I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[Gagundathar]

Hysteria != hysterical.
Bobcat Goldwaithe, you aren’t.

[RaftPeople]

@DMC

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.

I wasn’t talking about you at all and I wish you would continue our discussion, it’s been very calm and pleasant.

Although in this thread FX is swearing and calling people names, his approach was calm and reasonable in the only other thread I participated in so I wasn’t really judging him by comments in this thread and was taking him at his word regarding “joking”.

He has certainly responded calmly and with data many times in this thread so the “bitches” thing clearly isn’t the only thing he is capable of.

[sylmar]

@brazil84

It’s very simple:

1. You are asking questions.

2. Some creationists ask questions.

3. Therefore you are like creationists.

4. But creationists are wrong.

5. Therefore you are wrong.

See? No need to actually discuss any specifics.

So if I ask why you keep posting moronic, self-relevant observations, I’m wrong? Holy crap, you have this personal validation gimmick sewn up.

[FXMastermind]

Everybody calm down.

[sylmar]

@RaftPeople

What are your positions on the following items?

1. 14 years of plateaued warming is or is not long enough to begin questioning climate models?

2. 10 years of winter cooling for Northern Hemisphere is or is not different than most predictions by climate models?

3. 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?

Position? I’d say that’s over pimping what is basically just a laymens opinion from someone who’s immersion in all things climate change consists of skimming the headlines and Cliff notes on the subject. But I’m up for anything but missionary.

1. When have the models not been questioned? That’s why they keep evolving. I understand theres a multitude of disciplines involved, and not everyone agrees on what variables to include and how they should be weighted.

2. It’s a newer wrinkle. Kind of like watching the temp slide down a thermometer and expecting the water to freeze at 0, then finding out due to some impurities in the water, you’re actually going to have to go a little lower.

3. I think the overall reasoning behind climate change is solid. I also believe it will involve plateaus and sudden surges as we pachinko ball our way through various tipping points ( ie. artic ice melting ) that can be identified, but currently simpler models hold up better than those going for detail due to the complexity of the interactions.

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.

Ummm… Dorothy? Helpful hint, this isn’t Kansas. It’s the Pit. If you’re looking for a solid discussion on a subject, try one of the other forums.

[magellan01]

@sylmar

2. It’s a newer wrinkle. Kind of like watching the temp slide down a thermometer and expecting the water to freeze at 0, then finding out due to some impurities in the water, you’re actually going to have to go a little lower.

At what point do you question whether the thermometer is faulty?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@sylmar

1. When have the models not been questioned? That’s why they keep evolving. I understand theres a multitude of disciplines involved, and not everyone agrees on what variables to include and how they should be weighted.

2. It’s a newer wrinkle. Kind of like watching the temp slide down a thermometer and expecting the water to freeze at 0, then finding out due to some impurities in the water, you’re actually going to have to go a little lower.

3. I think the overall reasoning behind climate change is solid. I also believe it will involve plateaus and sudden surges as we pachinko ball our way through various tipping points ( ie. artic ice melting ) that can be identified, but currently simpler models hold up better than those going for detail due to the complexity of the interactions.

See, to me, that’s a good start – you explain, in neatly-numbered points, why you think said plateau and said cooling would be utterly compatible with a long-term prediction, as per the pachinko-ball analogy – and it’d be the work of a moment to add but if X happens in the next Y years, I’d no longer think the reasoning is solid.

If you happen to have such an X and Y in mind, why not mention them? I mean, I recognize that we right just then reach the point where you end the solid discussion to lay out the following:

Ummm… Dorothy? Helpful hint, this isn’t Kansas. It’s the Pit. If you’re looking for a solid discussion on a subject, try one of the other forums.

…but why not end the objection by continuing to explain for one more sentence?

Since you’re perfectly willing – right here in that post in this forum – to spell out why various points don’t suffice to trouble you, can’t you just as easily finish up by laying out what, at a minimum, would trouble you?

As if this were Kansas, you go on and on and on about the former; why not the latter?

[FXMastermind]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Since you’re perfectly willing – right here in that post in this forum – to spell out why various points don’t suffice to trouble you, can’t you just as easily finish up by laying out what, at a minimum, would trouble you?

That’s one of those interesting psychological puzzles, which I find interesting, but not really important in regards to our climate, or the current trend for boreal winters. Knowing in advance what the probable weather will be like is an extremely important matter, on so many levels.

Farmers really care about climate, climate change, and weather.

As Miller is happy to explain, it’s not that farmers in Iowa don’t think climate change is happening; it’s that they think it’s always been happening and therefore is unlikely to have much to do with whatever us humans get up to down at ground level.

Why Don’t Farmers Believe in Climate Change?

Why introduce that? Because it involves a prediction, from the climate models.

The long-term prediction for the Corn Belt in Iowa says that the weather will get hotter and drier—much like western Kansas is currently. Yet, over the decades of Miller’s farming career, conditions have been increasingly wet. “If I had done what climate alarmists had said to do, I would have done exactly the wrong thing for 20 of the last 25 years,” Miller says.

There is a real world example of how predictions can be wrong, and how it leads to an increasing skepticism about ALL the other predictions. It’s human nature to look at a source ofd information, and judge if it is trustworthy. If “they” get it wrong, especially about large and important things, like the water supply (remember glaciergate), it creates mistrust. And you can’t blame somebody for being skeptical of authorities that get things really wrong. Not a little wrong, huge wrongs.

The same thing happened for winter wheat predictions. Lack of snow and cold was forecast (due to AGW) and a dire threat to winter wheat was reported, which was predicted to become worse as AGW continued. To find a colder winter trend, with much more snow, is happening, instead of the prediction, is another example. These sorts of things actually matter in the real world. The horrific loss of livestock from the September blizzard isn’t going to be forgotten by the farmers who actually have to deal with it.

To dismiss these sorts of things, or worse, to label skeptics and concerned parties “deniers” for questioning the authorities, just makes the situation worse. Farming is a huge issue with AGW, as it is actually one of the largest sources of human activity that changes the climate.

But the biggest change delivered by science to farming in the past century is the one my brother is working to reverse: the advent of fossil-fuel-powered machinery and fertilizer wrested from the air by chemistry. That, along with cutting down forests to make room for farms around the world, makes agriculture the second-largest cause of the greenhouse gas emissions changing the climate.

Will climate change hurt or improve farming? There is a critical question. What does a cooling trend for boreal winters mean for farmers?

Does the cause of this trend matter? I say it does, and quite a bit. If it’s solar, that is an entirely different thing that if it a unexpected feedback from CO2 warming. I’ve spent years looking at data, as well as watching the recent changes. They are not minor, nor can one dismiss the winters as “denier talk”. Doing so risks you losing what little credibility is left.

tl;dr Talking about farming, winter weather and science crap

[FXMastermind]

FYI, after I read that “The long-term prediction for the Corn Belt in Iowa says that the weather will get hotter and drier—much like western Kansas is currently. Yet, over the decades of Miller’s farming career, conditions have been increasingly wet.” I checked, and the trend for the Corn belt in the US is no doubt wetter. More rain, not less. In fact, the long term trend is also wetter.

What surprised me, was that the winter trend for the corn belt is colder, with more precipitation. While the summer is hotter and drier. Once again we see the general trend (not everywhere) in the NH for colder winters, with more snow, with hotter summers, with less rain.

Predicting general trends with climate models is all well and good, in theory. But at some point, (which nobody will state), you have to check reality with the models. And admit the science is far from settled.

[brazil84]

@magellan01

At what point do you question whether the thermometer is faulty?

Never, because the accuracy of thermometer represents the Privileged part of the hypothesis.

When evidence emerges that contradicts the Privileged Part of the Hypothesis, you add Epicycles.

[statij]

@FXMastermind

And, the lack of any sense of humor is also pretty stark.

This is actually the first funny thing you’ve said in this thread. You’re many things, FX, funny ain’t one of them.

[FXMastermind]

I’m much better in person.

[Gagundathar]

@brazil84

Never, because the accuracy of thermometer represents the Privileged part of the hypothesis.

When evidence emerges that contradicts the Privileged Part of the Hypothesis, you add Epicycles.

You test the experiment with a different thermometer and see what the results are.
If they correlate, then it is more likely to be a valid measurement. If not, then one or both of the measurements are wrong. But, you already knew that **brazil84 **because you are a trained… um… wait, just a second. What ARE you trained in anyway? I do hope you don’t actually get paid to think for a living. If so, you are missing out on becoming a stereotypical comic sidekick. The pay is decent, and there is none of this troublesome ‘thinking’ stuff to distract you from your hobbies.

[brazil84]

@Gagundathar

You test the experiment with a different thermometer and see what the results are.
If they correlate, then it is more likely to be a valid measurement.

Well that’s what a neutral researcher might do in the actual situation. But we are talking about a metaphor here. You were aware of that, right?

But, you already knew that **brazil84 **because you are a trained… um… wait, just a second. What ARE you trained in anyway? I do hope you don’t actually get paid to think for a living.

Lol, nice ad homenim. But since you raised the issue, please state your job and educational background.

Also, please answer my questions from before:

1. Please quote me in this thread where I said anything at all about a flawed study.

2. What exactly is the theory (or hypothesis) of “Global Warming / Climate Change”?

3. What EXACTLY is the “commonly accepted climate model”?

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

1. Please quote me in this thread where I said anything at all about a flawed study.

2. What exactly is the theory (or hypothesis) of “Global Warming / Climate Change”?

3. What EXACTLY is the “commonly accepted climate model”?

1. I don’t even know where that came from? Red Herring?

2. I already explained it, but you know that.

3. I know the answer to that as well, but I’m not posting it again.

Wait, none of those questions are actually to me, are they? I guess I will post some mind numbingly boring climate shit again, that nobody will read.

@RaftPeople

What are your positions on the following items?

2. 10 years of winter cooling for Northern Hemisphere is or is not different than most predictions by climate models?

@sylmar

2. It’s a newer wrinkle. Kind of like watching the temp slide down a thermometer and expecting the water to freeze at 0, then finding out due to some impurities in the water, you’re actually going to have to go a little lower.

The example of freezing water is lame. But it’s easy to see why certain people want to avoid discussing predictions, or try to say “nobody predicted that!” when faced with examples. Especially trends that are longer than 10, or 15 years.

May 1999 - Global surface temperature has risen during the past century, but it is still uncertain whether warming in particular regions can be directly attributed to human activities. The largest warming has occurred over Northern Hemisphere land masses during winter, where temperatures have risen by several degrees during the 20th century. (In comparison, the global, annual average temperature has increased by only half a degree). These dramatic local changes are related to recent changes in atmospheric wind patterns. Hence, it is more likely that they arise from a redistribution of heat around the globe, rather than purely from an enhanced “greenhouse effect”, whereby heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by pollutants such as CO2. The question is whether these recent changes in the winds are merely part of a long term cycle or whether they are linked to the increasing greenhouse effect.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_04/

June 2, 1999 - Why are winters warming up so much faster over Northern Hemisphere continents than over the rest of the globe? A new study by NASA researchers in the June 3 issue of the journal Nature is the first to link the well-documented large degree of North America and Eurasia winter warming and the associated wind changes to rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

29 March 1999 - Shindell predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. “In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,” he said.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html

Here is the money shot from the NATURE piece:"Here we use several different climate-model versions to demonstrate that the observed sea-level-pressure trends, including their magnitude, can be simulated by realistic increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations. " It’s a key point for GhG theory (AGW) that the most warming will be in the NH WINTER, THE BOREAL WINTER, which is based on the pure physics of CO2.

IT’S SCIENCE! BITCH! (sorry, I’m saying that in Jesse voice from Breaking Bad. Sue me)

A decade later, things looked a bit different. (the cooling trend becomes impossible to ignore)

“While the emerging impact of greenhouse gases is an important factor in the changing Arctic, what was not fully recognised until now is that a combination of an unusual warm period due to natural variability, loss of sea ice reflectivity, ocean heat storage and changing wind patterns working together has disrupted the memory and stability of the Arctic climate system, resulting in greater ice loss than earlier climate models predicted,” says Dr Overland.
“The exceptional cold and snowy winter of 2009-2010 in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America is connected to unique physical processes in the Arctic,” he says.

More cold and snowy winters to come in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North...

That is a huge change. And not very well covered by any Media as well.

How could they be talking about this huge rise in winters up until 1999? then it changed so fast? let’s go to the data, 1988-1999 winter trend what the fuck man? I can clearly see the cooling areas, even then. If you use 1990 as the start, it’s way more obvious.

Is it really that they dismiss all short term data? Only pick dates that show the most warming? Like using 1979-1999?

(that is twenty years of trend data)

No, it’s not that at all. It’s a far different story. And it’s a good one. But really really boring. Goddamn this global warming.

[sylmar]

[quote=“FXMastermind, post:1055, topic:666440”]

1. I don’t even know where that came from? Red Herring?

2. I already explained it, but you know that.

3. I know the answer to that as well, but I’m not posting it again.

Wait, none of those questions are actually to me, are they? I guess I will post some mind numbingly boring climate shit again, that nobody will read.
snip

You should at least wipe your chin off after a barf like that FX…

[sylmar]

@magellan01

At what point do you question whether the thermometer is faulty?

Mags!
Hard to say really. I guess it would depend on how long it had been up your ass.

[sylmar]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

See, to me, that’s a good start – you explain, in neatly-numbered points, why you think said plateau and said cooling would be utterly compatible with a long-term prediction, as per the pachinko-ball analogy – and it’d be the work of a moment to add but if X happens in the next Y years, I’d no longer think the reasoning is solid.

If you happen to have such an X and Y in mind, why not mention them? I mean, I recognize that we right just then reach the point where you end the solid discussion to lay out the following:

…but why not end the objection by continuing to explain for one more sentence?

Since you’re perfectly willing – right here in that post in this forum – to spell out why various points don’t suffice to trouble you, can’t you just as easily finish up by laying out what, at a minimum, would trouble you?

As if this were Kansas, you go on and on and on about the former; why not the latter?

Ah. I have no objections to a rational discussion, and in fact, trolls aside, actually made attempts at that.

But when cites contraindicating some spew are ignored, or worse, mischaracterized, I’m not going to clutch my pearls and moan about the level of discourse, since -

The BBQ Pit is the forum for rants about the outside world or quarrels between posters - often the first turns into the second.

nor put in further effort in a wasted cause.

I’m going to delight in pointing out and laughing/mocking the absurdities, flaws in logic and pretensions of the trolls.

Take FX fr’nstance. Dug himself a hell of hole at the start of this thread. Ridiculed by all. But that guy just kept digging untill he popped out all the way on the ***other side *** of the topic, flouncing about and crowing he’s been leading the parade all the time with his “research”.

Oh…almost forgot, Good job FX!

[andros]

@FXMastermind

I’m much better in person.

Jeezus, you’d have to be.

[FXMastermind]

It’s pretty damn funny that a lot of people posting here think I have a beef with them. Some people, it always has to be about them.

I’m taking on Global Warming. You can jerk off thinking anyone gives half a shit about your pathetic off topic personal jism fest, but frankly, nobody really cares. I certainly don’t.

And that’s all I have to say about that.