Not quite as hopeful…
Okay, I have to ask: why is it important that he start to define the terms? You’re both trying to define the terms to your mutual agreement. It seems to me that if you’re genuinely interested in having a serious discussion, leaving any vitriol/annoyance/snark/childishness aside might be more productive.
But maybe by the time this posts FX will have satisfied your desire and started the ball off. Fingers crossed.
The evidence that FX misdirects is already obvious to many, the reality is that he will always avoid what the “nobody” scientists at NASA and GISS conclude, post #3 is always avoided. It does not matter is NASA follows the most common definition of warming in this context, warming is defined as the increase of the average temperature on Earth.
FX’s cherry picks are clear once one looks at what the winters are doing in the long view with the tool that he uses to only look at the short trend:
Winters have been getting warmer on average as “nobody” NASA researcher Gavin Schmidt reports.
Because he’s the one begging off on “semantics” and claiming we need to “define” such esoteric technical terms as “warming” and “cooling”. He makes it a semantics argument, he gets to start.
I’m perfectly happy to use the common definitions - the ones where “warming” and “cooling” are not equivalences, and where “regional” and “global” aren’t synonyms.
Straight-up asking him questions hasn’t been really productive, thus far. I get shit like “MYOB” - that’s a woooonderful debate strategy, that is.
Let me try to explain why by example; it’s just one example of many, and it’s one I’ve talked about before but it’s especially relevant here, so bear with me.
FX will make statements like “let me show you why the claim “water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver” is a made up and false statement” (reference) and then say that ““Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing”, there isn’t any evidence that such a statement exists, except where somebody made it up. You won’t find it in a textbook, or any scientific paper, or even on a real climate science page.” (reference). When I point out here and here that you most certainly can, there is no response for a long time. Eventually, after lots of prodding, he claimed somewhere in the Pit (I don’t have the link handy) that what he meant was that that exact sentence doesn’t appear in any climate science textbook. :rolleyes: Probably not – what textbooks have is entire chapters discussing the feedback behavior of water wapor; this is fundamental and basic science.
These are the kinds of games he plays. And I’m not saying this to be snarky or insulting but to answer your question. He engages in semantics when he is backed into a corner over incorrect claims. So now it becomes a new semantic game of “slow warming” = “cooling”, using, as I’ve pointed out, painfully convoluted and cherry picked data sets to try to show the point. A point which, as I and many others have pointed out, is irrelevant in the first place (see below). It’s basically impossible to have a serious discussion with him.
This is the kind of laughably ludicrous drivel that was presumably the intent of starting this absurd thread in the first place. The scientific issue here is to better understand regional climate anomalies; in particular, to more accurately model persistent negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. In the delusional world of denialism, however, it somehow becomes perverted into a pretext for discrediting AGW. That’s why we get (further on) phrases like “IF this really is from CO2 …” and links to garbage papers like Shaviv with misinterpretations thereof trying to blame solar variations for everything. Which is the implied premise in the OP, else one would wonder what the hell the point ever was of starting this otherwise pointless thread. As indeed a number of astute posters here have already pointed out.
I checked. And then I provided the actual annual means from 1980 to 2013 in case anyone wanted to make their own plots with meaningful data.
The emotional response is counterproductive, and I see it as a sign of unscientific behavior. If GISS shows a -.10 C trend for a 14 year period, that means a cooling trend. If GISS shows a .06 C trend, that is a warming trend. By definition a 14 year period is a short term trend, and a 30 year trend is a longer period, and 1930-2013 is a long term trend.
12000 bp to present is a long term trend. But bringing in long term trends is just a sidetrack to avoid looking at recent changes, which are obvious, and unexpected. As it was stated, no model predicted winter cooling, and only 10% predicted a flat trend for winters.
In fact, winter is predicted by 90% of the models as showing the most warming, especially at high latitudes.
So much for that, eh? No defining of terms yet.
There’s nothing “emotional” about pointing out the facts that I observe. As for “unscientific”, anyone interested in a scientific discussion would have based it on any of the topics actually being discussed in the papers that have been referenced here or many others instead of a delusional misrepresentation of them. The thread title of a science-focused discussion might have been “Is the recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling?” (OP paper), “Is accelerated Arctic warming creating colder continental winters?” (Overland, 2011), or “What causes asymmetical seasonal temperature trends?” (Cohen, 2012). If anyone is interested in the science pertinent to this particular discussion, I provided a brief summary here.
But what we get from you instead is a topic title that reads like the blaring headline of a cheap tabloid found at supermarket checkouts instead of a science article, and all the pseudo-scientific distortions and claptrap to match including the hilarious implication that AGW is now a failed theory. Which isn’t surprising, given your history and obvious agenda on this subject.
All right. Again, stay focused or prepare to be closed. I have deep doubts anything’s being accomplished here and all parties should head to a neutral corner and take a break.
Nature published a peer reviewed paper showing that since 2001 the planet has not warmed. I checked all the data, and even GISS shows slight cooling since 2002. It is clear from looking at the GISS data that the cooling NH cold season, and especially the winter, is the reason the global mean is negative for a trend.
We could view each season, but just using the GISS trend for NH warm season shows warming +.06 C
Warming means that over the time period the mean is going up, so that it is on average warmer at the end of thr time period, than at the start.
The GISS trend for NH cold season shows cooling, - .10 C, which is greater than the warm season warming, hence the GISS trend for the entire year, 2002-2013 shows cooling.
Which is unexpected, and the winter cooling is masking the warming that is happening the rest of the year.
The NCDC, HADcrut, MSU, RSS and Crutemp all agree with GISS, though some show much greater cooling for the NH cold season, and especially winter, -.16 C for the global trend DJF 2002-2013 from the NCDC
THE NCDC DATA show much more cooling for the same period. (GISS, like all of them, does no match any other data set)
You can check the major data sets at woodfortrees, but not at any great level of detail.
CRUTem3 NH clearly shows the cooling for DJFM, and even the RSS MSU satellite data shows the winter trend, even at a global level.
Woodfortrees key
Red is December
Blue is January
Purple is February
Green is March
And for good measure the GISS LOTI data from woodfortrees
If you disagree with any of this, we can have a debate. A stupid short debate, as it’s impossible to deny that ALL the data sets agree that there has been slight cooling.
If you start the GISS trend in 1997 you can get an annual trend of +.11 C
However, the winter trend starting in 1997 is already negative. So something changed after 2000, so that
The NCDC data show the NH winter trend from 1998 at -.17 C a decade. The SH summer trend is positive. +.01C
Which is why I used 2002, as even GISS shows a global cooling trend starting then. But many other data sets show cooling since 2000, or before.
NH boreal winter trends are negative since 1988 in large areas, all are negative since 1992. What does it mean?
…and what do the primary two papers cited by that paper as their evidence for this say (my emphases)?
“**Claims that global warming is not occurring **that are derived
from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore
this natural variability and are misleading”(Easterling, D. R. & Wehner, M. F. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36)
and
“The resultant adjusted data show clearly,
both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that
the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely
these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably
steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There
is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global
warming”(Foster, G. & Rahmstorf, S. Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 6)
There you go, then.
Now, care to define the terms “cooling” and “warming”?
There are two unrelated clims there.
“Claims that global warming is not occurring”
and
“The resultant adjusted data”
Neither means anything in regards to what is observed. The first is saying, as we have seen multiple times in this topic, “Just because there is a cooling trend for 17 years that doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming”.
The second is claiming “If we remove the sun (which is funny of course), ocean and wind changes, air pollution, and volcanoes, the global mean still went up”
Neither negates the observations, of factual data. In an ironic twist, both claims are the result of realizing that there has been no increase (trend) in the global mean.
The first says it doesn’t mean anything, the second says all kinds of things caused it, and they hadn’t happened, we would see warming.
Neither says it didn’t happen. The slight decrease in the global mean.
That first one is a straw man. The second one you claimed before that it was not possible.
You are still ignoring reports that in reality there was no cooling.
I’m completely baffled why the three of you aren’t eager to define the terms you keep arguing over again and again. Seriously. In any debate, making sure that both sides are using the same definitions for key concept words is key. I would say that it is even more important in a debate about something as empirical as science. Would one of you just start do the others then then either agree or disagree and tweak the definitions? Sheeze. Without this, none of you are going to be able to assess where the specific points of disagreement are. And there has to be someplace where the thoughts diverge.
Warming:
Cooling:
Any other terms you three feel might not be being used the same by all participants?
Ready…GO!
I don’t need to define the terms cooling or warming, it’s just a semantic diversion, the last move of desperation.
:rolleyes:
Post #601.
Why is this baffling to you … just asking …
Meh, still waiting for any researcher from NASA, GISS and others that agrees that your cherry picks are meaningful, warming is still happening.
Still others point out that with the recent updates to the data sets the so called pause may not be there in the surface temperatures.
I’ve been in discussions where the positions of the debaters are not fully understood because not everyone is using the same terms the same way. When that problem comes to light, it’s almost a relief, because so often everyone can understand each other better when they know what the other person meant by X.
The baffling part to me is that this is Logic 101, or Debating 101. And I would think that the people that would have the greets appreciation for precision in language would be those in the science field.
Indeed, you are correct … pretty sure that doesn’t happen here very much. There’s a polarity to the conversation, and not just here on the SDMB. What we see carrying on is just a reflection of society* in general in this matter. But on the bright side, there is a mess of exciting research going on.
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/01/global-warming-may-trigger-winter-cooling
Those who still deny that it is happening, I just don’t understand that mindset.