Can not do, his attempt at reducing the models climate change scientists use as if they are just “fine tuned” looks more silly the more I study this, so there is till a lot he still has to learn too. The moment he told us all that the models have a poor record then it was the moment he showed all that he is not relying on what history has shown what they are capable of.
Snipped short excerpts, but it’s worth re-reading both long posts by Sam Stone.
Which brings us to the ignored part of my post, no surprise there. Here is what was not even commented on, much less understood. Note that it uses logic, reason and evidence, as well as science to make a point.
Here is a look at what that sort of greenhouse gas warming is theorized to look like. Drastic warming of high latitudes, during the cold season. It’s what the theory predicts. Added greenhouse gases cause warming. It’s the largest over land, in the NH, during the cold season. This is straight from the theory, and based on physics and how an enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to change things.
No other cause is assumed to make the planet warm in this manner. We also have stratospheric cooling at the same time, meaning it isn’t increased solar causing the warming. This is evidence of greenhouse warming.
Here is a look at the last two decades. With no large volcanoes to explain it, that does not match what greenhouse warming would show. This is the very large problem for the theory, or rather some of the assumptions of the theory.
To really make this clear, here is a closer look at the changes.
And he just repeated his silly post, FX is not even trying. I guess he is the one that is making progress and doing the wrong “binary choice”, as it was noted before, cherry picking and refusing to see that the oceans are also part of the world (and gaining more heat that in part will show up on the surface eventually) are deftly ignored by him.
Looking at the changes, in a scientific manner, using the GISS temperature analysis, is viewed by “global warmers” as denial, or something. It isn’t sure what they think, since they refuse to even look at evidence.
1995-2014 trend. Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters.
If this completely unexpected trend is actually a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming theory), it means one thing. If it’s not due to increased greenhouse gases, it means something else altogether. It’s most likely a combination of multiple things (see Sam Stones commentary about this).
And it a gross misstatement to claim it was not seen too by the experts.
Again, in past discussions even experts statisticians reported that using limited records like the 1995-2014 trend is misleading when it ignores what took place in the previous decades. And FX still ignores what is taking place in the oceans.
No, I’m quite sure you are unable to take what was said to heart. But the reason is not the one you think it is.
And while I’m at it, you try to create this fantasy that the only people who can grasp the science are those who agree with you. God, that’s fucking tiring. And your constant claims that people didn’t accept as gospel a point you made pages ago, or in another thread is similarly eye-roll provoking. Do you allow—at all—that there might exist an intelligent, well informed person who understands the science as well as you do (or as well as you think you do), who might legitimately disagree with all your conclusions? Or are they all (shudder) Deniers?
Well, to be fair, if my position reflected that of the vast consensus in any given scientific field, and I was arguing with someone who obviously has no clue what they’re talking about, I might also act as though only people who agree with me grasp the science too. :rolleyes:
That doesn’t really answer the question I posed to him. But are of the mind that no one else on these boards understands the issue as well? If so, we disagree.
Says the one that can not identify good sources from the bad ones.
I can tell you that you need better sources, but what is clear that while I do complain about sources, you only think it is a good idea to personally attack a poster with no supporting evidence. There is no good support of what Sam was trying to pull there. Not convincing at all.
If is is just a fantasy it should be easy then to show where I’m wrong, in the end I rather be closer to what the scientists report rather than to be closer to a poster on the internet that just cherry picks.
As pointed before, Sam did look like like one that did show progress, but the longer it goes it is clear that he has jumped from calling people like FX as “just pushers of hot air” (yes, in previous discussions he did realise that it was bad to not make an effort to separate from groups and people that clearly are pushing for the most harmful solutions (as in doing nothing as there is no problem)) to swallowing what the scientists that are breaking bad like Judith Curry are saying. And depending on conservative groups that continue to minimise the issue are saying.
The levels of contrariarism are many in this subject, the take home point here is that I do not see any effort at separating the levels of understanding that exist in this subject between guys like FX and more reasonable fellows like Sam that are still tripping on a few denier land mines out there. By not separating them, and considering them to be in the same package it only leads to a miasma of contradictions.
Fine with me. My job is to show others those contradictions.
The closest one we had has connections to modelling and is a physicist: jshore. He is spending more time at WUWT doing the good fight against those ignorants. Over here he has even pointed out that I do grock this issue well, and that is worth more to me than 1000 disparaging contrarians.
IIRC our former member The Bad Astronomer that got his own TV show once and has columns in Discovery and Slate had experience in planetary climate and other astronomical issues and he is not kind with the hot air contrarians either.
Unless someone on this board is a climate scientist, their opinion is pretty much worthless.[ /QUOTE]
This is great debates. It’s an internet forum where people debate shit, anonymous or not, with the sub title "For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. "
That somebody would try to declare everything null and void because “your opinion is worthless unless you are … (insert qualifier here)”, is about as off topic and insipid as you will see. I would report it, except the Mods would just lock the topic, which is understandable, since global warming/climate change is the perfect example of a great debates subject.
It’s like in a discussion about the weather, somebody says “your opinion is worthless unless you are a trained Meteorologist”, when of course they themselves aren’t a trained Meteorologist. It’s a Poe. It’s incredibly funny, all the more so because they might actually mean it.
Just apply the same concept to every other debate here. End of all discussion. Everybody is worthless unless they are a trained professional (insert whatever fits here) so that’s that.
It’s an example of the mental state somebody must reach when they actually click on a few links to some actual science. Why does this happen? I have no idea.
But it’s just a fantastic tactic in a debate to declare everybody is worthless unless they are an actual verified authority on a topic.
It works even better if the person declaring that all opinions are worthless, also claims to be an actual climate scientist. Something that actually has happened before.
I can understand why somebody who is trying to convince everyone that dangerous and rapid global warming** is already happening**, would want to avoid the theory, and especially any evidence that seems to go directly against the theoretical predictions.
1965-1995, greenhouse warming. Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes. Something the IPCC and all models predict must happen.
1995-2014 trend. Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters. It’s also why the predictions are sort of being changed, in an unscientific moveing of the goalpost.
If this completely unexpected trend is actually a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming theory), it means one thing. If it’s not due to increased greenhouse gases, it means something else altogether. It’s most likely a combination of multiple things (see Sam Stones commentary about this).
Of course the short but concise points contained in this post will be ignored. To debate them means to actually have to debate.
Of course before FX declared that an actual climate scientist was a “nobody”
He should be more consistent, but he can not as he can not find anyone from GISS that agrees with his misleading cherry pick.
It is indeed more than just an opinion when the director of GISS and many others tell us that the warming continues anyhow, and this so because of what is going on in the oceans and as pointed before there was a lot of warming going on on the poles that was missed (and FX tossed Dyson under the bus when it turned out that Dyson does agree with the warming at the poles, how ironic) and many of the latest reports show that the so called “pause” in the land surface alone (that is only about a quarter of the earth) is not really there.
FXmastermind only tars himself by repeating the same tired misleading cherry picked point.
It’s seen clearly in the last few posts here. Instead of responding to what is clearly evident, the only response is either “unless you are a climate scientist”, or some cut and paste of unrelated issues, everything but a discussion of the scientific based point, backed by evidence that can’t be handwaved away.
