Please give me three specific examples.
Also, please let me know what you mean by “global warming” – is it simply the claim that global surface temperatures have been increasing? Or something more?
Global warming describes global climate trends, not local weather. So there is no local weather condition that is inconsistent with global warming. Extreme weather, including drought and flooding, increases with global warming. Nice weather is not inconsistent with global warming. The only reason all this sounds insane to you is you lack the understanding of global climate science.
With out defining and explaining global warming theory, nothing will matter. But even if you use the “global annual mean surface and ocean temperatures rising”, there is still an out. Due to the long time period, even if global temperatures drop, and we actual measure decades of cooling, that won’t matter either. Some other reason will be discovered to explain why “global warming is being prevented”, and in the future global warming will start up again. Or global warming will actually be blamed for causing the cooling. (this isn’t speculation, it already has happened)
MIT Scientists Explain How Global Warming is ‘Temporarily’ Cooling Antarctica
So it’s the perfect nonscientific idea, for nothing can disprove it, in any way.
In essence, it won’t matter if Chicago sees the coldest year ever recorded in history, that is global warming. So is a warm winter with little snow. No matter what the weather does, it’s global warming.
Even if the opposite occurs, then that will be global warming. Nothing an stand before global warming, because it includes everything.
See? Nice weather, bad weather, extreme weather, regular weather, none of it is “inconsistent with global warming”. You can point at anything and say it’s global warming.
Oh yeah, that’s the problem with global warming. Lack of understanding. Global warming is perfect, it’s all those people who can’t understand it, they are the real problem.
At which point it’s actually hard to tell what is sarcasm, and what is for reals, in all the above.
According to the theory, if winters are cooling while summers warm, that disproves it.
According to the theory, if the oceans warm while the land cools, that disproves it
According to the theory if night time lows don’t rise, but daytime highs do, that disproves it.
None of that means rising CO2 levels aren’t causing changes in the radiation balance, nor does it mean CO2 levels aren’t rising from fossil fuel use. It means the theoretical changes predicted by an enhanced greenhouse effect, from CO2 levels, aren’t happening, which is what the theory is about.
That’s right. Because weather and climate are two different things. Global warming causes extreme local weather. Extreme heat. Extreme cold. Extreme drought. Extreme rain. You keep pointing at weather extremes as if that disproves global warming. It doesn’t. Extreme weather is why we should reduce the man-made causes of global warming.
What kind of local weather, in your mind, would you predict would be completely consistent with global warming? What kind of local weather, in your mind, should not occur with global warming?
There are times when I am torn between the desire to keep a joke going, because it’s just so damn funny, and the desire to explain why it is beyond stupid, and spoil the joke. Like right now. I mean, it would be funnier to just let it continue, but after 5 years a joke just gets old.
WTF???
Now if Fear Itself was known to be a prankster, we would know he’s joking. He can’t be serious, it’s satire, or sarcasm, it’s a joke answer. But he’s deadly serious, so what the fuck? Seriously?
See? I mean, we fucking know he isn’t joking about this shit. It’s serious business. That was his response to a very long science filled post, which includes a main point in this thread.
“Obviously we are seeing global warming, just not the way it was predicted.”
And another key point as well.
“Here’s the thing. Looking at the data, it’s obvious that colder winters are the problem. Not just for Georgia and Florida, but the entire NH yearly record is being skewed by the cold winters. Fuck, if winter temps just had stayed the same, we would see global warming for the last decade.”
It’s funny because I explained, with sources and everything, why Atlanta wasn’t a weather event, it shows a climate event. That’s the point of linking to long term data, and showing trends. Yet in all seriousness, Fear and others think it’s about weather still.
Priceless.
But if gets even better.
Can it get any funnier than that? I mean, on the one hand “Because weather and climate (global warming) are two different things”, and right after saying this, we get a claim that “Global warming causes extreme local weather”. And I actually believe it’s not satire. He actually means this.
“Weather isn’t climate, except when extreme weather is caused by global warming” It’s classic pseudoscience, it’s completely irrational thinking.
No, I keep pointing out that any weather at all can be blamed on global warming. There isn’t any weather that can’t be blamed on global warming, that’s the joke here. On the one hand, you say no weather can disprove global warming, then turn around and claim global warming is changing the weather. Making it “more extreme”.
At which point, if we use your own definition of things, we can actually debunk global warming, using your own definition. You claim global warming is causing “more extreme weather”, and we should stop it.
This is what is usually very hard to get, a claim about global warming. Now we can look at weather history and see if that is true.
And … it’s not. There are no trends for rainfall at all. Which is exactly why actual scientist have told us the California drought isn’t from global warming. In fact, the long term trend for California shows … no trend at all for rainfall. In fact, the one month which does show a trend that is almost significant, is December. The long term trend is +.6 inches, meaningless really, but the thrity year trend is +5.75 inches, which is very large. The annual Dec rainfall is just 3.61"
But the annual trend is flat. The long term trend for California is flat. The CONUS trend is slightly up.
The almost unheard of amounts of rain this December will no doubt push that trend even higher.
The most obvious thing is that it isn’t weather, it’s climate that matters. Weather over time. Precipitation is more important than temperatures. For several important reasons.
There are far more precipitation stations than temperature stations. Rain and snow records are more extensive than temperature data. Looking at precipitation tells a lot about climate. Much more than temperature.
And while large urban centers can heavily influence temperatures, rain and snow not as much. In fact, extensive data shows pollution and large urban areas may actually increase rainfall, down wind. That’s an entire subject right there btw.
But the precipitation data clearly shows no increase in extreme events from the global warming effect can be detected. In fact,looking at an important agricultural area shows if anything, recent climate is much less extreme, with no severe extended droughts like happened in the 30s and 50s.
Same for temperatures, recent climate shows less extremes than in the past. The data tells us the climate isn’t going crazy at all.
Unless it is of course. Hahaha that is a data problem right there. If that graphic was for real, we would be in deep shit.
If limited to yes or no…yes. The California/southwest drought is not over.
The beauty of a scientific approach to reality, is in the facts, which are beautiful, unlike rhetoric and ignorance, which is almost always ugly and ignorant.
The ugly ignorance claims it rained for a couple of days, and people are stupid for thinking the drought is over.
While in reality, Shasta (the largest reservoir) received a huge amount of rain, and the data shows this clearly.
The lake gained over 11 billion gallons since the 1st of December.
Warm Springs reservoir has already received as much rain as it saw for the entire last year.
It’s not even stupid to think the drought broke, when you see more rain and water in two weeks than was experienced in an entire previous year.
A closer look at Shasta show two inches in the last day. That beautiful scientific chart is far more informative than any of the media scare stories, or the idiot stew of somebody who thinks what happened outside their house is all that matters.
That is an indication of how severe the drought is, not an indication that the rainfall is sufficient to end it.
The entire last year has been very, very dry.
Does that seem like a lot of water to you?
Shasta’s capacity is 4,552,000 acre-feet, or 1.483 trillion gallons.
The 11 billion gallons alluded to is less than one per cent of the reservoir’s capacity.
Nice to know the drought’s over, eh?
Since I looked at the actual data, I know he is correct.
Shasta, which already has received over 440,000 AF in just December, went from 23% of capacity to 33% in the last month, which makes scientific sense, since it’s total storage is 4,552,000, it received 10% of it’s entire capacity.
Pretty good for “a couple of days rain”. Haha that is joke, it rained there most every day since the first of December. To be specific, it didn’t rain for two days there in December.
The facts, they are better than what somebody just says.
Oh, and yeah, 400,000 AF is a lot of water. More than most of the reservoirs in California can even hold.
I’m pretty sure I munged the calculation into gallons. It should have been more like 111 million gallons.
Less than ten per cent of the reservoir’s capacity.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/weird-weather-lingers-alaskas-largest-city-27710578
I’m sick of this Global Warming!
Fear Itself, do you agree with these examples?
Thank you. It just goes to show how idiotic it is to make firm pronouncements based on speculative climate models.
I would have to agree, depending of course on how you define the word “drought.” If you define it as a long period without a big rainstorm, it may be a different story.
That’s the spirit! Look at one tiny little event, and call it global warming!
Ignore the scientific data, which is interested in why Alaska is cooling.
Your optimism after all this time is refreshing.
Has the world actually been cooling since 2002?
To me it’s a fascinating thing to recognize something before a peer reviewed “actual scientific paper” comes out with it. Because of the wealth of available data online, it’s actually possible to do research, to learn shit about our planet. Stuff that would be almost impossible with out the data and tools that anyone can use online.
It was in 2010 that I knew there was something wrong with the official story, about global warming. It’s not possible for the NH winters to cool when greenhouse forcing is the cause of climate change. Not for a long term trend, it goes directly against the theory.
That the trend has become even more obvious, four years later on, really is mind blowing. Finding the trend goes back to 1988, for large regions, is so against the “official story”, I suspect hubris as a leading cause for the ignorance.
How is it possible for all the leading researchers to miss it? For those still reading here, the Feb trend pretty much matches the areas Cohen et al (and now others) “discovered” were cooling, in defiance of basic global warming theory.
To finally read a paper that states what is obvious, gives me a little tingle. It really does.
I would argue that it’s mostly February, but even January shows the obvious trend since 1998, and of course even D-J-F shows clearly from 2002 a negative trend.
That is flat out impossible according to global warming theory. And if it were some solar shading, from air pollution, we should see an annual trend, not just a cooling trend for winter. Of course some will argue that even the summer trend shows cooling in large areas.
In any case, with the huge increase in greenhouse forcing, since 2000, we should see even more warming in boreal winters. Not a negative trend.
I actually like Cohen’s hypothesis/theory that it’s due to decreasing arctic sea ice, and the heavy early snow is acting as a negative feedback, both because the facts support that, and it will drive the fuckhead nuts, who think water vapor is only a positive feedback.
If the arctic is actually reacting in a manner that causes drastic cooling for late winter, and it’s actually due to a warming arctic (which is by no means settled of course), it makes the hubris of armchair idiots obvious.
That they absolutely resist even the idea that boreal winters are cooling, that’s just icing on the proverbial cake.
I’m not kidding. I’ve watched people who should know better look at the data, and completely dismiss it as having any meaning at all. Or worse, they realize that somehow it’s meaningful, so they try to claim it’s due to global warming, and the theory predicted this.
Which is
priceless
Now to speak to the serious person, about recent changes.
When looking at a GISS map, it always shows the global data, there isn’t any way to get hemisphere trends out of their app. For that, you have to use something like the NCDC app.
So when you look at the obvious NH cooling, it still shows a rise, because it’s global data. But looking at just the NH boreal winter land data from 1995-2014, it’s a cooling trend.
What is fucked up about this, is the NH ocean shows warming for that same time period.
And the SH land shows warming. But the ocean shows cooling.
Got all that?
NH land, cooling
NH ocean, warming
SH land, warming
SH ocean, cooling
this is for boreal winter, 1995-2014
Going back to basic CO2 theory, land warms faster than ocean
Winter warms faster than summer
NH warms faster than SH
Arctic feedback leads to even more warming
So for a twenty year trend, we have NH winter cooling, not warming
but NH ocean warming, even as land cools
and the southern hemisphere warming, as the northern cools
as well as SH summer land warming asthe oceans cool
all of which is against the theory. None of that is explained by theory, or the models based on the theory.
Now it is possible it’s all just some strange anomaly, some unexpected turn of events, and soon everything will get back on track, and we will see the expected changes, rather than this crazy opposite world of global warming gone wild
But if not, and what we are observing is actually BECAUSE of changes we made to the atmosphere, then global warming is going to be something far different than the IPCC and the hubris laden experts have been trying to cram down our throats for the last two decades, or longer.
Based on nothing more than a lifetime of experience, and a small understanding of nature, I say it’s going to be neither.