2013
Compare to the previous trend
You can clearly see how things changed. Why is a completely different topic.
Cooling (sort of)
To see actual cooling you need this trend
Already explained, but deftly ignored by you, there is a reason why 1998 was declared an outlier and not good to use to claim that the warming rate was going higher than estimated, serious scientists do not cherry pick.
The information is on the GISS site. Hell, if you are obsessive like myself you can actually look at all the temperature stations they use. Very few have data from before the 40s, or complete records for a century.
No, I didn’t do that. You have to blame actual climate scientists, and of course the data.
Then I ask that you please state your views on the subject clearly. Is the climate changing? Is it due in full, in part, or in no part to CO2 or other manmade sources?What other nuances do you hold as a part of your set of views?
Hmmm… some of the recent discussions definitely have me thinking along the same lines as some others – that I should just start ignoring a certain poster. And these would be a few more reasons why…
I enjoy a decent debate but this is a curious mixture of unscientific nonsense and words that just don’t even parse in the English language – “polar jet streams move poleward” – what does that even mean? 
What actually happens is that climate forcings have been driving subtropical jet streams poleward. In the Arctic, weaker temperature differentials between the Arctic and the rest of the planet due to amplification in the warming Arctic tend to weaken northern zonal winds and Rossby waves and tend to cause them to meander away from the poles and remain in place for long periods.
I described that earlier, but here is an article in the popular media that clearly refers to the same phenomenon and research and to which I earlier linked abstracts to the relevant papers; this popular article is written with less scientific rigor but it might be conducive to better understanding by someone who so consistently gets basic science so completely wrong.
As I already explained, the issue seems to be that I pointed to research papers describing a phenomenon that, according to the Daily Mail, Professor Collins supposedly said doesn’t exist. I indicated before that the Daily Fail is a disreputable denialist tabloid and as GIGObuster correctly pointed out with examples, they have engaged in this kind of calculated and intentional deception before.
And sure enough, Mat Collins and the Met Office have now issued a clarification correcting the misrepresentations in the Daily Fail. Specifically, that what Collins actually said doesn’t differ from the statements of the Met Office chief scientist that I quoted. We have once again a case of scientific conservatism saying that our understanding of circulation changes driven by climate change is necessarily incomplete (and in any case it’s difficult to attribute any specific extreme weather event to climate change except statistically over the long term, and I’ve said this several times). And then we have a disreputable tabloid distorting that into “no way, no how is climate change responsible for the UK floods”. And then someone here quoting that as scientific fact, because it came from “a senior scientist.” :rolleyes:
At this point, if you are willing to cite the Daily Mail on climate science, then you either have absolutely no concept of evaluating evidence, or you are banking on those around you lacking that capacity. It’s really that simple. They have lied so consistently and constantly on climate change that anyone who would take them seriously is simply not worth talking to.
I already did, in regards to the topic. My first post was long and extensive, stating clearly my thoughts on the questions and concepts in the OP.
Now that is another issue. Certainly the best evidence shows that we have been in a warming world since the 80s, with a cooling period before that, with yet another warming before that, with more extensive changes during the last 400 years. So yes, the climate is changing, but currently in a most strange manner. An extensive explanation would require several topics on the matters. [
It’s complicated, and if I am going to respond at length, it should be in a topic on the subject, This one being about the mind set of “those” people, the ones using fossil fuels and killing us all.
Not sure if sarcasm or not. Educate yourself.
Just like I said.
We are already so far from the topic at hand and the arguments between yourself and your adversaries so far afield of the OP that it’s useless at this point to attempt to constrain it back to the thread topic.
However, if that’s the way you feel, I invite you to open a thread with your views and evidence up for debate. if you feel like you don’t want to deal with the people who are peppering you with hot sauce in this thread, feel free to PM me and dissect the subject at hand in whatever way makes sense to you.
Why bother? The only point even remotely present when “debating” here is to show the world that his arguments are crap. Taking it to PMs is like debating Kent Hovind without the benefit of showing everyone how wrong he is publicly - a complete and utter waste of time.
Why bother fighting climate change at all? We aren’t going to convince the world nations to cut. No one has made any of their previously agreed targets, and the new set of targets are probably not going to be reached, either, and they were far less aggressive.
Why don’t we just strip naked in the sunshine, find a spot on the huge new beaches opening up, some Corona and limes and just enjoy ourselves as we get life-ending sunburns on our dangly bits in 60-100 years?
Or not. Not might be good, too.
Ha ha – wonderful! No, I’m not going to ignore you just yet, you’re just much too entertaining! (At least, for the moment.)
You’ve managed in one fell swoop to
[ol]
[li]confuse seasonal changes with long-term climatic changes, [/li]
[li]to get the effect of jet stream speeds exactly backwards, and then on top of that [/li]
[li]to get polar jet behavior so confusingly muddled that it’s not even wrong, it’s just nonsense.[/li][/ol]
And to support it all you post some grade-school drivel about how the seasons work, and how subtropical jets move poleward in the summer.
Hello? The discussion here is about climate change. But I honestly think that your true objective here has nothing to do with climate and is an exercise in pushing the boundaries of civil tolerance to see how soon you can get me or someone else to break the site rules. It’s not going to work. I’m just going to patiently explain why you don’t have a clue. 
This is what I said (look it up): “What actually happens is that climate forcings have been driving subtropical jet streams poleward.” You can find this in this part of your own Googled Wikipedia link.
As to the earlier nonsense of “the polar jet streams weaken and move poleward, reducing the extreme weather”, you’ve managed to get both that concept and the NH polar jet pretty much backwards. The first you’ve got exactly backwards: stronger jets over the Arctic are the norm; it’s their weakening that contributes to extreme weather. The second you’ve got muddled and half-ass backwards; the major observed effect is a more meridional pattern, which means that at least some of it meanders to more southerly latitudes than usual. That is just simple fact; the AGW connection is what’s been credibly hypothesized in the Francis, Vavrus et al. (2012) research and the recent presentation at the AAAS. More here:
http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/meetings/past-meetings/polar-jet-stream-13
:dubious:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.htm
Not good yeah, but I do not think that we should follow the advise of Madame de Pompadour.
Specially when there are examples of countries meeting the targets, what we need is indeed the will to push aside the ones in power that are being unreasonable regarding what we should do.
The “will” isn’t going to happen when there is rampant denialism, scientific ignorance, and the outright falsification of science. These things are unfortunately very prevalent right now in the US, Canada, Australia, and other countries with resource economies and high consumerism.
Speaking for myself, I am far from a fanatic about climate change mitigation or environmentalism in general. Of course we need to balance costs and quality of life with the urgency and pace of emissions reductions. But if I’m a fanatic about anything it’s about the fair presentation of facts and integrity in media. I have never in a fairly long life seen the incredible scope and magnitude of factual distortions that are occurring right now on the subject of climate change. There is a robust and active industry of unprecedented scope dedicated to ensuring that we don’t make fact-based decisions.
The problem with that EU boasting is that at the time they signed onto the Kyoto protocols, they were already on track to the targets in them because they were bringing enhanced nuclear capability online. Nuclear plants were being started in Eastern Europe as part of the whole infrastructure investment from Western Europe that started after the wall fell.
The 1990’s data that went into Kyoto for Europe had a heavy tilt because of the old Soviet power production plants that they were already in the process of removing due to inefficiency and not emissions when they first met in 1995 and were into a bunch of construction when they ratified in 1997.
The only real change was to implement extra solar and wind power as those technologies became viable. And, while I think this is great that they are using renewable (Which I consider nuclear a part of) as a primary driver, I think that they should have had more stringent targets in the first place. We have had considerable renewable investment, also, and will never come close to EU’s position for the only reason that they were about five years into an upgrade plan in 1997 that coincided with the treaty goals.
I think the US is fairly on-track for what it’s doing, though. Despite Richard Alley’s assumptions of the future he bases a cost comparison on, we’ll hurt a lot of our poor people if we jump up energy costs. We could be a bit more aggressive, but:
-We have a huge R&D budget on new technologies
-We are moving our fleet of cars over to better efficiency standards (as well as moving those of us with cash to burn over to direct electrical motors, letting us be as renewable as our power source)
-We are giving tax credits to solar installations
-We are trying out alternative transportation technologies (for better and worse)
Now, I personally believe that we should push nuclear capabilities and directly finance solar installations on houses in areas with a certain sunshine-day requirements (e.g. if your region gets an average of, say, 200 days of sun a year - free solar for every house!), but we are coming along in terms of renewables. A lot of even the coal plants are getting dragged kicking and screaming to better scrubbing technologies that reduce their overall impact.
Even the EPA’s data shows that we are slowly dropping our consumption. We are only about 600-800 mmt away from the 1990 target and we aren’t even signed onto Kyoto. That’s good news. At least…to me.