Actually, after checking again, using the NCDC global data, that is NOT a fact. Only for Jan and Feb NH land trends is it cooling since 1990. Winter (DJF) is negative if you use 1992-2014, but as Cohen and others explain, trends depend a lot on the start dates, but all of them show cooling by the late nineties.
This is factual. but it won’t matter.
https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2014/December/extreme-temperatures-CRU
Nope, no one is dropping the main theories, you are still only running on empty.
I’m sure it’s just a language problem, in regards to the disagreements at time. It has to be.
Of course it is. Anyone can read the abstract, which actually starts off by saying that.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.abstract
See? It’s the first thing the abstract says. Of course there is more to it, but that’s the very first thing stated. If CO2 increases, their model shows the warming will be from SW, not LW, and that this is not what is expected from greenhouse gas forcing. When they say “an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)—as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcing”, it’s directly saying that according to their advanced models, the warming in NOT from greenhouse forcing. Global warming theory predicts warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect, including even more feedbacks from more WV, to amplify the small amount of warming from CO2.
You insist it does not say that, but says something else.
No, it doesn’t say that at all. Why would you just make something up? Anyone can read the abstract, and it’s clear and concise in what their models show. They present two different scenarios, which depend on the strenght of SW feedbacks.
“It is found that the timescale over which OLR returns to its initial value after a CO2 perturbation depends sensitively on the magnitude of shortwave (SW) feedbacks. If SW feedbacks are sufficiently positive, OLR recovers within merely several decades, and any subsequent global energy accumulation is because of enhanced ASR only.”
If the changes in albedo result in large amounts of SW warming, then OLR balances in decades. And any warming after that is from SW, not the greenhouse effect.
If the SW feedback is small, they present the other version.
“…in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR.”
So if the SW feedback is small, it will take centuries for the OLR to balance,
and warming will be slow.
Which is why I stated if Cohen is right, and we are seeing a drastic negative feedback for winters, due to snow, (his theory clearly says this), then there will little or no SW feedback for winters. (this is what seems to be happening now)
“Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR.” In other words, while the enhanced greenhouse effect reduces OLR, the actual global warming is likely to be from more SW absorption, if strong feedbacks from SW absorption (enhanced ASR) cause the OLR to balance quickly.
TEGO
Now the above is exactly why it’s surprising anyone besides a very few are even reading still. This is complicated shit here, actual science, the sort of thing most people avoid. Seriously, it’s a rare person who can wade through such crap, and it’s very unlikely most people can understand it.
Back to the point, if this MIT high level models shit is for real, and the Cohen theory is for real, there will be this fucked up thing happening. Negative feedbacks for winter, greatly reduced ASR, leading to colder winters. But positive feedbacks for summer (NH warm season), which if it is due to CO2, the greenhouse effect, the absolute worst sort of climate change, colder in winter, and warmer in summer. Which is not what global warming theory predicts at all.
From 2010, skepticalscience
Why is there such resistance to the data showing a cooling trend for winters? While the other seasons still warm?
If the above didn’t make it clear enough, let me say it plainly. If summers are warming, but winters are not, or worse, winters are actually cooling, globally, it’s not greenhouse climate change.
Which is why several lines of defense arose after the winters became impossible to handwave away.
I mean, at first it was simply “there will still be cold winters, the cold means nothing”
Then we heard “it wasn’t that cold, it was just cold where you were”
Then it was “winters are not getting colder, it just seems like it”
Then it was, “well global warming still allows for some regions to cool, but over all it’s warming”
Until we reach the latest defensive strategy
“global warming predicts colder winters, the colder winters are actually caused by global warming, this has been predicted for ages”
Returning briefly to an issue where facts really really don’t matter.
When Cohen and others talk about the extensive and early snowfall, the assumed cause (forcing) of the jet stream changes, and the colder winters, they are not attributing it to CO2, nor is warming the reason for cooling. It’s snow.
In essence, early and extensive snow acts as a negative forcing. it actually causes the SW (short wave, visible light) to reflect, which greatly reduces the amount of LW (infrared light) in the area covered with snow. Now you will hear that water vapor is not a forcing, and the reason for this is simply that water vapor is too short lived in the atmosphere. It only “reacts” to other forcings, it’s always a feedback, causing more cooling, or more warming, depending on the conditions.
But in this case, where water vapor (from warmer oceans, especially more open water, the arctic ocean) acts a feedback, it turns into snow. And now the snow, which is going to be there for four, maybe five months, is a forcing. Water vapor becomes snow, which is the theorized forcing behind the changes in winter patterns. (Cohen et al. 2007, 2009. 2010. 2012, 2014)
Snow, especially lots of it, over enormous areas, is a forcing. Not a feedback. Stating this is going to cause spasms, actual pain full spasms and spittle and rage quit.
Science!
Lets see:
[QUOTE=Cohen et al.]
The Arctic region has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average — a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.
The rapid Arctic warming has contributed to dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice and spring snow cover, at a pace greater than
that simulated by climate models. These profound changes to the Arctic system have coincided with a period of ostensibly more
frequent extreme weather events across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including severe winters.
[/QUOTE]
Again, if Cohen is right he is not rejecting that the arctic is warming, as as the paper reports, CO2 increases are a driver.
There is no resistance, the resistance is to your flawed idea that the colling trend for winter is happening in the whole northern hemisphere, it is not as the arctic and many other parts of the NH show.
It is, and as per Cohen et al.
Missing the point as usual, what it predicts is that there will be more warming records in comparision to cold ones, but there was not much support for having no cold winters whatsoever.
As Cohen and others report, they are referring to an increase in colder extremes, not of all winter in all hemispheres (yes, in your last lines you are indeed claiming that all winters are cooling, not so) and not in all regions. And he describes the likely mechanisms.
No, I always specify that it is the NH land temperatures, and the NH winters (boreal winters), because that is what the data shows. According to the data, the Austral winters do not show the same trend. The only way to get a negative trend for SH winter (JJA) is to start the trend in 2005, but that is too short to be significant.
Here’s the truly hilarious thing. Since the data is available to anyone, why would the boreal winter trend be up for contention?
If I say the NCDC data shows boreal winters are cooling for the period 1992-2014, and the trend shown is - 0.01 C per century, why would that be argued over? Why would anyone argue over a fact that can simply be checked?
Same thing for the boreal winter trend of 1995-2014, which shows as -1.65 C a century. How is it even possible to argue over what the NCDC data is?
(of course when somebody claims it isn’t happening, and then they check, and see it is actually a fact, that’s when they move the goal post)
Or worse, then the story changes to “So what? So what if the entire Northern hemisphere shows a cooling trend for over the last two decades?”.
It illustrates with perfection, why arguing with facts just doesn’t matter.
Because it remains a cherry pick, as usual. (really, you are not convincing anyone that counts on this, the data is accepted, it is you who picks it to get the wrong conclusion.)
And even when clarifying you still get it wrong, Cohen and others already told you that the Arctic region has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average, last I checked that is the northern hemisphere too; so once again you are just holding to an error, the entire Northern hemisphere is not cooling.
It’s quite possible the facts won’t matter one bit. Certainly they won’t change anyone’s mind. The link that is up there is to a single post, from another topic. The essential part is “Of course to be fair it might be the exact phrasing, so let’s look at “water vapor is a feedback loop”, which is the really wrong part of the claim.”
The belief seems to be this. The amount of water vapor (WV) possible depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. So when the air warms, it can hold more WV. As air cools, it can hold less WV. The ignorance is believing that any time air warms, it somehow has more water vapor, and that causes it to warm more (mistake number one)
Then it’s believed because it warms more, even more WV is somehow added to the air. (mistake number two)
Then the really big error comes, (mistake number three) thinking this is a “feedback loop” that causes more warming, more WV, more warming, more WV, which is what a feedback loop actually is. The loop is eventually “stopped” somehow, but this is never included in the claim. It’s a simplistic belief, because physics.
What shows the ignorance of this myth, is pretty simple, even a regular person can understand it. If that is actually how air and temperature and WV works, (and it is not), then when the air cools, the WV decreases, which causes cooling, which leads to less WV, which causes more cooling, which results in less WV, which leads to even more cooling. A feed back loop! Science!
You can’t have it just one way, where it only feedbacks due to warming, that would violate the laws of physics. In this simplistic world (because physics) every day when the sun shines, the air warms up, more WV, more heating, more WV, more heating, a feedback loop. Then each night, as it cools from the sun going down, less WV, cooler air, less WV, cooler air, so that each day in the tropics, the days heat up a lot, then at night cool way down. And the same thing happens all summer in high latitudes, and during the arctic summers, when the sun shines all the time, it just gets warmer and warmer, and more WV, and more warming, and more water vapor, so the polar regions are an unbearable humid sauna all summer.
Physics. Except of course, we don’t see this at all, that describes no actual situation in the real world.
No support for what you claim here, you can not really support that it is not happening. In reality: How can warming not increase water vapor and also increase extreme weather? Because it can as Jennifer Francis reports in this presentation at Rutgers University, 25 January 2012.:
"During autum and winter, energy - lots more than normal its being transfered to the atmosphere as sensible heat, water vapor, and infrared radiation"Jennifer Francis, Rutgers University, (research professor at Rutgers University’s Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences since 1994.)
And then we have also Cohen in his latest paper:
And here Cohen in referring to the research from 2009 by R.G. Graversen (KNMI), M. Wang (University of Michigan),
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=7097
So the mistake is yours still, I even pointed before that the increase in water vapor is not uniform, and the arctic is one of the places were the warming is increasing it.
Don’t you figure climate scientists really do know the laws of physics? This sounds like a creationist trying to say that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. If that were true, evolution would have been a dead letter a good century ago.
If the model of GW violates physics at so simple a level that you can see it, without a formal degree in climate science, don’t you imagine the real climate scientists would have jumped all over it?
How could I have overlooked the most obvious handwaving?
What I wondered over, noting that the facts are available to anyone, was this curious claim.
So when the claim is made, “they are referring to an increase in colder extremes, **not of all winter”, how can such a thing even be a source of contention? We can just check the data, which does show what Cohen shows in multiple papers, large scale cooling for boreal winters. This actually shows up, as I have noted multiple times, in the data of course.
So much that the entire NH land mean for winters, is negative, just as Cohen and others have reported in papers. So when we read " in your last lines you are indeed claiming that all winters are cooling, not so", and I note that the facts just won’t make any difference, we see an example of what I noted in the OP. Facts don’t change anything.
Because of course, as Cohen and many others have published, we see an unexpected cooling trend, the start dates vary depending on the data analysis, but all of them show it at some point, just as I have said.
The response? It still doesn’t matter “Because it remains a cherry pick, as usual.”
See? Cohen’s theory depends on the data, which clearly shows a cooling trend for the entire NH winter mean, even as regional differences exist, of course. The constant refrain from those who simply “do not want this to be true”, has been “not for the entire area, it’s just small regions”, in essence they insist “it’s not that the entire NH winter is colder!”, and then say insulting things.
When I mention the data can be checked, and of course it shows it is a cooling for the averaged NH land mass, then it switches to “Because it remains a cherry pick”, which would probably surprise Cohen et al.
I mean, he clearly states it, as do others. It’s not a mystery what the data says, nor the time periods involved. To researchers, understanding why it is happening is far more interesting, and important, than trying to deny it has happened.
For the casual reader, who may have wandered in, and has no desire to read back through the thousands of posts on these points, here is one look at what Cohen et al. has been publishing about, for almost a decade now.
The number is for the global mean, not just the Northern Hemisphere. But even so, the February cooling trend for the NH is so negative, it makes the entire global mean trend - 0.14 C
Using the NCDC hemisphere data, the February NH land trend is negative starting in 1989.
The Jan/Feb trend is negative starting in 1990, and the winter trend (DJF) is negative starting in 1992. It’s just when the trends start showing negative, there can be no cherry picking, since that is the change being discussed, when trying to figure out why it is happening. Especially since theory predicts the opposite should be happening.
Now for the strawman of the day.
What does that even mean? “If the model of GW violates physics”?
The discussion about WV being both a positive and negative feedback is basic meteorology, physics and experiments, of course it is both a positive and negative factor in weather and climate. In fact one paper states the drying of the atmosphere after Pinatubo was what caused most of the cooling (1 degree C in a year, a huge amount of forcing). The absorption of SW by the sulfur particulates alone was theorized to be less than the change in the greenhouse effect, from the decreased WV in the upper atmosphere.
It’s easy to forget how WV is the main factor in the greenhouse effect, a real thing that keeps the planet warmer, and much warmer at the poles. Even the very cold and dry atmosphere in the Arctic winter contains enough WV to have a greenhouse effect, which is the main reason the Arctic doesn’t just keep getting colder and colder.
WV both warms and cools, all the time. But when it turns to water, either in clouds, or as rain, ice or snow, it really acts to moderate temperature. Which brings us back to snow cover and ice as a forcing. While WV in the air is dismissed due to it’s short retention time (10 days according to skepticalscience), the great ice sheets, glaciers and perpetual snow is actually a forcing. Even the seasonal snow in Siberia is considered a forcing, since it directly alters the energy balance, mostly by reflecting SW radiation, preventing it from warming either the surface or the atmosphere.
Cohen actually uses the word “forcing” when describing the changes to planetary waves, due to the cooling effect of the increases snow in Asia and Siberia.
But of course since it’s seasonal, it’s not a forcing like long term changes in CO2. The long retention time for the changes we are making in atmospheric CO2 levels is a long term change, which is why so many of us want to know what it will bring.
Here is what in fact Cohen and James A. Screen, Jason C. Furtado, Mathew Barlow, David Whittleston, Dim Coumou, Jennifer Francis, Klaus Dethloff, Dara Entekhabi, James Overland and Justin Jones. is saying:
2 things then: check what Jennifer Francis said and I posted yesterday, you are still going on with your errors and you are still going on with your cherry picks. Again, the Arctic region has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average and you are continue to ignore that that is also the northern hemisphere and they are talking about extreme weather causing the cold in some regions of the NH on occasion.
Therefore Cohen, Jennifer Francis and many others continue to insult you :rolleyes:.
It is better to realize that you are just wrong on thinking that Cohen and others are friendly to your ideas, they continue to tell us that global warming continues, continue to tell us that global warming gases are the big factor in that warming observed in the arctic, and they continue to tell us that what you are looking at is extreme weather, that they continue to tell us that water vapor is increasing in the Arctic and that and the additional energy added is increasing the chances of cold extreme in the mid latitudes and that was a possible outcome of the increase in global temperature.
Your last remarks just shows that you are only going for an even bigger mistake: thinking still that I was not listening to what the researchers are talking about or that I’m denying them, in reality you are demanding that I accept your misunderstanding of what they continue to report.
Wrong as usual, that is just showing the trend in winter from 1995 to 2014 and omits what Cohen, Jennifer Francis and many others report, that the Arctic region has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average.
Cherry pick as usual.
And besides being wrong on others not following this, you are only telling others to ignore what Cohen and Jennifer Francis (that also did work on the latest paper from Cohen) are telling us about the observed increase in water vapor.
More cherry picking, you are continuing to ignore that going just month by month is not what the experts at NASA and others are telling us that we should look at.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/nhem/land/1/2/1989-2014
How is it possible that facts just don’t matter?
Don't Call Them Dumb: Experts on Fighting the Anti-Vaccine Movement
Certainly after somebody has made up their mind, facts are the last thing that will change it.
This was pointed in other threads already: The guys at Forbes (that are conservative and fall for conspiracies too) already pointed at a what should be done with that ideology:
Not even the Capitalist Tool can stomach the anti-vaxxers.
This has become so silly that I was pretty much staying out of it, but I can’t help but point out the irony of someone who claims to be a champion of “facts” consistently getting said facts completely wrong. And I mean completely wrong. A few choice examples:
I’m sorry, and there’s no other way to say this, but you really and truly don’t have the first clue about even the most basic rudiments of climate, even after it’s been explained to you, as I did in #194 and many other places. Your various pronouncements at the most basic level are so obviously wrong that it’s a complete waste of time trying to discuss even the basics with you, let alone science at the research level, and it certainly explains why your interpretations of Cohen and Donohoe and others’ papers are so wildly incorrect. And whatever “different topic” you may claim your water vapor remarks were about, it’s clear that you’re just doubling down here on this complete bullshitwhere you clearly stated “water causes both warming and cooling, in all kinds of ways, but it is not a feedback”. You also absurdly claimed in that same bullshit post that CO2 was a feedback (which of course it is not). You also stated “When water vapor increases in the atmosphere it does not somehow make it warmer, which causes more water vapor, which causes warming, which causes more water vapor. That isn’t happening, does not happen. The climate would be unstable, the energy balance would constantly change, with the planet warming up.”
This is what you state. It’s at the link above, in plain English, not subject to any possible misinterpretation, and it’s unequivocally wrong. Laughably wrong. Period. Like almost all of your pronouncements on climate. The pitiful thing is that you just repeated most of it all over again, in case anyone missed it the first time! Except a little earlier “not a feedback” became “strong negative feedback” (second last paragraph); not the first time you’ve completely contradicted yourself, which leads one to wonder with a sort of bemused perplexity whether you just make things up as you go.
To cover these basic rudiments again:
[ul]
[li]Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The relative humidity of the air tends to stay reasonably constant with increasing temperature, as an annualized first approximation, especially for the lower troposphere. The effect varies somewhat with latitude and also between the lower and upper troposphere, but as a general rule it holds true because the competing factors of evaporation, transport, vertical mixing, and condensation tend to cause drier air to pick up more water and more saturated air to condense as precipitation. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation tells us that the specific humidity – the absolute amount of water in the air – will increase with temperature. This is why water vapor is a strong feedback that amplifies CO2 forcing, contrary to your nonsensical claims, and though many of the details are complex it’s one of the most basic and important principles in climate dynamics. As for your mysterious “somehow” about where the extra water comes from, look at a world map sometime – notice all those big areas that are colored blue? Conversely, adding more water vapor at any given temperature just causes it to condense as rain and RH returns to nominal values, so water vapor cannot act as a forcing. (One small exception is net new WV introduced into the dry upper stratosphere through anthropogenic CH4 oxidation. That one isn’t a feedback but is the persistent result of a direct anthropogenic contribution.)[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Contrary to your other ridiculously nonsensical claim, the warming created by any given amount of CO2 plus WV feedback results in an increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) as the temperature rises. A stable equilibrium is reached because the radiative flux to space per degree temperature increase is approximately twice that of the WV feedback.[/li][/ul]
Some of that can be found here; most of it taught in high school science, and the rest can be found in climate science textbooks, like Climate Change and Climate Modeling (J. Neelin, Cambridge University Press).
It’s not “dismissed”, and the retention time isn’t why it’s a feedback. WV is a feedback** because it’s a direct consequence of temperature rise**, and because without a temperature rise, adding more WV has no effect. CH4 has a relatively short retention time compared to CO2 but it’s still a forcing, and conversely, reduced snow and ice cover is long-lasting, but it’s still a feedback, for the same reason. It’s called albedo feedback and is one of the principal reasons that the Arctic is warming so fast in the winter.
Which is also why your comment about ice sheets and “perpetual snow” once again demonstrates that you don’t know what a forcing is. A forcing implies a delta – an independent change that drives a new temperature equilibrium. Unchanging ice sheets and “perpetual snow” don’t change, or “force”, anything. But when ice cover is reduced, as is happening in the Arctic, then it does drive climate change. Specialists who study this might quantify it in isolation using a term like cryogenic forcing, but from a global climate change and modeling perspective it’s a feedback – a direct response to temperature – usually referred to as ice-albedo feedback.
“Summer Arctic amplification”? You don’t do yourself any favors with statements that further demonstrate how little you understand about this subject. Almost all the warming anomaly in the Arctic occurs in the winter and some in the fall, very little in the summer: “One of the key features of amplified Arctic warming concerns Arctic winter warming (AWW), which exceeds summer warming by at least a factor of 4 … Arctic summer warming is surprisingly modest, even after summer sea ice has completely disappeared.” – Ref: The changing seasonal climate in the Arctic | Scientific Reports
And you’re also wrong about the global mean “trending down”, as can be seen here and was explained to you several times. Every single annual mean after 2000 has been hotter than at any time on record except for one record-high El Nino year in 1998, and four of the years after 2000 were the hottest on record without exception.
Was there something about “after a CO2 perturbation” that you didn’t understand? You seem to have missed the whole point of the paper.
To get back to the subject of “facts”, I’m reminded of a lengthy exchange I had in another forum many years ago before I properly appreciated the futility of trying to discuss science with those who not only don’t understand it, but seem oblivious to that reality, and to how their lack of understanding could possibly be a detriment to their brilliant arguments. One particular individual’s reply to everything I posted about AGW was always some variant of “well, in my opinion, …”. The fellow was certainly polite, but impenetrably obtuse. He had absolutely no idea what the facts were, or how scientific results were vetted, or even how basic physics worked, or that any such opinion on factual matters that didn’t actually consider said facts was worthless, but this reality was completely lost on him.
It’s like the cartoon I saw some time ago that depicted a televised debate where the caption was something like “and in tonight’s science debate we have on one side this leading research team that has been studying the topic for 25 years, and on the other side, Fred here who sat on his couch last night and thought about it”.
I believe you informed us recently that you used to believe in the scientific consensus on AGW, but having read up on it a bit, you now realize that all the world’s climate scientists are lying to us, and the IPCC is (I quote) “woo woo science”. Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m referring to. :rolleyes:
Well… let’s look at the definition for the word fact from a dictionary:
FACT
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information
Full Definition of FACT
1: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
2 archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
I would say that our Creator truly exists and that creation has truly happened. I would say our creator has an Actual existence and that the Bible is a true piece of information. I would say in all actuality the creator has an actual existence and is the one who has brought us also into actual existence and that His creation has actually occurred. I believe this is truth and therefore it is a fact.
But some people might say this is just my opinion. But by the definition of the word fact, it is a fact.
If the grass is blue, but someone says, “No that’s you’re opinion, the grass is green.” which one is the fact? Is the grass blue or green? When the ultimate truth is finally seen by everyone and it is unquestionable to everyone regardless what their opinion was what the truth is, then everyone will know the facts that did not believe them to be factual. May Yahweh guide us into all truth and have mercy upon us all.
Nope: opinion, pure and simple. It’s a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based belief.
We can all look at the grass and assess its color for ourselves. God is an “invisible pink unicorn.” What the hell color is an invisible pink unicorn?
“Faith” and “facts” are in two very separate categories.
And that’s a fact.
