Yep, even the scientists are nobodies, we can therefore disregard what FX claims.
Even more so when it is clear that his cherry pick, and the conclusion he reaches thanks to it, is not supported at all by the very same experts that curate and record the data FX abuses.
No, your “short but concise points” should be ignored because this is the same shit you’ve been repeatedly posting for almost a year now and you’ve already been told several times why it’s wrong. You have not, in fact, single-handedly refuted half a century of climate research with one loopy graph, as much as you might like to entertain some delusion about your ability to do so. Just like you’ve demonstrated over the past year of postings that you clearly don’t understand the feedback effects of water vapor, the limitations of solar variability, the effects of UV radiation, the effects of jet streams and polar jets, and many other things that you’ve tried to dredge up at one time or another as some kind of contrarian evidence against AGW. Just like it’s been pointed out that you post links to papers apparently without reading them and certainly without understanding them, because they turn out not to say what you think they do.
To rehash for those interested: temperature maps like the ones posted are useful for seeing geographical distribution of temperature anomalies from a baseline, and also, less commonly, for the geographical distribution of trends. They’re not a good way of visualizing an aggregated year-to-year global trend, and can be downright obfuscating if that’s all you’re looking for, which is why GISS publishes graphs for that purpose and why FX likes distribution maps instead. Secondly, a trend analysis can be very deceptive over a short timeframe, as opposed to an anomaly map which shows how much the average temperature has deviated from an established norm, which is why FX likes trend maps instead of anomalies. Thirdly, constraining the map to a single month makes it useless for conclusions about overall global climate, which is why FX only shows us February. Fourthly, the graphs compare the trends of the past 19 years against a cherry-picked 30-year period that featured the most rapid sustained warming on record.
If the same map is redrawn properly for either annual temperature or for the NH cold season or warm season, using either temperature anomalies or even using trends, a correctly representative picture of global warming distribution is seen, even for the ridiculously cherry-picked comparison. And the only thing it’s really telling us is that the rate of warming in the past 19 years has been slower on average than it was in the previous 30, but we already knew that! This phenomenon has been discussed in these threads and in the literature, though it’s mostly of academic interest since the vast majority of current literature based on both paleoclimate and contemporary observations and on modeling continues to reconfirm existing estimates of climate sensitivity, which has been established with greater confidence but not changed much in more than fifteen years of research. It’s useful from a modeling perspective to understand how circulation systems are redistributing the heat, but that’s about it; from a policy perspective, climate sensitivity and the fact that the IPCC RCP projection scenarios for CO2 impact are very much on track are what’s important.
It is illogical to believe that the earth’s climate is not continuously changing
(:-
During a solar eclipse the lack of solar energy must have an effect on climate that ripples onward through time changing our climate. Of course it takes hundreds of years to see the changes
(:-
Once again, the scientific basis of the argument is handwaved aside, which is a curious thing. Maybe another look at the facts will help. (haha, just kidding, facts are the last thing that will matter in a debate)
Theory states that all things being the same, greenhouse forcing will cause the most warming in winter, in the northern hemisphere, at high latitudes… This is why the IPCC and others predicted (later called projections) milder winters, more rain, less snow, fewer extreme cold events, and both animal and plant life moving northward, in response to the warming.
You can see this sort of warming looking at the 25 year trend here. If the next 25 years looked the same, it would be evidence of greenhouse warming, what is called global warming, mainly from an increase in CO2. Nobody familiar with the science would bat an eye, if the trend continued, that would be global warming. The theory is confirmed.
Looking at what did happen, the 25 year trend clearly shows the warming not only did not continue, there was significant cooling of the very areas where warming was expected to be the greatest.
Now normally this would be a problem for the theory, since there has been enough time to say it’s significant, and the evidence shows what was expected did not happen. There were no large volcanoes to cause it, and air pollution from China has been ruled out as the cause. But that’s not what has happened.
The claims are many about what has happened, but of course none of them challenge the theory. They are too numerous to list, but they fall into several categories, the main three being simple enough.
First, it didn’t happen. Some actually claim the warming has continued, and for various reasons the GISS data is wrong, incomplete, or something, in any case, it doesn’t show what happened, and the warming continued just aspredicted.
Second, it happened, but it’s due to either heat being buried, ocean patterns, or something else. This at least deals with the measurements, which clearly show the warming did not occur as predicted.
Third, it’s actually blamed on global warming. While this sounds insane, it’s actually a possibility, that greenhouse forcing has caused changes that actually lead to colder winters for large portions of the northern hemisphere.
While the third option is most scientific, it’s also the hardest to embrace, because if THAT hypothesis is true, there is no doubt the global warming theory is completely wrong. Not that the greenhouse effect is wrong, but the theoretical results of greenhouse forcing are not happening. Even worse, the opposite is happening/
Why does this matter to the topic at hand?
Because if the cooling is due to global warming, it confirms global warming.
If the winters had warmed, that would confirm global warming.
At which point the theory is impossible to falsify, it predicts everything. Which means it predicts nothing.
Which is of course, why so many firmly insist the 25 year trend shown in the GISS graphic can’t be happening, or it means nothing, or it’s cherry picking, anything to avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there is a problem here.
If the thirty year trend (in 5 years time) shows a continued cooling, then there is going to be some real concern, not because the theory was so wrong, but over what, if anything, we can do about it. The predictions and projections of warmer winters didn’t alarm many people, they still don’t.
But if global warming is actually causing the trend, it is going to become a serious threat to life and property.
All irony aside, if Cohen et al 2012 and 2014 is actually right, things are going to get ugly. Warming can be ignored for the most part, but cold can’t be ignored, it’s too deadly, too disastrous to modern life.
Nice condensation of what FX is doing, clearly he is many levels under what Sam is, if this was biology FX is at a young earth creationist level, Sam (with his the acknowledgement that yes, this is falsifiable) is at the level of an old earth evolution guided by god fellow.
Even science is possible at that high level (for example, a Catholic priest came with the big bang theory), not so at the low one, as wolfpup showed FX ignorance is defended Ad nauseam by him and a few that do not know how baseless he is.
On edit: And his last post is a case in point, FX really does not care that everybody can see how abusive he is with the data and he does not care at all what the scientists that do the work to get that data conclude after looking at the whole data set in the end.
Let me put it to you this way. When I consider the people who understand climatology on this board, I can name maybe one or two who actually are anywhere near FX’s position. Sam Stone… I couldn’t name a second one off the top of my head. Even that’s questionable. Indeed, most of the people on Sam Stone’s “side” are a hell of a lot closer to this:
Than anything else.
On a side note: hi there, tooldtocare. If we’re in the business of peddling one-line truisms that purport to prove a massive field of ongoing research wrong, may I recommend that classic quip about there still being monkeys? :rolleyes: Before entering a discussion on science, please spend the time to learn the very first things about said science. Thanks! 
The fact is that as much as watchwolf, FX, and **Brazil **want to make themselves out as well-informed about climate science, they are well-informed about climate science in the same way that, say, Casey Luskin is well-informed about evolution, or Brian Hooker is well-informed about vaccines. They know a fairly large number of facts, but cherry-pick them and ignore the bigger picture until they come to the conclusion that they want to support. I believe that not a single person who denies the significant negative impact of climate change or the fact that humans are behind the current spike understands the science period, let alone as well as GIGObuster. The rest is details, to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Take this sort of comment to The BBQ Pit.
I realize that neither one of you can post without personal sniping, but we do not need to make the insults direct and personal.
[ /Moderating ]
Mmm, that was referring to the typical cherry picking that we are seeing happening in real time here, and FX repeating a post 3 times with the same result leads to such comparison, but if he is dropping that repeat I will drop that and take any sniping it to the pit as requested.
True…but those changes tend to be quite slow. Recent, rapid changes appear to be the result of the effects of the industrial age on the atmosphere. They do not resemble the natural changes that can be detected indirectly from geological history.
Eclipses are very brief events. The duration is something like four minutes. The total loss of incoming solar energy is remarkably small, much less than the energy screened off by the smoke and ash from a large volcano.
Brief and not global. The path of totality is really narrow and even if you count just the tiniest bit of the moon clipping the sun we’re talking just part of the globe.
Two interesting recent discoveries related to global climate dynamics:
1 - Shellfish remains rewrite 10,000 year history of el nino cycles (Univ of Wash)
Not sure who where the ones claiming that el nino did not exist before, article does not point that out, but IIUC many modellers did not concentrated on issues like el nino in the near past just like they do not take the astronomical cycles around when looking at the near past, the effect is not quite important when looking at the global temperature increase.
However, as I have noticed many times before, IIUC this does not help the contrarians much, it points out that globally speaking nature was regular and CO2 is now even more the thermostate dial of the globe.
And this looks to also be not good news, if the deep ocean did accumulate a portion of the heat that the ocean is accumulating it could indeed justify a more relaxed approach to deal with the issue, as it is not, it means that a good chunk of the accumulated ocean heat reported outside the deep ocean is bound to appear in the surface once the natural cycles reverse, as cycles like El Nino will likely do once again.
Gavin Schmidt from NASA/GISS reported that what this study, and another recent one that shows more heat accumulated in the southern oceans than was reported before, points to a climate sensitive that is higher than anticipated.
Of curse, this means that we should work harder to reduce the risk, but the current Republican leadership is blind.
I assume you’re referring to Judah Cohen, the seasonal forecaster at AER. Please tell us in your own words what you think he is saying in his 2012 and 2014 papers, and how it backs up the above claim – especially the part about a “thirty year cooling trend”. This ought to be entertaining! 
I’m not familiar with the first study but don’t see why it’s of any particular interest. But a few comments on the second one.
As Gigo has already said, studies like this have to be treated with a great deal of caution for many reasons. Just for starters, even something as basic as sea level rise itself is difficult to assess accurately, so indirect inferences about deep ocean heat uptake derived from it carry that much more uncertainty.
Secondly, there are differing definitions of what we mean by “deep ocean” – this paper studies depths below 2000 m, while apparently contradictory evidence (Balmaseda et al, 2013, for example) deals with warming below 700m.
Thirdly, one might think that another paper in that same issue of Nature Climate Change contradicts it, but it’s actually complementary and illustrates how complex these issues are – the Durack et al. paper suggests that ocean warming is being underestimated, particularly in the southern oceans where data is spotty. The funny thing is that Felix Landerer is a co-author of both papers, so if the no-warming paper is taken at face value as some denialist sites and bad media reporting have done, Landerer is apparently contradicting himself in two concurrent papers in the same journal – which is of course not the case.
But the Durack paper does reinforce other studies of deep-ocean warming like Balmaseda et al (2013) and Purkey et al (2010); the Purkey paper studied the contribution of deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s and concluded that “…warming in these regions … accounts for a statistically significant fraction of the present global energy and sea level budgets.”
Wow, somebody really hasn’t been keeping up. Is it even possible?
Anyone who has been reading for the last, I don’t know, year or so, anyone not know what Cohen et al 2012 means? Please raise you hand, or post something.
Wow. Just wow.
Here’s an url that will help you wolfpup
http://bit.ly/1vW1drA
Right. Judah L. Cohen, whose full-time job is Director of Seasonal Forecasting at AER, as I said. I’ve read the 2012 paper, which, considering your ridiculous claims, I seriously doubt that you have.
And now will you please answer the question. I repeat: Please tell us in your own words what you think he is saying in his 2012 and 2014 papers, and how it backs up the above claim – especially the part about a “thirty year cooling trend”.
Otherwise we might have to conclude that once again you have no idea what you’re talking about.
If we are trying to develop and confirm models of a complex dynamic system over large time scales, then accurate information regarding the past is important.
If ENSO was previously underestimated, and models were validated against those estimates, then the models will most likely have larger errors than if they are validated against more accurate data.
Not likely, ENSO is a cycle, it does not affect the overall warming trend but it can mask it in short spans.
Well, GIGO beat me to it, but he’s right. There is no particular consensus on how ENSO may be affected by climate change, and its significance would only be in terms of regional effects – circulation systems like ENSO, the AO, PDO, etc. just move heat around – they have zero impact on the earth’s net energy balance. The significance of GHG climate forcing, that of CO2 in particular, is that it dramatically changes the earth’s global net energy balance in the long term.