Did you think anyone actually believed you?
The point is not simplistic, nor is it nitpicking. To understand this, just reverse the claim. Somebody changes the data, or uses the raw data, like for the US, (which actually shows no warming), and presents a graph showing not only no global warming, but actual cooling. Especially for winters.
They claim that “using the actual data makes global warming vanish”. You can argue with the claim (which is arguing over the data), but you certainly wouldn’t buy the premise that “using this data makes global warming vanish”, that’s just not possible.
And it’s actually going on, where people who use the RSS data claim there is no global warming, and those who insist global warming has actually become worse claim that it’s nonsense to say there is no global warming, based on the data.
Hell, the data is the last thing that shows global warming. You can’t claim there is no global warming just because the data shows there has been no warming. That’s insane.
I see you’re still babbling inanely, you stupid fucking muppet.
I must thank you for this thread. It gives anyone who wants to see the irrevocable proof that deniers like you are completely unable to grasp reality.
To be fair, he’s a fucking idiot. (Cite)
Returning to a couple of things that just never were answered, or even explained. This was in regard to the claim of 2014 being the hottest year ever.
Which I asked to be explained.
Which is all obvious, especially since I stated it isn’t a chance we are discussing at all. It’s also not about odds, which is a term for games of chance, and some statistical purposes. When you see something like odds used in this respect, it’s a red flag.
The problem with that, is that the same thing happened, in 1945. Exactly 9 out of the 10 hottest years ever happened in the decade 1936-1945. So in 1945 an event that is claimed to have odds of “650 million to 1” already happened. (and yeah, you probably never heard this before, and I sure didn’t see it on denier blogs) Of course somebody might have brought this up, but I just checked the data, that’s how I know the “odds” is a bullshit claim. If something happens twice in less than a century, the odds can’t be that high. Plus, odds are not even the issue here.
No, it’s not chance, nor is it something that can be bet on with odds.
I know, it’s why I asked you to explain it.
Did your explanation make clear why it’s not chance? And it’s certainly not something like a lotto ticket?the
What is the technique to use then? That’s what I was asking you about. The global annual mean isn’t a matter of chance, nor is calculating odds for it, like that idiotic “650 million to 1” number. In essence they are saying that there would have to be 650 million decades to look at, and only one ten year period would have 9 out of the ten warmest years. Which is absurd. Certainly it happened many times in the recent past, and I even showed a real example where it happened 60 years prior.
Now in an ordinary subject, somebody who checks the graph, and the raw data (to be sure), and sees that yes, the exact same thing happened then,that person would be delighted, amazed, interested or at least in some way happy, because they learned something new.
But fuckheads of the world, you just know that will not be the response to a new fact in this regard. Oh no, and it probably won’t even make it past the idiot barrier in the brain. But you who are skeptical, you get to enjoy it.
It actually says almost nothing about climate, which is why I use trends rather than an anomaly event. That any and every anomaly is touted as “evidence of global warming”, which is so common everybody gets the joke in the OP with ease, is exactly the idiocy of both the media and the morons pimping disaster.
Now a lot of people can look at the OP here and realize it is stupid to blame global warming for a cold day in August. A few can also realize it’s just as stupid to blame a hot day in August on global warming. But it’s a very rare few that can grasp that the enhanced greenhouse theory isn’t the only theory about climate change, from our increasing the CO2 levels, as well as the deforestation and other drastic changes to the planet we are making.
In fact, several theories, based on increasing greenhouse gases, and pollution, predicted as it got warmer, especially in the arctic region, that the winters would get much colder. One even contemplated that during the warm period that always proceeds the glacier building period of an ice age, a combination of active vulcanism and low solar activity would shove the system over to a new glacier building period, leading to another ice age.
It’s ironic that a theory predicted in 1958, that in 60 years or so, we would see very low arctic ice, and extreme snow events due to the open arctic ocean, as well as warmer oceans in general. Of course they also thought this would lead to glacier building, which is why there were real fears, as the global mean dropped by .5C, that the earth was headed into another ice age. And, in utter irony, it was blamed on us.
I doubt anyone reading here even knows what the fuck that means. But if you do, isn’t it ironic?
Just to finish the thought …
The reason all the “coming ice age” theories were abandoned was due to the warming that happened after the very cold sixties and seventies, though the record cold events of that period did not actually end until 1990. But even so, the general warming was what put an end to the ice age theories.
One big problem for anyone looking at climate, and wanting to understand it, is that the changes they have made to the recent past has removed much of the information that led to so many of the concerns over an ice age. Fucking GISS makes it look now, like there was hardly any cooling then. Which is fucking ironic as hell, since the Hansen papers still show the drastic cooling in his graphs he used. Note that the graphs of temperatures in that paper clearly show the warming from 1900 to 1945, which I used as an example of “9 out of the warmest years in the last decade”. Science!
And speaking of Hansen, his 1986 prediction that in 20 years the global mean would be 2 degrees higher, that would have been 2006. And it was 2 degrees C, which in 2014 we are still not even close to. But goddamn, you won’t find a warmist who doesn’t still believe it already happened.
Oh the irony, because mother nature can be a real bitch.
Feb 13 2014
So now it’s a year later, and with record breaking snow, and cold, you can fucking well bet somebody will be telling you it’s global warming causing it. The unusual warm in the western US is also global warming. Global warming makes winters warmer, or colder, it can do it all.
Is anybody blaming record cold (as in breaking 100 year old records) on global warming? Of course they are. (note he wants us to use “climate change”, rather than global warming. Haha, good luck with that)
Is anybody blaming record snow on global warming? Of course they are. (you have to ignore the facts in this case, precipitation is well below normal for the regions hit with record snowfall)
Is anybody urging even a little caution about assigning blame to the goddamn weather? Well, sort of.
What about Cohen (and others) who actually predicted this sort of thing? Based on early snow and ice acting as a forcing, changing the global wind patterns, and creating much colder winter conditions globally? Did Cohen get it right this year?
Of course there isn’t a single scientific topic on the Dope about it. Now cue the idiots for a rousing chorus of insults.
Science!
What part of “average” do you not understand?
Every time there’s a cold snap anywhere in the northern hemisphere, you immediately whine that “global warming” has been falsified.
Did you even learn to add back in grade school?
More like, what part of “global” don’t you understand. (Although, average also seems to be misunderstood here… so fair point, Trinopus)
@OP
At any given time, on planet Earth, (particularly in the colder regions of the planet such as New England, where arctic air typically moves into lower latitudes) there’s going to be areas which are frigid cold.
Particularly in the winter, :eek: hermergherd!
So, what is confusing to certain people is the idea that the entire globe is warming, globally, by a matter of a few degrees, globally. Globally, understand this word, it’s very important.
Whereas locally, the local weather in a local region, local, understand the word local, here, it’s very important, the local weather is colder by more than the few degrees difference of the global average.
Stop the presses, is that even possible? That local weather and time of day and season will affect temperature locally on a scale that is much greater than the global yearly average!?! Oh yes, indeed.
But to those who can’t handle complexity, who only focus on the one number they see in front of them at any given time, they’re going to say this one temperature reading, in this one region, at this one time, at this one part of the year, is lower than average, therefore…
Therefore that proves that the global, not regional, yearly, not daily, average must not be getting warmer.
It’s sort of like comparing your score on a pop quiz to your grade for the year. If you utterly failed the pop quiz on global warming, you might still somehow get a decent grade in science class for the year. And this is how some people manage to get through school with a passing grade, even though their understanding of certain concepts is a failure of epic proportions. Like the difference between global and local, yearly average and daily highs and lows, and the difference between climate… and weather.
:smack:
It cannot be explained any simpler. The only reason to continue without acknowledging these differences, is to propagate ignorance with the intent to do so, or to troll people for your personal jollies.
Either one seems like its right up your alley.
Proceed, governor.
Here’s an analogy: Rush Limbaugh is not an indicator that the nation is becoming more conservative.
You could take an example of one radio show that Rush did, and say, this is the most conservative that Rush Limbaugh has ever been, taking a particularly wacky thing he said, on one day, and saying this extremist position he’s taken, indicates that the entire nation, not just Rush Limbaugh, is becoming more conservative.
Someone might point out that the entire nation is not Rush Limbaugh, confusing one example with the whole, Someone might point out that you’re cherry picking one example of Rush Limbaugh rather than looking at his entire history, therefore confusing daily with yearly or longer, and someone might point out that you’re focusing on the one extreme position as opposed to perhaps more moderate positions Rush might have taken, therefore confusing extremes with averages. Maybe Rush mellowed on several things, but got more extreme on one issue.
One example versus every example, is the difference between local and global temperature.
An extreme temperature versus the median temperature of that day, is the difference between highs/lows (extremes) and averages.
One day versus an entire year, or an entire known history, is a huge difference that should be blatantly obvious, and shouldn’t need to be pointed out.
Those are three massive errors being made by global warming deniers. And these are three specific errors that they absolutely HAVE TO make in order to advance their cause, because these errors are just easy enough for dumb people to make, to confuse a sufficient percentage of the voting population to possibly affect policy changes.
It is playing to the dumb crowd, pandering to their dumb arguments, and their profound misunderstandings of basic mathematical, geographical, or logical concepts.
You either are attempting to actively deceive people, by being a smart person making dumb and disingenuous arguments, or you are one of the dumb people.
You should at least declare for your readers which one you are. I’m going to assume that you’re the smart person making disingenuous arguments on purpose, because a dumb person has curiosity and honesty that can actually be reached using reason and careful explanation, and this has utterly failed in your case.
Another significant rhetorical fraud perpetrated by our friend is that “Warming proves warming, but cooling also proves warming, so warming can not be falsified.”
What he absolutely fails to see is that no one has claimed that “Cold winters in Massachusetts proves global warming.” Instead, global warming can (in part) explain the big chill in Boston, and in any case, is not contradicted by it.
Now, I’m gonna bet good money that he comes right back with a wall of text purporting to show that some number of real climate scientists say, “The cold winters prove global warming.” And, as usual, when we read down into the articles he links, they actually say and show no such thing.
But, then, that’s inductive science at work. Who knows. Maybe the millionth time you mix vinegar and baking soda, it won’t foam at the mouth.
Yeah, well.
It’s pretty clear you haven’t been reading along, much less read the many scientific and fact filled posts about trends, global warming theory, and why a cooling trend (globally) for boreal winters is neither predicted, nor explained by global warming theory.
It would far too much to repeat the thousands of important facts, and no doubt a complete waste of time as well. So lets focus on the reality of now, with yet another record breaking cold winter, and not just for the eastern US.
The two obvious responses from global warmers, when faced with reality, in the form of record breaking cold and snow, are very easy to describe. You are an example of the “it doesn’t matter because …” mentality, which wants somebody freezing to death to look at the bigger picture, rather than deal with their very real concern over deadly cold and unheard of snow and ice. This makes you seem both insane, and uncaring in the extreme.
The other tactic is to deny it is happening, by claiming “it’s only locally, so it doesn’t matter because …”, which is much the same, but ignorant of the facts.
And facts are the last thing that will matter in regards to reality. Don’t believe it? Lets prove it, and get that out of the way. Each statement is linked to the scientific source, so you can fact check it all, right now.
Globally this month, February, surface temperatures are trending colder, for over two decades
Global SSTs have been almost flat for February for over two decades now
Global land and sea temperatures for Feb show a cooling trend for over two decades (1995-2014)
The NCDC global data shows the same trend (you will have to select the trend using the software, it is impossible to link to a trend for the period)
This trend does not depend on 1995, even using 1994 (a very cold year) gives a cooling trend, globally.
The trend is completely driven by NH land temperatures being much colder, all other trends, NH ocean, SH land and ocean, all are positive. The NH land surface cooling trend is so large it brings the global mean down, making Feb globally, cooling. For over two decades now.
So the current extreme cold right now is not unusual, it fits with the trend. This trend is observable in all NH data. Satellite, balloon measurements, surface stations and OLR data. (links provided upon request)
So there are some general facts, impossible to counter, so just ignore them, or claim it’s cherry picking. Anything other than a rational discussion. Or look at the data and learn something, it’s your life, do what you enjoy with it.
Going the other way, here is the Chicago area, showing the clear cooling trend for Jan-Feb mentioned by Cohen et al. Of course one area means little.
Of course one state means little.
Note that the trend matches the NH global trend, even using Jan Feb. Using just February really shows the cooling trend.
Of course one Nation means little, so go back to the global data we started off with.
Globally winters are getting colder, the current record cold is not an anomaly, nor is it just a local cold winter.
Q.E.D.
Now if anyone responds in less than a half hour or so, you can be sure they didn’t follow any links or read any actual sources, all of which are actual science websites, all of the data and information is from actual working climate experts, and from GISS, NOAA or MIT
(the half hour is due to the Cohen et al. 2014 paper, if you already read it, the rest should take little time to check)
For the NCDC data, just click the trend box and select the time period to see the linear trends. The software does not allow linking to specific trends.
Also note that Cohen et al. 2014 deals with the long term winter trend, and explains when it reversed, and the paper also includes global maps and data, but he used a different data set, Satellite based analysis, which is more accurate, especially for regional trends. But it doesn’t change the general idea, of colder winters, which is what his theory is trying to explain.
If I have to tell you what his theory is again, then you really haven’t been paying attention. Go read the fucking paper.
:rolleyes:
Just kidding, I can explain it in one sentence. In fact, I did several posts up.
Now seriously, if you are just here to post one line insults, do you think anyone gives a shit about your opinion at this point?
Pretty amazing body of work you’ve amassed there, Fucksy. Have you managed to get your irrefutable debunking published in the “alternative science” press yet?
With iron-clad data like yours, you oughta be living large on Koch money by now.
FX, you’re a fucking idiot.
I’m still waiting for my ice age. Lots of snow all over the northern hemisphere past when it should be gone, reflecting instead of absorbing sunlight, is a good start.
Repeated for truth.
I think you’re too kind. He’s a stupid fucking idiot.
Oh, come on now. All you have to do to make the weather better in your area is PRAY: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/12/294285/thornberry-prayer-rain-flawed-climate-science/
Duh.
I wish to congratulate our stealth agent and fellow comrade, FXMastermind, on the success of his secret mission of disseminating false data and theories about anthropogenic global warming. By feigning sheer and utter incompetence, an inability to reason coherently, relying on proven frauds for his sources, and assorted other non-sequiturs, he has so thoroughly discredited the skeptical side of the debate that the secret socialistic worker’s revolution will soon proceed apace!
I hereby salute you in your selfless and thankless task, comrade! We couldn’t have done it without you!