I’d like to welcome the newest members of the Warmist Conspiracy: walruses. Good to have you on the team, guys.
It’s no use. Unless the walruses are U.S. citizen, Deniers will consider them irrelevant.
Similarly, on the question of hurricanes’ relation to climate change, Deniers accept only anecdotes about hurricanes which make landfall in the U.S. ! 
As usual. Septimus descends to the level of ad hominem attacks…a sure sign of desperation. Watch out, you may burst an artery!
Of course, he is too stupid to realize that Obama cares nothing about arctic warming-he is in Alaska to reassure the people that their oil royalty checks will keep on coming.
Oh, and renaming Mt. McKinley was really a stroke of genius-never mind that nobody cares.
You’re off-script, ralph124c - this week it’s “Obama is preventing the oil companies from drilling, thus forcing us to buy oil from Muslims.” Next week is “Obama wants to fund green energy companies to give money to his cronies” and the week after THAT is “Obama is in the pocket of Big Oil”.
The people of Alaska care, particularly the indigenous population. And of course the Republicans care, which is why vast numbers of them are having massive public conniptions over the renaming, including members of Congress.
What you’ve quoted is a letter to Nature Geoscience, that would be found in the editorial section of that journal. I hope you’re not suggesting that this has been formally vetted as “peer-reviewed”.
Sounds to me they’re just making suggestions, not trying to demonstrate anything. Perhaps there’s more to this behind the paywall.
Or are you suggesting that science ten years ago was in error?
Science is self-correcting. Adjustments are always made to current hypotheses based on new information or other considerations.
Whining that science changed is the oldest rant of the Creationist.
Tell that to Jong-Seong Kug, Jee-Hoon Jeong, Yeon-Soo Jang, Baek-Min Kim, Chris K. Folland, Seung-Ki Min & Seok-Woo Son.
All right…this is part of the theater that is the Obama dog and pony show-first, he illustrates his great concern for the poor Alaskan natives-and notes that ice does melt (in the summertime). Of course, his concern doesn’t extend to withdrawing Shell’s permits to drill off Alaska-where even he admits, a spill could be disastrous.
All in all, a good show, scripted and acted well, with the denouement coming at the right time.
Next: stay tuned as Obama visits South Carolina-the new dumping ground for Guantanamo terrorists!
That’s why I’m voting Jeb!- get the influence of oil money out of politics, and to keep Guantanamo thriving.
I imagine they’re pleased to have had their letter published by a top-tier scientific journal, Nature and her daughter publications haven’t shown as much interest in any of my letters. They’re just prejudice against uneducated construction laborers is all … meh …
Jeb Bush, eh? Are there as many loose women at his rallies as at Hillary’s? I didn’t think so, just what part of your anatomy are you thinking with?
tl;dr discussion about the nature of science, and the cooling trend for NH winters - lots of science and boring papers and such
The problem with politics, especially anything Bush/Obama (which would be the last 15 years now) is that it’s almost impossible to have an evidence based discussion, of almost anything. Certainly in regards to anything “climate” or “global warming” is so twisted, obscured and riddled with emotion, it’s impossible to be able to replicate anything, to know what is factual. Proceeding on belief and feelings might make some people even more sure of themselves, but it isn’t at all scientific. Speaking of, I replied to the whining voice of disbelief, with sources, including the IPCC report, and of course the person claiming I was wrong, when faced with the facts and evidence, didn’t learn a goddamn thing. Fuckheads never do, that’s why they are fuckheads. They simply can not learn.
Of course you won’t get an honest answer to that question. One thing that happens over and over, so much that it is a predictable pattern, is in regards to the nebulous and undefined “global warming”, the persistent shrill voices of doom aren’t using science. It’s why there is no logical rational discourse. Just a shotgun pattern of vague claims of “something”, and it’s always bad. Even when you grant the fuckhead the floor, they either refuse to state anything scientific, or retreat into more vague generalities and insults.
There’s an example of a retreat to platitudes, when faced with an actual real scientific issue. And certainly many true believers think that “science” is somehow magically self correcting, and can never actually be wrong. Well, unless the science is showing something they dislike, in which case they never use the same magical “self correcting” mantra, since they have judged it to be wrong, not self correcting. It’s why so many view it as hypocritical. If you use one set of values for “your side”, but change things when it’s something that is “their side”, it’s religion, or politics. It’s not science. It’s not even logical. You can’t have two sets of conditions, which you pick and choose, depending on what you want to be true. That human condition is what the scientific method is designed to prevent. You can have your own opinion, but you don’t get your own set of facts.
You see? There is the obscure sort of non-response, that doesn’t make any point at all. Its worse than bad science, worse than being wrong, it’s non-science, it’s nothing at all.
It becomes clear, over enough time, that you are arguing with somebody who doesn’t even understand the language of science, much less the scientific method.
No, that is just nonsense, it’s bullshit. It isn’t even close to true, it’s something you either made up, or read somewhere, where some other idiot made it up. We can actually check this out. Looks like you made it up.
Of course doing a google search for an exact phrase might not be scientific. Let’s check and see if we can discover anything about that. Using the Ngram viewer, and searching books, we can be certain that for the books Google knows about, nobody has ever said that in a book, or even anything close to it.
These links are for your benefit, I know it’s a made up nonsense idea, and you won’t find that idea anywhere, because it’s complete bullshit, and would be laughed at if it were seriously put forth as “how science works”.
But lets be sure, and simply search for the essence of the claim. Nope, nothing in any book. And of course, nothing on Google.
Making it even smaller, “made to hypothesis” gives one hit, to a book. And the paragraph it appears in, has nothing to do with climate or AGW, but it’s priceless what it does say. I let the reader do the work on this one.
When I state something as fact, like something from basic global warming theory, I expect it to show up in a search, multiple times.
Like the basic things the theory predicts, which were challenged.
I’ve mentioned the basic facts about global warming theory since early in this topic, so you would expect them to appear in a Google search. “Warming is projected to be larger over continents than oceans, and is largest at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during Northern Hemisphere winter”
But of course even when I provided two links to the scientific consensus, it didn’t matter at all. A letter has destroyed the consensus science (if we are to believe the reasoning being used here). It’s quite impossible to tell what the thrust of the commentary actually is.
Fortune smile on us all, since a key graphic from the sources I used earlier are on Wikipedia, so anyone can look at the predictions from the models, based on the theory.
What this latest research is about, is much like what Cohen et al, has been publishing for over a decade now, trying to understand how the weather actually works, to be able to predict what will actually happen, especially for NH winters. As I have stated multiple times, colder NH winters is the opposite of what global warming theory predicts.
http://epic.awi.de/36132/1/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL2012.pdf
The astute lurker who has followed all of this, probably recognizes both those papers, since I have used them as sources for some time now. Note that the ideas in the newest letter are not exactly the same, stating “We find that severe winters across East Asia are associated with anomalous warmth in the Barents–Kara Sea region, whereas severe winters over North America are related to anomalous warmth in the East Siberian–Chukchi Sea region.”
But, just as with the previous ideas to explain the cooling NH winter trends, and the drastic increase in snow and freezing events, it does fit with basic global warming theory.
In any other field of science, this would just be the usual challenges to a new theory, in which observation of what has happened would lean the theory is incorrect. If this new idea is correct, just as with the ideas from Cohen, Honda , Budikova, Semenov, Serreze and others, it means the theory was wrong. Is wrong.
And as I noted in regards to the Newest Idea about Global Warming from MIT researchers, if these radical new theories turn out to be correct, the basic global warming theory is almost completely wrong about the changes to the NH cold season.
And that is quite enough of that.
tl:dr - still annoying the fuckheads, still educating the actual curious person
cheers
FX
Still trolling.
Still making up shit to pretend you have a point beyond trolling.
meh
The author of that article provides his definition of ‘the basic global warming theory’ in the comments:
It is rather general. The planet warms, the end. Claims about what happens in winter in the NH are refinements of the idea and steps on the quest for truth, but we shouldn’t regard them as keystones to the whole edifice of the theory, at least if the author of the paper you are raving about has any credibility to you.
Aside from that, we have to place observation above modeling. We are observing global warming- we had the hottest July ever, and 365 months in a row of above-average temperatures, remember? Is your author sure that the increase in radiation emitted away from the planet is equal to or larger than the increase in retained energy? Because if there is a net gain in energy retention, we still get AGW. It makes sense for a warmer planet to emit more radiation, because it has more energy!
And, it isn’t too ‘radical’ that radiation absorbed by the oceans is a driver of climate change. That’s a big part of what I’ve been talking about all along with that delta of the arctic thing. Scientists have always maintained that it is difficult to predict the specifics of climate change, though the broad strokes seem clear enough.
Finally, my response full of names listed the authors of the paper I cited. Are they peer-reviewed, or not? Being published as a letter doesn’t necessarily mean no. Publishing letters in a journal like this could very well be a way of recognizing submissions from scientists who are outside of the mainstream, a way of saying, “We don’t know these guys, but their work stands up to scrutiny.”
They use observational and modeling data to describe a mechanism by which global warming (or, at least, arctic ocean warming) drives colder NH winters. You’ve been complaining about colder NH winters since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. Now a group of scientists have published an explanation for that very phenomenon, and you take it as somehow disproving AGW instead of just one prediction? Like AGW and the paper I’m citing are somehow mutually negating? So that you can continue to shout, “colder NH winters don’t make any sense!!1!1!”, because…
why 
:dubious:
It would seem you don’t understand/ The topic is complaining about global warming, and the reason is that global warming is making it colder. That much has been clear since the first post. If the warming continues on, we can expect a new ice age to start.
And the next time somebody asks “What ever happened to global warming?”, while stuck in record snow and cold, or when the English summer is one of the coldest ever, or whatever, when somebody complains and asks that question, we can explain to them that because it’s so much warmer (hotter than ever before) it’s getting colder in the winter, and sometimes hotter as well. Just like how summers are getting warmer, except when they are cooler.
If they complain that sounds nuts (that would be crazy) you just tell them “science self adjusts” and if they point out that you told the the opposite 15 years ago, and that the science was settled, and now you are changing it, accuse them of being anti-science and ask them how much the coal companies are paying them to ask questions like that.
That will show them how much smarter you are, and why you should run the world.
Let us know when you’re done masturbating so we can explain the difference between local weather and climate again.
This is from a coauthor of the paper that Fuxsie is claiming shows that “the basic global warming theory is almost completely wrong about the changes” in his driveway.
So, he’s now endorsing research that says the planet will continue to warm due the burning of fossil fuels. I’ve seen him cherry pick one clause out of a sentence before, but now he’s just endorsing global climate change caused by humans.
I think he’s too stupid to realize he’s arguing against himself at this point. What an imbecile!
In reality, you have never done any such thing, it’s a dodge to avoid the obvious points being made. In the real world, the predictions/projections were Global warming is making winters warmer.
This isn’t even a bone of contention, it’s in the IPCC reports, in the model outputs, in the theory itself. In fact, winter amplification, where warmer winters cause less ice and snow, which allows even more warming, is a key mechanism for drastic warming from a very small change in forcing. To dumb that down, it means bare rock, clear vegetation and open water absorbs more sunlight than bright white snow and ice, and less white means more heating from sunlight. Combined with more water vapor, due to it being warmer, this is expected to cause more warming, a feedback that increases the winter warming.
This is basic basic climate science, it’s one of the key indicators of a warming planet from an increased greenhouse effect, you can see it represented in the graphic from skepticalscience. The arrows pointing down mean “less”, as in glaciers shrinking, sea ice shrinking, snow cover decreasing, and ice sheets decreasing.
Ice sheets being the huge ice masses on Greenland and Antarctica.
It’s also shown in the tree line shifting poleward and upward, and species migrating poleward. As the graphic shows, all key indicators of AGW. Warming (or climate change) from changes in the sun, or air pollution, ocean currents changing, or increased vulcanism under the sea and ice sheets, will all show a different signature. The “signature” is a critical part of the theory, it’s how we can have confidence the changes are from AGW, and not natural, or other human caused changes.
If the theory is changed to now predict colder winters, due to changes from the greenhouse effect, it would be a different theory.
The obvious problem with changing the theory is that in the future, if winters start warming again, then the theory is even more wrong that before. It’s an actual problem for science. A theory has to be able to explain, and predict, to be useful, to be considered valid. A theory that changes to fit the current weather patterns is no theory at all.
I already linked to that article
It’s about the MIT idea which I introduced, in relation to the other studies and ideas that cooling might be due to warming. I don’t expect a fuckhead to understand the implications, and I’m pretty sure the fuckheads still think I am posting for them. Which is hilarious.
The poor fuckhead has a real problem. All they have is talk, lots of talking and jabbing. Jibber jabbering.
But even the casual viewer can understand something like a GISS map showing warming NH winters, which is why NASA and others published about global warming causing warmer winters for the Northern Hemisphere.
Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model
It’s impossible to deny something like the links above shows.
When you add the maps, to understand why they are talking about warming winters, it’s obvious. GISS J-F trend 1970-2000 or the GISS winter trend
It’s actually possible to see why warmer winters would be attributed to AGW, and why it was confirmation of the theory, and the models.
Then an extreme example of warming is shown, and then the recent trend is shown, to compare it with.
The alarmists or cock sure warmist will dismiss a twenty year trend as meaningless, but they can’t dismiss the ideas people get when looking at such data. And that’s the fun part. Learning new shit and all.
Weather:
m dv/dt = B + G + F
Climate:
m ∆v/∆t = B + G + F
Where m=mass, v=velocity, t=time, B=pressure force, G=gravity, F=frictional forces
Do you see where the actual physics is the same? For extra credit, name a couple different frictional forces involved.
We could always point them to the paper I linked to that explains the mechanism by which warming oceans drive colder winters in some places.
Anyway, who says the colder winters thing is a permanent trend? It could be indicative of a transitional period.
Do you believe the globe overall is warming, or not?