So did you spend even 5 minutes trying to figure out the difference between “climate” and “weather”? Or looking at the overall trend? :rolleyes: Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Like, this is the most obviously ignorant post in the thread. Please go learn what the difference between climate and weather is.
In Much of U.S., Extreme Cold is Becoming More Rare
There is the pernicious deception that the alarmists trot out whenever reality is turning people against their fear mongering and shameless deception. They actually keep coming up with new ways to try and convince people that they (the alarmists) are right, and you (people who live in the real world) can’t be trusted to know what the weather is like.
This latest disaster for the global warmers, yet another record cold winter, won’t matter to them at all. Of course it matters to people in the real world. And it matter to science, to scientists, but not to a warmer. I call it a deception for one simple reason. The data shows they are wrong. Not in the “since 1970 it has warmer”, but from trying to tell us that now is warm, that US winters are warming still. That is 100% a lie, especially for Missouri.
There are some serious problems with taking one city and trying to “debunk” anything climate related. In this case, as is always, using Climate Depot is about the worst source possible.
Here is a real source, which shows clearly why it’s such bullshit using 1970 as the start point for your crazy alarmists nonsense.
NCDC climate data for winter in Missouri
xkcd is just repeating Climate Central nonsense. Salon is becoming desperate, as are all the nuts who predicted milder winters, because winters were warming.
As pointed before, you are also dismissing Scientific American, GISS, NOAA, NASA and virtually all other scientific organizations, and no, using their data to cherry pick to continue to ignore what the experts are telling you continues to be a suspected maneuver.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/faq/NOAA_TKarl_Climate_Adaptation_QFRs.pdf
NOAA Response to Congressional Questions Regarding Climate Change
The Honorable Joe Barton and the Honorable Fred Upton
Questions for the Record from the March 25, 2009 Hearing on Climate Adaptation
Response Updated November 2009 to Include Additional Graphic
The point stands, you only cherry pick the data in an attempt to make even the experts sound like they are agreeing with you, it is clear is that you can not quote an expert from all those organizations agreeing agreeing with your cherry picks and use them in an article to agree with you.
Not very effective to claim that someone that holds a Masters in Climate and Society from Columbia University is a liar, once again you are relying on a cherry pick, as even woodfortrees.org is telling you:
Not quite, I would think that there are even more obviously ignorant posts. 
It’s an odd sort of logic, when somebody presents NCDC, NOAA and NASA sources to show evidence for something, and all the warmists can say is “you are dismissing GISS and NOAA and NASA”, an obvious conundrum. As always, science trumps rhetoric, and we have plenty of science in this regard.
People who are actually experiencing the colder winters, especially farmers who raise livestock, and suppliers of heating oil and gas, they aren’t fooled by rhetoric or games with trends.
Winter trend from 1998-2013 shows clearly the large areas experiencing a cooling trend. Of course the warmer objects to a short term (15 years) trend when it shows cooling.
from 1995-2013 also shows the trend, but the warmer objects to a 18 year trend.
from 1992-2013 even still shows cooling winter trends, but a 21 period is too short.
from 1988-2013 a 25 year period.
There you see the cooling in Asia still showing up. But no longer the US. Except you can look at February (the coldest month of NH winters) and there it is again, a cooling trend for large parts of the US for February, from 1988.
Obviously from the severe cold this year, the trend is still happening for parts of the US, with colder winters, with more snow, becoming the norm.
If we see a 30 year trend for February, of colder temps and more snow, will it matter to the warmer? Not at all. If you showed a cooling trend for parts of the US that was 30 years long, it would be dismissed of course.
No, the only trend acceptable for claiming warmer winters, has to start in 1970, which is absurd to a scientific mind. Winters change rapidly in terms of both temperatures and snow, unlike the longer climate cycles.
So we have “the planet is warmer” being used to dismiss a clear winter trend, which just makes it much harder for anyone trying to retain credibility.
That’s not true. On pretty much every instrumental record, there is a consistent 0.2-0.3 C warming per decade shown from the start of recording. Even the Central England Temperature trends, which is the longest record we have (instrumental recording started in the late 1600s) shows a 0.26 C per decade warming trend from the beginning of recording to present.
The last 33 years is the largest spike we’ve seen, but the spike is fairly small - roughly 0.03 - 0.13 C over the average difference, depending on region.
And before you get any ideas, FX Mastermind, we were using coal as heating material in earnest in the late 1600 and 1700s.
Not a single expert in your quotes agreeing that there is no warming trend when the big picture is looked at.
The reality is that the experts continue to show your ignorance levels.
The point remains, you are not capable of finding an expert in those organizations agreeing that your cherry picks should lead to a different conclusion.
Unlike the claims of the warmer, who resists and denies even the thought that winters might be trending colder, peer reviewed published science has to deal with facts, not rhetoric, hence the peer reviewed science states clearly what the data I just presented shows.
Not that actual science and data ever swayed the alarmists in any way.
What’s even more surprising, in regards to global anomalies, is just how much the winter trend has effected the global mean.
In general we are seeing a cooling trend for the boreal winters, a completely unexpected event, and it’s now 25 years of cooling, long enough it can’t be ignored, or explained away as “natural variation”. It’s this cooling trend that is bringing down the global averages, and especially the NH land temperatures. Which makes the specious claims that “the heat has gone into the oceans” or some other bullshit mechanism to explain away the “pause”, just utter horseshit. They actually don’t seem to know what is actually happening. To see those sort of drops in winter trends, is a huge climate change, one that real people who live in the real world are quite aware of. It’s a main reason the “global warming” meme is now a turd in the punch bowl
This is “global warming”, in the simple minded. Warming in the NH boreal winters is a top prediction of CO2 forced climate change. Arctic warming, winter warming, warming over deserts, and warmer nights. CO2 physics.
So there is a sure sign of a warming world. A retreat from the colder winters of the 60s and 70s, of which there is no doubt at all.
This is not a sign of warming. Note the decrease of over 7 degrees Celsius for those large areas that showed such warming.
The trend towards colder is probably far more important, considering the economic impact of cold, and the dangers from cold winters. The “increased snow” in the lower latitudes is a consequence of it being colder.
Despite what you may have heard, colder means more snow. Warmer does not equate with snow. In fact the warm and snow free winters were the inspiration for the ironic line “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”
Does the evidence support the claim from 2000?
There certainly was no winter trend in Britain at the time. The annual trend doesn’t even show much warming.
What about since then? 2001-2013 annual trend shows cooling.
winter trend shows cooling, which you would expect with more snow.
The questionable claim from warmers that global warming will mean “more extreme” weather, including snowfall, doesn’t hold up when you look at the evidence. If we saw a warming trend, and there was more snow, then you could argue that. But when the decade trend is cooling, it’s ludicrous to claim it was warming that caused the increase in snow.
From a GQ thread on evolution:
I’m curious, are you able to back up your claim?
Who specifically said that everything is guesswork because we can not build another atmosphere/ocean?
And during the 60s-70s a few claimed cooling or an ice age was coming, as the vast mayority of scienttists reported that even so warming was coming I have to go with what the experts and scientists report.
And once again, no a single link of the ones you posted shows an expert from NOAA, NASA or other science organization agreeing on using the short trends to dismiss the overall one.
As for your Independent “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” from Charles Onians (not a science writer even) is the real alarmist one, and just as wrong as the denier ones.
The point stands, no scientist talks like that, so besides continuing to use cherry picks you are still going for strawmen.
[why was not a single scientist paper cited for that report?]
Popular press just continues to get things wrong. Just like they did on the “cooling” trend of the 60-70’s.
Forbes, Junkscience, Climatedepot and many other deniers talk constantly about the guesswork made. And I have seen them posted or linked in the SDMB many times before. The few skeptical and already discredited scientists like Spencer continue to insinuate that. Or to go for curios misdirections like giving the impression that human manipulation should be the only way to do science, here is one example from the past:
As even Schneider himself told us from his testimony, that is not even a small part of the whole history. We can experiment with observations, and we can use the past data to test predictions. It is a task that is being done, and the point is that it is not guesswork but part of the real science.
You’ve just presented my “very very difficult in our lifetime” point as “should be the only way to do science”.
Do you think that you have honestly and fairly characterized my point?
Observational Experiments
Yes we can perform observational experiments - do you think I said we couldn’t?
Past Data to Test Predictions
Are you aware of the limitations regarding this?
I think so, and you need to check again, what I said was that that was giving the wrong impression to many others.
Later then you posted a quote from Schneider, the problem was that that quote alone omitted virtually all of what Schneider told us in his lifetime of work.
It was like the observation Al Franklin made of Hannity and Colmes, Colmes in the Fox network was the token liberal and was not really an effective counterpoint of what Hannity spewed, as Al Franklin said the end result was for fox to give the impression of what the relative importance was of the opposite views:
Hannity and Colmes
The point stands, posting a quote from Schneider where he only told us about what we knew already about humans not being able to make direct experiment and not pointing at the huge amount of work done even with that “limitation” is not telling properly to all the current state of affairs regarding climate science and their use of models.
There is so much wrong with that (and with the subsequent rationalizations) that I barely even know where to start – this is frankly at the same level of ludicrous unscientific drivel as your claim that no scientific paper or textbook would treat water vapor as a feedback, which I refuted here and here by showing you such papers and textbook. I note that you’ve now abandoned the argument, since water vapor feedback is just about the first thing one learns in Climate Science 101, if not in high school. Look up the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.
But on this latest fantasy of yours, first of all I note that you’ve chosen to select a “trends” map type rather than the commonly used “anomalies” map type. That’s fine – though it’s much more common to map anomalies, for the obvious reason that the trend analysis is peculiarly sensitive to the time period chosen, which in your case is an oddly short one. If you do the trends analysis for the full 20th century, you get a more realistic picture of warming virtually everywhere, even for the very selective Dec/Jan/Feb mean period. Incidentally, even with your cherry-picked timeframe, you get a VERY different picture if you pick spring or fall as the mean period, and one notes that by definition of boreal climates – which have long cold winters and short summers – most of these periods are also climatologically winter. Anyone interested can generate his own maps at this NOAA NCDC page, and presumably will have the common sense to do so using a meaningful data selection.
In other words, you have appear to be jumping through hoops and engaging in the most extraordinary cherry-picking and distortion in order to try to put forth a premise that is not only categorically false but ridiculously so. The average global temperature is incontrovertibly increasing and indeed the arctic and subarctic are warming at a much faster pace than the rest of the world, just as projected by models due to local feedbacks. The Antarctic is warming and losing overall ice mass from the continental ice sheet, and Arctic summer sea ice continues to hit record lows.
As a final note, no model projections have ever suggested that planetary warming would be uniform, and indeed atmosphere and ocean circulation changes make regional climate changes inevitable, including sustained or permanent regional changes toward either hotter, colder, wetter, or drier climate regimes. For example, changes have been found in geopotential height all over the planet, both up and down and including increases in the mid-to-high latitudes during boreal winter, and these reflect temperature and sea-level pressure changes in the atmosphere below associated with intensification and poleward displacement of Atlantic and southern midlatitude jet streams and changes in storm track activity throughout the latter half of the 20th century. So it would be totally unsurprising if some regions not only experienced colder than normal temperatures, but potentially even did so on a long-term basis, even as the global average temperature continues to rise.
So, lemme get this straight - the implication here is that the peer-reviewed science is fraudulent, right? Or what point are you trying to make?
You’re right! Because the overall global temperatures of 2013 rank it in the top 5 hottest years on record, and I’m not even sure if it was the first time in 20 years that US cold records were more numerous than heat records (something which should happen every couple of years or every other year in a world where we’re not warming). Oh, and the fact that it got this cold to begin with has to do with warming disrupting the air flow around the arctic. So yeah, I guess you could say that it doesn’t matter at all. Because it does nothing to the theory.
Wait, who made that claim?
Four things.
- Despite this trend the temperature is still up! Never mind that wolfpup shoved this theory up your ass fairly soundly, but the long-term temperature trend is, even if you weren’t wrong, still indisputably up.
- Just to be clear, are you asserting that the peer-reviewed papers claiming that the ocean has been warming immensely (and that the bulk of the heat increase has gone into the ocean) are fraudulent? Or what do you mean that they’re “utter horseshit”?
- Once you isolate out factors like volcanoes and ENSO, the warming trend becomes incredibly clear.
- There is no pause! Read the OP!
So what are you waiting for? Publish! You have an observation based on the data which you think is meaningful for the state of the science? Don’t be just yet another skeptic hack who doesn’t have the stones or the math to play with the big boys, put your shit out there and publish it! Of course, you can’t. And you won’t. And it isn’t because these journals have a bias in favor of global warming. It’s because these journals have a bias against poorly-cherry-picked crap. Maybe “Climate Research” will take it.
You truly think so?
Can you do me a favor and privately ask someone you trust whether your words fairly characterize my words?
Let’s move past any previous back and forth and just try to move forward.
First item:
Do you understand why only 1 past history creates problems with using the past to verify climate models?
I use a lot of context in the end, there had been several previous discussions and in virtually all very underhanded moves from the deniers are clear and not a note of criticism to them ever comes from you, like in this thread.
To be sincere I was not aware of most of the work Schneider did so I have to thank you for that, I wish I had know how important his work with computer models was on previous discussions, but now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
And this looks like going back, I use some logic here, for evolution science the fossil record is very problematic as not in all places you will find fossils. Yet I do not think that for a moment we should then claim that because there are so many problems we should then not use the large amount of fossils found so far.
Paleaoclimatologists have actually access to a more detailed record, with less gaps than what paleontologists have to deal with, AFAIK, there are problems, but the first point here is to realize that IMHO the problems you are looking at were also problems similar to what paleontologists encountered before. What I see is that were it counts, the current view is to continue as the troubles so far are not deal-breakers.