I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Because it’s the most commonly parroted denialist trope and the easiest to repeat ad nauseum. It requires no understanding to state and quite a bit of understanding to make, as AGW is a pretty fucking hard subject to understand to any degree. You might as well ask why supporters of evolution so often get “it’s still a bird/bacteria/ape/dog/etc.” thrown at them. It’s a simple question with a difficult answer

Bullshit; it’s a simple question with a simple answer. It’s astonishingly easy to supply a testable prediction about future warming; GIGO can briskly manage it in a single sentence, of the classic 25-words-or-less variety. It would take less time and fewer words than your post just now.

And remember, this isn’t a guess on my part; I’ve seen GIGO relay his answer on request in another thread, and I’m merely marveling at his refusal to do so on request from a different poster here in this thread. And I’m marveling at your response likewise; imagine folks come across the following exchange:

“AGW is like a religion, in that it doesn’t make any falsifiable predictions about future warming.”
“That’s a commonly parroted denialist trope which is easy to repeat ad nauseum, but AGW is a pretty fucking hard subject to understand to any degree.”

Folks may believe you, or they may believe the other guy; I don’t know. But if you instead addressed the “parroted denialist trope” head on – relaying the prediction instead of making it sound like believers in fact can’t supply one – you smack the “religion” complaint down; by contrast, replying with “AGW is a pretty fucking hard subject to understand to any degree” lets the “religion” argument thrive.

[brazil84]

@FXMastermind

There is a pretty serious problem right there, since they have discounted the sun as a cause of warming, they do not explain the warming since the little ice age. It wasn’t the sun, and it wasn’t CO2, they just don’t talk about it.

Yes, that’s a big problem for the warmists.

As far as I can tell, they believe (without any evidence whatsoever) that whatever unidentified force caused the Earth to warm between 1890 and 1950 simply clicked off in 1950 and from then on it was CO2.

[FXMastermind]

Why is it important to look at long term data? Long trends? Because CO2 theory (AGW) predicts an increase in the heat energy of the atmosphere and oceans. This is, in the simplest form, the global warming theory based on an increase of CO2.

How can we know if that theorized event has happened? By checking the data. I will now show you, very simply, why the CO2 theory has been proven wrong, in an easy to understand way. (there will be no skepticalscience link fro GIGOGallop to counter this, as they don’t even know about this)

Here is the global anomaly for January, since 1940.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/every:12

That is the coldest month in the NH, which theory predicts will show the most warming from CO2. This is an absolute prediction of CO2 theory. This is due to the nature of CO2 warming, it’s physics.

The raw data shows the problem very clearly.
1942 0.215 - this was the warmest winter in that period, though several others were quite close. Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
With
1958 0.224
but it wouldn’t be fair to use the highest value, 1942 will work just fine. Remember these numbers represent the global average above the global mean using the period Jan 1961 - Dec 1990 (30 years)
Temperature data (HadCRUT, CRUTEM,, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5) Climatic Research Unit global temperature

So there is the January anomaly, it represents the global heat balance.
1942 0.215

We see the cooling period until 1976, followed by warming.
1976 -0.266
1977 -0.134
1978 0.014
1979 -0.029
1980 0.106
1981 0.26
1982 -0.028
1983 0.386
1984 0.088
1985 0.019
1986 0.115
1987 0.118
1988 0.348
1989 -0.002
1990 0.198
1991 0.229
1992 0.282
1993 0.217
1994 0.157
1995 0.359
1996 0.065
1997 0.15
1998 0.492
1999 0.37
2000 0.206
2001 0.324
2002 0.598
2003 0.525
2004 0.504
2005 0.461
2006 0.319
2007 0.61
2008 0.053
2009 0.387
2010 0.489
2011 0.194
2012 0.206
2013 0.39
1942 0.215

Right there you can see, in black and white, what the graph clearly shows. The heat balance change for January, in the last 70 years.

The astute observer might say, it’s not fair to use the global average in regards to NH winters, and you would be correct. Since the SH hasn’t warmed like the NH, we should look at just NH winters.

Here is the warm period (before current warming)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1930/every:12/to:1960

Note the warm winter of
1958 0.487

but that winter of 42 is now not that high. But 44 sure as hell is.
1944 0.572

When comparing the NH heat balance of then to now, it’s quite fair to look at the difference. The warmists will of course cry foul, and want the coldest periods then compared to the warmist year now.

But that isn’t how heat balance works. If the heat balance in 44 was 0.572, then in 58 0.487, you have to look at how much heat has accumulated since then.

1944 0.572
1945 -0.045
1946 0.273
1947 -0.349
1948 0.305
1949 0.256
1950 -0.541
1951 -0.366
1952 0.176
1953 0.127
1954 -0.351
1955 0.241
1956 -0.163
1957 -0.285
1958 0.487
1959 0.174
1960 -0.036
1961 0.131
1962 0.173
1963 0.056
1964 0.066
1965 -0.104
1966 -0.094
1967 -0.172
1968 -0.304
1969 -0.544
1970 -0.014
1971 -0.019
1972 -0.676
1973 0.069
1974 -0.471
1975 0.064
1976 -0.073
1977 -0.436
1978 0.088
1979 -0.08
1980 0.068
1981 0.507
1982 -0.131
1983 0.44
1984 0.116
1985 -0.064
1986 0.238
1987 0.097
1988 0.384
1989 -0.032
1990 0.248
1991 0.337
1992 0.436
1993 0.268
1994 0.217
1995 0.536
1996 0.07
1997 0.232
1998 0.499
1999 0.47
2000 0.272
2001 0.376
2002 0.773
2003 0.611
2004 0.649
2005 0.589
2006 0.317
2007 0.924
2008 0.053
2009 0.495
2010 0.531
2011 0.142
2012 0.297
1944 0.572

There is your global warming in the last 69 years.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

You can use other data sets, maybe the well liked CRUtemp4 (which shows the past as cooler)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/download.html

1944 0.656
2012 0.453

There is the current accumulated heat in the last 68 years. Comparing the NH winter heat balance.

That is global warming.

Haha of course that is completely unfair. We need to compare more average winter anomalies.

2008 0.216
1946 0.292

Actually the whole point is why averages matter. And why using the short time period since the last cool period is bullshit for showing drastic warming.

Comparing 1932 with
1932 0.376
2011 0.332
(Hadcrut4)

or using Hasdcrut3 to compare
1932 0.326
2012 0.314

makes it seem like there has been no gain in heat for 80 years. When it just means there was no increase in the heat balance between those years.

The real global warming shows up in spring and summer. And make no mistake, there is warming.

here is summer (June) anomalies
1932.5 -0.037
2012.5 0.675

No doubt if you look at NH summers, there has been a lot of warming. The thing is, that isn’t what CO2 theory predicted, predicts, or explains.

Which is why GIGO and company are so funny. They don’t know this. Neither does SS.

So why is there such alarm in some minds? They take the coldest temperatures, like winter 72, and compare it to the hottest summer temperatures.
1972 -0.639
2007 0.904

Which obviously shows almost 1.5 degrees warming. In a very short time. Everybody panic.

If you did that trick, took the warmest reading in the 40s and compared it to the coldest in 2008, you could show global cooling instead.

1944 0.552
2008 0.084
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

But that is a bullshit trick.

The thing to take away is that if you compare the heat balance now with then, there hasn’t been much CO2 warming at all. This does not mean no warming, but it certainly means the theory is wrong.

Not that CO2 doesn’t act as a greenhouse gas, that isn’t what is wrong.

It’s the predictions of how we will see warming based on that forcing. That is what is obviously wrong. We will get to why in another post.

And if fuckhead GIGOGallop quotes this entire post (which I predict he will), it will mean he didn’t actually read it first. Because if he did, he would see this prediction, and not to do it, to make me wrong.

I suspect that will not happen. So if you see this giant ass quote, you will know in your hearts he isn’t actually reading.

Also, there is no skepticalscience counter for this line of argument. Because nobody has ever brought it up before. So they have no prepackaged defense.

Also it fucking science.
Physics is my bitch.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

Yes, that’s a big problem for the warmists.

As far as I can tell, they believe (without any evidence whatsoever) that whatever unidentified force caused the Earth to warm between 1890 and 1950 simply clicked off in 1950 and from then on it was CO2.

See my really long as post above for details and boring science shit.

want to make any predictions about how the warmists will react? I already made one. Maybe two.

I now predict an attack on science, rather than any discussion of what it means.

Oh, and personal insults.

Also, Waldo Pepper is cracking me the fuck up.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

For some reason the deniers here assume that I would not welcome other sources of information that **continue **to show the deniers to be the clowns and fools that they are.

I’m pretty sure Gigogallop is going to learn more than a few things after he reads this post. None of which he has discussed before. Once he starts talking about the following, you will know I schooled him. Again.

Disclaimer and disclosure - The following is going to be in the form of a rant. It will also contain “Yo! Bitch!”, which should be read as Jesse from Breaking Bad, since that is how I am using it.

Also there will be a lot of cursing, because it’s the Pit. And it makes if funnier. Also, it will be simple so people reading who are not climate scientists can follow along.

Oh, and here is the tl;dr at the beginning.

tl;dr = An explanation of both why NH winters have been trending colder, and why the CO2 theory turned out to be wrong so far.

Theory is CO2 will cause the most warming in the arctic, the NH winters, over land, at night, and feedbacks will further increase all of these things. Water vapor is one major feedback. Albedo change is the other.

Both have behaved in an unexpected way, leading to colder winters with more snow and ice. But before we go there, sources bitch.

Albedo has had an effect on global temperatures - mostly a cooling effect on long term trends. As for recent albedo trends, earthshine data shows increasing albedo from 1999 to 2003 but little to no trend from 2003. Satellites show little to no trend since 2000. The radiative forcing from albedo changes in recent years appears to be minimal.

Albedo explained by SS includes a graph of changes measured by earthshine

Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Note this states that warming will be greatest in the NH, in the arctic, and over land.

Here is a source for the belief that AGW will be greatest in winter. (this is actually common knowledge among climate researchers)

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter.

Boreal winter means NH winter. (not found on SS of course) but it’s a science term, and it is a climate science term. Note that even predicting short term trends is still impossible at that time.

But on with the science, bitches.

However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Translate, winters be getting colder bitches, and it can’t be explained as natural variation or any other known factor. The entire NH isn’t getting that much colder (see my previous long as fuck post on that), but certain parts sure as fuck are.

Linked paper be all about a mechanism, focusing on decreased sea ice and albedo changes due to snow. while CO2 theory predicted changes due to warming, decreased sea ice, melting permafrost, early snow melt, shrinking glaciers, decreased snow cover, they were wrong as fuck. Yes all those things happened, (except glaciers, they haven’t really shrunk much), but none of it matters when the cold comes. Open water means when the first heavy snow comes, and bitches it will come, the albedo is fucked the other way, and hard.

Massive early snowfall leads to early fall albedo change, and no amount of warming (which so far isn’t that much) can melt the snow before the next big ass storm dumps more snow. This leads to an early creation of the cold poles, high pressure domes, continued cooling due to albedo change, and winter comes early and hard to some areas.

The warming of summer it seems is causing seriously fucking bad winters, and it doesn’t matter if there is open water from decreased sea ice, that just makes it worse. As the feedback continues snow cover in the NH increases, leading to more albedo changes, and this is why the cooling trend is impossible to ignore.

Sure there are several other theories being floated to explain it, jet stream changes, blocking highs, whatever, they all hinge on global warming.

So fuck you global warming.

The only theory that doesn’t blame your fossil fuel usage is the solar decrease, which it turns out causes changes to the upper atmosphere and seemingly can influence weather patterns down below.

But in any case, colder winters is NOT what global warming predicts.

The ill informed will try to say it did, but they are full of bullshit and ignorant fuckholes. CO2 theory predicted heavier snow in some areas, due to more water vapor and heat transport. But not an increase in NH snow cover, as well as a cooling trend.

No, don’t even try that tactic bitches.

So, if you read the links and know even a little science, you might realize why the CO2 theory faithful don’t want to make predictions.

They might be wrong.

Certainly the assumptions about feedback in the arctic turned out to be a huge fucking disaster for the doomsayers.

Of course some are already starting to roll it into the theory and claim they knew all along this would happen.

Good luck with that. Let us know how that turns out.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@brazil84

Yes, that’s a big problem for the warmists.

As far as I can tell, they believe (without any evidence whatsoever) that whatever unidentified force caused the Earth to warm between 1890 and 1950 simply clicked off in 1950 and from then on it was CO2.

The nice thing is that they tell you exactly that.

when you point out that in the 30s there was a pretty nice warmup period that pretty much is identical to the one in the las decades, they would parrto “the one in the 30s had natural causes, the last one didn’t”.

Maybe it is true, I’m ready to be convinced, but reading the literatura the warmists present it’s obvious that gleaning each element of this supremely complex system isn’t that simple and that CO2 can be used as a mildly effective proxy for the -let’s repeat it- waming of the last decades/last century WHICH HAS UNDOUBTEDLY HAPPENED.

There is no mechanism that I’ve seen proposed that explain why those same natural forces can be contributing to, say 40% of the warming. It would leave CO2 as the “majority player” but not the only one.

[FXMastermind]

if you slogged through the way too long science shit above, then you might appreciate why I find the following so damn funny.

@YogSosoth

Global warming has already been defined, there is no controversy as to how its meaning and how its used.

Once again, instead of typing out yet another falsehood, why not link to the definition? Or just explain it? It really is fucking strange shit how much effort people put into NOT answering.

@YogSosoth

Only oily shill idiots would like to cast doubt on it.

No, I fucking hate oil companies, and coal companies, and all the goddamn pollution they cause, as well as how they fuck up every effort to get free of them. Fuck them all. They suck the cock of Satan.

@YogSosoth

If you ever become honest, because let’s face it, you’re not getting smarter, you can debate Global Warming by acknowledging that everyone already knows what it means and what it stands for

You really are actually stupid. It’s not an act.

Priceless.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

For those who won’t bother to read a long pdf, the word “theory” appears three times there, but not in regards to an AGW theory, global warming theory, or greenhouse gas theory, nothing.

They start off as if “global warming” is well known fact and go on to support it, never defining what it means, or what the falsification would be, or the mechanism for how CO2 is supposed to cause it.

It’s more of the same avoidance.

On page 11 they first mention theory, by saying “Another way to test a scientific theory is to investigate alternative explanations.” They have not said what the theory is, and they never do.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Of course if you are aware of what context is, you can readily tell us then what theory is the National Academy of Science talking about if not AGW?

As it was in the past most of the wall of text FX posted can be dealt with what experts statisticians reported when presented with the data and not told where it came from, they reported that it described a rising trend and one of the experts later reported that yes, it was dishonest to declare that the warming had stopped or that AGW was falsified; on top of that, surface temperatures are only part of the history, there is also the oceans.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Bullshit; it’s a simple question with a simple answer. It’s astonishingly easy to supply a testable prediction about future warming; GIGO can briskly manage it in a single sentence, of the classic 25-words-or-less variety.

Well, maybe he can. I can’t. I don’t know which testable predictions are made; although I’m aware of the ones set 50-100 years in the future. It’s just really hard to make solid predictions over the short term in a chaotic system. You know, the kind that FX and co. are asking for.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Well, maybe he can. I can’t. I don’t know which testable predictions are made; although I’m aware of the ones set 50-100 years in the future. It’s just really hard to make solid predictions over the short term in a chaotic system. You know, the kind that FX and co. are asking for.

I didn’t say a thing about the prediction needing to be short-term, sure as FX didn’t put any “in less than 50 years” rider in the request I’m referring to.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I didn’t say a thing about the prediction needing to be short-term, sure as FX didn’t put any “in less than 50 years” rider in the request I’m referring to.

And that shows that you are not paying attention on what they are saying…

Besides all the lies and denials that shows that in reality he and others here are not what you think they are.

Global Warming 101

Q:
How can I argue with a global warming skeptic?
A:

First, determine whether you're talking to a skeptic, or a denier. A genuine skeptic is someone who can be convinced by evidence, and the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming. (If you're dealing with a flat-earther, don't waste your breath.)

For detailed, point-by-point rebuttals to global warming naysayers, see Grist's How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.

You should also consult New Scientist's Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed. It rounds up common climate myths and misperceptions.

If these resources don't answer your question, take a look at Real Climate, a blog by leading climate researchers that delves into climate science in great, and often technical, detail.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

Your copy-and-paste leads off with “First, determine whether you’re talking to a skeptic, or a denier.” An excellent way to determine whether you’re talking to a skeptic or a denier is to supply the requested prediction and see how they react.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Your copy-and-paste leads off with “First, determine whether you’re talking to a skeptic, or a denier.” An excellent way to determine whether you’re talking to a skeptic or a denier is to supply the requested prediction and see how they react.

Already did, and what the National Academy of Science is reporting was denied. As he reported, “The theory is wrong”, period, it does not matter that past confirmations are supporting what scientists reported it was coming, like when in the 70’s popular media told us scientists predicted global cooling, but in reality a super majority of papers told us that global warming was coming regardless of the apparent cooling in the 70’s.

It is really wishful thinking to assume that then a prediction will have any value for him as the past has been denied.

[FXMastermind]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

\An excellent way to determine whether you’re talking to a skeptic or a denier is to supply the requested prediction and see how they react.

Not in the made up world of the-one-true-climate-believer. First they have to somehow determine, before they answer anything, the mental state of belief of the person asking the question.

If they determine, before anything else, the person is not a “real skeptic” then they are told to not even talk to them.

It’s in the Gigogallop link.

Priceless.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

It is really wishful thinking to assume that then a prediction will have any value for him

See? There it is. Because he decided one person won’t gain anything, there is no point in saying anything. It’s an amazing method of debate.

“I have decided my opponent will not gain anything from my defining terms, so I won’t define them. And this means I win the debate.”
-GIGOGalloper the Great

[GIGObuster]

Yep, he is is till deluded about what a Gish Gallop is. A dizzying intellect indeed.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

Already did, and what the National Academy of Science is reporting was denied. As he reported, “The theory is wrong”, period, it does not matter that past confirmations are supporting what scientists reported it was coming, like when in the 70’s popular media told us scientists predicted global cooling, but in reality a super majority of papers told us that global warming was coming regardless of the apparent cooling in the 70’s.

It is really wishful thinking to assume that then a prediction will have any value for him as the past has been denied.

It may be wishful thinking, but upon supplying that prediction you’d actually see whether or not it works. It’d take less time and effort than you just now spent typing out that post – spelling out why you won’t bother, because you figure it might not work – to spell out the claim itself.

At that point, you wouldn’t need to castigate me for assuming it will have value for him. You wouldn’t need to assume the opposite, either. You’d actually see him disregarding it or taking it to heart, and could base all such comments on his reaction instead of your supposition.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

Of course if you are aware of what context is, you can readily tell us then what theory is the National Academy of Science talking about if not AGW?

Translation: I can’t just tell you what the AGW theory means, so I will waste your time until you admit defeat or get a life. Then I win the thread.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Translation: I can’t just tell you what the AGW theory means, so I will waste your time until you admit defeat or get a life. Then I win the thread.

Nope, everyone can see that you do not have an alternative of what clearly is the case, the National Academy of Sciences is talking about only one theory, and it is AGW. Remember, you told us that the NAS is not telling us what theory is the one they are talking about in that summary. What theory is then if not AGW?

[sylmar]

@Aji_de_Gallina

In what universe does “no warming” mean “dowturn”?

Just to make sure:
My claim: No warming, i.e. ΔT ≈ 0
You responded by saying that there had been no downturn, i.e. ΔT < 0 (stastistically significantly speaking)
I responded that I never claimed a downturn, only a pause.
You now quote my original post, the one that says “no warming” and, via a lame joke, tried to make it into “prolonged downturn.”

I’ll repeat, since 1930 (your date of choice) there has been no statistically significant downward trend in tempereature that has lasted more than a decade, but since I’ve never claimed that, I fail to see your point.

Second boo-fuckin’-ya.

BTW, I’ll handhold you so you’ll understand this phrase ““no warming in 200 months” is not contradicted at all by “last June is one of the hottest””.

Let’s say (invented numbers) this is the average temperature anomaly for the last 30 years in 0.01°C

12-14-17-12-14-14-19-17-24-28-
30-34-33-36-38-33-35-40-44-47-
45-46-40-41-39-40-44-44-43-42.

• Temperatures have increased.
• The last 10 years were hotter than the first ten or second ten years of this progression.
• The last year is one of the hottest of the series
• There is a slight downward trend since the peak of 47.
• This trend may not be really significant and it, for sure, doesn’t negate the net upward trend since year 1.

Served. You. Have. Been.

Served? Crap again? I. Have. Been.

Originally posted by Ají de Gallina
I accept as correct the chart, with the proviso that there are slightly different datasets with slightly different results and that for reasons that are not particularly relevant for this specific post I prefer satellite data when available.

And you’re going to “hold my hand” and explain how this chart that you accept as valid is somehow indicative of “no warming” ?
Ummm …maybe you’re looking at the chart at the wrong angle?
Maybe the lightings poor in your ass? ( Don’t light a match brah, I have a feeling bad things will result).

You keep studying the chart Aji, and maybe you’ll eventually connect that line going up means"increase in temperature", Line going down means “decrease” and a flat line (not there dumbass) would indicate your ΔT < 0.

Invented numbers? Catchy concept… use that often?