Going back and quoting from a months-old post is really shitty debate technique.
Also, the drought in the southwestern region of the U.S. is not “local.” It’s a broader region than the blizzard in New England was…and you made a big pile-on about that.
He fundamentally doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate, so you’re talking to a wall here.
Global climate can certainly affect local weather, but local weather is not a microcosm of global climate. It is perfectly valid to say a regional variation (e.g., the drought in the southwestern region) has been exacerbated by climate change while also pointing out the fallacy of saying “New England was cold, therefore no global warming.” FuXsie can tell us how hilarious he finds it all he wants, and it does nothing but point out his ignorance and inability to look at this rationally…
I wasn’t even trying to compare the science, it was the aspects revealed about what is in store for somebody who simply asked questions, and tried to replicate a "scientific"study. Recall that our hapless gay hero wasn’t trying to attack or debunk anything, he was trying to get in on the action. Once he realized he was looking at some screwy data, and suspected it couldn’t be true, that’s where the story gets so damn interesting.
It’s the essential attitude, the way “science works”, revealed in stark detail, that I found so interesting. You will hear an internet fuckhead say “If anyone finds ANYTHING that shows global warming isn’t happening, they would get NOBEL PRIZES and be APPLAUDED, they would be FAMOUS!”, and the fuckhead actually believes their own rhetoric, even though it’s just something they made up, or heard somebody else say. It just isn’t true at all.
what’s worse than being “a troublemaker”? Somebody who investigates and discovers fraudulent science. That’s the worst thing an upcoming science student can be. It’s also the kiss of death for established scientist. Going against the consensus is suicide.
You seemed to have avoided reading the article I have quoted so much of.
It’s how such a fraud could make it to the journal SCIENCE, then sit there for so long, and nobody noticed. Much less tried to tear down such a startling new discovery. That isn’t supposed to be possible.
Recall that one reason was a respected and established person had given fraud the patina of respectability.
So just one name being on the fraud allowed it a free pass. Even when it was obviously not even possible.
This is just an example of how people are easily fooled, when the “science” goes along with something they want to be true.
I think we all can agree if it had presented some unpleasant truth, that nobody wanted to be true, there is no way in hell the fraud would slip by with ease. That’s actually how most science works. In fact, the ever present bias and human emotions and desires, they are one of the main reasons science has rules and procedures, to avoid being pseudoscience.
This is why I am not surprised at all, when seemingly intelligent people have some sort of brain lock, when faced with facts and science they “don’t like”. This is true for both sides in the insipid climate war.
Of course it is, it’s a much smaller region than the ones effected by the increasingly colder trends. It’s also far shorter in time. Yet it means so much to the alarmists, who at the same time finds a thirty year trend for the cold months “meaningless, just weather”. So a four year drought for a small area of the world means a lot, but a thirty year trend for much of the Northern Hemisphere is just weather. (can you see why I resort to mockery?)
The trend of much colder winter months, with increasing snow, is no anomaly, nor is it explainable by global warming theory. (Cohen has put forth a new theory, while maintaining warming as the cause, and he might be right)
Anyone who looks at the data can see it. It’s no mystery, it’s no secret.
It shows up in all kinds of data. (no surprise, the drought stricken areas do as well)
10 year trend
20 year trend
20 year trend!
even the thirty year trend, most obvious when you use February data. The period Cohen noted for the increasing snow cover, 1988-2010, is obvious, even using the GISS data. Five more years of data show the trend is still happening. (it’s no surprise that snow data also shows the same thing, since when it’s colder, there is more snow)
I noted the record cold in the north east US matched the cooling trend for that region, making it climate, not weather. Note that summer shows a warming trend for the same area.
It is this asymmetric climate change that puts the basic global warming theory on thin ice. It’s supposed to be the other way around, the most warming in winter, over land, not the most warming in summer, over the oceans.
That is climate change as well, but it’s not global warming, as defined by the CO2 theory. This does not mean mankind isn’t changing the balance (because we certainly are), or that we are having no effect on our world. Far from it. We are fucking things up on so many levels.
But it does mean the basic global warming theory is either wrong, or our measurements are wrong, or that something else is dominating the changes.
This position puts me on every bodies shit list, in case this isn’t obvious. I don’t agree with either side, which is a suck ass place to be in a war. But fuck it all, I’m not going to surrender scientific principles to belief.
And then there is my abiding hatred of the fossil fuel industries, with their horrific track record of pollution, and not really giving a shit about the world.
The most basic look at recent changes should give anyone pause, if they know anything about basic global warming theory.
This is not supposed to happen.
The February trend should be higher than the August trend.
The winter trend should be much greater (warming) than the summer trend.
You can see clearly, that even globally, the winter trend is half the summer trend. Basic global warming theory does not predict this, nor can it explain it. There are several models that do show this happening, but they are not based on current consensus theory.
Is it due to Cohen’s idea? That we are seeing an increasing negative feedback from early heavy snow fall? His track record is good, but not perfect of course.
Is it the sun? Is it something else?
The global warmist is sure it’s all global warming, which is why I consider them idiots. That isn’t science. You don’t decide something is happening, then explain everything based on what you already decided.
But like we see with the fuckhead punch bowlers here, even dropping a turd into the communal Kool-Aid is reason for celebration. (and just to fight ignorance, it wasn’t actually Kool-Aid that Jim Jones spiked with poison, it was Flavor Aid he laced with cyanide)
Just so long as you remember that the northern hemisphere’s summer is the southern hemisphere’s winter. You’ve choked on that a few times.
Obviously you don’t understand the difference either. Please give your definitions. Go ahead and define “global climate”, because I’ve got a frozen wastelands and hot, humid rainforests, which of these is the “global” climate state?
The Sahara Desert has been growing for the past 10,000 years, due to global warming. Man-kind has had extremely little to do with this. Today it continues to grow, what evidence can you give that clearly links this continued growth to man’s activities? There’s the problem with the Alarmists claims; either they’re physically impossible or they’re well within the natural variability of any given climate state.
Either dv/dt = B + G + F … or it doesn’t … choose wisely.
Yeah! And which is my body part? I have a head and a foot and an elbow, and so on… which one is my body part, smart guy? Choose wisely!
And which is the Ford vehicle? They make trucks, performance cars, luxury cars… If I want to characterize their company, which one do I select, smart guy?
This is not true, unless you’re picking a very specific and selective interpretation of the history of the Sahara.
What are you going on about here? All these pretty maps are showing is that within the various continental climates we will see a wide range of temperatures. All of this is perfectly normal, expected and well within the climate definition of such areas. It snows in Boston, and has for thirty million years. I think you’re making the same mistake as the Alarmist, you’re using far too short of a time interval to establish climate trends. The Little Ice Age that occurred within the past thousand years is perfectly normal, expected and in no way changes the warming tread we’ve been seeing for over the past 10,000 years, nor the cooling tread we’ve seen over the past 30,000,000 years, nor that the oceans will be boiled off into space in 2,000,000,000 years.
The Alarmists have equations looking for an observation, they may be waiting a very long time to find one. Hell, they don’t even know what they’re looking for.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here, “Let not the eye sayeth to the foot I have no need of thee”. Is it the dt that bothers you? I’m guessing you’re denouncing that particular equation, it must not fit your understanding of fluids.
Okay … I’ll bite … what is the truthful interpretation of the history of the Sahara Desert?
If you say I’m wrong, it would be helpful if you stated what is right. C’mon, climatology in a vacuum, that’s rich.
Your demand was for people to look at a complex multicomponent system and choose the one component that represents “the” state of that system.
I was using absurd examples to illustrate how fucking stupid that request was.
No, the equation of motion for a fluid is held to be true in all cases (where v << c). I’ll grant you that it only includes the components of matter and energy, completely ignoring the components of magic and hope.
However, you do bring up an especially important point, there are many factors that effect climate … it is wrong to say CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations are the only one that changes climate. We cannot disregard all the smoke and soot being deposited in the lower Stratosphere, agriculture changes the Earth’s albedo, the sun’s output is not known to be constant … even the biota is evolving.
CO[sub]2[/sub] isn’t even the most abundant greenhouse gas …
Oh please, a reasonable person can tell he is using an analogy to illustrate the idiocy of using “global climate”, which you also pointed out is absurd.
No, those are trend maps. The blue shows the regions that we have observed an increase in snow, both colder and more snow for wide regions of the NH in winter is 100% against basic global warming theory.
The extreme cooling trend can be seen using this view, and that is certainly not what current theory predicts should happen. That is something else happening, even if the blame can be firmly laid on AGW, it certainly isn’t explained by the theory.
It’s usually given high importance because of the claimed long retention time, and because it acts high in the atmosphere, where water vapor has little effect.
However, much of the warming observed can be due to the increase in stratospheric water vapor, even as high altitude jets dump a billion tons of water vapor into the stratosphere.
Scientist are still trying to figure out where all the water vapor is coming from.
Now that’s fucking priceless. You don’t realize you are agreeing with each other.
Or something.
But you are both wrong about the Sahara. Maybe.
If I misunderstood watchwolf49, I apologize.
Those were actually the sites I looked at. Neither can be interpreted to say “The Sahara Desert has been growing for the past 10,000 years, due to global warming” unless you’re ignoring various other climatic changes that happened in between and use a loose definition of “global warming”.
Indeed. The Sahara and the climate change around 6000 years ago is fascinating. When the planet was indeed much warmer (Holocene climatic optimum), the Sahara was getting rain, and sea levels worldwide were 3 meters higher. Much less ice on Greenland, it was a much warmer world then.
When it cooled, the deserts grew, and the ice grew, and now we are in a cold period, relative to then.
The ones I’m looking at say “1995-2015” … that’s only twenty years … in any given 20 year time period, we can see all kinds of variations up and down. These very short term variations are normal and natural within the context of any climate tread. We have to look at the past half million years to see the climate treads, which generally cools and warms over 125,000 year cycles … and within this general cycle we see wild swings back and forth … 3º - 5ºC is fairly common and the Holocene climatic optimum is just more of the same.
So I got my magnifying glass out and maybe I should have said 20,000 years ago instead of 10,000 … I guess that doesn’t help my argument though if FX’s article is correct, I can’t dispute it. Let the speech fact for itself.