I don’t expect an imbellic fuckhead to even comprehend how he is contradicting himself, especially when he is driven more by motivated reasoning than anyone else I’ve ever seen. What an embarrassment!
“I have feet! Elephants have feet! If you only compare the two of us using this extremely specific way of looking at things, I am exactly the same as an elephant! No, you’re not allowed to considered any other criteria or variables…”
Good luck with that. You start using physics, and things will go real quiet. Or somebody will drag a red herring across the trail.
Now you are just waffling. Making things up to ask about. Stick with what’s on the table, it’s already complicated enough.
That you ask about a “belief” is an interesting thing. From a scientific POV, belief is used when discussing people, what they report, publish or show us as evidence. In essence it’s “do you trust the results? Was the experiment well designed? Are the instruments calibrated correctly? Do we have enough quality data to know yet?”
Can it be replicated?
Does this fit the theory or not?
If the question was framed correctly, it would open the door to the real issue, which is the data itself. Do you believe this analysis is correct? That is the GISS land surface station data, modified by GISS, combined with the NCDC SST data. Does it represent each February since 1996?
Here is the RSS data, that is the lower troposphere atmospheric temperature for each February, globally.
Here is the RSS land only data. Do you believe it? That’s the real question.
Or do you believe the surface station data, after it’s been adjusted? If so, then you can ask if it shows a global warming trend, which is another question. Do you believe it does?
Then there is the summer data, an example would be CRUTEM2, every mid summer month since 1996. Compared with the RSS data for the same period. Do you believe that shows warming? I do. Just as the data shows cooling for boreal winter, centered around February, just as Cohen and others have noted. I believe the data is good enough to know that much at least.
If you average the entire year, what do we get? No warming for the land for twenty years? (that’s what the data shows)
Or extreme warming, which the other data also shows.
At which point “who do you believe” becomes the obvious question. How can two different methods of calculating global temperatures be so different?
Is the NH land data showing a trend for warmer summers, but cooler winters?
Can we see it in multiple data sets?
CRUTEM3 Summer warming
Winter cooling
RSS
Summer warming
winter cooling
So I believe that the many sources publishing about cooling winter trends are correct. (it shows up using GISS and the NDCD data as well of course)
That the various sources of data differ so much, that is another issue.
And the elephant asked “How the hell do you ever take a shower with that dinky little thing?”
PV = nRT … maybe R is different in climatology
F = ma … this one is mostly set in stone
This is your claim, do you not have anything to back it up? What physical property of the atmosphere only applies to climatology and does not apply to meteorology?
Well, for starters, the Brückner cycles. They show up in climate data, but not for weather. Of course it’s a solar cycle, so it isn’t technically an atmospheric issue.
Not really. It is easy to identify 3 phases: pre-warming ‘baseline’ period, the current period of diminishing ice, and the coming period of summertime ice-free arctic. Why would weather patterns stay constant when the underlying conditions do not? My point is that weather is always going to be difficult to predict, while global warming itself is pretty obvious- just looks at the temperature and ice data.
Fer cryin’ out loud. Do you Conclude the planet is warming? Not just in summer, or February, or on land, but the whole thing, year-round, air, land, water and atmosphere combined?
Do I? Sure. If there is a better explanation of how the arctic is melting and why global average temperatures are rising, I would like to hear it.
Speak for yourself.
I’ve done it more than twenty times just myself, you lying blow-toad!
You’re wrong, I think, in implying that he is driven by any kind of reasoning at all. He’s just practicing the same methods that The Onion practices: he makes up shit that he thinks is funny.
The big difference is that The Onion is often actually damn funny.
Trees are biology … just saying …
I thought the study of trees fell under botany.
In any case, the Brukner cycles are no doubt from solar influences. But I thought the lunar component showing up as well was pretty damn interesting.
Being serious for a moment, the only difference in the classic definition of weather and climate is time.
No, you’ve never “done it”, much less multiple times. Here’s how to do it, so you will know.
What you do, have done, is all still here in the topic, and it shows you as a liar. Certainly one can be an insulting fuckbag in the Pit, but making shit up just makes you look bad. What you have done multiple times, is commit a fallacy, and then lie, neither is very good as an argument.
You just illustrate your lack of understanding, and your inability to follow a logical argument. I’ve made the point multiple times that using a global average to dismiss everything you dislike about the world, is as stupid as claiming there is no drought in California because the global rainfall is actually higher than in the past. So using the global average, the extreme drought in the US is meaningless, it doesn’t matter.
That’s exactly the sort of reasoning you bring when you try to dismiss extreme winters, and a trend of much colder winters with more snow. You want to use the global annual average temperature to dismiss it as meaning anything. But even a fuckhead can understand that saying the exact same thing about California is stupid. It’s dumb, and if anyone was telling us there is no drought in California because globally rain has actually increased, you would view them as some sort of idiot. Which is exactly how you are percieved when you do stupid shit like that.
Nothing of course, climate IS weather, over time. But, and this is not pedantic or nitpicking, when it comes to global climate change, (or AGW)the cryosphere, sea level, the stratosphere, and thermosphere are involved, things we don’t consider when discussing mere weather. Even ozone levels and particulates, volcanoes and sulfates, and especially the sun, climate change involves more than weather, in the sense of trying to understand and predict long term changes. A weather report isn’t going to include the effect of the solar wind or changes in high energy UV output of the sun. Even when these things do effect the weather, it won’t show up unless we use long time periods, which makes it climate.
Let me try and give you an answer so you can understand the problem with your question.
Do you conclude the planet is getting wetter? Not just in the rain-forest, not just in summer, or in winter, but the whole thing? Year round, more moisture in the air, more rainfall at sea, over land, everything combined?
And since we know it is, doesn’t that mean the drought in California means nothing at all? It’s the average that matters, not regional changes. Why can’t you understand this? (that was the example, a vain attempt to get you to grasp a simple point)
Can you see why the question is a fallacy of sorts? Focusing on the mythical global land+SST annual average isn’t the right question. Because we know for sure that from 1910-1940 the global annual mean rose as much as recent trends show. And it isn’t considered from CO2, so just a rise in the annual global temperature isn’t the right question. What we need to know, is how things are changing, and why.
If the changes show the fingerprints of greenhouse forcing, then we can say with confidence that CO2 levels are the driver of the changes. One major indicator of a CO2 forced change is that the stratosphere cools, since theory says if it were solar changes, the entire atmosphere would warm. If the troposphere warms, while the stratosphere cools, we have confidence it’s the greenhouse effect causing it.
Same for the land warming more than over oceans, and night time lows warming more than daytime highs, (Tmin rise vs Tmax rise). And winters, especially high latitude winters, warming more than summers. These are indicators of AGW. Because of the sun (or something else) was dominating climate change, we expect to see a different sort of change.
If summers warm faster than winters, it isn’t greenhouse forcing. This is a key part of greenhouse theory of climate change. If Tmax shows a rising trend, but Tmin shows a cooling, or flat trend, it’s not greenhouse warming. And these are things I have noted many time in this thread.
These are basic global warming theory basics. That you don’t know this, along with the rest of the clown car parade of morons posting idiocy here, is just so absurd, it’s hilarious.
It really is.
Like saying the only difference between a grain of sand and a beach is numbers.
Take it up with NASA if you have a problem with their definition.
Of course you are too dense to grasp that your made up idea there is idiocy. An actual example would be the difference between the beach erosion of a single day, or week, and coastal morphodynamics.
Which is a fucking great example, since people are often confused about long term behavior of beach erosion, and it can be really confusing to discuss the dynamics and causes of both short term erosion and coastal morphodynamics.
To further use the example, short term effects of a hurricane on a Florida beach appear to the casual observer to be the beach was eroded away. You might think the sand was washed “out to sea”, and that the hurricane caused extreme beach erosion, and the beach lost a shit ton of sand.
In reality, because physics, the constant wind and wave action, all towards the beach, as well as the storm surge, it all pushed massive amounts of sand onshore, and into the dune line, piling the sand up behind the barrier dune.
This is on a natural coast line, where people built on the dunes, the sand ends up in their swimming pools, parking lots and piled up on A1A, and even on the other side of the coast highway.
So much that it took weeks for heavy equipment to move all the sand off the roadways. The sand, rather than building up the dunes, was indeed removed, but by dump trucks and front end loaders, and then sold to a golf course in the Bahamas, shipped out in giant ships, because pure fine white beach sand is expensive to purchase.
But where there was natural dunes, the storm caused the dunes to increase in size, it actually built up the dune line and behind it.
Which is exactly what happens when there is a hurricane, it builds up a coastal dune, and can even build the back dune area, which is further built up by increased plant growth, due to fertilization from the event. This is a well know process, but most people still think a hurricane washes sand out to sea, and that is why the beach “erodes”. Which is the exact opposite of what happens.
Good luck trying to convince anyone of this.
Ah! So I should pay respectful attention to NASA when you find a nugget of data you can fit into your theory, but ignore rank upon rank of scientists who say you are full of beans? Dully noted.
" … rank upon rank of scientists … "
You forgot about Pope Francis …
You know, I didn’t quite grasp that we also lost the other never ending force of all that is good and right. For this, we should all give thanks.
The clarion call of the alarmists, who rarely is right about anything (predictive power of AGW), and is always sure everybody else is wrong.
I can’t say I miss that fuckhead view of the Universe.
I never ever tell you, or anyone else what you should do …
Except for when I said, “You are killing the planet and you should feel bad”. But that was sarcasm. Telling people what they “should” do is a recipe for disaster. You never want to do that. Pass laws and enforce them, it’s the only way to change human nature. If something is actually dangerous, the force of law is all that matters.
Like after it was determined smoking causes cancer (and a host of other health problems) how the world outlawed smoking, and now it’s no longer an issue.