Yup, that’s called poisoning the well. I’d be happy if you just lightened up some, a compromise of sorts. For example, I’m not posting on every thread. I think this to be polite behavior, giving space to posters who are sick of what I post. I know they’re out there, lurking … [wolfish grin] … and they’re entitled to discuss this subject without my constantly nipping at their butts.
I’d much rather read a relatively interruption-free discourse between wolfpup and RaftPeople than a bunch of hoopla about “climategate” (whatever the hell that is).
GIGO, you poisoned the well from the minute I engaged you in discussions about this stuff. I had no idea what you were on about, why my analysis had to be coming from “denier” web sites, etc. etc.
In my entire time on this board, I have never experienced such a level of wrong interpretation of what is posted, snarkiness due to that interpretation and a lack of debate about the actual facts and logic. I am not just saying that. I enjoy thinking about and debating these types of complex problems, and I’ve been wondering lately if there is some other forum on the web where I can discuss this with people without all of the baggage you seem to be bringing to these discussions.
That is the first time I’ve ever been pushed to look for a forum other than the SDMB to discuss/debate a topic. Seriously, you’re behavior towards me and others in this thread and others has pushed me to search for a place where a real discussion can take place that has much less baggage on each post.
When you don’t acknowledge or understand even basic counter points that must be addressed, then your credibility is damaged irreparably. I have about a 0.1% expectation that you would read any post, be able to understand the point and either accept it if valid or counter it if invalid. Instead you infer a position 10 miles down the road, assume any acknowledgement of anything will somehow make the “deniers” win and you dig in and send back something that doesn’t really address the point.
You harp on FX about this thread, but I challenge you to find something in the OP that is not factual and accurate.
If you want to be part of a good discussion about this topic, and if you have good information you think others could benefit from please take this advice:
Quit thinking there are deniers and non-deniers.
Quit behaving like this is a debate that can be won or lost - it’s a process to gain understanding and the process is not over, it’s just begun.
Quit inferring bad motives on other posters.
Quit thinking about any of that crap that does not freaking matter.
FX linked to WUWT, the premiere denier site, and to a person that is not a climate change researcher. His cherry picks and general idea are coming from denial sources as it is his refusal to acknowledge what expert voices are telling us.
Even your affirmation that “you don’t acknowledge or understand even basic counter points that must be addressed, then your credibility is damaged irreparably.” is not based on any good evidence as even resident scientists on the SDMB are not saying that, not even in private.
Since you miss something as important as that, we can dismiss the rest of your rant against me, you need to concentrate on the science but specially on what the scientists are telling FX, he is still wrong in the end. That FX is not at your level is clear as you do acknowledge the value of models, and the warming that is happening.
He would likely say No, but he did try to do so before with very specific locations like the north Atlantic. Again, as **wolfpup **reported his cherry picking from the OP and continuous refusal to listen to even the ones managing the sites he uses is the issue.
Hell man, find anything in the entire thread that I wrote that is wrong. I will be your best buddy if you can show me a single error. It’s really hard to find a cogent science minded person who is willing to do the work to correct me on a source.
You know what’s really really funny to me? I actually did deliberately and knowingly put in one huge, glaring, really obvious error in the OP. So far nobody has noticed. Much less used it to beat me into submission.
If nobody posts about it today, I’m going to have to debunk myself. No, it doesn’t change the basic facts, but it is an error, and one that is easy to show.
And here is a peer reviewed paper by Cohen et al again, that shows clearly and with all the facts, why my assertion about the winter trend pulling the global mean down is based on the science and the data.
I was not aware of it at the time I wrote the OP. They agree with my seasonal analysis, and make that clear on page 158
In reality the paper makes the point that was made before, uncertainty is not your friend, the surprises that are coming from climate change are the main reason why scientists do recommend that we should control our emissions.
:sigh: I said also “but with a cherry pick”, the main point that you are missing is his present and past maneuvers regarding the temperature record, but his main point is to continue to ignore the big picture and claim that there is now a “pause” that is not really here, nor predicted.
This is exactly your problem - you can’t talk about any one point independently - you lump them all together in a giant hairball of a function and out the other side pops one of two positions:
1 - Global warming is happening
2 - Global warming is NOT happening
Did you want to change your answer about FX’s position regarding warming since 1900?
Do you still think, when we focus on that one fact, that his answer will be “no”?
It should be clear what was the answer already, and I’m not changing the answer as I added a conditional: for his 1900 question the answer is yes, for his efforts in his OP the answer is no.
As for other simple questions, can you then answer this one?
Do you think FX agrees with what his sources that manage the data that he is mishandling are telling him here?:
One can also look at the graph and realize that the warming trend is apparent in the previous decade.
That BTW was the third post in this thread, so we should had finished this a long time ago, the answer to the OP remains NO. But someone else can not accept that.
You’re first answer was that he would say “No” and then talked about something that had nothing to do with warming since 1900.
Then you say you aren’t changing the answer but his answer for 1900 would be “Yes”.
That is far from clear.
So, I’m going to give you the most generous interpretation and say that you’re answer is “yes”, FX most likely thinks the planet has been warming since 1900.
Is this correct?
I will respond to your other stuff only after we retire this point clearly.
[EDIT: I realize that comment wasn’t directed to me, but I wanted to respond to the challenge anyway. :)]
I already pointed out that 2002 is a cherry-picked start year and doesn’t show the representative trend of 21st century warming, and furthermore that most of the OP uses trends for individual months, and furthermore still uses a temperature map with a trend analysis instead of anomalies which further exaggerates the skew of the unusually warm start year. If you bypass all the misleading spin and just plot the data I posted as a straightforward graph of annual temperatures, you see the true picture: the 21st century shows a relatively slow rate of warming compared to the latter half of the 20th; if you happen to pick 2002 as the start year, and use proper annual averages, you can show a unique and not representative trendline with no statistically significant change in either direction. So the OP is a sort of “blind man and the elephant” argumentative fallacy: the individual items aren’t false, but they are incomplete and anomalous and don’t support the conclusion that is claimed. To compound the problem, the conclusion would be irrelevant to a meaningful discussion of AGW even if it was true.
On a related note, the paper linked in the OP is similar to the Balmaseda and England papers in proposing internal variability due to changes in ocean heat uptake as the basis for the present slowdown in the rate of warming, which confirms that climate forcings are of course still occurring but being temporarily damped. Which of course also implies that the radiative energy imbalance hasn’t changed and sooner or later the consequences will be manifest. So if one wanted to start a discussion on the basis of that paper, it wouldn’t be centered around “has it been cooling since this one year I picked out?” which is not its subject at all, either from a cherry-picked year or any other. It would be focused on what will happen when oceans are no longer in this benign cycle of taking up more heat than usual. I note that it’s the frequent habit of FX to post links to blogs or papers that are either irrelevant to the topic or don’t say what he thinks they do, and occasionally say the opposite, like the link to the paper on UV variations (I think it was Ermolli et al.) that confirmed what I had just finished saying on the subject.
Not hard at all. This post was wrong in every respect. I showed why here. I’ve pointed out at least a dozen other examples. This one, although in a different thread, remains my all-time favorite. I also like this one which demonstrates a lack of understanding, not just of feedbacks, but of basic physics.
How can 2002 be cherry picked if the discussion is about what has happened since 2002? It’s not supposed to be representative of the trend of the 21st century.
The discussion isn’t “has the planet been warming since 1900?”.
And it isn’t “has the cooling/plateau since 2002 has countered all the warming since 1900?”.
This is what it is: “the climate is a complex dynamic system, how do we account for the cooling/plateau since 2002?”
I don’t have time now but I will check your counter examples about FX later.
You’re answer is still not entirely clear. You mixed the word “yes” in with some other thought that makes we still wonder what you believe.
Do you think FX believes the planet has warmed since 1900?
Please, pretty please, just respond in a way that is crystal clear if you think the answer is “yes” or the answer is “no”, thank you.
This is FX who we already know is not willing to deal with what the experts report regarding his OP and how wrong he is as shown by me and **wolfpup **many times.
The answer is yes for his 1900 question.
The order of the cleanliness you demand does not change the overall conclusion.
I know it for a fact, and can show you the ways in which the global mean has changed, as well as how much different regions have warmed, as well as the places that have not warmed, or even cooled. It’s science.
As I said before, I used 2002 because that is the year even the GISS surface station database shows no change, or a very slight drop in the averaged annual mean.
Here is every January since 2002 for five major data sets of global mean temperature anomalies. (does not include the NCDC data)
