No support as usual from any of the experts from the sites FX is twisting.
Not important posts then.
That’s a bit like saying, “Since the theory of gravity requires that falling leaves will eventually land on the ground, then if this gusty wind continues to keep the leaves from reaching the ground indefinitely (something by no means settled), then there must be something wrong with the theory of gravity”.
The problem in both cases is that you’re drastically misinterpreting the basic nature and relevance of the phenomenon that you claim may be contradicting the general theory.
Just because falling leaves whirl in the air for a long time on a windy day doesn’t mean that gravity isn’t operating as predicted by theory. Yes, if the wind somehow kept them up in the air forever, in that case we’d have to rethink how gravity works: but we don’t get all excited about that possibility just from seeing leaves blowing around for a few minutes.
Anybody who watched leaves kept aloft by the wind for a few minutes and started shouting “This observed data is not explained by the existing model of the action of gravity on falling leaves, and the closed-minded ‘gravitists’ are deliberately ignoring the serious problems this poses for their theories!!” would be rightly dismissed as a clueless loon.
And it’s equally loony to insist that AGW theory is somehow seriously challenged or undermined just because certain parts of the northern hemisphere have had some cold winters recently.
Rubbish. As Cohen et al tells us, this unexpected feedback is not predicted by any model, nor the theory. If it’s actually the case, the models will be changed, and a key portion of the theory will change.
The long term effects are unknown, but as I said, if it is actually caused by increasing greenhouse gases, then things could get ugly, and quick.
As wolfpup patiently explained to you, there are a lot of “short-term and inconsistent regional effects” that AGW models don’t directly predict. Any more than the basic Newtonian equation t = sqrt(2d/g) directly predicts the delay of leaf descent by gusts of wind.
You are, as usual, cherry-picking a particular bit of not-explicitly-explained data from a vast amount of not-explicitly-explained data and attempting to argue (with no supporting evidence) that it’s somehow uniquely important for the validity of the theory. “Look at how long that leaf is staying up in the air! That is totally unexpected according to standard gravitational predictions! If this trend continues, it could absolutely TEAR APART the theory of gravity as we know it!!!”
To which the only useful response is a soothing “Calm down, Clarence, you’re kind of overreacting”.
No, it’s nothing at all like that. You are just saying something, making it up, and thinking it means anything. It doesn’t.
Hyperbole and rhetoric do not counter evidence, neither does your example mean anything. You refuse to argue the point presented, instead arguing against your own point. I usually ignore such attempts to sidetrack or avoid, but your idea of the theory of gravity, used above is actually not the theory of gravity, which is ironic.
Neither Newton nor Einstein would predict the behavior of leaves, much less as you stated, “requires that falling leaves will eventually land on the ground”, you just made that up. In fact it’s all just something you made up, it’s a logic fallacy, and your obvious joy over thinking it means something other than your failing at reason, it is truly ironic.
It’s an analogy. Analogies are by nature inaccurate. This one aptly illustrates what you appear to be doing though. The world is warming, models show this warming is due to our CO2-emissions. To show this is wrong you have to show this is wrong, not quibble about details in regional models, which by their very nature have to be more variable and less accurate.
Of course not, but they can illustrate by analogy the ways in which people are using evidence incorrectly in their arguments.
You are using a certain limited subset of NH boreal winter temperature data incorrectly to argue that it might substantially undermine the theory of AGW, in a similar way to someone using observations of blowing leaves incorrectly to argue that they might call into question the basic mechanics of gravity.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
You refuse to argue the point presented
[/QUOTE]
Your “point” has been conclusively refuted several times over, as wolfpup and others have explained. The only thing left to do with it at this stage is to try to understand what misconceptions would have led you even to attempt to make such an invalid point. And that’s where analogies about inappropriate use of evidence comes in.
The reason for linking you to Gavin in 2001, and the 1999 GISS/NASA paper, about how increased CO2 was causing the warmer winters, was specific and about the theoretical issue of cause and effect, in regards to an enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet we live on warms and cools, the theory is about being able to say the current change is due to a specific effect, an increased greenhouse effect from CO2. Confusing the law of gravitation with part of the greenhouse theory of climate change is really pseudoscience.
No, you are using the fallacy demonstrated by the gravity example.
You can repeat that forever, it still is wrong.
Very true. But that does not mean that every single observed change is equally significant for the theory, or that direct attribution of every observed change to a specific consequence of the theory is equally possible. Your lack of understanding of this point is what’s causing this whole kerfuffle.
You can’t validly argue that a particular cherrypicked set of recent winter temperatures constitutes a meaningful challenge to the theory of climate change, any more than you could argue that observations of leaves being blown upwards by the wind constitute a meaningful challenge to the basic mechanics of gravitation.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Confusing the law of gravitation with part of the greenhouse theory of climate change is really pseudoscience.
[/quote]
Nobody except you is actually “confusing the law of gravitation with part of the […] theory of climate change”. Everybody else seems to have the requisite basic understanding of how analogies work.
The fact that you have given up even trying to present evidentiary arguments and have fallen back on simply complaining about a misunderstood analogy illustrates how bankrupt your position is when it comes to actual scientific support.
A better analogy would be the Universal theory of gravitation and the assumptions about the ocean tides. While it’s now known as Newton’s Law of gravity, it doesn’t matter, the example is almost perfect, because it does not invalidate the theory, it just shows how wrong people can be about using the theory to predict/calculate what should be observed.
According to theory, many many many experts state that the ocean tides are two bulges, racing around the planet, caused by the differential of the moon and sun’s gravity, and the earth’s rotation.
This could be an entire topic, so this will be brief and to the point.
Theory about this was derived for two reasons. First, the scientists who “discovered” the tides relationship to the law of gravity lived where there are large diurnal tides. Using Newton’s theory they calculated that the oceans would have not one, but two bulges, racing after the moon. Later, it was calculated they would actually be ahead of the moon, causing tidal braking, which would explain that the moon is actually getting farther from the earth, not falling closer over time.
(that the moon is moving away from the earth, not getting closer was a real problem for gravity theory, back in the day)
After all, like the leaves, the moon is falling towards the earth, due to gravity. How can it not be getting closer over time? According to the law it should be getting closer each passing second, just as our artificial satellites are always falling towards the earth. One could blame the sun, but that just brings up a larger problem, why is the earth not getting closer to the sun each passing moment? The law of gravity says objects always fall towards the center of gravity, so the planets should all be closer now, than 4 billion years ago.
Same for the moon. It isn’t closer, it’s farther away. That used to seem like a real problem for physics.
Explaining this does not invalidate the law of gravity, but it certainly proves the assumptions about the predictions wrong. Now the mechanism of tidal locking is used to explain where the energy comes from that is causing the moon to speed up, to get farther away with each second.
If you didn’t know this, stating the moon isn’t getting closer to the earth sounds cray. Newton certainly would have waved his hands and dismissed the idea as nonsense.
Now there is an analogy that works. And we didn’t even get to the mythical bulges yet.
There is another fallacy. You don’t know, you actually can’t know, what “everybody” understands about analogies, or anything else for that matter.
It’s illogical, it’s impossible. You are making an impossible claim to put forth your view. That’s not an argument, it’s a huge fallacy.
It already has most of the signs of a religion, including faithful followers who distort and modify what the high priests publish.
This is hyperbole of course, it’s rhetoric, but it fits sometimes. Especially when those pushing an agenda claim the high moral ground, think they alone are trying to save the world, that there is a shadowy wealthy secret group fighting to end the world, and that everyone falls into two sides of the “great fight”.
Go read some blogs, and you will see this right away. The scientific minded get buried in a sea of ignorance and self assured nonsense.
/thread
Well, of course, acknowledging that someone is not good at understanding analogies is one step towards understanding.
So, besides having issues with analogies, have you any success on finding any scientist that supports your cherry picks?
Sure. Just like the Theory of Gravity was correct, based on the overarching observations, despite the flawed analysis of the limited case of the tides, AGW is correct, based on the overarching observations, despite the lack of predictive power on the limited case of winter temperatures in Northwestern USA.
I seriously doubt that. Newton saw the laws of physics as the extension of God’s perfect will for the universe. He would have said the moon wasn’t going anywhere.
You are once again very confused – on several different levels.
The feedback that is significant to global warming with regard to “high latitudes” occurs in the Arctic, and it’s not specifically about winters, nor is it specifically even about AGW, as it’s been observed in the paleoclimate record. It’s called “Arctic amplification” or “polar amplification”, and its relevance and magnitude isn’t about “proving” or disproving “global warming theory” but rather about how it affects our estimates of climate sensitivity. And it’s most definitely occurring, and moreover it occurs in all seasons.
No one but you is making any claim that recent mid-latitude winter temperatures are anything more than circulation perturbations. Judah Cohen certainly isn’t, despite your propensity for incorrectly citing him all over the place. As I’ve pointed out several times, he’s arguing the opposite: that global warming is incontrovertibly occurring, and that Arctic amplification is overwhelmingly robust:
Arctic amplification occurs in all seasons, but is strongest in autumn and winter. It is also a consistent feature in coupled climate model simulations of the recent past and future projections forced with increased greenhouse-gas concentrations … The seven years between 2007 and 2013 have exhibited the lowest minimum sea-ice extents recorded in September since satellite observations began, with an all-time record low in 2007 followed by another in 2012, when sea-ice extent fell below 4 million km[sup]2[/sup] for the first time in the observational record.
Indeed Cohen questions whether there is any systemic cause at all underlying recent mid-latitude winter trends, but if there are, he suggests three possible mechanisms for it: changes in storm tracks, the effects of Arctic amplification on the polar jet stream, or the possible effects of Rossby waves in weakening the polar vortex. These are hypothetical circulation system perturbations, nothing more. At no point does Cohen suggest that this invalidates the fundamental principles of AGW – this fantastical idea comes entirely from some delusion that you alone seem to harbor. Just as you have in the past tried to attribute solar variations as the main driver of global warming, or claimed that the earth is no longer warming, and all manner of other obfuscations in what seems to be some desperate attempt to try to undermine climate science from every possible angle.
You have a history of making these sorts of bizarre claims, some of which I pointed out here. It’s certainly not convincing anyone – at least not anyone with a scientific background – and all it really does is reveal a lack of knowledge of the subject matter or some motivated desire to be intentionally obtuse. I would think you’d find your track record on this subject to be fairly embarrassing at this point.
Well, neither of know what he would do, but we certainly do know, until the tidal locking was proposed as the mechanism for the moon doing the opposite if what the theory predicted, the faithful of the world would have acted much like the warmers act now. Blanket dismissal and fallacious reasoning, to try and insist their theory is absolute and true, and anyone who points out any contradictions must have ulterior motives. Haha no, that is also sheer speculation and a fallacy. See how easy it is to just make something up and present it as fact?
The beauty and the horror of it all, can be summed up quite easily, with the added bonus of destroying the fallacies presented as fact.
That sort of smug claim is hilarious, it tells me the author hasn’t actually read the papers, something that is obvious when you actually do read.
It’s not a surprise, as the research is extensive and fast moving at present.
Of course in matters of religion, there is never an end to contention, much less a peaceful forward movement into a brighter future. This becomes evident when the debate turns to semantics, and what something means is a matter of opinion. In those cases there is, with little doubt, no way to come to an understanding.
So unless we can know with certainty, with a scientific understanding, what is meant by “the fundamental principles of AGW”, it’s impossible to resolve this. Certainly after hundreds of efforts to get wolfpup, or anyone else, to clearly state what they mean, to define, explain, hopefully link to sources, and make it clear what they mean, there is not much hope of an answer.
And this is where the OP has nailed it. In science, a question like this, “what exactly do you mean by your statement?” is followed by a lengthy scientific explanation, with sources and documentation, if it’s scientific, this is easy to do.
Anything else, and you know you are up against some woo woo or religious beliefs, something, but not science.
This goes double if all you get is a link to some enormous web site, no direct link of course, with the demand you go and read all of it.
Imagine if you asked about a well known scientific theory, any of them really, and the person refused to just answer you? Or couldn’t link to the Wikipedia article at the very least. Hell, even old theories that are considered dead show up on Wikipedia at least. The most important theory of all (according to the adherents), isn’t even mentioned on Wikipedia, much less explained.
So when faced with this point in a debate
Unless the person making the claim defines what he is talking about, it’s all obfuscation, distractions and handwaving.
Of course educated scientists know what the theory is, what it predicts, so *Cohen et al *can state clearly, in a peer reviewed published paper (or three of them now), a statement of fact, and nobody rants or blusters on about it.
But the warmer, when faced with this sort of scientific evidence, actual real science, wants to convince you there is no theory, or that the theory doesn’t talk about winters, or something. Or that winters are not trending colder. Anything other than debating the facts on the table.