Very hilarious - except I don’t know what you’re talking about. Feel free to point out what you feel I ignored, and I’ll be happy to answer you.
I’ve just quoted this part for reference because all of your arguments follow the same pattern: you continually move the goalposts of what you’re arguing about, constructing a strawman based on things I didn’t say or disingenuous misinterpretations of things I did, and then delight in demolishing the strawman. Not sure what you think this is accomplishing. The quoted part above takes this to its ridiculous extreme, as we shall see in a moment.
What I said at the beginning of all this is that there’s no doubt about the radiative forcing of CO2, that is, that CO2 is a radiative transfer agent. I’m not talking about measures and magnitudes, but about physical properties. Some might have said in common parlance that there’s no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that statement could be attacked because CO2 doesn’t function like the glass of a greenhouse which traps convection, nor does it really “trap” anything at all. What it does, indisputably, is absorb and re-emit longwave radiation. Increased amounts of CO2 indisputably constitute a positive forcing in direct relation to the increased concentration relative to a reference amount. That is a scientific fact. Yes, Sam, I know what a “fact” is. You, apparently, do not, or want to play semantic games.
You then make statements like “The radiative transfer properties of CO2 do not equal “Radiative Forcing”, as I assume you know. Total forcing includes ALL the inputs and outputs in earth’s energy balance.” First of all, CO2 absolutely does have an isolated radiative forcing property, so your statement is wrong, and secondly, I never denied the existence of many other (lesser) forcings and even quoted the IPCC assessment of them, so what are you arguing here?
And it goes on like this. When I state that we have a pretty good understanding of the carbon cycle, I’m saying that we have reasonably quantified estimates of the major net source (emissions and other anthropogenic factors like land use changes and deforestation) and the major sinks, particularly the ocean whose CO2 update is measurably changing its chemistry – the point being that no legitimate scientist will argue that the huge post-industrial CO2 spike I illustrated earlier can be credibly attributed to anything other than post-industrial emissions. WTF does the argument about rainforests have to do with anything? Look, I’m not calling you a denialist, but it’s a standard denialist tactic to dredge up some element of uncertainty like this which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans – it’s not even within the margin of error of net anthropogenic emissions – and use it to try to cast uncertainty on the truly major factors.
And then we come to the quoted part above. Somehow you’ve seen fit to make the giant leap from the elemental factors I first mentioned – the amount of CO2 in the air and its radiative forcing property – to estimates of global mean temperature at the end of the 21st century! Do you understand what this leap of science and logic represents? In essence it represents what the entire field of climate science is about – navigating the long and complex path between climate forcings and consequent changes in temperature and other climate perturbations. Yet you talk about the these things in the same breath, and when I ask you what you think there is any doubt about with respect to the above elemental factors, you make the giant leap across the whole field of climate science and express doubts about its end-state conclusions!
Furthermore, when I point out that one can look to the world’s major science bodies for their views about the veracity of these conclusions – for the consequences of continuing unmitigated climate change and the urgent need for action – well what do you know, you move the goalposts once again, and now start complaining about the economic and social costs of emissions mitigation! Funny, that. All that needs to be said here is that the IPCC WG2 and WG3 reports are excellent surveys and syntheses of the extensive scientific literature on the impacts and the mitigation strategies, respectively, and that there are equivalent questions about the impacts of non-action which are increasingly severe – but none of that is what I was originally talking about.
So it seems to me that you’ve mounted these arguments, not against the things I actually said, but against your own manufactured strawmen, moving the goalposts as you go, and moreover if I may say so, doing so in a lecturing talk-down tone in which you also manage to get many fundamental facts wrong. Such as claiming that “the IPCC says that warming below 2.5 degrees may be beneficial to the planet overall” which as I pointed out, they not only did NOT say but in fact said very much the opposite. Or a statement like the lowest estimate of 21st century temperature rise of 1.4 degrees “is not much higher than what you’d expect for normal warming in the intra-glacial period.” Really? Let’s look at this a little more closely.
Putting aside the unlikelihood of the lowest extreme being correct, what is the scientific basis of your statement? What reason is there to believe that we should be in a warming phase of the present interglacial, given that it has persisted for almost 12,000 years and, absent anthropogenic factors, might already be winding down to an ice age (some estimates put it at no more than another 1500 years, absent AGW)? Given that temperatures have been relatively stable over the long term of the present interglacial, what leads you to believe we should be experiencing warming in that context? Given that warming, even when it does occur, takes five to ten thousand years to raise the temperature 6 or 7 degrees, on what do you base the presumption that a rise of 1.4 degrees in less than a century is “normal warming in the interglacial”? And are you aware that CO2 is now at around 400 ppm, fully 120 ppm higher than a typical interglacial maximum, a bigger differential than the entire difference between glacial and interglacial differentials, with all that that implies for tremendously increased positive forcing? Do you realize how utterly ridiculous your statement is?
Finally, to expand on what I said about climate science navigating the long and complex path between climate forcings and consequent changes in temperature and other climate perturbations, among the important phenomena being modeled are weather extremes, increased storm energies, and changes in global circulation systems that may make weather extremes regionally persistent. I mention this because Judah Cohen, who has once more been dredged up in this discussion, is one of the researchers studing these phenomena, along with distinguished scientists like Jennifer Francis and others, particularly with respect to the impact of Arctic amplification on high- and mid-latitude circulation systems. Our friend FX still appears to labor under the hilarious delusion that Cohen has invented an entirely new theory of global warming, contradicting all of mainstream climate science, despite the fact that Cohen’s work was explained to him probably half a dozen times in another thread, apparently to no avail. 
My apologies, then, for claiming that you did. I was pretty sure you had said you did but I apparently misremembered or was thinking of someone else. Perhaps your motivated reasoning just comes from living in Alberta, where just about everyone does work for the oil industry directly or indirectly. Or maybe it’s the oil fumes. 
As for money, don’t be silly. There is no industry in the world with as much money to burn on propaganda than the oil industry and its allies, or with as much to lose from emissions regulation and the growth of renewables.
Missing the point by several gigatons. 
I have seen the studies before, the conflicting studies do point to the safe way to go forward when taking into account how the CO2 is actually accumulating: It is very silly to assume that: conflicting studies = we can ignore the issue or do next to nothing.
The problem is indeed depending on the flawed conclusions of contrarians that linked to those studies. For NASA and many other organizations do not ignore studies like the one you pointed out, it just so happens that the studies are not the uncertainty that will continue to justify the inaction that you want because the actual data points at whatever carbon sink that is out there as not doing enough.
One thing I have found to keep things factual, is to always quote, and also to archive information, so there is little confusion about what is being said, and when and by whom. While it certainly seems a fact based/evidence based approach to science is the best practice, some people use an emotion based, or even a deception based method, and as the OP mentions, some think that is a better tactic when trying to “fight ignorance” if you will.
I consider that a complete fabrication, but in cases like this, mountains of facts, quoting what was actually said, won’t matter. Those who want to believe something are seldom swayed by facts, no matter how impossible the facts are to deny, it just won’t matter.
Of course we want to correct falsehoods, or defend a smear against our good name, but this is a fools game, it won’t matter how much you shovel facts into the mix, it’s not going to change the persons mind in any way. In fact , they might even use the fact that you are defending against an unfair attack, as “evidence” that they are right. (methinks thou doth protest too much)
You can state your position again, clearly, and it just won’t matter. For anyone using evidence, reason, logic and facts, to argue or counter lies, at some point you might start to agree with the statement in the OP, that facts aren’t going to work.
Cohen came up with his theory before 2006, was acknowledged in 2007, and has made very good predictions about the winter snow and temperatures ever since. Using his model (which is based on his theoretical ideas), he has performed better than any other model, including the GCMs, so much that we see the mainstream media talking about it, especially when a really harsh or cold winter happens.
Of course he never claimed (nor did I say he did) to have come up with “entirely new theory of global warming”, nor does he state his work is “contradicting all of mainstream climate science”, those are fabrications, which is why they are not quotes from my posts.
Not quoting, but instead making up something and claiming somebody said it, is a very common tactic, when people want to argue, but not with facts.
Cohen is clearly beyond arguing his theory, that Siberian snow can predict winter weather in large areas of the NH. He is using it every year. He actually states it may be because of global warming, which is obvious if you read his research.
Claiming I said otherwise isn’t a fact based argument.
No, Cohen never claimed it, you did. Both for the alleged implications of Cohen’s work, and for the Donohoe paper, neither of which you understood. Want a quote? Let’s start with #136. Pay attention the parts I bolded:
That is complete, absolute, unmitigated horseshit, as usual.
This is the paper in question. As a companion MIT discussion points out, from your own damn link, the paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output. It quotes Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAA, as stating that “While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways.” Far from “nothing short of revolutionary”, this is another tweak in model performance.
But this is not the first time you’ve gone off the deep end proclaiming the end of “global warming theory” based on something you didn’t understand; you also tried to imply it here and here, for instance.
As for Cohen, I’ve explained to you repeatedly what his research is about and what it isn’t about. I did it here and here, with supplementary comments here and here and here and here, none of which you ever properly responded to. I also explained here about your basic fallacy of assuming that climate change somehow must be globally homogenous, and here that you didn’t seem to understand the basics of Arctic amplification and were (repeatedly) making absurd claims like “global warming can’t cause extreme weather” which is the exact opposite of well established reality.
Lots of facts in those links, for the fact-conscious!
I’m sure you are confused about what my words actually mean, mores the pity.
The MIT model (based on theory) predicts that continued warming will be from increases in SW, not LW radiation. Consensus theory of CO2 warming does not predict this.
Their models also use an increase in SW due to more open water, less ice and snow, changes in vegetation from warming, all of which will increase SW warming. If Cohen’s theory that the cooling NH winter trend, from CO2 caused warming, ( more open water due to decreased arctic sea ice leading to more early snow in Siberia), if that is actually true, then the expected warming the MIT models predict won’t happen in winter at all. In fact, if the cooling trend is really caused by warming, then the basic global warming theory is wrong. The predictions of the most warming in winter, at high latitudes, and over land rather than oceans, is all wrong.
None of that is fact, which is why you see “if that is true”, and “if the cooling trend is really caused”. None of those are facts, but it is reasoning, theory, hypothesis, conjecture and thinking about possible results, which is exactly why I stated science deals with more than facts.
You might consider it “wrong”, but that is your opinion, not a fact.
You’re the one who keeps moving the goalposts. I was trying to address the OP in talking about what are facts and what are not. I even tried to steer the subject away from global warming and onto something less contentious like audiophiles so that we could stay on topic and not digress into a global warming debate.
Then you had to go and say this:
I was taking issue with your claim that there was ‘no uncertainty at all’ - in other words, that these things are facts, and not estimates. That’s the context in which I pointed out all the uncertainties around this stuff. In fact, I repeatedly stated that my goal in doing that was NOT to attack the theory of global warming itself, but to show the difference between an estimate and a fact.
But you, Brainglutton, and Gigobuster are so freaking single-tracked you insist on making this about the global warming debate overall. And then you accuse me of moving the goalposts when I try to steer the subject back to the concept of facts vs uncertainty.
I quoted what you said above. You did not restrict yourself to the specific properties of CO2 as a radiative transfer agent. And when I specifically said that if we restrict ourselves to the physical characteristics and mechanisms of CO2 as a greenhouse gas it IS a fact, you ignored that. So perhaps we have been talking past each other, but if so the fault is yours for making a vague statement in the beginning that could be interpreted in several ways, then refusing to clarify when you saw where I was going.
The thrust of your messages does not convey that. Especially when you say things like this:
You’re definitely talking about measurements here, and yet you still claimed that the value is a FACT.
It sounds to me that you are now backtracking and pretending that you were talking about something other than what you were clearly talking about. Takes a lot of nerve to do that and then claim that I’m the one moving the goalposts.
I see. So you know what a ‘fact’ is, but when you state that an empirical measurement is a fact and I dispute it, I’m playing ‘semantic games’. Got it.
Apparently I was arguing the literal meaning of your statement first quoted above, while you were apparently talking about a much more limited thing. I suggest you might want to work on your communication skills. Also, in the larger warming debate the fact that CO2 is greenhouse gas and contributes to climate forcing is widely accepted even among ‘deniers’, so I’m not sure what you were trying to prove by making that claim.
I brought that up in the context of your claim “we understand quite well how the carbon cycle works”, which came as part of a litany of things for which there is little to no uncertainty. How much carbon is absorbed by the rainforests is a major contributor to the carbon cycle, and I posted those two studies to show that we aren’t just uncertain as to the magnitude, but we don’t even know if we have the sign right. One study said that the rainforests will be a net contributor to atmospheric CO2 as the planet warms, which would be a positive feedback. Another contemporaneous study finds that rainforests are a huge carbon sink, and that the amount of carbon they sink could increase as the earth warming. Given that the amounts in question are in the billions of tons of CO2 per year (around 11% of all CO2 emissions), this is not a trivial uncertainty. That says to me that we have to careful to state exactly how much we know about the carbon cycle, and stating that our understanding is very low in uncertainty is just not correct. And the IPCC agrees with me.
Yeah. The same leap of logic and science you made when you said this, which is what I was responding to:
See the sleight of hand here? You claim your comments about facts were limited to very basic things like the specific way in which CO2 works as a greenhouse gas, but YOU were the one who took the giant leap and said, “See? There’s no uncertainty about that, so there’s sufficient certainty to justify urgent action.”
So either you’re talking about the entire global warming debate, which includes the RCP scenarios and predictions of future climate, which opens the door to exactly the rebuttal I gave you, or you made a wholly unjustifiable leap from the certainty of basic physical process to accepting the whole series of models and predictions that go into the conclusions that we should take urgent action.
You also used the old trick of taking the consensus of scientists around the basic facts of global warming and used that to claim that there is widespread consensus on what ‘urgent action’ should be taken. This after I posted actually text from the IPCC showing limited consensus on many aspects of global warming theory.
Again, you’re the one who moved the goal posts, and now you’re protesting that I followed you and gave a serious answer to that question.
Look, all along in this debate you, GIGOBuster and others have tried to turn a limited discussion of what constitutes ‘fact’ into a general debate on global warming. As usual. Then when I played along and gave you and answered the questions you were asking, you accuse ME of moving goalposts and making leaps in logic. You guys are the ones doing that.
You didn’t ask if there was doubt about ‘elemental factors’. You claimed that there was enough certainty about global warming prediction to justify ‘urgent action’. Clearly you are not talking about elemental factors, since that’s a relatively trivial part of the whole debate, for which there is widespread agreement on both sides. But this is the typical shell game I’m used to - your side really, really wants to frame the debate as, “Either global warming is happening, in which case you must do everything we say, or it’s not.” Since it’s easy to show that it’s happening, this formulation works in your favor.
The consensus of scientists exists around the basic statement that the earth is warming, and that man is contributing to the warming through CO2 emissions. Once you get past that basic consensus and start talking about feedbacks, the magnitudes of various carbon sources and sinks over time, cloud response, ocean current response and many other factors, the consensus goes away.
Also, the consensus of scientists is irrelevant when it comes to what should be done, because answering that ultimately requires expertise in economics, finance, engineering, political science, and host of other fields that scientists can not be expected to be expert in.
In reality, the decision over what should be done is very complicated, and requires that we accept not just the basic physical effects, but that we understand enough about climate, economics, sociology, and other fuzzy, complex systems that we can predict the state of each of them and how they will interact with each other decades from now. THAT is the huge leap in logic.
The estimates for the social cost of carbon start at -3 dollars. That implies a net benefit. As I said, the IPCC admitted the ‘benefits of global warming’ from WR5, but it was there in the past. The figure I’ve always seen was a value between 2 and 2.5 degrees for the threshold where we move into a net negative situation for the planet.
Fine. You’re right in that we don’t know where we are in the interglacial period. What I should have said was “we expect almost that much warming if you simply extrapolate the average temperature increase in the interglacial period into the next century.” But it’s a trivial point anyway. And notice I was being honest and mentioned that the low estimate assumed we would limit carbon, and restricted by comments to the higher RCP’s which don’t. I’ve been trying to be as even-handed as possible.
“My Statement” was simply a factual representation of what the IPCC models predict. If you think that ‘tremendously increased forcing’ makes the lower values of the estimates ‘utterly ridiculous’, I suggest you take it up with the IPCC. But be warned: You’re going up against the scientific consensus! No right-thinking person would do that.
Rather than making vague claims about the funding of climate science by oil, how about specifics? Do you want to compare the amount of money that goes into the Anti-AGW side, and compare it with the money being pumped into the ‘pro’ side by governments around the world, NGOs, Billionaires like Tom Steyer, Paul Allen, Bill Gates and others, the free publicity from Hollywood, organizations like Greenpeace, the Center for American Progress, and numerous other activist groups?
I guess by going down this funding rabbit hole I could accuse you of moving the goal posts or engaging in misdirection or intentional de-railing of the questions we’ve been debating, but I’ll leave the suppositions about other people’s character and motivation to you.
“As I said, the IPCC admitted the ‘benefits of global warming’ from WR5”
I meant ‘omitted’.
What part of not accusing other posters of lying in Great Debates do you not understand?
Knock it off.
= = =
Questions of (self-)righteousness are better addressed in The BBQ Pit, so everyone with a desire to post on that theme would be well advised to move their “discussion” there.
[ /Moderating ]
Not really, as pointed before the accumulation of CO2 points to the various carbon sinks as not being adequate to allow us to ignore the issue.
And speaking about what to do, I already linked to what the MET office reported, it is really silly to demand that the scientists do not talk about the very basic recommendation that we should control out emissions.
Besides pointing at Gavin Schmith, that is now the director at NASA, I have also pointed at Economists like Nordhaus, (that he also got recognized by his peers by becoming the president elect of the American Economic Association:
And there you go again ignoring that experts in economy and other fields looked at what to do. It is complicated, but it is really underwhelming to claim that that is a show stopper.
You are like that guy in the original episode of Mork & Mindy that tried to put Mork away in an asylum:
Psychologist: “Yesterday, during one of my tests, he tried to put a SQUARE peg, into a ROUND hole!” Mork: “But I did it, your honor!”
Psychologist: I do not now how but he did!
And so climate scientists and economists that are involved in the issue are not just trowing their hand in the air just because of the complexity, there are already sound ideas on what to do. Also you are still pointing at very exaggerated uncertainty monsters. As I pointed before by the work done by Schenider showed that there are ways to deal with complex systems.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm
And recent developments are showing that the tools the climate scientists are using are getting better. They can do more than what you assume.
And there is no need to make a mountain of uncertain effects when the natural thermometers alone are telling us that that the melting ice is only likely to go out to accelerate the raise the ocean levels.
[/QUOTE]
As for the matter at hand, check once again what is going on, FXMastermind is not really helping nor is he understanding properly what it is going on, nor he should be defended tacitly.
That is not what the paper says at all. The paper’s hypothesis is that such a condition would hold in a few decades if all net CO2 emissions ceased. Any chance of that happening any time soon?
Again, you don’t seem to understand Donohoe et al. any more than you ever understand Cohen. And conflating the two hypotheses is beyond absurd. Nor do you appear to have a clue what “global warming theory” is.
To repeat, for the benefit of those who understandably aren’t inclined to wade through the many links in my previous post (but I wish some would – some of the bits are quite entertaining!), boreal winter warming is to be expected, all else being equal, as an effect of Arctic amplification, which is most assuredly and robustly occurring. Its absence in some recent years in sub-Arctic latitudes may or may not be systemic, but if it is, the failure of models to reflect it is based on inadequate representation of Arctic circulation changes in the AOGCMs. There is no presumption that global warming will be homogenous, and significant regional changes are expected and generally hard to model reliably in global-scale GCMs. This has fuck-all to do with “global warming theory” or with the fundamentals of AGW, a term that I used in a previous discussion and which you dismissed as meaningless, despite the fact that I carefully defined it and that I just quoted Isaac Held at NOAA using the same term in reference to the Donohoe et al. paper on the LW/SW question that you claim to be so “revolutionary”.
There’s nothing “revolutionary” about it any more than in Cohen’s papers. Kevin Trenberth reported on similar results way back in the era of the CMIP3 models which were being run seven years ago, where outgoing LWR remained fairly constant throughout the 21st century and warming was dominated by SW in the GCM runs that were characterized by CO2 stabilization scenarios. This is neither shocking nor “revolutionary”. The paper’s own “significance” sidebar clearly states that it’s just an explanatory mechanism for what has long been observed in the models, namely the dominance of warming from albedo feedback due to ice and snow melt, and from water vapor feedback due to increasing temperatures (you know, water vapor feedback, the thing that you repeatedly claimed does not exist and ranted about as being impossible). :rolleyes:
Sorry about that, I was referring to the problem of depending on flawed conclusions of contrarians out there that spin those studies. In this case I was not referring to a lie but a mistake from Sam when he told us that:
“For that matter, since every major oil company I can think of is engaged in alternate energy research, your claim that they assume that fossil fuels will truck on forever is clearly false.”
It was not my idea to claim that that was a lie, just a mistake.
So what is it?
Does Cohen show that the basic global warming theory is wrong? Or is Cohen just showing that what global warming is doing to winter in some regions? (Notice that in your last post you acknowledge that Cohen agrees with the main idea)
That is one of those questions we should be able to answer, as a fact. To my knowledge, Cohen hasn’t published anything saying that. What he has published is all there in black and white (and color graphics too), so that anyone can read it.
I don’t consider it an “or” question. He clearly states the models, and basic global warming theory, do not predict a colder boreal winter trend. Nor can the theory explain it.
Again, what Cohen writes and says is available for anyone, I don’t need to tell you what he says.
Arguing about the contents of a paper that anyone can read is a bit absurd. I was not stating what the contents were, but a possible consequence of both papers being correct. It’s a part of science that isn’t “just a fact”. It’s very much like the part of global warming theory, that predicts an enhanced greenhouse effect would cause winters to warm faster than summer. (if it were increased solar radiation causing warming, summers would warm more than winters)
The land to warm faster than oceans. (ocean inertia means the oceans will warm slowly, while land surface temperatures will warm much quicker)
And nighttime lows to show more warming than daytime highs. (the greenhouse effect will be more noticeable at night, as it keeps temperatures from falling as fast)
It’s not just from arctic amplification, but certainly assumptions that decreasing ice, and snow, will lead to even more warming is a key assumption of the theory. Which is why the two papers connect, if they are both right.
That’s your opinion. If they turn out to be right, and the warming is mostly from SW radiation, and winters are getting snowier because of the decreasing sea ice, then the expected winter warming, as well as positive feedbacks from decreasing snow, two key assumptions of global warming theory, will turn out to be wrong.
In the simplest way possible, if Cohen is right, winters will continue to trend colder, with much more snow. If that happens, the models that show the most warming is from more SW absorption, are also wrong. In fact, the exact opposite would be happening. Which I describe as revolutionary.
Cohen already did say it, “The earth continues to get warmer” no “if” about it. Clearly your idea that it is a different theory is wrong, he is only adding his to the main ones.
Messed a bit there, I meant to say that clearly your idea that it is a theory that replaces the ones discussed is wrong, Cohen is only adding his to the main ones.
And as as it was pointed before, Cohen does agree that global warming is taking place regardless if it is getting colder on some areas and on winter. His theory is only dealing with a piece of the puzzle regarding extreme weather events in winter and as I pointed before, since this is weather it is bound to be affected by the overall warming.
And sure enough, the increase in resolution of models and more data gathered that looks at more specific locations is agreeing with what Cohen is finding, but unfortunately new research is showing that what Cohen found is not likely to become a permanent thing.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n12/full/ngeo2277.html
It’s actually called climate change when you can show a trend, where the average weather is changing. Things like temperature, precipitation, days below freezing, snow amounts, first frost day, last frost day, amount of sunshine, those are things that make up weather, and over time we call it climate.
So if you can show the climate is changing, it’s no longer just weather.
I noticed you said “His theory”, which is of course what we use to describe his theory.
What we do see is pretty clear.
Does anyone just come out and say it shows the global warming theory to be wrong? Of course not.
Harsh Winter Outlook Made a Bit More Dire by Siberia Snow - Bloomberg
http://blogs.dw.de/globalideas/tag/judah-cohen/
What do ya think? Is Cohen talking about a new theory?
Or are there actually multiple theories involved?
Now, are any of those hypothesis-concepts-theories “facts”? Or, is there something else important to science, that we do not call “facts”?
Something not “a fact”, but very important to science?
The explanation for the current global warming is based on many lines of inquiry, and that was pointed at you many times in the past, The main point was that indeed, no one is talking to reject the main theories of why this is happening, neither Judah Cohen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&
And to show once again how that is only referring to localized weather the reality is that new studies and models that do take into account what Cohen reported show that that is likely to be only temporary.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n12/full/ngeo2277.html
It isn’t clear what you are trying to say. Since this is a debate about facts, how would you present your view as a “factual statement”? To be quite clear and specific, how would you, or anyone else, convince us of your claim? Obviously people are talking about it, we are actually discussing it right now in this topic. It’s why I said it isn’t clear what you are trying to say. In fact, I just explained why if the new theories are valid, and they actually describe and explain the much colder NH winters, and the extreme amount of snow, then the basic global warming theory is wrong.
Your response is to say " no one is talking to reject the main theories of why this is happening", which makes no sense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&
You can tap dance and wave your hands as much as you want, but there is no doubt that the mechanism for why the winters are getting colder, is that the temperatures are lower. It says it right there in the quote. “As a result, the temperature cools.” You can describe it in any way you want, but there is no escaping the facts in this case, and that is explained in that one sentence.
“As a result, the temperature cools.” If warmer oceans, and ice free arctic seas are the cause of the extreme snowfall, then of course we can say “the warming made it colder”, which is in essence the basis of the new theories. It doesn’t matter if it’s about waves, jet stream changes, or sudden stratosphere warming, the cause of the change is “the temperature cools.”
The NYT opinion piece says “The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.” Which is actually not true. It is the warming of the arctic ocean, not a warmer atmosphere, that is postulated as the cause of the changes. It is less sea ice, and a cooling effect from early and heavy snowfall, that is at the heart of the new theories, not “a warmer atmosphere”, which most people would reject of course, since it’s an absurdity to claim the warmer atmosphere is colder. Or that “as the air warms, it makes it colder”, or “rapid warming of the atmosphere results in much colder air”.
No, it is the drastic change in albedo, due to snow, that is the theoretical cause of the much colder air, and the much colder winters. So when I say “this” in the next few sentences, “this” means “a drastic change in albedo, due to snow, is the theoretical cause of the much colder air, and the much colder winters”.
It “this” is true, then it directly contradicts basic assumptions of the global warming theory. If “this” is actually the mechanism for the changes, it falsifies the part of global warming theory that predicts warmer winters, it falsifies the prediction that the warming will be greatest in winter, and it falsifies the part of the theory that claims warming will be amplified as there will be less snow and ice in winter.
Now is any of that “a fact”? There is where we run into the essential conflict, the subject of the OP, on many different levels.
First there is argument and rejection of the basic facts. If you reject the facts about what is happening with the boreal winters, then all the rest won’t matter.
Second, if you accept the research and the measurements as fact, then there is the rejection that it mean anything at all. (once again, if the facts don’t matter, this is the end of the conversation)
Third, if you accept it actually does mean something, (in this case climate change is happening), you can reject that is due to the theoretical cause. Reject the mechanism proposed by Cohen. At which point it’s not actually a fact that doesn’t matter, because it’s a hypothetical situation, a theory that is being rejected. (which is why I said facts are not the only thing that matter in science)
And certainly there are solar physicist who reject the theory, they claim it is the sun causing it. While their theories are factual, in the sense they actually are predicting cooling due to the sun, it’s not “a fact” that the sun causing the cooling. Which is where the entire thing becomes complicated.
That two scientists predicted what we are now observing, and they predicted it based on physics and observations, and their theory, all that is a matter of fact. They actually wrote it out, published it, and tried to get others to look at it, and accept it, that is all factual information. That this occurred over 60 years ago, is also a fact. But it’s not a fact that we know if they were right.
The theory from Hamaker also predicted what we have been observing, this is a fact. But to say it is due to his theorized mechanismis not a fact.
That solar scientists, experts in the field, predicted what we are observing now, in 2006, that is also a fact. But again, that what is happening is due to their theory, that is not a fact.
At which point the interested reader can be forgiven for becoming frustrated, because we will never here a theory described as a fact. Facts support or falsify a theory, but a theory never becomes “just a fact”, it’s a language issue.
Gravity is a fact, but the theory of gravity is still called a theory. The closest science gets to “just a fact” is laws, principles, effects and equations. The greenhouse effect is a fact, but what will happen if the amount of greenhouse gases changes, that is theory.
At some point reality has to confirm a theory, that is science.
The stumbling block we see over and over, is that some people think if reality doesn’t match theory, then all of the theory is wrong. This is a failing of scientific understanding. If the earth reacts to more greenhouse forcing in a counter-intuitive way, which is exactly the case if the cooling winters are due to warming, this does not mean CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. Nor does it mean we haven’t added a shit ton of CO2 to the atmosphere. Nor does it mean there is no warming due to a greenhouse gas increase. It doesn’t falsify the principles involved in the theory.
But if we are seeing a strong negative feedback, from increased water vapor, and it is due to open arctic oceans, and the general warming trend, there is no doubt some of the assumptions made by the CO2 theory are shown to be wrong. And there is no doubt at all that it shows the models used to be completely wrong. None of them predict or create a global scenario where winters cool while summers still warm.
Now if any of that doesn’t seem factual, I’m sure we will hear about it.