Is global warming falsifiable?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Not only that, I explained where part of it may already have been falsified. If the expected winter amplification is not resulting in winter warming happening faster than summer warming, the theory is false.

As Scientific American reported, you are continuing to misinterpret the usefulness for you of a single piece of the puzzle that is is still being investigated if it will cause more harm than good and be added to the other confirmed issues like the increase in the heat detected coming back to earth, the increase in warming records, ocean rise, ocean acidification, atmospheric effects, etc.

@FXMastermind

No, it’s not considered a forcing, and it certainly has not been “discovered”, in the sense that the consensus has adopted this new theory, nor have the models all been changed. First, once you realize it’s not a forcing, the rest makes no sense.

As the UCAR scientist reported, even in a warming world we will still see cold records. only that less often than before.

@FXMastermind

In regards to “standard, self-corrective science”, that doesn’t exist. If this new theory is validated, and we are sure there is indeed an unexpected feedback from CO2 forcing, that is a very large change in the theory, and it means all the models are wrong. It also means a lot more than that.

Not was found by wolfpup, it is clear that the researchers you quoted are not in a hurry to drop the models, just to modify them to reflect the latest findings, nowhere they do declare that the cold incidents discredit all the theories. And I do remember in a previous discussion those researchers actually quoted and used plenty of research that supports the main theories.

@FXMastermind

But it is by no means certain this is what is happening. 27 years isn’t long enough to say.

And that is why the stasticians that were quoted a while ago told you that the proper thing to do was to check the long trend, and not just the short land surface temperature record, nor just winter only, and also not just for areas of the northern hemisphere. That way only leads to grasping the wrong puzzle box.

[tomndebb]

@FXMastermind

Actually, I stated clearly the same thing in post 33 and 34. I should have just stopped then.

Actually, in those posts, you pretended that the theory could not be falsified and made snide claims, thinly veiled, that it was not science. Claims that you have said one thing while pointing to your own statements that show you saying the contrary is not persuasive.

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

Actually, in those posts, you pretended that the theory could not be falsified

I am going to have to work on my irony.

“the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.”

@tomndebb

and made snide claims, thinly veiled, that it was not science.

I didn’t think it was veiled at all.

@tomndebb

Claims that you have said one thing while pointing to your own statements that show you saying the contrary is not persuasive.

No, but it’s effective at getting the point across. (that was another attempt at irony)

Here’s an article.
Arctic ice cap is in a ‘death spiral’, claims leading academic

How do you know if that is true? It’s in some British tabloid. Right? It’s sensationalism, to get headlines.

Here is another one.
Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist

In the same tabloid, same concept.

What is true? Deciding in advance, so that you accept one story, but question the other, isn’t scientific, or fighting ignorance.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

I am going to have to work on my irony.

“the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.”

I didn’t think it was veiled at all.

No, but it’s effective at getting the point across. (that was another attempt at irony)

Here’s an article.
Arctic ice cap is in a ‘death spiral’, claims leading academic

How do you know if that is true? It’s in some British tabloid. Right? It’s sensationalism, to get headlines.

Here is another one.
Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist

In the same tabloid, same concept.

What is true? Deciding in advance, so that you accept one story, but question the other, isn’t scientific, or fighting ignorance.

And to fight ignorance the proper thing to do first is to realize who is an expert and who is not.

Science writer Peter Hadfield explains that Coleman has no real background to make those declarations and neither to claim that he is an expert.

Potholer54: "9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists"

“Only one problem, Hello! You [Coleman] are not a scientist, you got degree in media studies and became a TV weather man, and while you claim to be a meteorologist the American Meteorological Society disagrees, you are not in the list of people with degrees in meteorology.”

As for the scientist (a physicist, not an expert in climate science either) the tabloid claims that is supporting Coleman:

http://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer

William Happer appears to have only published one paper on climate change, titled “Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection.”

Note that while the paper appears in Google Scholar, it was published by the George C. Marshall Institute and not by any peer-reviewed journal.

Leading one then to conclude after a search that anyone can do, but for a few contrarians, that the objective of the last tabloid article was to seed FUD. And this has not been the last time that they did so, but as they demonstrated they can still fool a few even after all the discredit they accumulated before.

The take home lesson here is that besides wasting the time of contrarians that want to claim that they are serious, the use of those sources does in the end demonstrate how unreliable the claims of those contrarians are. (And no this is not deciding in advance, what Peter Hadfield reported a few years ago is what gives us this insight) The tabloids that consult McExpert FUD producers should never be taken into account.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

I am going to have to work on my irony.

And just one more note.

You really have to work on your ignorance.

Not only on this issue, but on the closely related one on how powerful groups are manipulating the discussion. Your debunked ideas are not original and are refuted by virtually all scientists, they are made (and continuously, no matter how debunked they were before) by a few scientists from groups that do have an agenda.

Lets remember where the George C. Marshall Institute came from:

One of the founders what one of the original breaking bad -in the most appalling form- scientist Dr. Seitz:

http://www.desmogblog.com/frederick-seitz

Who jumped from denying that cigarettes caused cancer (he did oversee tobacco company research that never found evidence of that, while at the same time almost all others outside the tobacco companies did) to the denial of human induced climate change with no shame nor any wonderment from contrarians about if it was a good idea to rely on a scientist that did break that bad.

32000 Scientists

The lesson here is that denial can also work by refusing to see how the media can be manipulated by those [del]stink[/del] think tanks to offer a false equivalence about what virtually all experts are reporting versus what a few with conflicts of interest report.

William Happer is just following the same footsteps of carrying water for the tobacco industry and now for the fossil fuel one.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

And to fight ignorance the proper thing to do first is to realize who is an expert and who is not.

Well that poses a logical conundrum. If I believe you, and only “experts” should be believed, then you are not an expert, so I shouldn’t listen to you at all. But that means I shouldn’t just believe experts, because that’s what a non expert claimed. It’s an impossible situation. It’s useless in a debate. And just quoting other people is also useless, that’s not what a debate is.

@GIGObuster

Not only on this issue, but on the closely related one on how powerful groups are manipulating the discussion.

Once again, we shouldn’t listen to you, because you are no expert. But that makes the debate useless, since nobody contributing is worth listening to, much less responding to.

@GIGObuster

Your debunked ideas are not original and are refuted by virtually all scientists, they are made (and continuously, no matter how debunked they were before) by a few scientists from groups that do have an agenda.

That’s just completely false, and this is actually self evident.

But according to you, I shouldn’t even listen to you about this.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, science marches on.

[FXMastermind]

My clear and direct inquiry is not just for Kimstu, anyone can respond.

@FXMastermind

Using your source for the “predictions” made by basic global warming theory, which of the following do you consider predictions? Can any of them be falsified?

The obvious question, one which ordinary people, as well as experts ask, is what is going on with the cold and snow? Can we make any predictions based on this?

The larger question is, of course, is simple and direct. Does global warming theory predict that the NH winters will become colder, with more snow? (to save time, the answer is an emphatic “no, the theory does not state that”)

@GIGObuster

And that is bull and pushing again the flawed single piece that you are using to counter the many other pieces already assembled and confirmed as Kimstu showed already.

It doesn’t matter what you make up, the question is still the same.

Does the greenhouse theory of global warming, AGW, tell us that increasing CO2 will lead to a much colder NH winter, with more snow and ice?

Or does it predict the most warming for NH winters?

The sheer avoidance of answering, and discussing, this simple point, is why it seems like arguing with a religion, not a scientific theory.

In regards to the new theory, that the low arctic sea ice is causing the weather in the following winter, faces far more opposition than it would seem. For many reasons.

It’s the belief, the sure knowing, before the facts, that “even if this turns out to be true, it will not matter at all to the global warming theory”. That belief system, it is not scientific.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Well that poses a logical conundrum. If I believe you, and only “experts” should be believed, then you are not an expert, so I shouldn’t listen to you at all.

That is using very rotten logic, you are willfully ignoring the experts and the people with experience in writing science I point at, they should be believed for the simple fact that the ones you point at are the pits.

@FXMastermind

But that means I shouldn’t just believe experts, because that’s what a non expert claimed. It’s an impossible situation. It’s useless in a debate. And just quoting other people is also useless, that’s not what a debate is.

And that would mean that we should ignore history, science and what the experts report because one poster is not an expert…
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, the logical thing is to check if the information is valid, and figuring out who are the experts and the ones to trust does also depend on what the sources did before or after, Gavin Schmidt became the head of GISS, the ones you called into the discussion are just TV celebrities or experts in an unrelated field with an ideology to push.

And the record (that does not depned on me) shows that they are mistaken or just lying to many other contrarians.

@FXMastermind

Once again, we shouldn’t listen to you, because you are no expert. But that makes the debate useless, since nobody contributing is worth listening to, much less responding to.

What it is clear here is that you do not want to touch what the experts that should be consulted are reporting and saying.

@FXMastermind

That’s just completely false, and this is actually self evident.

Nothing there but rhetoric, if you can not show what they reported is false with evidence all other readers do not need to investigate further, you are the one who is not capable of identifying a good source from a bad one.

@FXMastermind

But according to you, I shouldn’t even listen to you about this.

And your logic is rotten too, again I’m not the important one, but the important ones are the experts at NASA, NOAA and virtually all scientific organizations that are not willing to give you the time of the day for pushing really silly and incomplete ideas.

@FXMastermind

Meanwhile, back in the real world, science marches on.

Indeed, as demonstrated, the George Marshall institute is not a scientific organization, nor it does peer review.

[FXMastermind]

@Taajsgpm

I tend to go with the scientists

I always go with science, or at least the best evidence.

The essential question, which is avoided for some reason, is still there.

What does the greenhouse theory predict?

If it predicts the greenhouse effect, which is always at work, will result in nights showing warming more than days, and we observe this, then that creates confidence in the theory. Which is what the best evidence, as well as the theory shows us.

Same for the winter warming. If the theory predicts the greenhouse effect results in the most warming happening in the boreal winters, which it does, and we observe this warming , which we have, then that instills confidence in the theory.

It’s when we now observe the opposite happening, that the big actual real scientific problem comes up.

Either something else is causing the cooling, or the theory is wrong. (the efforts to deny the cooling was even happening are almost over at this point)

The new theory that it is CAUSED by warming is by no means accepted yet. But if it is, then that also means the theory was wrong.

But, there is no certainty that such a mechanism is the cause. Certainly we know CO2 isn’t the only thing that alters climate, much less causes cold winters.

This is a crucial point. AGW, or a CO2 increase, is not considered a cause of colder winters. The theory, and the models do not ever predict colder winters due to increasing CO2 levels.

This simple point is avoided, due to politics no doubt.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Does the greenhouse theory of global warming, AGW, tell us that increasing CO2 will lead to a much colder NH winter, with more snow and ice?

The world has another hemisphere and other regions. once gain you are looking at the wrong box and ignoring what all the other pieces found so far are telling us.

@FXMastermind

The sheer avoidance of answering, and discussing, this simple point, is why it seems like arguing with a religion, not a scientific theory.

As pointed before me and many others did discuss it, you do not like the answers. Not our problem.

@FXMastermind

In regards to the new theory, that the low arctic sea ice is causing the weather in the following winter, faces far more opposition than it would seem. For many reasons.

Not really, now you are denying that most scientists realize that the complexities of an area are interesting and this will lead to beter local long term forecasts, but because I’m aware of history I can tell you that this piece of the puzle that you are abusing was not very well understood as it is getting into the area of weather, not climate. The progress made is that they are getting closer to more effective forecasts in localized areas, but that was not a show stopper, as Berkely Earth and Muller showed even simpler models that did not look at local phenomena but apllied natural and human released CO2 and aerosols to it replicated the known instrumental record very well, so once again you are just ducking the issue.

@FXMastermind

It’s the belief, the sure knowing, before the facts, that “even if this turns out to be true, it will not matter at all to the global warming theory”. That belief system, it is not scientific.

Nonsense, you are only ignoring the more than 100 years of this scientific issue, as Kerry Emmanuel reports what Arhenius predicted more than 100 years ago matched the instrumental record of the globla temperatures.

What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel

Link here goes to the simple theory Arhenius had and with just pencil and paper he managed to get a lot of the behavior of the global temperature with an increase of CO2 being observed.

The whole long explanation by Emmanuel should be seen too, as it is this one about critical thinking about this issue from Dr Richard Milne at the university of Edinburgh.

Dr Richard Milne - Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Separating Skepticism from Denial

Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, presents Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

The new theory that it is CAUSED by warming is by no means accepted yet. But if it is, then that also means the theory was wrong.

But, there is no certainty that such a mechanism is the cause. Certainly we know CO2 isn’t the only thing that alters climate, much less causes cold winters.

This is a crucial point. AGW, or a CO2 increase, is not considered a cause of colder winters. The theory, and the models do not ever predict colder winters due to increasing CO2 levels.

This simple point is avoided, due to politics no doubt.

A very incomplete view, as pointed many times by Scientific American and many others.

At best, you are dealing only with a piece of the puzzle that does not deny all the other effects observed that we need to deal with.

"We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH

It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works.

We know enough to realize that we need to control our emissions, the scientists are investigating your piece and we noted already that it may turn out to support more the overall view and IIUC, accepting what you are claiming leads me and others to wonder if the weather then will become more chaotic as winter (in some areas) remains harsh and then the other seasons continue to get warmer.

The politics do enter the picture when one realizes that the current Republican party denies that there is any problem. As pointed by Dr Richard Milne politicans like Republican Rick Perry are really loopy when they claim that they are like Galileo in their opposition to what the scientists are reporting.

And never forget, the puzzle is more like Winnie the Poo and it is not like your Duck.

[wolfpup]

I’ve been watching this latest round with some bemusement, and it bothers me that knowledgeable and well-intentioned folks like GIGO and Kimstu and others are wasting their time arguing with FX as if he’s making some kind of rational argument. I made the same mistake in my first few months, but as I pointed out in my links and commentary in my post #472 his various claims in the past not only weren’t factual, they weren’t even self-consistent, but just seem to reflect a tendency to say whatever contrarian thought comes into his head at any particular time, with no rhyme or reason. There’s no way that anyone can read things like his rants about water vapor that I quoted in that post without concluding that he hasn’t a clue about even basic physics, let alone climate science.

But that collection of oddities was only what I had the patience to list at that moment in time. Lord knows there’s more … there’s always lots more …

"People who understand both weather and climate know good and well why “global warming” can’t cause “more extreme weather”.

Yep, he actually said that – he really did! He also said “If the expected warming of both the arctic and the winters in high latitudes does occur (it hasn’t yet), it is expected to decrease many extreme weather events”.

As I point out here, this is getting the most basic principles precisely backwards. Because of course global warming does cause more extreme weather – at that link are scholarly articles from Climate Communications, the IPCC, the Scientific American series on extreme weather and climate change, and two papers from Nature – indeed, the causation of extreme weather events as a consequence of climate change is now a major field of study in climate science today.

But it doesn’t end with “global warming can’t cause more extreme weather” or with all the other crap he stated that I contradicted with citations in post #472 above and its many sublinks. It just goes on and on…

"Even if that hypothesis was promoted to theory (it certainly isn’t yet), but even if that was the mechanism, the arctic wasn’t warm, isn’t warm this year. Or the last, which is why such off the cuff handwaving just isn’t scientific. "

Got that? The Arctic isn’t warming! But it gets even better…

"There is an obvious problem with such flawed logic. We know what happens when there is a warmer arctic, it happens each year. The polar jet streams weaken and move poleward, reducing the extreme weather. It’s when there is a lot of high pressure (cold) air at the pole that we see extreme weather. "

In reality, of course, the warming Arctic is one of the most dramatically visible phenomena of recent decades, and the link to extreme weather is precisely what countless recent papers have been about, including the Cohen papers that FX likes to flaunt now that it’s a few months later and he hopes we’ve forgotten what he said earlier – because once again FX gets the science exactly backwards – a warmer Arctic tends to contribute to more extreme weather, not less (that’s what Francis et al 2014, Cohen at al 2014 etc are all about) – see my previous link to Cohen 2014 or Francis 2014 – per the abstract from Cohen 2014 “*The Arctic region has warmed more than twice as fast as the global average — a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification … these profound changes to the Arctic system have coincided with a period of ostensibly more frequent extreme weather events across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including severe winters … *”

Maybe somebody else can figure out what FX is all about – all I see is someone incredibly tenacious about conveying bad information. Really bad information.

[tomndebb]

@FXMastermind

I am going to have to work on my irony.

Probably true. A[ul]
[/ul]mong your evasions, misrepresentations of your opponents’ positions, and general refusal to post anything without being snide, (and, usually, wrong) your ability to actually convey irony is seriously lacking.

@FXMastermind

No, but it’s effective at getting the point across. (that was another attempt at irony)

Another failed attempt, given the way that you have been utter ly ineffective in making an actual point, relying on simplistic caricatures to identify what you claim are examples of “falsifiability” while ignoring or dismissing those posts that disprove your claims.
In fact, while you might possibly believe yourself to have a point, your reversals and dances around the topic are beginning to lead me to believe that your “point” has more to do with keeping this thread active than actually engaging in honest debate.

@FXMastermind

Here’s an article.
Arctic ice cap is in a ‘death spiral’, claims leading academic

How do you know if that is true? It’s in some British tabloid. Right? It’s sensationalism, to get headlines.

Here is another one.
Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’, claims top meteorologist

In the same tabloid, same concept.

What is true? Deciding in advance, so that you accept one story, but question the other, isn’t scientific, or fighting ignorance.

Silly strawman arguments further demonstrate that you are doing nothing but playing games. No one has made any claim to “believe” either story and your implication that posters in this thread would make up their minds to believe one or the other without other outside references is nothing more than you creating an imaginary scenario for you to mock while pretending that posters had done what you claimed.

[tomndebb]

Does the Theory of Evolution predict that long-legged women will get more dates or fewer dates than shorter legged women? After all, we know that evolutionary theory is well involved in successful sexual reproduction. In FXM world, that means that if we cannot address this “simple” question, we cannot possibly propose a way to test the falsifiability of that theory.

[FXMastermind]

@tomndebb

Does the Theory of Evolution predict.

Evolution for some reason frequently comes up, and is often used illogically, (red herring, strawman, begging the question, chaff, poisoning the well, ad hominem, Argumentum ad nauseam), when in fact it could be used as an educational tool instead.

Of course that theory makes predictions, lots of them, and we know which ones have been found to be true.

Same for the concept of predictions in general, in regards to theory.

However, what matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

It’s that simple. It’s about the predictions that can be made, and if you can know if the prediction was accurate or not. If a theory does not predict, and you can’t say if the prediction is true or not, it’s not a scientific theory.

This basic point gets handwaved away, for some reason, when it comes to the CO2 theory (AGW).

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@wolfpup

"People who understand both weather and climate know good and well why “global warming” can’t cause “more extreme weather”.

You know what I find particularly telling about this post? FXMastermind still trusts David Rose and The Daily Mail to correctly relay statements from the Met Office. Never mind the two times that the Met Office publicly told him “stop lying about our results”. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times…

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Evolution for some reason frequently comes up, and is often used illogically, (red herring, strawman, begging the question, chaff, poisoning the well, ad hominem, Argumentum ad nauseam), when in fact it could be used as an educational tool instead.

Of course that theory makes predictions, lots of them, and we know which ones have been found to be true.

Same for the concept of predictions in general, in regards to theory.
It’s that simple. It’s about the predictions that can be made, and if you can know if the prediction was accurate or not. If a theory does not predict, and you can’t say if the prediction is true or not, it’s not a scientific theory.

This basic point gets handwaved away, for some reason, when it comes to the CO2 theory (AGW).

Again, no. As was shown way back in post#4, all those confirmation and pieces of the puzzle are not refuted or denied even if we humor you and agree with your cherry picked premise of depending on a fragment of the piece that only deals with one season, a few regions of the earth and a partial surface temperature record.

AP Demolishes Latest Climate Skeptics Talking Point

One of the more popular notions currently circulating among global warming skeptics is that the Earth has entered a cooling phase. The “theory” is based on a dishonest and faulty reading of temperature data from the last decade. This week, the AP does a very thorough job debunking the ‘global cooling’ nonsense.

The story is a fantastic example of how journalists can use an empirical analysis to fact-check the climate denialists.

WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

“To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it “a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers” ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.

President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents “make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change - claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.”

Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years’ temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

[GIGObuster]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

You know what I find particularly telling about this post? FXMastermind still trusts David Rose and The Daily Mail to correctly relay statements from the Met Office. Never mind the two times that the Met Office publicly told him “stop lying about our results”. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times…

Ah, the Daily Fail, always good for misleading a few.

What they did to the Met office was never taken back, and most denier sources out there continue to repeat the falsehoods of the Daily Mail. Where faith enters the picture is when there is not only a denial of what the scientists report, but there is also denial of the chicanery and twists and lies that outfits like the Daily Mail do commit to their readers.

24 - Global warming has stopped? Again??

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

People who understand both weather and climate know good and well why “global warming” can’t cause “more extreme weather”.

According to global warming theory, CO2 warming results in less extremes, as night time temps rise, there is less of an extreme range for temperatures. The warming arctic, and warmer winters results in less differential between the normal warm moist tropical air masses, and the northern high pressure systems, like what we observe in the NH warm season. The meeting of cold fronts with warm moist air is the driver of most of the extreme weather, warming would cause less extremes in both temperature changes, as well as weaker jet streams, as the arctic air is warmer longer.

This recent change to “warming causes more extreme weather” is actually an un-scientific view, not supported at all by the theory. Strong early cold fronts, and strong winter fronts result in the extremes, which are usually only experienced in late winter and spring, when tornado outbreaks usually occur.

Warming theory predicts less extremes in weather, especially during winter.

More rain, less ice and snow. That’s what the greenhouse theory predicts.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

According to global warming theory, CO2 warming results in less extremes, as night time temps rise, there is less of an extreme range for temperatures. The warming arctic, and warmer winters results in less differential between the normal warm moist tropical air masses, and the northern high pressure systems, like what we observe in the NH warm season. The meeting of cold fronts with warm moist air is the driver of most of the extreme weather, warming would cause less extremes in both temperature changes, as well as weaker jet streams, as the arctic air is warmer longer.

This recent change to “warming causes more extreme weather” is actually an un-scientific view, not supported at all by the theory. Strong early cold fronts, and strong winter fronts result in the extremes, which are usually only experienced in late winter and spring, when tornado outbreaks usually occur.

Warming theory predicts less extremes in weather, especially during winter.

More rain, less ice and snow. That’s what the greenhouse theory predicts.

And now we get that in FX world, there are no droughts, and locations are important. As Kerry Emanuel told us before there is a chance that there can be less hurricanes in a warming world, but once they manage to appear they will be more intense as the increase in energy and matter like water vapor (that was predicted and more evidence that it is being observed is out) in the path of those hurricanes is increasing.