I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[FXMastermind]

It’s really fucking strange to look back 14 years ago and analyze the “science” of the time.
Here’s the 1979-1999 global trend and the the 79-99 winter trend, which had so many climate experts alarmed,

You know, the basis of the 1999 studies, predicting it will continue. there is some seriously fucked up shit going on in those graphics, but most people will never see it.

Here’s something startling, 1979-1999 Jan trend where it gets a lot more obvious.

Remember, this is GISS data, it’s what a lot of the researchers use.

Feb 1979-1999 trend

And for good measure, the December 1979-1999 trend

Here’s what they sell to the public, the drastic warming 1979-1999

Looks grim, don’t it?

Winter trend 1979-2013

I will bet money nobody in this thread will see it. OK maybe the scant few skeptics might, but a believer, never,

[FXMastermind]

@sylmar

If you’re looking for a solid discussion on a subject, try one of the other forums.

Nonsense. There isn’t another discussion about climate change, global warming, climate science, AGW, AGW theory, or whatever you call it today, anywhere on the dope boards.

Not a single one.

This one was going to be about the colder winters trends, and the cold summer anomalies of 2013, until some shithead threw it in the pit.

Even so, it has far more science and reason that any of the old “global warming” topics, none of which ever continued.

Just more nonsense and bullshit from a know nothing. Pity.

[RaftPeople]

@sylmar

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.

Thanks for the response.

Some additional questions:
If CO2 is the primary cause of climate change, do you think scientists will be able to confirm that without accurate climate models? If so, by what method do you think they would be able to do that? From my perspective, it’s tough to do experiments at this scale so modeling becomes the next best thing, but it’s very difficult to model or even know your model is accurate.

Do the simpler models that are more accurate provide enough accuracy to confirm hypothesis as to what is causing the change?

And, what level of accuracy would be considered “substantially good enough” to assume the model is correct? It seems that your opinion is that a 14 year plateau is not long enough to think the model isn’t correct (or a 10 year dip), do you think 30 years would be enough? Some other number? I personally don’t know what “the answer” is, and 14 years may not be much time for a system this complex, but it certainly doesn’t qualify as a confirmation either, at best it’s neutral.

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.

I’ve had lots of good discussions in the Pit.

I view it as a place where it’s ok to call names but it isn’t required and good discussions are still allowed.

[sylmar]

@RaftPeople

Thanks for the response.

Some additional questions:
If CO2 is the primary cause of climate change, do you think scientists will be able to confirm that without accurate climate models? If so, by what method do you think they would be able to do that? From my perspective, it’s tough to do experiments at this scale so modeling becomes the next best thing, but it’s very difficult to model or even know your model is accurate.

Do the simpler models that are more accurate provide enough accuracy to confirm hypothesis as to what is causing the change?

And, what level of accuracy would be considered “substantially good enough” to assume the model is correct? It seems that your opinion is that a 14 year plateau is not long enough to think the model isn’t correct (or a 10 year dip), do you think 30 years would be enough? Some other number? I personally don’t know what “the answer” is, and 14 years may not be much time for a system this complex, but it certainly doesn’t qualify as a confirmation either, at best it’s neutral.

I’ve had lots of good discussions in the Pit.

I view it as a place where it’s ok to call names but it isn’t required and good discussions are still allowed.

Sorry Brah. I can’t answer any of those questions authoritatively and I’m not really the type to look up cites to barf a page and a half of nonsense with minimal context.

The Green House Effect is an easily demonstrated concept, so the increase in atmospheric CO2 seems the most plausible explanation for whats being observed. More CO2 causes more water vapor trapping more solar etc.

Time/plateaus/accuracy, the guys doing the actual research aren’t *precisely * sure how the interactions between the ice melting, various ocean currents stalling, sun activity etc are going to play out in the immediate future, but the commonality between the models in looking further down the road a century or so, the consensus is, very poorly. ( Kind of like the pachinko ball taking slightly different paths, but always ending up at the bottom.)

I respect Gagundathar tremendously and have no doubt he could share more compelling musings.

Basically, I’m just here to laugh at the freak show… You’re doing great FX!

[magellan01]

@sylmar

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

Oh, just enough to get a reading. But it is done repeatedly. You see, your mom likes to play this game where she likes to see if she can make the temperature change by keeping her tongue up in there one minutes, two minutes, ten minutes. I know, I think it’s a dumb game too. Truth be told, I don’t even think you’re mom cares for the game much, she just seems to really, really love sliding that tongue up there. ::go figure::

Yuk. Yuk.

[magellan01]

@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.

Yep. And notice how he makes sure he doesn’t have to answer it. There’s a lot that we don’t know about the earth’s climate and weather patterns, but FXMastermind did relay one thing that is 100% accurate: that Sylmar fellow/gal is a little bitch.

[sylmar]

@magellan01

Oh, just enough to get a reading. But it is done repeatedly. You see, your mom likes to play this game where she likes to see if she can make the temperature change by keeping her tongue up in there one minutes, two minutes, ten minutes. I know, I think it’s a dumb game too. Truth be told, I don’t even think you’re mom cares for the game much, she just seems to really, really love sliding that tongue up there. ::go figure::

Yuk. Yuk.

Talking about mothers? Sigh How the mighty have fallen.

Have to admit to having a soft spot for you Mags. You see, even though you’re not the most entertaining troll, you were my first encounter here. But then, you know what they say, “A boy always remembers his first time fondly”.

Say, how’re Bubba and DeeWayne doing?

[sylmar]

@magellan01

Yep. And notice how he makes sure he doesn’t have to answer it. There’s a lot that we don’t know about the earth’s climate and weather patterns, but FXMastermind did relay one thing that is 100% accurate: that Sylmar fellow/gal is a little bitch.

At least try and put a little factual honesty into your statements Maggy. I haven’t been characterized as “little” since I was a toddler.

[sylmar]

@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.

@magellan01

Yep. And notice how he makes sure he doesn’t have to answer it. .

Now that’s just untrue. Geesh, just because you didn’t like the answer is no reason to lie about it.

[FXMastermind]

@magellan01

Yep. And notice how he makes sure he doesn’t have to answer it. There’s a lot that we don’t know about the earth’s climate and weather patterns, but FXMastermind did relay one thing that is 100% accurate: that Sylmar fellow/gal is a little bitch.

Yeah, but if you respond to the lowest form of response in kind, the whole topic starts listing, it could even go down with the shit.

It’s a common tactic of the scientifically ignorant internet bottom dweller to infect a topic with base images, sexual content and they get satisfaction from it spiraling down, rather than any illumination. A word to the wise is never sufficient.

[sylmar]

@FXMastermind

Yeah, but if you respond to the lowest form of response in kind, the whole topic starts listing, it could even go down with the shit.

It’s a common tactic of the scientifically ignorant internet bottom dweller to infect a topic with base images, sexual content and they get satisfaction from it spiraling down, rather than any illumination. A word to the wise is never sufficient.

If you were… not necessarily wise, but at least not on par with the brain activity of a formaldehyded frog after a biology class dissection, I would think being repeatedly told you were being a moron would be sufficient.

After 22 pages of your postings, I see I am mistaken ( But highly entertained ).

[FXMastermind]

@RaftPeople

I’ve had lots of good discussions in the Pit.

I view it as a place where it’s ok to call names but it isn’t required and good discussions are still allowed.

Yep. In fact, it’s about the only sub forum here that enjoys a modicum of intellectual freedom over contentious issues. Or at least can support along running debate. Every last one of the global warming topics elsewhere here, they just sort of fade out. Or something. Here’s some stuff from earlier this year.

@Rune

And we are just in the middle of the longest winter in living memory. We just had a frigging snowstorm in late March. Where’s the goddamn global warming they’ve been promising us for years?

Isn’t that interesting? People really notice when the winters are shitty. But the media hardly comments on record cold and snow. It’s really obvious when you start checking.

@ralph124c

OK, hypothetically-what would happen if global temperatures begin to decline? And not for a few years- suppose a trend begins, and continues for decades? Would this be attributed to “climate change”-or would the fundamental hypothesis be questioned?

Interesting, since I introduced a decades long trend for boreal winter cooling. And indeed we are actually seeing a global trend since 2002 as well. And the answer is already known. It will be declared ALSO DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING.

@Aji_de_Gallina

What bugs ME is the warmists insistence that skeptics can only be motivated by oil money, evil , or ignorance.

Yep. that used to bug me too. But then I realized those people are fucking morons. I know I’m borrowing responses from another topic, but face it, I’m not seeing much response to all my science type stuff. I like this Ají de Gallina fellows post.

@Aji_de_Gallina

I’ll go point by point but I won’t go on a lot after that. My position on AGW is clear. My points are in red.

• A dramatic rise in sea level. Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. This small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft). Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years. The melting of the whole Greenland ice sheet is impossible
• More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms. If the last 100 years are any proof, it is false. aggregated cyclone enegry has been flat for decades.
• Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others. No evidence of major rain pattern changes in the last 100 years
• Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 - carbonic acid, causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[14] No important effect have been shown so far.
• Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming. tpping points cannot exist in any reasonable temp rise. temperatures and CO2 have been higher and no tipping point was reached.
• Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas. Even with the last 100 years of warming this hasn’t been shown to be true.
• Disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude. “Could”, c’mon, they can do better than that. The drift is due mostly to the earths rotation. Salt concentration differences are minor.
• Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go. Polar bears have at least quadrupled their numbers in the last 40 years.
• Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer. This hasn’t been shown to be true. More temprerature could also mean more rain is deposited in glaciers.

Not all of these consequences are certain, and some may be mitigated. For example, whilst global warming might tend to promote the spread of tropical diseases, advances in medicine or control measures (insect spraying, swamp draining) could well counteract this, as has already happened during the industrial era for a number of previously common diseases.

Equally though, there will probably be many unanticipated additional — probably negative — consequences. Or maybe longer growing seasons will increase production

The rain/snow issue is huge. I mean, HUGE in giant red fonts and shit like that. Climate ain’t just temperature. In fact, because temperatures in so many climates vary a lot each year, rain, or rather precipitation can be far more important for climate.

And we know full well rainfall patterns have changed drastically in both human history, and in fairly recent history. The giant trees of California and the western US hold a clear record of that. No guesswork about that at all. None. No doubts.

We have a very good record of rainfall (moisture levels) for the western US and Pacific coast for thousands of years in the past.

But please, by all means, return to your vile testimony about body parts and how much you loath one another, for but words alone.

[FXMastermind]

Haha I was just kidding. Stop it or forever be known as a bitch.

[sylmar]

@FXMastermind

Haha I was just kidding. Stop it or forever be known as a bitch.

I’d rather concentrate on your poor posting skills sparky.

Throwing a wall of barf up whenever you want to obfuscate a discussion because it’s not going your way is a pretty obvious sign you’re a bull shitter.

Reversing field on your initial position and then pretending you’re breaking new ground in climate change research is being more than just a little disingenuous.

Mis-characterizing other posters cites and statements is offensively obnoxious.

And you’re going to forever remember me as a bitch?

Aw FX. I’m not “a” bitch.

I’m “the” bitch you pompous, disingenuous buffoon.

[magellan01]

My, my… It seems a nerve has been struck! Resident little bitch Sylmar wants to be special—wants to be not just a bitch, but the bitch.

Hey, Sylmar old buddy. Maybe you can skip your way to The Emerald City and the Oz can officially anoint you Quenn Bitch, complete with a scrolled certificate and a medallion to hang around your neck with a picture of Richard Simmons on one side and Perez Hilton on the other.

Until then, you’re just a little, run-off-the mill bitch. Sorry.

[sylmar]

@magellan01

My, my… It seems a nerve has been struck! Resident little bitch Sylmar wants to be special—wants to be not just a bitch, but the bitch.

Hey, Sylmar old buddy. Maybe you can skip your way to The Emerald City and the Oz can officially anoint you Quenn Bitch, complete with a scrolled certificate and a medallion to hang around your neck with a picture of Richard Simmons on one side and Perez Hilton on the other.

Until then, you’re just a little, run-off-the mill bitch. Sorry.

Dang Mags… you sound cranky. My relationship advice didn’t help out with Bubba and Deewayne?

[magellan01]

@sylmar

Dang Mags… you sound cranky. My relationship advice didn’t help out with Bubba and Deewayne?

Nope. Still run-of-the mill little bitch variety. You’ll have to try harder.

[sylmar]

@sylmar

Dang Mags… you sound cranky. My relationship advice didn’t help out with Bubba and Deewayne?

@magellan01

Nope. Still run-of-the mill little bitch variety. You’ll have to try harder.

snip
Have you tried fishing out the broken thermometers? I can understand where they’d find that uncomfortable.

And don’t be down on yourself about being the little bitch in the relationship. At least you have someone(two)

Try harder? Jesus man…you have high expectations for free relationship advice.

[sylmar]

Nite Mags… I hope your situation improves to where you’re not so cranky all the time.

[FXMastermind]

“Global mean surface temperatures have increased in the range of 0.6 to 1.2°F since the late 19th century. But far more severe warming has taken place over wide regions of northern Eurasia, Canada and Alaska, with temperatures averaging 7 to 10°F warmer in the last 35 years, according to data previously compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.”

What they are discussing.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg With smoothing
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg You can easily see the increase from 1964-1999. Short version,Then and now

We know the boreal winters are trending colder over large areas of the NH

@Fear_Itself

How is that inconsistent with global warming?

There is the essential question. One reason the believers in AGW were sure of a CO2 influence on climate, was the fastest warming was in the arctic, and the boreal winter. This is an expected trend due to the physics of how CO2 is believed to cause warming when it increases. (the other big signature of CO2 is an increase in WV due to the warming, leading to a much greater increase in warming, a positive feedback)

If there is COOLING in the arctic, or the boreal winter, that means something else is causing warming. (this assumes warming is happening with the annual trend of course). If the annual trend is also falling, as well as winters, then it isn’t global warming by any measure.

The reverse would be warming in the arctic and winter, even as the global mean cooled. That would be a sign of AGW still happening.

EVEN IF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES WERE FLAT OR SLIGHTLY FALLING, if the winters were warming, and the arctic continued to warm, it would be a sign that CO2 is forcing the climate.

Which is why, when the reverse is happening, there is something wrong with the theory.

The DATA SHOWS SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE THEORY\

Certainly air pollution could be blamed, massive soot and smog clouds blocking out the sunlight, leading to cooling. (this has been proposed for multiple periods of cooling, or a flat trend). If that was happening, the satellite data of the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere would see it. This is the same data that led to trenberth’s travesty, and the assumption that the “missing heat” is somehow going into the deep oceans.

I know, I know, the true believer will not be swayed by logic, reason, evidence, facts or science. But remember, I don’t give a fuck about them.

I’m more interested in the rare skeptic who can appreciate the above.