Sorry for the double post. Told you I don’t get along with these newfangled gadgets.
Well, since you are an old geezer, I will use small words and pictures to try and help you out. All data from Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4): Global Maps
What is important when looking at climate, and climate change, is long term values. And changes in things like rainfall, wind, temperature, cloudy days, snow and ice, what we call weather,things like that. Glaciers, sea level, stream flow and plants also are indicators of climate.
Sadly, only temperature data is used as a metric for many of the claims made about AGW. But even so, we can actually look at temperatures and see what is happening.
The 2013 Australian heat wave was in January, the hottest month there. Before we look at what is happening, it helps to look at what has happened.
Look at Australia for the cooling trend of 1930-1970
This is a well known cooling periodfor much of the planet, but you can see even then a lot of Australia was warming (for the summer maximum)
Ignore that drastic cooling seen in the boreal winters up north for now.
The 1970-2000 warming also shows up for Australia, even if it’s nothing like the NH boreal winter warming. (and shitfire, look at that goddamn boreal warming)
Now to the 2013 heat wave. The 13 year trend shows warming, so no doubt about that, a continued trend for sure. (once again, do not even look at the NH cooling trend for large areas of the boreal winter)
Does Australia’s warming match what is happening elsewhere? It sure doesn’t seem to. Note that SA and Africa don’t show the same winter warming as Australia.
Let’s look at the bigger picture.
The Australian warm part of the year.
Australian cool part of the year
Little doubt Australia is suffering from warming.
I’ve never used the word “hoax”, much less claimed there is some grand conspiracy or hoax involved with AGW. Even the most rabid and insane adherents of the great warming doom that awaits us all, I don’t consider them hoaxers at all.
While there may be some financial gain and politics being played with the whole AGW/CO2 is killing us hysteria, that doesn’t mean the researchers and data collectors are involved in a hoax.
Now let’s cut to the chase.
Here is a good example of boreal winter warming. (if you don’t know what boreal winter means, I don’t blame you. Most people on the planet don’t either) I assure you, it’s a well known termfor researchers.
Note the large areas of warming. Especially look at the graph below, that shows the entire planet by latitude. Note the area with the large increase, roughly 55 to 75 north, but the entire 30 to 80 latitudes show this increase.
Now compare the same area to the trend discussed in the paper on boreal cooling.
See the difference?
Look at the shorter trend, from 2002 -2013
Notice how different the trend looks. How the boreal area shows cooling, not warming. The graph below is very telling.
Now, that 1970-2000 trend is what we expect to see, from greenhouse gas forcing and the associated arctic feedbacks.
The 1992-2013 trend is completely NOT what the models predict. None of them.
If the recent trends looked like the 1970-2000 trend, I wouldn’t even be talking about this, as there would be clear and unavoidable evidence of AGW happening, as the theory predicted.
I hope that wasn’t too complicated.
Science.
It’s not for everybody.
Now February is often the coldest month for the boreal winter, and since it also show Australia at the warmest, here is the recent trend for 2002-2013 February.
Ain’t that some shit? Remember, this is direct from GISS, you are actually looking at their data in every link.
Even Australia shows cooling for some places, but obviously warming in others.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT MEAN?
THAT is indeed, the question.
Australia, warming for the most part. But mother of god, look at the NH. What the fuck man?
How does that even happen? One key thing is the SH is dominated by the oceans. While the NH has this whole climate thing going on that is not dominated by the oceans.
Even so, you can see the Pacific is cooling, while the N Atlantic is about the same. Now of course you might be going, “wait a fucking minute asshat, what about the entire winter?”
[Same story](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)
And then somebody will go, “It’s FUCKING GLOBAL CLIMATE YOU ASSHOLE!”.
Everybody calm down.
What the hell?
Wait, now.
The scientific theory, mainly, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and an increase in its atmospheric concentration causes warming.
If you deny or question that at this point – and by “at this point” I don’t mean this point in the thread, but in life – then you’re well into PRATT territory, classic case. All the world’s climatologists do accept it, including the handful of climate-change skeptics.
No, that is not the theory, it’s not even close to a theory. It’s more like stating a gas law than a theory. It’s not even a hypothesis.
You know how you can tell I am right? Go find the scientific theory, the one used to create climate models. Then link to it.
You will quickly realize why what you said
isn’t a theory.
I’m sure he doesn’t realize that neither link contains the theory. Hell, one of them doesn’t even contain the word ‘theory’. Not even once.
You should realize by now, Wikipedia is not a good source when it comes to global warming.
I have a theory that you’re taking the piss.
No, Wikipedia is actually a horrific mess when it comes to the following terms:
global warming theory
theory of global warming
mainstream global warming theory
AGW
AGW theory
theory of AGW
You will find Global warming conspiracy theory, but no entry for global warming theory, or any variant.
Isn’t that a bitch?
You also won’t find
Greenhouse theory of global warming
or
Greenhouse theory
You can find the** Greenhouse effect**, but the word theory doesn’t appear in the article.
It’s a fuckfest of wrong.
I have a theory that he was one of Dunning and Kruger’s test subjects.
What is this “theory” you’re looking for, then? What form would it take?
I’m not looking for it, I’m pointing out how it doesn’t exist on Wikipedia, on skepticalscience blog, or on the rationalwiki site, all hotbeds of discussion and fretting over it.
Don’t you find that either insane, or fucking hilarious? I mean, the goddamn ARTICLE for Global warming theory doesn’t even contain the word theory. Not even once. Much less explain it, nothing. See for yourself.
You don’t find that odd in the extreme? How bout this - there isn’t even an article for Global warming theory, or Greenhouse theory of global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_theory_of_global_warming
What a mindfuck. In fact the only place you will find the term, is on a few strange pages, but it isn’t explained anywhere.
It’s one of those things that when you point it out, most people freeze up and go blank or something. It’s too mind boggling to grasp.
GIGO had a stroke or something when he realized it. His beloved SS blog doesn’t even define the term, much less explain it.
FX continues, masturbating mindlessly. Seriously, it’s his user name. He insists on doing it.
Fucking idiot troll is what he is.
The latest is that even the powerful Chinese icebreaker cannot break through the heavy icepack that has entrapped the Russian ship.
The researchers on board will be evacuated by helicopter (using more climate-warming gasoline).
According to the researchers, the heavy spring/summer ice is “”'further proof of climate change"!!:smack:
rationalwiki.org does not define, much less have an article for “global warming theory”, “anthropogenic global warming theory”. “theory of anthropogenic global warming”, or “theory of global warming”. That doesn’t stop anyone from talking about it, making claims about it, or insisting it is a fact.
It’s really quite fascinating. The response of some here, who actually consider rationalwiki a good source for arguing, is priceless.
They can’t possibly admit it’s true, what I pointed out. They actually can’t see it. It’s like a mental blind spot.
Oh damn bitches, not Atalanta again. How come people can’t get it through their thick dumb skulls that just because it’s record cold, that doesn’t mean it’s not warming? Seriously. It’s like there is some sort of mental block where people think what actually happens matters more than what some experts tell you is happening.
Oh please, it’s winter. The Great lakes freeze, it gets cold, quit yer damn whining. This is what has been predicted for decades now. Cold as fuck winters, increasing sea ice, record snow and human suffering on a scale unimagined by most.
Hey, them scientists who got stuck in sea ice didn’t complain about how cold it was, so shut your little bitch mouths. It’s winter, it gets cold.
Well it’s about time you crybabies found out what your damn fossil fuels have been doing to the world. If only you had listened and everyone was using windmills and solar power right now, then it wouldn’t be so damn cold. Speaking of trapped ships in sea ice
:
Goddamn right. They just had some bad luck, and just because Antarctica has record amounts of sea ice, and it’s colder than it used to be, that also means global warming. Why can’t people grasp this? They think what actually happens is more important than what science tells us.
See? You see? The models can’t be wrong, they are SCIENCE!! You doubters and paid shills with your stupid weather reports and scaring people over cold, you just don’t have what it takes to be a scientist.
Just more right wing denier nonsense talk. That climate researchers got trapped in record sea ice just proves how right the global warming is.
Doubt this? It can be proved.
You see? Global warming is real and nobody can prove it’s not.
It’s sickening.
Alarmists will be alarmists … whether climate change, second coming of Christ, alien spaceships hiding behind comets or whatever.