You are still doing what TOWP has been trying to rationally explain to you. Rather than rebutting anything, or presenting any evidence, research, data or even a logical argument, you just say “that is wrong”, which is a useless tactic. The only thing worse would be to follow it up with some insipid insult
Meanwhile, the scientific matters are ignored.
So one more time.
According to global warming theory,
Will global warming result in warmer northern hemisphere winters?
If you average the NH temperature for January, will it show a trend of warming?
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?
I don’t know. Poor I would guess, based on the various claims that you have made that AGW predicts without ever providing a reference to an actual prediction.
Your Northern Hemisphere claims are an example. You keep insisting that Global Warming “predicts” various scenarios without actually providing the source for your claim. Then you run back and present some factoids that may or may not have any relevance to the discussion. (Or, as you did in GD, you will make opposing claims, even in the same post.)
The article doesn’t seem to say anything about colder summers or hotter winters. Let alone point to specific predictions made or specific observations made.
So I am starting to think you are lying, but perhaps I missed something:
Please quote the article where it makes specific reference to predictions of colder winters and/or hotter summers; as well as observations of the same.
But that wasn’t your claim. You made a specific claim about predictions of hotter summers and colder winters. And of observations of the same.
If your claim is true, that would be very interesting to me. But it looks like you are just making stuff up.
Let’s do this:
Who predicted these colder winters and hotter summers; what year and month did they do it; and where were these predictions published?
:shrug: If you had made a claim about climate models predicting NFL scores, I would ask you to back up your claim. But you didn’t. Your claim was about predictions (and observations) of hotter summers and colder winters.
So please back up your claim. Who predicted these colder winters and hotter summers; what year and month did they do it; and where were these predictions published?
Your optimism that he will back up his bullshit is still so surprising. You really think he, or anyone else, is going to somehow pull a prediction from the past up, that claims winters would get colder? Even regionally?
It’s never going to happen, and I can explain why. No model, not one, ever predicts cooling winter trends, for anywhere. Much less early winters, or late springs, or an increase in seasonal snowfall, and especially not a cooling trend globally for boreal winters. Not only do none of the GCMs predict this, they can’t be made to predict such behavior. Global warming theory does not predict, much less explain a cooling trend for boreal winters. I’ve only posted the source for this a dozen times in the last year.
Which is why somebody telling a big fat lie about it is so damn funny.
What complete horseshit. But goddamn, let’s shut you up about it, because your pernicious attempt to slander my efforts at fighting ignorance, backed by a Mod badge, might carry a little more weight than the usual dumb as shit trolls here.
Now if your response is “Hey, I just learned something, thanks FXM, (even though I still hate your fucking guts)”, then you are probably not a fuckhead. If your response is to still try and come up with some way to be right, when it’s actually impossible to rationally do so, then you are certainly a fuckhead, and there is no helping you.
So once again
“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.”
Do I also have to educate you on the other basic stuff?
“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).”
Because if you don’t already know that both those statements are 100% factual, you have no business posting in this thread. Seriously. You are way over your head if you need a source for either one of those.
Now, if you took 5 minutes and read the sources provided, you probably saw the rest of the information needed to answer the simple straightforward questions I asked. (the sources contain a lot more than what I quoted in the thread)
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?
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?
Don’t be deluded into thinking I actually think any global warmer can, or will, honestly answer the questions. If you didn’t the first two times they appeared, there is little chance you will now.
It’s why I find it so
priceless
…
Here’s some even more important questions.
Does global warming theory predict warmer northern hemisphere winters?
Does global warming theory predict the NH temperatures for D-J-F (boreal winter), to increase over time?
(I find it extremely funny that I have to educate the people who firmly believe in global warming, what global warming actually means)
I think the odds are against it, but I believe he should have a chance to back up his claims.
Believe it or not, I have an open mind about this. If there’s a climatologist with a track record of making interesting, accurate, bona fide predictions, then I will take what he says seriously.
But yes, the more likely scenario is that he will dodge, weave, evade, obfuscate, and/or invent excuses for his utter failure to back up his bullshit. But that’s fine too, because it will be fun to rub it in his face.
Trinopus, if you are reading this I have a very simple question for you:
Who made these predictions; what year and month were they made; and where were they published?
The point is that the colder winters are local phenomena.
As a hypothetical example, global warming, by increasing the temperature of ocean currents, might disrupt the Gulf Stream, diverting it southward. Europe would begin to suffer very cold winters. And yet this does not contradict the overall warming of the earth; parts of Africa would become warmer, and the overall average isn’t effected. Meanwhile, the global average continues to climb, because of energy trapping under greenhouse gas layers.
You keep trying to insist that this is a contradiction of some sort, and it just plain isn’t.
Worse, even if you were right, and no-one ever predicted that local winters would, in some places, be colder – so what? Even if you were completely right about this, how in fuck does it contradict overall global warming? Even if the effect were a total surprise to everyone concerned – how does this make the earth’s average temperature not observably higher than it used to be?
What do you think you’re gaining by this absurd line of reasoning?
Well, I am glad I finally got you to post something to support your repeated claim.
Of course, your citations include one from 1896, before chaos theory and the interdependence between currents in the oceans and stratosphere were understood (or even known), a prediction for 2050 that we will have to wait a while to verify, and an actual contemporary set of predictions that (inconveniently for your rants) provides graphs showing drops in temperatures that are far greater than the brief plateau we are currently experiencing, which calls into question your attempt to make a big deal about something that cannot reasonably be called a long term trend.
Par for the course.
(And your silly swipe at my mod status is just more nonsense of trying to poke sticks at people to no purpose beyond getting a rise out of them.) ::: shrug :::
In the movie Groundhog Day, near the end (I think) of his cycling thousands of times through the same winter’s day, Bill Murray’s television reporter character gives a heartwarming wrap-up speech to his report from Gobbler’s Knob. Does anyone know if that speech came from some other source or was it written for the movie?
Oh, also - I think the snowstorm that took place during those 10,000 or more February 2nds must have set some kind of snowfall record. Was that due to Global Warming?
It depends on how you define “global warming” If by “global warming” all you are claiming is that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to result in higher global surface temperatures than we would otherwise have, there’s no problem.
But if you are claiming that this sort of warming will be amplified through positive feedback loops, resulting in dangerous levels of warming, then you need an accurate climate model to support the claim.
And the only way to confirm that a climate model is accurate is to put it to a bona fide test. Which generally requires predictions which are specific, accurate, bona fide, and interesting. As far as I know, this has never happened.
You seem to think it has in fact happened, but instead of producing evidence to support your claim, you have dodged, weaved, and evaded. Which in all likelihood you will continue to do.
I doubt that you even understand what you mean when you say “global warming.”
One problem is that I’m not a climate scientist. I can rebut the obvious horse-shit that is thrown out by the denialists, but only the “low-hanging fruit.” You don’t need to be a biologist to rebut creationists whose arguments are naïve. “…Why are there still apes?”
It isn’t fair to move the goal-posts on me, and demand that, once I’ve rebutted a simplistic and naïve claim, that I then demonstrate Ph.D. level knowledge of the subject. I’ve quote popular science articles, because that’s all I am competent to do.
It’s valid when the stupid claims are wrong at a popular science level.
It is quite possible that I do not know what “global warming” means; certainly not at a Ph.D. level of understanding. (Um…do you have a Ph.D. in climate science?)
If I can compel the local denialists to improve the quality of their claims, leaving behind the foolish and naïve arguments, then I guess I’m doing my job.
“Gee, it’s a really cold winter” is not a working rebuttal of global warming.
“Nobody ever predicted we’d have local cold winters” is also not a working rebuttal, and, as far as I can tell, it’s also untrue. Scientists did predict that a more energetic atmosphere would be more active. There were predictions of more and larger hurricanes, and certain other consequences of more energy in the atmosphere.
Basically, if you say, “2 + 2 = 5,” I am competent to say, no, it isn’t, and I can show why.
If you say, “The integral from 7 to x of cosine(x - 20/x) dx = the cosecant of x,” I know that’s wrong, but I cannot say exactly why.
It’s very sad that the local denialists are so foolish as to use the occasional “2 + 2 = 5” level of bad argument, which even an amateur such as I am competent to rebut.
I see it as far more complicated than that, especially when it comes to other factors involved in global climate change, which is really the big issue. “Global warming” is actually a terrible term, unfortunately now firmly embedded in mind and hearts and debates. For example, sea level changes is a real concern for obvious reasons. But we don’t even know what effect our activities are having on it. Uncertainty, and an inability to accurately measure things is a curse to the scientific method. We don’t even know what changes we have caused to the global water budget. Same for the effects of stratospheric pollution from air traffic. We don’t actually know what changes contrails and invisible water vapor are causing to the energy budget.
The winters are a very obvious problem for both the theory, as well as many decades of predictions made about them. What has happened, is we have lived long enough to see if certain assumptions, supported by models as well as theory, were true, or not. Of course the unexpected solar changes have made it almost impossible to really say, since the global climate system is far from understood, much less modeled to any degree of accuracy. If the sun had remained the same, it might be possible that Cohen and his new theory could be our best model at present, but that is far from certain still.
Well, again, I see it as more complicated than that, but certainly the accuracy of models, as well as predictions from them about shorter, milder winters, with less snow (but more precipitation), is a real problem at present. Especially with yet another extremely cold winter upon the northern hemisphere. When I stated "Well, there is little doubt the predictions of the IPCC and the consensus and the models were right. " Post 22 of this thread, I thought it would be obvious it was sarcasm, an assumption one should never make online.
If only that were the case. As we see in the response from RaftPeople, the GISS maps, along with the trends, are fairly easy to comprehend, and anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about global warming, knows full well colder winters are the opposite of what the models show, as well as what the theory predicts.
FYI there is a type of global warming where we see warming summers, but cooler winters, that is the sort of warming that results from a change in the amount of shortwave radiation, not an enhanced greenhouse effect. It would be considered a global climate change, but not global warming.
That is one current theory, and there are actually three different mechanisms being put forward as explanations for it. And interestingly enough, all were put forth many years ago. Cohen’s SCast model was recognized in 2007 as accurate, using the theory of increasing snow in Siberia as a cause. The solar variation theory proposes changes to the stratosphere from UV changes, and predicted the same sort of colder winters, and there is even Hamaker’s 1981 theory, which was wildly inaccurate in so many ways, but did indeed predict the sort of behavior of the winter trends we are seeing.
Now there is the bald face of denial, which we shouldn’t be surprised at. Certainly the fact that the last 18 years show no trend for global temperatures, using global satellite data, is something to be denied. But what is really fascinating, that the same people (Watts, Lord Monckton et al.) who love pointing out the lack of annual warming, they are in denial of the asymmetric trends, which clearly show the NH warm season still warming, while the NH cold season cools.
No, they are not, and I have posted scientific data and sources for years now showing this. But as I said, denial is to be expected.
Your problem is you just say things, but you don’t ever back up your bullshit.
It’s such comments, so common, and so expected, that I frequently mention that “facts are the last thing that will matter” in these sort of online discussions.
I have to laugh at such idiotic insults. It’s not like I haven’t posted the same links dozens of times already. It’s like when we see “The point is that the colder winters are local phenomena.”, after we have all looked at the GISS maps, or the NCDC global data, which clearly show both colder NH winters, as well as such an extreme amount of cooling, it makes the annual global mean look flat.
And yet somebody will still say, “It’s not global you know”, which is fucking hilarious. After a year and a half, that humor is still priceless.
Since it’s obvious you are never going to grasp it, let me explain it very simply. A string of very cold winters for Europe, or for the US, does not negate the theory of global warming. One cold winter certainly means very little. The only thing that could possibly sound dumber than such an argument, would be to claim a string of cold winters proves global warming. I pointed this out in Post 22 of this threaD.
Jan 13, 2012 Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters
Can you get it? If after a few really cold winters, the deniers claimed it shows global warming isn’t happening, people would think they are just being stupid. After all, colder winters don’t mean anything.
But, suddenly colder winters are BEING CAUSED by global warming, and they do mean something. They are EVIDENCE for global warming.
Now that is fucking hilarious. I don’t care who you are, that is funny.
This what the last 17 years looks like. Note the cooling of most of the US, and a lot of Canada, and the cooling in Asia, and flat trend for much of Europe.
If you use the software provided by GISS, you can see that it’s mostly the colder NH winters that are causing those trends.
No, the problem is that you cannot or will not think critically about global warming. It’s not necessary to be a climate scientist to understand the issues involved in global warming and to think about them intelligently.
Can you give three examples of this “obvious horse-shit” to which you refer?
I haven’t moved the goal-posts on you, I am simply asking you to back up your claim. You asserted the following:
I am asking you to provide the specifics of this claim. Who made these predictions? Who made the observations? When were they made? Where were they published?
Or you could just admit that you are unable to do so. The sky won’t fall you know, and you’ll be fighting your own ignorance.
Actually you didn’t quote any articles to me, you just linked to them. You didn’t quote them, presumably because they lacked any quotes which actually backed up your claim. You ignored my request for quotes.
Anyway, what I agree with is that you are not competent to make the claim that “Colder localwinters and hotter summers have both been predicted…and observed.”
It’s just bullshit that you made up to bolster what you imagined to be your position.
Have I made any “stupid claims” in your view? If so, please quote them.
Not at any reasonable level of understanding. Most warmistas have no understanding of the hypothesis in which they so fervently believe. The problem is not that you lack a PhD, the problem is that you are following intellectual fashion without any critical thought.
Absolutely not. However I have thought about these issues carefully and my thinking is guided by actual facts and logic, as opposed to a desire to be popular.
And if I make a claim about “global warming,” I am perfectly willing to provide a precise definition of the term.
Again you use the phrase “global warming” What exactly does it mean to you? How can anyone even rebut “global warming” when you won’t even explain what you mean by the phrase?
Heck, it’s even possible that I agree with “global warming.” What do you mean by the phrase when you use it?
Do you mean anything at all?
Also, please just admit that you are unable to specify who predicted and observed “Colder localwinters and hotter summers” when they did so, and where they published it. The sky won’t fall.
If somebody, anybody, shows me that I am wrong about something, I have no problem admitting it, adding the information to the mix, and moving on with the science. Why would I do anything else? Or make anything up? That would be crazy, and if I knew I was doing it, it would be deceptive, a lie.
No, and I know you made that up, since it’s just wrong. It’s why you don’t provide any evidence, because you can’t.
You see why I find the irony amusing? I am consistent, always using sources and science, but a liar like you wants to paint me as dishonest.