But you would agree that both summers and winters warming is different than summers warming and winters cooling - from a climate modeling perspective, right?
It’s an important distinction when trying to figure out WHY this stuff is happening and WHAT will happen in the future.
Yws. One is different from the other. But both are consistent with global warming.
Ok.
But if you are trying to figure out why something is happening and what will happen next and your models predict X but instead we get Y, then would you agree that the models are missing something and that there is more work to do to understand the “why” and “what next”?
An intelligent person, who knew the basics of greenhouse theory would know exactly why they are different, and why it matters. Your average idiot who simply believes won’t know, or care. It just doesn’t matter what actually happens, they already *know *what is happening. Anything counter to the belief must be wrong, it’s how belief works
Obviously. And it’s very important for predictions, which actually matter a lot, when it comes to winter. Knowing a bit about what the boreal winter will be like is vital to our civilization.
And here you see why myself and others tried so hard to get the alarmists idiots to define and explain what they mean. AGW isn’t the same as global warming. It is the “human fingerprints” , or the CO2 caused warming signals that matter when it comes to AGW. If human caused climate change of a warming nature is due to CO2, we can know this. If they are not there, then the warming isn’t just from CO2. Real climate scientists know this, but you couldn’t tell by looking at the skepticalscience blog, the realclimate blog, Tamino or Stoat, all the “big” players seem somehow to avoid an actual description of what AGW is, how we know it is happening, what we expect to observe.
Which is just sick. It’s truly fucked up. It’s also why Gigo and company can’t defend, much less understand what is being discussed, and why it matters.
Of course, which is exactly what the paper I linked to and quoted from is discussing. " Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales." Radware Bot Manager Captcha
Of course it matters. If you spent 30 years telling people winters would be milder, warmer, less snow and ice, more rain, and the opposite is happening, it matters. If you also acted like a true believer and insisted everyone who noticed this was happening were fools and deniers, it also matters. And changing your story after the fact, to try and avoid being WRONG about something is only going to fool the believers. Skeptical people might start thinking if you are so full of shit about this, what else are you deluding yourself about?
To be fair it’s also bullshit for the real deniers, the people who are true believers that it is all bullshit, it’s bullshit to jump on something like this and deny humans are doing nothing to fuck up the atmosphere.
I want to know what is actually going on, rather than assume I already know everything.
snip
Interesting stuff FX. So your motivation in starting this thread was to highlight that the scientific community might be missing winters possibly getting colder?
Look dumbass, I posted several papers ABOUT the colder winter trend. By climate scientists. In fact, the reason we know there is a cooling trend for large areas of the boreal winters is because SCIENCE
So quit being a little bitch
What we really haven’t discussed is the other science stuff. even by 2010 some science people noticed the winter trend. It was pretty hard to miss some places.
So there is another issue. We might very well be seeing both cooling and warming at the same time. Or multiple factors at once. Changes in the greenhouse gases, black soot pollution, natural circulation changes, AND solar influences, all at the same time.
It’s one reason why “the science is settled” fuckheads are so annoying. Same for the other side who claim nothing we do is effecting anything. I want to bitch slap them all.
So why would the climate of AD1000 be so bad? Rye grew in Iceland, trees in Greenland, and you could traverse the NW passage without hitting an iceberg. Scandinavia was nice, and there were no glaciers blocking the Alpine passes. Plus, you could make good wine in England!
Bring it on!
Little bitch? Perish the thought FX. I’m a huge fan. You’re more amusing than all three stooges by yourself.
Because the first post was actually you bitching about a record cold day in the summer, not the winter, and going “hur, hur, see, scientist don’t know what they’re talking about.”
And now you’re grasping on recent research ( Well, 2011 at any rate) to flounce about crowing since climate scientist have continued tinkering on various models, this shows they still don’t know what they’re doing.
Nice job of ass over end grasping at straws to finish up your ass clown ensemble. Nice that Rafty’s hanging with you and Brazzers now too. Two stooges just seems wrong no matter how amusing the antics.
Oh, I liked your seizing on the research exploring possibly colder winters due to overall hotter temperatures melting polar ice, thus putting more moisture in the air that then gets deposited along some of the NH as snow holding down temperatures in those vicinities.
But that was 2011 sparky. You need to get ahead of the curve now. What happens when temps start shifting above the freezing point and no more snow to hold down winter temps? I’ve seen no research discussing this. You need to start another thread! Just to solidify your title as pretentious moron in residence…
What are your positions on the following items?
14 years of plateaued warming is or is not long enough to begin questioning climate models?
10 years of winter cooling for Northern Hemisphere is or is not different than most predictions by climate models?
If you agree that it is different, do you think 10 years is long enough to be considered significant, showing that substantial work remains to be done on climate models?
But the problem is that there are no intermediate fossils!
It’s very simple:
You are asking questions.
Some creationists ask questions.
Therefore you are like creationists.
But creationists are wrong.
Therefore you are wrong.
See? No need to actually discuss any specifics.
I think that a big reason for the attitude surrounding anything climate related, is due to the *perceived *huge danger that has been shouted from the rooftops for decades now. It means even any rational discussion, especially one that is evidence based, is viewed as threat, even when it’s not.
You see that? Instead of talking about what is, reality, the data and the reasonings in the scientific papers, the focus is on “FX”, as if any of this is my doing. That is irrational. It also avoids discussing anything of importance.
I actually thought it was a funny joke, since most people assumed when they read the headline, and the topic title, that it was yet another story about how hot it was in Atlanta. It was after all, the middle of August.
Usually you don’t see 100 year records for cold broken until at least October. Speaking of, several were just broken for cold again. OK actually a whole bunch were.
New weather records. This link is always for the last week, so it changes. Even so, that is a lot of records.
This one is easier to see. Last two days.
It’s pretty weird.
For a website that is supposed to be committed to fighting ignorance, I am stunned at how many posters seem so emotional about this topic that a logical/rational view of the data is simply not possible.
I see a higher level of combative nature from the OP primarily than his compatriots and opponents. He seems to enjoy riling up the group. It is as if he has just discovered that complex models are… well… complex, and that fact disturbs him somehow.
And the fact, that in general, increased variations from the norm occur in a closed system that has a mean increase in energy.
So that offends for some odd reason and the discussion devolves into a giant football game and it is really quite entertaining, but more enlightening about the cognitive and debate skills of the participants than the actual topic at hand.
You know, I was just about to post a reply and continue what I considered our reasoned discussion, but when you accuse people of being irrational, and do so in a post to the person who is far more irrational (and a bit insane) about the topic, fuck it.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Stagnation? Shut the hell up. Global warming is killing the planet.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
The thread is about how global warming is fucking things up. Nobody said there wasn’t any global warming.
Don’t be dumb.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Only a real moron calls somebody a moron.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Fukushima is nothing compared to what global warming is doing.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Try to focus on the important thing, which is how you should take your money and give it to other people. Because of what you did to them. You are killing them.
YOU ARE KILLING THE WORLD!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
You can deny all you want, but among smart people there is no doubt global warming is causing millions to die. Maybe billions. And all kinds of other things as well. Read it and weep.
[/QUOTE]
This is part of a logical/rational discussion?
And, the lack of any sense of humor is also pretty stark.
One of the ways people recognize a sense of humor is by noting that something is funny. 
You, Brazil and where has he gone… Blake are three ignoramuses seeing how big a fart bubble you can blow in the sauna.