I don’t see how this winter’s weather could possibly fit through a paper towel roll at the angle indicated by the supposed experts’ models.
Well, if we were seeing a real warm winter in the east this year, this would be a completely different topic.
Bu when Florida is getting freezing rain, and south Georgia goddamn ice and snow, and it’s fucking colder and hell, it’s reasonable to scream, “Goddamn this global warming! It’s making me sick!”
Because the east is representative of global climate? Is that what you call reasonable?
There is no such thing as “global climate”. That you would say such stupid shit is one reason I ignore you, mostly.
Like most online “experts” on climate change, global warming, whatever you call “it”, you don’t actually know very much. Which makes you boring as hell.
What you know about climatology would rattle around in an ant’s ass like a pea in a boxcar. You make me look like a freaking genius.
Well, that statement would be quite surprising to a lot of scientists and scientific associations who study climate issues. To take just a few examples:
Geological Society of America:
Environmental Protection Agency Draft Report to Congress:
Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate
American Institute of Physics:
American Meteorological Society:
Emphasis added.
It’s not like a LOT of people use the term “global climate”, nobody would claim the words don’t exist. Jeezuzfuckallmighty they use that term.
Until you ask them to define it. What’s the global climate? That means listing the average temperature for each month, the rainfall, the wind, the heating days, cooling days, snow amounts, what plants will grow in it, the range of temps for each month, record and average, you know, describe the global climate.
That’s when they realize there isn’t any such thing.
Now if you are talking about the average anomaly from the global mean, that is another metric, but it isn’t climate.
This objection is absurd, because by this reasoning, there’s no such thing as “regional climate” either.
Practically speaking, you can’t list all possible climate data for any region of substantial size over any substantial time period, because the number of physical phenomena that could be considered part of “climate data” is effectively infinite.
Yet practically speaking, it can still be very useful and meaningful to talk about some subset of the entire universe of “climate data” as it pertains to the climate of a particular region, however broadly defined.
And likewise, it can be useful and meaningful to talk about some subset of climate data with regard to the planet as a whole. Which is probably why professional scientific organizations like the ones I quoted continue to use the term, even if some bizarre anti-science internet meme arbitrarily claims that the concept doesn’t exist.
OK now I know you are pulling my leg.
hahaha, man you are one funny person. You just claimed we can’t describe regional climate. What next? There can’t be climate zones?
Damn those climate scientists! Just when you claim there’s no such thing as global climate, danged if they’re not all talking about it! Just when you say that water vapor is a forcing and not a feedback, danged if they don’t come out and say that it’s absolutely a feedback. And no sooner do you post a paper by Cohen et al. to “prove” that boreal winters are cooling, then the author himself (in the same paper, mind you) clearly says that they’re not. And then Cowtan et al. who recently published the paper on accelerated high-latitude warming cites the Cohen paper as corroboration. One could get the idea that 90% of what you say is complete bullshit, and the other 10% is random noise.
You would be far more convincing if you used links to sources, instead of just claiming things.
For example, when you say
, it would help a lot with your credibility if you did this, “And then Cowtan et al. who recently published the paper”
Even better, you could do this. “you can read the paper for free here”, and maybe quote some of it that you thinks supports your argument.
See how easy that is?
Really? I mean, *you *often link to things, and you’re not convincing…
I said we can’t describe regional climate completely, which is true, because no description could possibly take into account everything that could be counted as climate data.
Since you’re making the absurd claim that “global climate” somehow doesn’t exist based solely on the fact that we can’t describe every single thing about it, then by your reasoning “regional climate” doesn’t exist either, for the same reason.
More sensible reasoning, on the other hand, recognizes that regional climate is nonetheless a meaningful and useful concept, and so is global climate.
That’s bullshit. I clearly said you can’t describe the basic climate factors for a “global climate”, which is why talking about it as if it is real is nonsense.
If somebody claims “the global climate is changing”, then they have to list what the changes are. What they really are talking about is the global mean temperature, not “the global climate”.
Let’s see what you do with this, FX.
I agree that the 60 year trend is warming.
Does that mean that I am not a “denier”?
This is a serious question. But I doubt you will answer it since to do so would be to start actually defining your terms. And the Sacred Theory of Global Warming must stay vague.
Do you agree that humans are contributing to the rise in temperature?
Ha! septimus made me laugh
Cry me a river