Yes, if you are confident that colder winters are the result of global warming you should have no problem predicting that the trend will continue and that if it doesn’t, it’s evidence that you are wrong. But warmists never make these kind of statements, which shows that at some level they are fully aware that they are full of shit.
They are like psychics who refuse to put their claimed abilities to a controlled test.
But it’s so much worse than that. If the winter trend changes, and once again we see a drastic warming trend, that now becomes “proof”, or “the result of” AGW. Or something will be used to “explain” it. No matter what actually happens, it is always going to be AGW. The “logic” of this is simple. “Because we know global warming is happening, it has to be because of global warming”
So no matter what happens, it’s global warming. This logic doesn’t bother the true believer, in fact, it makes perfect sense to them. They also think being an insulting fuckbag is the way to convince skeptics that they are right about everything.
Brazil- Say, for example, the Arctic heats up by 5 degrees. Let’s say this changes the behavior of the atmosphere such that a corresponding area adjacent to the Arctic cools down by 4 degrees. In aggregate, wouldn’t you say that we have witnessed overall (global) warming?
That seems to be the story. The exact way it plays out may not have been predicted, but for a long time people have been predicting that melting Arctic ice will mean more sunlight is absorbed (by the sea) rather than reflected (by the ice) from that region of the globe.
You do have a point against regional warming proponents, of course.
There is another idiot thing the true believer does, which goes hand in hand with the way they modify their view of reality, so that their belief can’t be challenged. Snow cover, as well as the amount of snow, is considered a key piece of evidence for global warming. AGW leads to LESS snow, less snow cover, a shorter snow season, which of course makes sense with warmer winters. Winter warming is a key prediction of AGW. And if it was still happening, you can be damn sure it would be used as evidence, all the time. There is no doubt in any honest mind that warmer winters were both predicted, and used as evidence of AGW. The first few events were handwaved away by warmers, but studied with great interest by climate scientists. But take a look for yourself, which you should know by now, is my method of discussing science. Show you the data.
December snow cover
January snow cover
February Snow cover
Check out the Europe chart. February as well
Now what the climate fuckhead is already doing, is now trying to claim “in a warmer world there will be more snow”. I’m not kidding, I sure the fuck wish I was. This is actually put forth by the fuckhead, no joking intended. Faced with facts impossible to handwave away, or ignore any longer, they simply switch the goalpost, and claim victory.
Now colder winters are proof of global warming.
More snow is a sign of warming.
It’s a mindfuck level, ratshit crazy sort of talk, and they just don’t see it. this level of rabid belief, in regards to scientific matters, is a dangerous fucking situation. It goes far beyond the climategate level of shithouse rat crazy.
Yes, that would be considered a gain in the global energy balance. And when calculating the global means that is exactly what is done, the total area measured is used to get a single figure.
The GISS zonal mean shows the different anomalies by latitude, which is more important than the global mean. Because HOW the earth changes is a critical issue in regards to the theory. We know the planet warms and cools, and always has. But for it to change, and change rapidly, from a single cause, in this case CO2 levels, we should see certain changes that are not like the natural signals.
In fact, the only way to tell what influence on temperature mankind is having by increasing the CO2 levels, is to measure the changes that the theory says we should observe. This is an absolute requirement for a theory.
It would be cherry picking to only look at the snow cover for winter, so look at all of the data.
We are NOT seeing a cooling earth, like the sixties and seventies clearly show. That’s what makes the asymmetric climate change currently observed so damn interesting.
Astute readers will recall the mention of early and heavy snow in the NH as a possible reason for the climate change observed.
October snowfall
That is an undeniable pattern. November also shows a pattern
What is causing that? I consider that a very important question.
The December snow also raises questions.
The Eurasia data shows it in stark detail.
If by “global warming,” you mean an increase in average global surface temperatures, then my answer to that question is “yes.”
I do not deny that average global surface temperatures have increased since 1950.
Well fine, but in that case it is intellectually dishonest to use specific weather events as confirmation of or evidence of global warming. The relevant evidence would be average global surface temperatures and nothing more.
So let’s look only at average global surface temperatures. It’s clear that (1) the warmists shot way too high in predicting global surface temperatures; and (2) global surface temperatures have been rather flat for the last 15 years. That’s a big problem for warmists.
So what?
My point was against anyone who predicts stuff only after the fact. Such predictions are not predictions at all. They are just post-hoc rationalizations.
Exactly. And that irks me.
Of course it also irks me that pretty much nobody, the media, the climate warmists, the wattsupwitdat skeptics, even the GISS and MOCR crowds, nobody is much talking about the reality at the moment.
The Fall trend
The Winter trend
The summer trend
and the Global mean
That isn’t an AGW signal. It’s not even close to it.
With the vast increase in greenhouse gases since 2002, if the theory was correct, we should not be seeing that sort of change.
Hell, it shows up in a twenty year trend.
No model predicted that. It doesn’t fit any of the theories.
It’s like mother nature is fucking with everybody.
As they say, predictions are hard – especially about the future.
That said, Warren Meyer came up with a simple climate model which is actually doing pretty well. He combined (1) modest warming due to emergence from the Little Ice Age; (2) modest warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere; and (3) cyclical warming and cooling trends.
I believe he is probably correct in pointing out that warmists all overshot in their estimates because they assumed that cyclical warming was primarily due to CO2 emissions.
That 63 year cycle he mentions actually has a name, based on the scientist who discovered it.
Well I went and checked and maybe he rediscovered the Bruckner cycle, one could argue either way.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/208079?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103713496211
What was fucking awesome was while looking around I found that none other than Briffa “discovered” the Bruckner cycles back in the seventies when he was working with tree rings. After somebody told him about Bruckner, he never mentioned them again.
Bruckner seems to be a real problem for warmists. Maybe that’s why they never mention him.
Who the fuck knows?
Back in the real world, it’s snowing again in Bismarck, ND
That makes eight months of snow and cold now. Eight fucking months. I’m sick of this global warming.
Well natural cycles are a problem for warmists only on the down side. On the upside of the cycle, they are great for warmists because the upward trend in temperatures can be blamed on man. It seems pretty clear to me that’s what’s happening now, i.e. that much of the warming between the 70s and the late 90s was due to natural cycles.
20 year trend for February (usually the coldest month in the NH)
- 0.14 C
August trend (usually the hottest month in the NH)
0.19 C
Notice the drastic difference, even as the February trend is - .14 C in both maps
Which winters? A particular region, or global temperature anomaly during winter season? Only the second refers to AGW.
Vast conspiracy? Corporate support for deniers has been known the last few years. See the CBC denial machine documentary for details.
That’s because, as skeptics argue, the study of global warming is complex. The problem is that the argument works both ways.
To resolve that, we need to separate the occurrence of AGW with the results. The occurrence can be shown through higher global temperature anomaly, and that’s been proven. The pauses are exactly that.
To deal with the second, we need to look at feedbacks. A lengthy list about that was shared earlier.
Winter trend? Globally, there is none.
Extreme weather is not proof of global warming. Rather, the latter is shown through increasing temperature anomaly globally using various instruments.
Extreme weather is the result of the same.
AGW doesn’t necessarily lead to less snow cover. During certain years, it may be colder than average, and during others warmer. That’s because ave. temperature anomaly may increase or decrease across several years.
Given that, what is GW? It refers to the upward trend line of ave. temperature anomaly across several decades. More details here:
Notice that the blue trend lines go downward, but the longer red trend line goes upward. That’s global warming.
How is this AGW? More details can be found in the NAS final report.
How is this connected to extreme weather events? There are many scientific studies that refer to this, and several are mentioned in the NAS report.
This is not helpful because the world is not supposed to be used as an experiment.
That isn’t what I said, and it isn’t a response to the issue of theory and observation. Like with Einstein’s theory, it predicted the mass of the sun would warp spacetime, so that light from stars would be bent by a strong gravity field. Observations during an eclipse proved that light is bent by a large mass, which confirmed the theory.
It’s a key issue of science, because a theory is a scientific explanation of how the Universe works. If the Universe is observed and reality does not match theory, the theory is not right.
Careful measurement of the actual Universe is called science, and observing changes to try and confirm a theory is science. It’s exactly why Cohen et al 2012 notes that the models predict the most warming in boreal winters. And why after over two decades of seeing a cooling trend for boreal winters, it can’t be considered natural variation, so the models are all wrong. They predicted changes that did not happen.
The honest scientist is more interested in knowing why, and changing the models so they can predict the observed changes, not this bullshit we see of trying to change the data, or change the past, to make reality fit the models.
According to the data, the chemistry of the atmosphere has changed, and mankind is part of the reason for the changes. There are people who deny this, but most rational people accept this as factual. Measurement of brightness temperature by satellites tell us that more heat is being retained by the oceans and surface of the planet, and theory says this is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. PHYSICS!
But theory also assumes what the result of this will be, and that is where currently the wheels fall off. We are not seeing the expected changes in the atmosphere, or the surface temperatures, and certainly not in the ocean temperatures.
This doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are not increasing, or that the satellite data is fucked. It means that the planet isn’t changing as expected.
Nature has this annoying tendency to behave in unexpected ways, and the reaction to increased CO2 levels so far has not been as predicted. Real science is about discovering why.
Which brings us to the real conflict among researchers and thinkers. Forget about the whole “we have to stop burning shit or else” clusterfuck that seemingly dominates politics and true believers.
What the fuck is actually happening?
It certainly doesn’t help that the sun just finished the largest maximum in 5000 years, and then went quiet . Which was also completely unexpected. In 2005 NASA experts were predicting a grand maximum, the largest activity ever. Instead, quiet sun.
That the sun influences the climate (Bruckner cycles as well as other science) is common knowledge. It’s fucking SCIENCE!
The problem is, based on unproven theory, the “CO2 will kill billions crowd” cried wolf far too early, and with far too much emotion and venom, for anyone who doubted them. Now that there predictions have failed, the entire situation is far too much political hay, and far too little actual science. Or honest discussion of science.
Like the goddamn NCDC data being changed again.
Motherfuckers at NOAA/NCDC changed the past once more. Trying to erase the obvious problems by changing the past.
Fuck that shit. It makes it almost impossible to do real science when somebody is fucking with the actual data.
I’ve been on the fence mostly in regards to this, but now it’s fucking obvious. They actually changed the past data to make it seem like there has been more warming (US data only).
How fucked up is that?