Welcome to the thread, Shagunathor. Just a quick heads up: as Fuxsie said above, this isn’t the place for scientific discussion. It’s a place where Fuxsie and watchwolf troll and make shit up. Your correction will probably be ignored, and instead he’ll post some comment about fuckheads (like me), what things he doesn’t find funny and what he finds hilarious, and then something about some local weather somewhere. It’s a hell of a ride!
I know–I’ve been reading this thread since the beginning. SIWOTI syndrome is a harsh mistress.
Thanks for that. One could argue the exact timing (I would say 1929 was the start of the strong evidence for a layer, rather than the early ideas about it), but it would be pedantic, and just petty avoidance of admitting I was wrong.
Which I certainly was. I was remembering the argument over the solar wind, not UV C and ozone. It was the solar wind (stream of charged particles) that was an unknown when he wrote the book.
Hold on. You’ve been reading from the beginning, and the date when it was determined that ozone was blocking UV was the erroneous fact that finally roused you enough to post a correction?? That’s serious tunnel-SIWOTI.
Groovy. I’ll go back to lurking now.
Well that answers one data point that has been bugging me for a while. Why the fuck does this topic get over a thousand views each day? Even when nobody posts, it would get 400 views a day. I blame you for some of that.
Yep, but when somebody swoops in with a source, like you did, it’s fucking awesome on my end. I got to learn some fascinating new stuff, and admit I was wrong, both of which are exhilarating.
Thanks. And I mean it.
Hey, it was the first time I posted something wrong. What was he supposed to do?
No wait, it was actually the second time, but somebody else corrected me that time as well.
Holy crap. And it was the first post you made here in over three years?
Seriously? That’s impressive, it really is.
…so is it a hoax?
(I haven’t read all 95 pages)
Don’t be afraid to come back, ya’hear, that’s a top notch citation there. Not a single violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, well done !!!
Thank you for having dropped in! I had to look up SIWOTI, and that was enough fun to make it all worthwhile!
This guy is good.
365 months in a row. They aren’t cherry picking.
No, it’s far worse than that. What’s being done is “adding” the estimated SST to the global surface data analyses. Then claiming it’s the warmest ever. When the actual surface station data shows it isn’t, not even close. Then claiming the same thing for “above average”, since 1984, every month is above average. So even when North America has the coldest February in 22 years, they claim it was warmer than average, because globally. Since that very cold month is part of a twenty year trend of colder temps, it’s also significant. -9.95C a century
But you won’t here that in the news.
Let’s imagine the same thing is done with California, and their drought situation. Instead of saying they are in serious trouble (low water amounts), instead we say “Globally rainfall is higher than ever recorded before”. So California isn’t suffering a drought, by global standards. Globally precipitation is higher than average, and has been for 32 years. So quit saying it’s dry in California. Globally it’s not.
That’s exactly what is being done to handwave away a serious cooling trend for large areas of the Northern hemisphere.
That’s right, the entire NH winter shows a cooling trend, using twenty years of data. You will have to set the trend yourself, it won’t link to it.
I don’t think you will succeed in undermining the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming with regional cooling data. Do you see the flaw in your line of reasoning, or not?
And I’ve proposed a mechanism by which regional cooling could happen: polar air expanding, being sucked up by the Gulf Stream and deposited elsewhere. Don’t you recall?
I remember, I thought we agreed this effect would just push the polar front towards the equator. Polar air wouldn’t be sucked up by the warm ocean current, rather the warm ocean current would give up heat to the air … making the Gulf Stream cooler … but that already happens.
You are right. Seriously. They don’t show you that kind of stuff and the media does engage in cherry picking because it drives their revenue to scare people. But you are guilty of the same thing. You don’t show this:
Data set that does not start in 1998.
Or this:
Data set that is not just limited to one month and one region.
Or especially something like this:
Data set that includes more than just North fucking America.
You know why you don’t show this kind of stuff? It’s because you are a troll. I don’t know why you are like this but I still suspect you are a paid shill. Whatever. It really doesn’t matter. It’s funny though; I have actually enjoyed your contributions in other threads and even found that I agree with you more times than not if the subject is not climate change or the safety of nuclear power. I will even agree with you that there are a lot of unknown unknowns about climate change and that intelligent and lively discussions could be had about climate sensitivity, local changes, or policy responses. But this thread is a fucking train wreck and makes me view you as a fucking joke. Again, whatever, it doesn’t matter. I know that my views will not dissuade you and, to be honest, they shouldn’t. I am just another person on the internet. No more, no less. But, really, I wonder if you feel good about your contribution in this thread? Are you really contributing something to the world? Doing a service educating all those wrong people on the internet? Because, to me at least, it looks like you are just the author of a pile of dogshit.
By the way; those of you who have a brain and think FX is scoring points here, I recommend you play with the NOAA tool that makes all the fancy graphs that FX regularly links to. What you find is that you can make it look like the world is cooling if you carefully choose the month of the year or the region, or the starting point as FX regularly does. But these sets are cherry picked. If you look at the overall trends and the large regions, it is clear that the world is warming in aggregate. If this data from satellites and weather stations doesn’t convince you, there is plenty of secondary data available by looking at the migration patterns of animals, the growing seasons worldwide, and the freeze and thaw times of lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water. Then there is also the sea level rise; where the fuck does this come from if not the melting of glaciers and the icecaps and the thermal expansion of the water itself due to warming? If this kind of data doesn’t convince you, I don’t really care. You are just another moron on the internet. You probably, statistically speaking, don’t even vote. It does not matter, mostly because int 20-30 years it will be undeniable one way or the other and regardless, we are going to burn ever drop of petroleum we can get our hands on. It is only a question of when.
Whoops! I meant jet stream :smack:
So what. Changing only the region in your plot to Europe shows that their February was one of the hottest in 22 years. Anybody can play this game of picking one region or one fucking month and making the data back their point. This is what cherry fucking picking is! You do know this, right?
Looking at the whole fucking world is not cherry picking, it is looking at the whole fucking world.
No. Really, just fucking no. Are you really this dense? Look, I would agree with you if people said the whole world is drying out and then pointed at California as proof. This would be cherry picking data to prove their point and would be wrong. But they are not. This is what you are doing. You are pointing at New Hampshire in fucking February and citing it as proof the world is not warming. What the fuck is wrong with you. The world is warming and getting wetter. California is drying out. New fucking Hampshire is getting colder. The world, though, is getting fucking warmer.
What do you mean you can’t link to it. It is not that hard. It doesn’t look like it backs up you claim though. 0.19 degrees warming per decade for the months February-April for the Northern Hemisphere (land area only) since 1984. Perhaps you are thinking of a different region or time of year. Hmm, what if we just look at December - February; nope that can’t be it…
Sure, that makes more sense. I believe that’s something of a feature of the polar front, so the polar jet stream would flow a bit further south along with the front. My problem with this idea is that you’d have to narrow the temperate zones to make room, I’m not sure that can happen.