That’s fucking beautiful! 
Ah, thanks so much FXMasturbates! I couldn’t beg for more obvious confirmation.
The issue of cold weather. certainly with this being another extreme record cold winter for the US (northeast and central only), is an obvious issue for people who have been told snow and cold would decrease, and in fact the warm period preceding the change to colder winters, was used as clear evidence of global warming. The anomalous winter of 2012 is a case in point.
In fact, it was the epic record winter of 09-10 that got my attention, in a way only a dangerous blizzard with record snow can do. That it happened right after the emails were leaked/hacked/stolen and put online, it was a perfect storm of unexpected shit, that was enough to motivate my lazy self to look into the data. I was shocked to see the winter of 09-10 where I was, was not an anomaly. In fact, the twenty year trend showed a cooling trend of -5.7F a century. While the summer trend showed a clear warming trend. That makes absolutely no sense, from a global warming theory POV.
Five years later, that trend is exactly the same, adding five more winters to it, but it jumps to -10.7 if you use the twenty year trend. 1996-2015!
Why is the entire US northeast now showing this? It used to be that region was showing a lot of winter warming, it makes no sense to now say AGW is causing it to be colder. (this does not mean it isn’t true however)
Cohen (and others) mention that Jan-Feb in the NH is the time period showing the most cooling. Looking at Jan-Feb for the quality US data, it shows the same thing. In fact, the twenty year trend for the US northeast Tmin is -20.3 F, the Tmax is -21.6F a century, these are insane numbers. AGW theory does not, can not, explain this sort of climate change. We should see an increase in the lows, not a decrease.
The greenhouse effect is always on, night time and winter is where theory predicts the most obvious changes. If we see the opposite, something is wrong. I doubt the measurements are the source. We have good data for the last two decades.
The snow fall increase is also clear evidence for cooling. It does not snow more when winters are warmer.
Is Cohen right? Or is there more to the story?
In any case, one cold snap means little. But a trend, and record cold and snow, that is another story.
For a look at what we expect from greenhouse forcing, this blog shows trends for each day, for the arctic. You can see that the days when greenhouse warming is expected, actually show up. (this matches the theory)
Short days, the dead of winter, that’s when greenhouse warming is expected to be most obvious.
Trollololo - “So what would convince you you are wrong about the God situation?”
What do you mean by “the God situation”?
Trollololo - “So that’s a no then?”
If you don’t define what you mean, it’s meaningless to try and answer you. Define what you mean.
Trollololo - “Define it however you want.”
Define what? What are you asking about?
Trollololo - “I asked you to identify some facts that you feel support the opposing position.”
The opposing position on what?
Trollololo - “Define it however you want.”
Define what?
Trollololo - “I see, you are running away from the debate”.
:rolleyes:
Now if it is about global warming, then why not just say so? The page Wolfpup linked to says
That’s specific enough to deal with, and nobody is confused about the meaning or intent there.
Well, not quite.
When asked if he believed in climate change, he said, in effect yes, climate changes.
That isn’t really an answer, certainly not in the context of anthropogenic global warming, greenhouse gases, and so on.
It’s as if you asked, “Do you believe in terrorism” and the answer was, “Yes, I’ve been afraid several times in my life.” It isn’t an honest answer.
By the way, I don’t engage with Hentor the Barbarian due to his past dishonesty. If anyone not on my shit list is curious, I am happy to link to the posts in question.
Take another look at that exchange.
Imagine it’s not a question of a theory being advanced in the face of a competing theory. Imagine, for a moment, that it’s a question of a theory being advanced all by itself, and FX merely wants that one theory specified.
If someone makes a vague prediction, you can ask what do you mean by that without offering an alternative. If he then spells out his prediction, you can note whether it came to pass – or failed to materialize – regardless of whether you do likewise.
If that’s the case – if FX merely wants you to clarify your prediction, and has no desire to offer a competing prediction – then it’s irrelevant that he refuses to offer up an alternative when you ask him to define it However He Wanted To (and, frankly, it’d be weird to ask him).
Well, you shouldn’t selectively quote to omit something relevant.
But, again, imagine someone says right now that he knows which team will win the next World Series: the one with the best shortstop, he says. I’d ask him to clarify: which team is that? If he (a) refuses to answer, and (b) asks me to predict which team will win the next World Series, and to name the best shortstop – well, look, I have no interest in doing that; he’s the one offering a prediction, I just want him to clarify it.
And I’d note that his prediction is worthless. And I’d do so even while refusing to predict a winner. And if I copy-and-pasted to point out the worthlessness of his prediction, I’d probably skip the part where I didn’t offer a competing prediction, because it’d be irrelevant; he’s the one making a prediction, I’d say, and I’m not; I have no idea why he’s asking me for one; why would I include that bit?
You think FX is arguing in bad faith, and stopping a quote right before something relevant. Try, for a moment, to imagine that he’s arguing in good faith; how would he act if he’s genuinely curious about your claims but makes no predictions while offering no competing theory of his own? What irrelevancy would he lop off?
If I didn’t like that answer about terrorism, I’d follow up with something like “No, when I say ‘terrorism’ I mean X and Y and Z. Do you believe in X and Y and Z?”
I asked him if he denies climate change. If you want me to follow up with a more specific question about anthropogenic global warming, or greenhouse gases, or anything else, I’ll gladly ask him whatever question you like.
Ball’s in your court. You asked a question, and I, at least, am not satisfied with the answer he gave. I consider it evasive.
But it’s your dialogue with him, so follow up however you wish.
(I reserve the right to sit on the sidelines and kibbitz.)
The problem is that generally speaking, people like Trinopus don’t have a clear understanding what it even means to believe in “climate change” or “global warming” or “AGW.”
A good Cimmerian believes in Crom, the grim, gloomy, unforgiving god. But it’s not a matter of facts, logic, or reason; he’s simply demonstrating his affinity with other Cimmerians. So too with global warming – for warmistas, it’s just a matter of demonstrating that they are Good Cimmerians, so to speak.
If folks who believe in AGW (whatever that means) were seriously interested in debating it as a matter of facts, logic, and reason, then as a threshold matter they would (1) clearly define their hypothesis; and (2) spell out what predictions their hypothesis makes. But for the most part, they refuse to do that; instead they evade, spin, ignore reasonable questions, spew out ad homenims, our even flat out lie.
Fine by me.
FX, I’ve been attributing a number of positions to you – and while I figure I’m right, I could be wrong. Here’s what I’ve concluded: you
- have heard a lot of people make vague claims about future climate change.
- want folks who make predictions to specify what would prove them false.
- honestly don’t know what they believe would prove those claims false.
- are offering no predictions of your own about future climate change.
- have seen people cite local weather events as evidence for AGW…
- …without actually saying what would be evidence against AGW…
- …and so you, in turn, cite local weather events sarcastically…
- …knowing a local cold snap isn’t evidence against AGW…
- …to emphasize that the opposite should be rebutted…
- …like Trinopus was just saying.
Have I accurately summed up your position?
Trinopus, I see you as a man:
- of total honesty and integrity;
- whose every position is the product of pure intellectual curiosity;
- who engages in debates pure of heart and spirit;
- who experiences disagreement only when others misunderstand the clarity of his point;
- whose nobility is exceeded only by his valor;
- who despite his perfection still somehow needs me to serve as his translator or negotiator;
- who is trustworthy, loyal, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
Have I got that about right?
That’s close, as always I would add it’s much more complex than that, but those all seem reasonable and true.
False. In this topic I may not have, but I certainly have been making predictions, I even won a bet about last winter.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I’m not sure if that’s how my thought process actually works, but obviously I have been doing it. Two different issues there. It’s also just humorous to do it.
Not sure about that, I put him on ignore.
You have accurately described multiple behaviors and ideas discussed or exhibited in this topic. It does not sum up “my position”, however I can see how you are using the phrase in a context of this thread.
A main point not included would be that the unexpected and unexplained observed temperature trends do not fit with the models, nor the theory of global warming. This means either we can’t actually measure the global temperature, or the theory is wrong.
That statement should actually be couched in scientific terms, by using “may mean”, since the level of uncertainty is high. However, since I trust the recent data is accurate enough to determine trends, I lean strongly towards the theory being wrong.
This conclusion is not about the physics of greenhouse gases, or the measured increase from fossil fuel use and deforestation, or even the greenhouse effect itself. It is about basic predictions from the theory not being observed.
While it’s simplistic to say a record cold winter “disproves” global warming, it is not simplistic to state “this was not predicted by theory, nor can the theory explain it”. Which is pretty much exactly what I quoted from Cohen et al. 2014
http://epic.awi.de/36132/1/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf
Jargon like “models underestimate”, “fail to predict”, and “can’t explain” I see as “sciencespeak” for “my model works better, yours is wrong”. Certainly this is actually how science progresses.
The entire paper, as well as related ones, are worth reading. They represent, to me, how actual science is done.
This point is one that so many people, especially the ones arguing passionately for drastic changes and an end to fossil fuels, just don’t seem to understand. And it’s physics.
Also, even if at some point we can say with certainty, “the assumptions about changes from greenhouse forcing were wrong”, that isn’t going to remove the greenhouse theory, nor the concerns about global climate change from changing the atmosphere. It just means nature behaves in ways we still don’t understand.
If Cohen (and others) are correct about why we are seeing current climate change, it means the theory was wrong. But in science, this just means the theory will be changed. We will not throw out all of physics, and it certainly won’t change the facts.
Of course there are much larger issues coupled with this, as well as vast political motivations, money, power and who knows what else. The thing is, those are much harder to measure and understand than the temperature and snowfall trends.
You left out helpful!
And he smells nice.
That works! I’ll take all the help I can get!
The phrase “whatever that means” seems like a concession that you don’t know what it is.
The whole idea is actually very simple: combustion of fuel on a massive scale since the Industrial Revolution has introduced sufficient amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause the trapping of heat, causing the world’s biosphere’s temperature to rise. This seems to be a bad thing, as it causes disruptions of the world’s climate patterns.
How hard is that to understand? The evidence in favor of it is so strong, an overwhelming majority of all climate scientists agree that this is so. That’s convincing to a lot of us.
Other people use the phrase ambiguously, so yes, I don’t know what it means. It’s not a concession of anything.
Would it surprise you to learn I agree with this?
How do you define “disruption”?
Lol, you don’t even know what the controversial issue is: Water vapor feedback. You are ignorant and a liar to boot.
P.S. Are you able to identify the poster I supposedly misquoted? Or will you finally admit that I have not misquoted anyone?