Well, if you offer no AGW predictions for him to address, I’ll never know whether you’re right. But if you give him the chance, we’ll all see whether he lives up to my hopes or down to your expectations. Why not give him the chance by spelling out what you believe?
Oh my god! Just present him with the facts! Why hasn’t anyone thought of that?
(Do you honestly think no one has attempted using facts with FXM? Really? Have you even read this thread, or indeed any of the AGW threads in GD?)
The conventional AGW hypothesis makes a number of specific predictions. Your example of average global temperature rises of 1/10 of a degree per decade is a pretty good start. An increase in observed violence of weather effects has been another, and for decades now. The idea is straightforward: with more energy in the system, the system will be more variable. Colder localwinters and hotter summers have both been predicted…and observed.
One example is ocean current shifts. This can lead to previously warm areas getting cold…and previously cold areas getting warm. Also to shifts in patterns of dry and wet.
Also…this is an observational science. The point is to collect data, study it, try to model it and explain it. It isn’t a game with winners and losers (as our resident loser has tried to characterize it.) Scientists don’t win prizes on the basis of predictions, but on the basis of the stronger explanatory models.
It’s just that, at this point, the best models suggest a continued increase in temperatures. Anybody who can come up with a better model, that has superior explanatory power, will be recognized – celebrated and awarded! – by science. This is the other thing the unlettered opposition doesn’t get: science is not ideologically driven, but global warming denialism unquestionably is.
Wait, I haven’t been paying attention, is FX denying the existence of drought now?
I have. Here’s what happens, again and again, in this thread: FXM posts a fact, and is told (a) that it’s irrelevant without being told what would be relevant, or (b) is told some other facts right back.
Imagine you’re him: you hear people talking about AGW – blaming local weather events on it, say – and you never hear 'em spell out a falsifiable prediction about it.
So you start this thread, not knowing what would count as evidence against the AGW position – because nobody tells you – and you point out any fact that (a) comes to your attention, and (b) seems like the opposite of what folks tout as AGW evidence.
What happens next? Sometimes a fact gets met with a fact: if he says a locality is experiencing record-breaking cold, and you tell him another locality is experiencing record-breaking heat – yeah, that’s not going to convince him, and it shouldn’t convince him. He still has no idea what you think would count as evidence against AGW, and so he’ll keep posting facts and you’ll keep posting facts and, well, facts aren’t what’s missing; context is what’s missing.
And the other thing that happens rather a lot in this thread is that he posts a fact, and gets told that it’s irrelevant, and then isn’t told what would be relevant. And he’s still been given no context for telling relevant facts from irrelevant ones, so he keeps posting facts that strike him as relevant.
Note, too, that this is how people would reply if his facts were 100% relevant: they’d reply, in good faith, with facts that were the mirror image of his – or, if arguing in bad faith, they’d tell him that his facts were irrelevant without telling him why.
In neither case would he be short on facts; he’d merely need context.
I’m not actually much interested in his views, or claims, based on his past commentary, in which he has claimed that both warming winters, and cooling winters are both “consistent” with global warming. This is a key issue, one in which past documentation clearly shows predictions and concerns over warmer winters, with less snow. Aside from “global temperatures rising”, warming NH winters is the most basic prediction of the CO2 theory. The expected feedbacks from the greatest warming at the poles, leading to even more warming, is a basic tenant of the theory.
There you go with your strawman argument again. It works better if you address what is written, rather than making up something, then arguing with your own creation. If you are claiming predictions of worse blizzards were made, from global warming, I would agree with you. That prediction also included winters would be shorter as well, and not as cold. But that isn’t what I said.
It’s pretty simple, if you think about it. Because a prediction can be shown to be wrong, after enough time passes. The conundrum facing the global warmer right now, is that they want to have it both ways, so that no matter what happens they can still claim they were right.
Which is a real problem as time passes. It can easily be stated in a clear way, so that there is no possibility of avoiding the issue, but we don’t often see this.
“Basic global warming theory predicts the most warming will be observed over land. Basic global warming theory predicts the most warming will be observed in the northern hemisphere. Basic global warming theory predicts the most warming will be observed during winter. Basic global warming theory predicts the most warming will be observed at high latitudes. Basic global warming theory predicts the most warming will be observed in nighttime lows, rather than daytime highs.”
“Basic global warming theory also predicts that decreasing ice and snow will result in more warming. Basic global warming theory predicts an increase in water vapor, which will result in further warming (water vapor feedback).”
There’s another summary of predictions based on basic global warming theory.
There is no uncertainty about the past predictions of warmer winters, with less snow.
The essential issue is no mystery, nor does any honest person who has followed the global warming issue for the last four decades have any illusion about the predictions for warmer winters.
Fact based reasoning and rational discourse is rare online, because thinking is hard. Typing out some stupid shit or being an insulting dickbag is easy. Like what you did, rather than presenting any evidence, or discussing any fact based science, you post low level idiocy, and consider yourself clever.
Moving on
No, that is a terrible start. No models predict that slow or mild of a change from the enhanced greenhouse effect. That would mean just one degree in the next century, which is lower than any model predicts.
There’s one of those vague claims, with no evidence. If you want to argue, present some evidence. Global warming theory predicts warming in the high latitudes, reducing the temperature differential between the warm tropics and the cold north. Greenhouse-warming sppredicts winters that are warmer, with fewer strong storms, milder temperatures, and polar air masses that are not so cold and do not travel so far south. Global warming should cause less violence, as the jet stream weaken, due to less temperature difference between the cold northern air and the warm southern air masses.
You are avoiding the essence of the matter. Will global warming result in warmer northern hemisphere winters?
** If you average the NH temperature for January, will it show a trend of warming?**
See? It’s a straight forward simple question. Here’s two more.
** If you average the NH temperature for February, will it show a trend of warming?**
** If you average the NH temperature for D-J-F (boreal winter), will it show a trend of warming?**
Does global warming predict the average temperature for boreal winters will trend warmer? (the answer is "Yes, yes it does.)
More vague claims. Will these global warming caused shifts result in warming, or not?
Now on that we can agree. In fact, it is the scientists who do that, and create models based on what is happening, that have the best predictions of future climate changes.
I think we all wish that was how it worked. We really do.
You just went back to the vague arena.
Sadly, that isn’t how it works in the real world. The scientists who have already done what you are talking about have been neither celebrated nor awarded anything.
There’s no way to even know if that is true or not.
Lol, Fear Itself refuses to even define what he means by “global warming.”
He also insists that “There are lots of empirical data that would disprove global warming” but refuses to provide any examples.
Would you mind providing cites, links and quotes for the predictions and the observations?
Which is to be expected. After all, he’s the one who said:
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Because attention whores don’t want anything to end. Much less be shown to be wrong in any way.
[/QUOTE]
Out of context selective quote with no link. How sad. Full quote and context below.
I forgot about GIGOgalloper. His avoidance was legend, but a new challenger has appeared.
And yet you’re the person who keeps bumping this after it dies. Continue wearing that Attention Whore badge right below your Troll badge, and do so proudly.
This is something you say, but it is not what the actual climate scientists whom you would rebut are saying.
You sound like one of those creationists who argue, “Darwin predicts a smooth gradation between species, but we actually see very discrete species: Darwin predicts a hundred species in between lions and cheetahs.” The problem is that Darwin said no such thing, and actually gave some very sophisticated models for discrete species.
Your argument depends on distorting what other people actually say. This is why this conversation is taking place in the Pit: it allows us to call you out on this dishonesty.
This is a false claim. I have never posted that. However, I did catch you deliberately contradicting your own claims in a Great Debates thread which is the reason that I Mod Noted you to stop trolling, there.
If that were true, you would have to stop posting, altogether. I posted one observation: that your claim that predictions of local variations that appeared to contradict AGW theory began only five years ago was a lie, noting that AGW scientists have discussed the possibilities such localized phenomena for decades. You have attempted to sucker me into your little game and now you have begun lying that I have actually made predictions, which I have not done.
I quoted that to make it clear I was talking about Fear Itself. He is the person I was speaking of.
I know, and I didn’t claim you did. The quotes directly above my statement was what I was responding to, not you. So when I stated
that was about Fear Itself, whom TOWP quoted in his post. I don’t know why you Tom, would be confused about this.
All those statements are based on the theoretical assumptions of what will happen with global warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect. None of it is something I came up with.
But this is par for the course here.
Note that once more I was clear and direct, making it impossible to misunderstand the essential points. Here they are again.
Will global warming result in warmer northern hemisphere winters?
** If you average the NH temperature for January, will it show a trend of warming?**
Straight up questions. Here’s two more.
** If you average the NH temperature for February, will it show a trend of warming?**
** If you average the NH temperature for D-J-F (boreal winter), will it show a trend of warming?**
The answers possible are
a)no
b)yes
c) I don’t know
d) Global warming makes no predictions about winter temperatures at all
I already answered them, but it is interesting that nobody else has even mentioned these key questions.
Of course the SciAm article doesn’t contain the words “colder”, “hotter”, much less “colder local winters”, or “hotter summers”. Must be why you didn’t simply quote part of it to support your claim.
We know what you wrote, it’s still there in black and white. It’s just not what I wrote.
Here it is with out the quotes, so you can easily quote and respond.
Somehow, and this just happened, in the last five years, colder winters, rather than being a challenge to the models (which do not predict this), have become EVIDENCE that global warming is happening.
Would this have happened if winters were trending warmer? Of course not, that would seem like madness.
But now, cold spells, winter storms, record cold, record snowfall, it’s evidence FOR global warming.
Certainly in the past there have been multiple scientists, and theories, that increasing CO2 might result in colder conditions, even the onset of another glacier period of the current ice age. (technical language there, we are still in an ice age, just the warm period of it)
But that isn’t what I stated. I certainly wouldn’t make the claim that nobody ever predicted colder conditions would result from global warming. I was specific,** in that in the last five years, colder conditions are now being used as evidence FOR global warming**.
The idea that global warming will result in another ice age, is an interesting subject, the predictions that warming conditions, due to human caused higher CO2 levels. might result in a sudden global cooling. The ocean circulation shut down (used in The Day After Tomorrow) is probably the best known, but there are others.
Until recently, all of them were considered debunked, with out any merit.
The Coming Ice Age, by Betty Friedan
The ice age scare of the seventies, mentioned here by none other than Lamb.
And of course Hamaker and Weaver, whom many probably never heard of. If you have 48 minutes to kill, the documentary on their ideas is a fascinating little look back in time.
Ewing and Donn, Hamaker and Weaver, they were quite clear in their predictions, that warming would result in the onset of a glacier period. I wasn’t talking about them, but it’s certainly on topic.
It speaks of heat waves, and extreme weather patterns, which is what I cited it to support.
It also didn’t give NFL scores, so I guess it’s flawed there, too. Any climate model that doesn’t predict NFL scores is incomplete.
I’m certain that most everyone is well aware of the predictions of “an increase in heat waves”, due to global warming.
That wasn’t what you were asked about.
What I don’t understand is why everyone doesn’t have this moron on their ignore list yet?