I'm sick of this Global Warming!

The BBQ Pit
1101

Back to the boring science shit again. because I had to check to see if Egypt or the Mid East shows any cooling trend.

Dec trend 1992-2012 Nope. But goddamn, look at the places that do show a trend for colder Decembers. jesus fuck.

January trend 21992-2013 Nothing for Egypt. But goddamn, look at Europe, Alaska, China, Russia, Mongolia, and the Wsetern US. What the fuck?

Feb 1992-2012 trend Now there you have one of them “fuck me gently with a chainsaw” moments. The entire US, all of Europe, most of Asia, and the numbers aren’t small numbers. They are huge fucking numbers. That purple is -9.5 degrees Celsius

The warming which occurred up until 2000, or 2002 masks some of the drastic cooling, which becomes real obvious when you look at the 2002-2013 tends. Like in Alaska and China, north Africa and Eastern Australia. (remember the SH is summer, not winter in February)

Feb 2002-2013 trend but still no cooling trend for Cairo or even Jewoosalum. I spelled it like that to see if anyone actually read this far. Take issue with it if you read it, at least you fucking read everything.

[Winter 2002-2013 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi? year_last=2013&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg) No Cairo, but goddamn Russia, China, Mongolia, Siberia and even India. What the fuck? Global warming did not predict this, it can’t even explain it. Unless you go with an unexpected feedback, and some serious failure of the AGW modeling.

So what have we learned? probably not much if you skipped over all that. And who blame you? It’s all science and hard stuff like trends and theories and who has time for that shit? I mean, goddamn, you would actually have to spend 5 minutes looking at data, and that is five minutes you won’t have to jack off and insult people.

1102

I know, sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Who could blame colder winters on global warming? Or say because it’s colder someplace, that means climate change? I mean, global warming?

Literally, will you think of the children?

OK maybe if they actually have a name for it, it’s not the first time it’s happened. But still, the children are suffering.

Yes, yes it is. Thanks UNICEF, thanks for pointing out that three years ago the goddamn cold winter caused horrific suffering there.
http://blogs.unicef.org.uk/2013/12/04/climate-change-mongolia-children-extreme-cold/

And thanks for blaming the catch all, “climate change”. At least you didn’t mention global warming. But we know that is what is causing the record cold. So it’s our fault.

1103

Oh wait.

Oh, that’s right. You did blame it on “rising temperatures”. You completely clueless fucking morons.

1104

I think his point is that February 1992 and 2002 were hot months; some parts of the world were warmer then than in February 2012. High science!

To put the data in perspective, I’ve copied raw data from giss.nasa.gov (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts.txt) and show it below. The second column is temperature anomaly in the Northern Hemisphere for February of the year in column #1. The third column is one I’ve added showing the average of three years (i.e., for 1992, that datum is the average of 1990-1992).



1983   0.41   0.50
1984   0.08   0.24
1985  -0.17   0.11
1986   0.40   0.10
1987   0.71   0.31
1988   0.58   0.56
1989   0.59   0.63
1990   0.50   0.56
1991   0.60   0.56
1992   0.56   0.55
1993   0.60   0.59
1994   0.06   0.41
1995   1.37   0.68
1996   0.76   0.73
1997   0.82   0.98
1998   1.37   0.98
1999   1.20   1.13
2000   1.22   1.26
2001   0.72   1.05
2002   1.34   1.09
2003   0.75   0.94
2004   1.13   1.07
2005   0.91   0.93
2006   1.21   1.08
2007   1.25   1.12
2008   0.61   1.02
2009   0.96   0.94
2010   1.22   0.93
2011   0.76   0.98
2012   0.65   0.88
2013   0.91   0.77

As you can see, he was right! Feb. 2002 was indeed warmer than Feb. 2012 in the Northern Hemisphere. But let’s pretend for a moment that we’re objective and let’s look at the data more closely. Note that 2001 and 2003 were cooler than 2002; indeed both were cooler than 2013. Because of year-to-year variations, the 3-year average (column #3) may be more informative. The big picture there is that every 3-year average since 1997 is hotter than every 3-year average before 1997 (back to the dataset origin in 1880, though I show only recent years above).

I don’t know if he was smart enough to “cherry-pick” his data or too stupid to understand the concept of cherry-picking.

TL;DR summary: FXMastermind is a pretentious dolt.

1105

That data supports what FX has been saying (your 3 year average column supports the same interpretation).

Up until 2002 it was trending up.

After 2002 it has been trending down, a little.

Predictions were that it would continue trending up.

It did the opposite.

Question: is 10 year enough time to suspect issues with the models?

1106

The paper on the boreal winter cooling trend tracks the winter cooling since 1992. I checked and that is indeed the case for large areas. That is over 22 years of data that goes against the models.

They think that it can’t be a natural variation, hence the models need to be changed. It’s certainly a valid contention.

1107

Oops. Some areas show the cooling trend since 1990, others since 1988. In any case, it’s a very long time for the models to be so far off.

The assumption about arctic amplification may be in error. Or it could be something else. It’s actually quite a pickle.

I checked the GISS data for the Siberian “cold pole”, the suspect in the cold winters, and it isn’t showing a fall cooling trend, which you would expect if it is early heavy snow causing the negative feedback leading to the colder winters. Something is screwy, but I’m not even sure what it is.

1108

Climate change is measured in ten’s of thousands of years, as in it was colder 20,000 years ago and it will be warmer 20,000 years from now. I personally believe that Global Warming is a good thing, what kind of MORON would want Global Cooling. Seriously, shouldn’t we be belching out as much CO2 as we possibly can? Where’s the downside here?

1109

Oh no you didn’t, You DID NOT just go there.

At least GIGObuster jumped ship, so we won’t suffer a huge copy and paste from skepticalscience telling us how warming is all bad.

Back when the greenhouse theory was just starting, a lot of people agreed with just what you said, because it was the end of the goddamn little ice age, and people wanted it to get warmer.

Some even proposed SETTING FIRE TO COAL SEAMS IN ORDER TO WARM UP THE PLANET!!

Unusable coal seam (the kind you couldn’t mine for coal) can be set on fire, and they will burn for centuries. Nobody ever did set them on fire, but by accident the same thing actually happened, and there are underground coal fires burning, some for centuries now.

The CO2 from them is either 5 or 10% of the world’s CO2 each year. Yeah, it’s a lot of fucking underground coal burning.

China is the only country doing anything about putting them out.

1110

Oh, sorry … it’s just that using 20 years of data to extrapolate the next few millennia of temps just doesn’t hold water. That’s a s stupid as saying ice core data conclusively proves that CO2 levels cause global temperature change, and not the other way around.

And what about the “other” product of combustion?

Anyway, check out the table near the bottom of the Wikipedia article on Heat Capacity. Compare the various gases of our atmosphere. CO2 just isn’t working for me as the mechanism of climate change.

1111

I’m aware of the argument that CO2 isn’t causing climate change. Can’t, won’t, never did cause any climate change.

I’m still undecided on that, so I rarely argue over it. Chemistry and physics seem to point to it having to have an effect. Other lines of evidence point the other way.

It’s fucking complicated.

1112

That came up on another forum. Since H2O vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas, changing the levels would have drastic and fast effects.

I wonder about it. between agriculture, cars and power plants, deforestation and stratospheric jet traffic, we actually add a shit ton of WV every second of every day to the atmosphere. Including the very dry Stratosphere, where even a little extra WV would have a huge warming effect.

Might explain the arctic situation, since so much traffic flies over the pole, and the air is both extremely dry, and the stratosphere is lower.

1113

Yeah, the water vapor condenses into clouds which reflect solar energy back out into space, thus lowering global temps … Look, if lowering CO2 emissions also lowers pollution in general, then go for it. The American Tax-Payer is just itching to spend the money, who am I say otherwise.

1114

It’s not that simple. Some clouds warm, others cool. But stratospheric moisture rarely forms clouds, and acts a pure greenhouse gas, it makes a huge difference.

1115

Actually, it is that simple. Clouds are white because they reflect all the sun’s radiation, and yeah they reflect the Earth’s radiation as well (keeping temps up LOL). There’s a balance somewhere here and a scientific fuck-load of factors to be considered. I think you might have read something wrong about the stratosphere, 80% of the mass of the atmosphere lies below. Sure, it makes a difference, but not all that much. Don’t forget that water vapor condensing into clouds releases energy as well, and the table cited above doesn’t include this. My math has been fishy of late, but I think you’ll find that water dumps more combustion energy into the atmosphere than CO2 (per unit mass)… I came up with a zillion times as much, but my math always proves my point.

1116

Who was trying to extrapolate AGW millenia ahead? AFAICT, “alarmists” focus on disruptions circa 2100.

And the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is very well established. Causation operates in both directions(*); this positive feedback is why minor changes in temperature or greenhouse gases get amplified.

Surely you know that the correlation between a gas’s heat capacity and its greenhouse effect is weak? Yet you still think glancing at an irrelevant table makes you smarter than professional climatologists? Wow! :smack:

BTW, I couldn’t say this in the GD thread, but your “analysis” of why Swiftboating didn’t affect 2004 election outcome is flawed in so many ways I don’t know where to begin. It’s one of the stupidest “analyses” I’ve ever read at SDMB. I suppose there are millions of Americans with even less math intuition than you, but at least they know they’re ignorant. You’ve become my poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

(*) - I don’t know if there are any climate experts still reading this thread, but if there are, please check my understanding of the temperature ⇒ CO2 link. With cooling, warm ocean water turns cold and can absorb more CO2. But eventually cold surface water is replaced with ice which absorbs less CO2. This leads to CO2 increase, limiting the positive feedback and thus, eventually the ice itself is its own doom! Is this at all correct? I admit I understand this all very poorly.

1117

This article has the graph on the right, yup, that’s an exact correlation. The article itself describes causation as I understand it, but I haven’t checked the references there. When we orbit closer to the sun, temperature goes up … when we orbit further away, temperature goes down. I’ve heard a number of positive feedback theories, plumbs of methane erupting from the world’s oceans type thing. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s neither proven nor dis-proven to be able to occur. Such things haven’t been observed yet, maybe we are right now.

I did not know the correlation between heat capacity and temperature was weak … and don’t call me Shirley. Temperature is a measure of energy content, nothing more. If you want to talk about rising temperatures, you have to talk about rising energy levels. So please tell me what special quality CO2 has, that it should absorb far far more energy than the other 99% of the atmosphere.

Right, CO2 dissolves into the ocean, but only so much can be dissolved. Eventually the ocean will stop dissolving CO2 leaving it in the atmosphere. So what … we still need to add energy to raise the temperature … it doesn’t matter what the matter is.

That sure was stupid of me to think vote totals has anything to do with treads in vote totals. That’s like bouncing molecules off of ice. 5 + 7 - 4 = 8, at least it used to.

1118

Oh my. The phrase “orbit closer to the sun” demonstrates you don’t even have the slightest understanding of your alternate theory. :smack:
Moreover, what do you think that graph ( File:Vostok Petit data.svg - Wikipedia ? ) shows? It’s so irrelevant to “orbital forcing” I wonder if there’s been Wiki-sabotage.

Briefly, astronomical effects (like tilt and obliquity, NOT “closeness to the sun”) induce a slight temperature change; the greenhouse-gas feedback mechanisms amplify the change.

I’ll let finding Wikipedia’s 9th-grader explanation for greenhouse gases’ “special quality” be your homework assignment for today. But here’s a simple test of your higher math skills:

If global warming depended on the atmosphere’s raw heat capacity, can you really imagine that the heat capacity of CO2, merely 0.04% of the atmosphere, would be relevant?

1119

You do know we’re closer to the sun than we’ll be in 6 months, right? This is the second time you’ve mentioned a feedback mechanism, Quick, run to whoever you’re trying to ape and have them explain it to you, again. You’re not talking about splitting uranium, or electric guitars or the strap that goes over the horses ears ( that’s a pun, boy, feedbag, get it haha)

Now you know what a fish feels when the hook is set. You don’t know CO2’s special quality, do you. Shame on you, you’ve been watching the commercial media, paid for by Google. Oh no, you don’t see the connection. [sigh] Sand is for cats to poop in, you’re not supposed to bury your head in it.

Get out your Astrophysics notes and let me know when you’re booked up on Blackbody radiation, we can continue from there. Here’s a hint, why is this wrong?

dE/dt = c^2∂m/∂t + 2mc∂c/∂t

(Touche on your posts on Swiftboarding, not often a poster is given as an authoritative citation)

1120

ok this is getting weird