Deliberately leaving out inconvenient, off-message bits of those sources and science is hardly honest.
Would you mind providing two examples of important information Fx has omitted?
The parts of the map that he, himself, provided, that don’t support his contentions.
Which parts would those be?
Who made these predictions? Who made the observations? When were they made? Where were they published?
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?
Seriously, do you have any idea in your head at all what you mean when you use the phrase “global warming”?
Global warming means that the earth – the biosphere, deep oceans, atmosphere – there’s probably a technical term for this – is getting hotter. The temperatures are rising. The sea and air temperature are greater than they were a century ago.
I have not been able to find sources on predictions of colder localized winters. (Wow, the world ended.)
FXMastermind linked to a map that showed temperatures worldwide. He called attention to two small zones that were cool, and ignored a dozen other zones that were warm. This is his constant pattern in these debates. He accentuates the downward-pointing segments of temperature graphs, and ignored the upward-pointing segments.
This is a childish form of denialism. It’s infantile. It doesn’t require a scientist to observe and chastise. It’s at a “Why are there still apes?” level of stupidity.
When (occasionally) he ascends to a more sophisticated level of wrongness, I drop out of the discussion, because I’m not able to argue at that level. But when he’s so incredibly stupid as to say that localized colder winters disprove global warming, I’m on him. It’s easy enough even I can do it.
It’s my take – and, by all means, FX, correct me if I’m misrepresenting you – that he’s doing that as a response-in-kind to folks who childishly point at local weather to accentuate upward-pointing stuff and ignore downward-pointing stuff. That he wants AGW proponents to say – over and over – that local weather is irrelevant, because the relevant questions can be found at a more sophisticated level.
That he’s trying to observe and chastise that incredibly stupid behavior by simply holding a mirror up to it…
…and, were it not for AGW proponents who point at local weather, maybe FX would only ever post at that more sophisticated level – the level where you (a) drop out of the discussion because you can’t actually argue with what he’s saying, but you want to (b) add, in the same breath, that you think he’s wrong.
Yes of course, but the ironic/satirical part of it is more complicated than just that, which may be the reason for the confusion at times. Explaining it will be complicated.
As I noted in post 22, starting in 2010, a few media sources started reporting what some climate researchers were proposing, that the extremely cold (record cold and snow) winter weather might be due to climate change, but they used the term “global warming” when reporting this.
The problem with that short post, is that it contains maybe six different ironic/satirical points. All of which require some understanding already of science, history and my ironic humorous take on things.
First point: The first sentence is irony/satire, since the IPCC of course had not been predicting colder winters.
Second and third, same thing for the “consensus and the models”. which did not predict (much less warn) about a changing of the climate, with more extreme winters, with much more snow and cold.
Fourth and fifth points, the two stories, (the discovery link no longer works btw), the 2010 one stated “Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming”, and the 2012 one says " global warming produces colder winters and heavier dumps of snow for large swathes of the northern hemisphere.".
Which means complaining about the goddamn fucking cold and snow is complaining about global warming. Which sounds fucked up, and it is fucked up. no matter how you look at it.
Let me explain that, because it’s probably not obvious.
On the face of it, if you don’t believe that global warming is causing the weather, it’s fucked up to blame weather on global warming.
If you do believe global warming is causing the weather, it sounds like I am being sarcastic complaining about it, mocking global warming.
If you don’t believe the science (that NH winters have been much colder) then it sounds even more fucked up.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293
If you don’t read the linked stories it is even worse, since you don’t have any idea of what is being discussed.
So it’s not simple at all, there are layers of irony and disbelief, as well as the more obvious satire of every warm day or heat wave being blamed on global warming.
Rather than the simplistic “it’s record cold so how can there be global warming?”, it’s one level further, complaining that it’s record cold, but that the cold is because of global warming.
Which leads to the next level, so it’s understandable that the reader who skims, and knows little about the issues, wouldn’t grasp most of the concepts involved.
That explanation of course is simplistic, and doesn’t even touch on several other very complicated things that have been argued over in this thread. (global warming theory, past predictions, the greenhouse effect, the human fingerprint, trends, etc etc)
Fighting ignorance still
That is not what global warming means. The warming until 1950 (from the little ice age period) is not called global warming. Global warming, or AGW, or the enhanced greenhouse theory of global warming, means warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect from human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels, cement making and deforestation, all of which increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Such warming is expected to have certain signals, which should become recognizable at some point, so that we can say the warming is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, rather than any other cause.
That’s because they don’t exist.
Wrong, the GISS maps show trends, changes in temperature anomalies over time. Or the occasional anomaly map which shows a certain time, none of them actually show temperatures.
For example, this map shows the winter of 2014, it’s anomalies from the mean of 1951-1980. This one shows the same thing, but using 1981-2010 for the base period. This one shows the twenty year trend, which does not use a base period, but changes over time. For comparison, here is the twenty year summer trend. None of those GISS maps show actual temperatures.
Nonsense, none of the GISS maps are altered in any way. Since many of the maps are to show warming, there is no ignoring of anything. In fact, I showed you many maps that illustrate winter warming.
Wrong again, none of my comments ever say “localized colder winters”, nor do any of the scientific papers I quote use that phrase.
It’s that the trends are for very large areas, and so strong they show up globally, that they matter. Localized cold spells mean nothing, nor would an occasional cold NH winter.
You don’t use the phrase, but you point to the phenomenon.
A snowstorm envelops New York, and you use it to claim that there’s no such thing as global warming. You’ve been doing this for years now. It’s as if you don’t have any comprehension of temperatures anywhere else in the world.
Wrong. Global warming is just…the warming of the biosphere. It is what it says.
AGW is a leading explanation for the factually observed phenomenon. It is the explanation that is favored by nearly all climate scientists. But it is a specific scientific explanation for something that really is happening.
You’re failing to distinguish between the forest fire and how it was caused.
No, I’m specific and clear about what I say, and the sources I base my comments. When I say “widespread cooling of large areas of the NH, during boreal winters”, I mean exactly that. Not what you are saying.
Wrong again. A snowstorm means little to nothing about global climate.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
We will disagree then. I consider NASA, NOAA and other scientific bodies to be the authorities on the terminology, rather than your opinion about it.
The warming that led to the MWP would not be called global warming, nor would any of the past warming periods. Global warming refers to the current period, and is considered to be the result of human changes to the system. This makes global warming have a specific meaning, rather than describing any of the natural warming periods that have happened many times in the past.
As near as I can tell, you randomly link to maps, then conclude they mean what you want them to mean. And this blinkered obsession with “the NH, during boreal winters”, to the exclusion of overwelming counter-balancing global data, borders on the pathological. You aren’t presenting arguments, you are preaching.
I for one do not dispute that surface temperatures and ocean temperatures have risen over the last 100 years.
I don’t know about upper atmospheric temperatures, possibly nobody knows, but I certainly would not be surprised if those too had risen.
Do you think anyone in this thread disputes “global warming” as you have defined it?
So I take it you will retract your claim that “Colder localwinters and hotter summers have both been predicted…and observed.”?
Do you happen to know which post you are referring to?
FX, do you know what he’s talking about?
Can you point to where he has said this? Because that’s not what I understand his argument to be.
That’s pretty funny coming from the guy who insists that “There are lots of empirical data that would disprove global warming” but refuses to provide any examples or even explain what he means by “global warming.”
Local weather!
Local weather!
Local weather!
Local weather!
Local weather!
Please focus on the cold areas and ignore the warm ones. We are focusing on local weather!