I meant to say that in FX world, there are no droughts, and locations are unimportant. He also does not seem to mind ever if the Daily Mail and other sources he uses continue to pull his leg.
Show us some of the countless papers, predicting more extreme weather, especially in regards to warming winters causing it. From before it happened. Oh wait, there aren’t any.
Of course you have to define “more extreme”, a unscientific term, that can mean anything. Certainly the 2004 and 2005 North Atlantic hurricane seasons were extreme, and blamed on global warming. But now a record low number of storms is also “more extreme”, which of course is rubbish. It’s woo woo science, making it up as you go.
Nobody is going to deny that NOW, after things changed, many people are writing papers, about what is observed. Blaming AGW for all bad weather. But that isn’t predicting anything. If you find papers from before it happened, predicting it, we would all love to read them.
Because the skeptical mind is insulted when after the fact things are claimed to have been predicted. Like if you read the 2001 IPCC report, and see claims about winters, and storms, matching what happened, that would be great science.
Not according to greenhouse theory. The subject of this topic. Warmer arctic temperatures are assumed to lead to less snow and ice (except Greenland), and milder winters. The only thing expected to increase is rainfall, as warmer air holds more moisture, and warmer winters have less snow.
AGW theory DOES NOT PREDICT COLDER WINTERS WITH MUCH GREATER SNOW.
If it’s a record low number, is that not extreme?
Even in the baseball cartoon the UCAR scientist reported that yes, there will be still cold record winters in a warming world.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/steroids-baseball-climate-change
The scientist explaining it is Jerry Meehl
https://www2.ucar.edu/news/experts/gerald-jerry-meehl
Yes, and that was months before the polar vortex was popularized and the analogy and reports that cold winters will still come in a warming world are not new either.
The new research is based on data and the theories related to the weirding of the weather does not contradict the global warming caused by humans, in reality the trend that is being found is that this piece of the puzzle is leading the weather to not behave as before. It will not be as pleasant as the do nothings in congress and contrarians are telling us.
One thing to realize is that most predictions of seeing an average of a 3 degree Celsius increase thanks to a doubling of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is just about the world, the nonsense here from FX is to pretend that cold in an specific area of the world discredits all the dryness and heat observed in places like the North Pole, Areas of the south pole, Alaska, the southwest, Australia and many others. As explained before tackling specific weather events is just happening now as the tools of the climate scientists are allowing a higher resolution and scientists are starting to figure out what climate change will do in smaller regions of the world.
As Richard Alley explained, we should not wait for what local weather will do as ocean rise, ocean acidification, droughts in several regions and more water vapor in the areas were hurricanes will still appear (causing more damage) are still coming. That is enough to tell us that we need to control our emissions.
That most scientists are finding evidence that goes for extreme weather as being added into the big puzzle as “there will be more intense events in a warming world” is yet another bad result that tell us that we should not stand still to wait to see if the scientists are wrong.
Exactly the point. “Extreme” can mean anything. Lots of storms, almost no storms, it’s all extreme.
The only thing not blamed on global warming, is all the normal, or wonderful weather each year.
Once more, some term, undefined. Now you can blame anything weird on global warming.
The pseudoscience never ends.
Now that is undefined.
Nope, your term about global cooling for some areas, based on short trends and ignoring all the other areas of the world is what is not defined at all.
Unless you publish it in a science journal, but we all know that will never happen.
Piffle, how is your search going for any scientist at NASA and other scientific organizations agreeing with your idea that your cherry pick about global cooling for some areas, based on short trends and ignoring all other seasons and all the other areas of the world does discredit the findings of all other issues that continue to gain support?
BTW the scientists reporting on the weather in the video from the Yale Climate media group are dealing with the piece of the puzzle that you continue to abuse.
One more note, I do choose my sources carefully, and that was a test for you, it is clear that you do not want to learn from the science and evidence that they are talking about.
Cites:
Even if this were true…so what? You demand a theory that predicts everything? Suppose that there were unanticipated effects. “Okay, we didn’t see that coming.” How does that disprove the theory?
Also…winters and snow are local effects. Overall, the world is warmer, even during winter. Do you remember that little place called the southern half of the planet? Hey, funny thing, they have their summers while we’re having our winters, and the overall global temperature is rising.
For the dozenth time or more, what part of “average” don’t you understand? Ooh, New Hampshire had a heavy snowfall! Gosh, that proves that the whole damn planet is having a cold winter with heavy snow? Far from it.
Well, since you have chosen to arbitrarily assert one short term phenomenon to play your falsifiability games regarding AGW, it is only fair to ask you to defend similar predictions regarding evolution.
Thanks for the link, GIGObuster. I’ve heard about Jet stream “meandering” before, but am not ashamed to try to learn more.
Those scientists do seem to know what they’re talking about! Do the deniers think it’s all mumbo-jumbo? I’m sure they don’t think the scientists are stupid, since it would take huge creativity to come up with these explanations if they were false! 
Let’s review the argument, it’s not hard to do.
The theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect predicted the most warming in winter, in the NH hemisphere, over land. That is one key prediction from the theory, based on physics and the characteristics of warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect. Like the prediction of night time lows warming more than daytime highs, it’s due to the greenhouse effect always happening. (If it were more sunlight the warming would be a different kind of change) This is explained, with graphics even, several places online. I picked Cook, since it’s a source even GIGO can’t just handwave away. Here is what I will call the Cook graphic in this post later on. Note what he claims about the faster warming of winters.
When this predicted warming from CO2 was thought to be observed, (there was a large increase in the very areas that were predicted to warm rapidly) it was considered proof that the warming was from the enhanced greenhouse effect. 1975-1995 winter trend Note the obvious warming trend for NH winters
Now that there is twenty years of a cooling trend for NH winters (longer in some areas) the opposite of the predictions is now being claimed as due to global warming, or rather the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is the theory behind global warming. 1995-2014 winter trend Compare with the previous two decade trend to simply see the difference
The simple fact is, if the last two decades actually had continued to show greenhouse warming for winters, that would be considered evidence, leading to very high confidence in the CO2 theory. It would also have made the annual mean continue to climb, another strong evidence for the theory.
If a theory predicts one thing, and the opposite happens, the theory is incorrect. So the the enhanced greenhouse effect theory has already been shown to be wrong. Now that statement angers, or confuses some, or is completely misunderstood. It does not mean what some think it does.
If the theory is changed to say the enhanced greenhouse effect is causing the colder winters, the entire thing falls apart, which is why caution is needed when making huge claims like that.
If you simply change the theory, then you can not falsify the enhanced greenhouse effect theory. No matter what happens, the theory predicts it. Which is viewed, and quite rightly so, as bad science.
Looking at the 1960-1998 period shown in the Cook graphic, which shows winters warming very fast, you can see why this would be the case, and why it would be considered human fingerprints.
Now look at the 1998-2014 trend, (which isn’t on the Cook graphic), and compare the two trends. It’s so obvious a child can see it. (you can check the Hemisphere trends, land and ocean, using the NCDC software, if you have any doubts)
Once again, at the same time, you have both claims that it is actually the CO2 causing the cooling trend, or you have the obvious avoidance of reality, those who insist there has been no cooling of the winters. Or those who claim this doesn’t even matter. (the “so what?” defense).
Or those who claim AGW didn’t predict warmer winters. Or those who claim the theory can simply be changed, and it is still right.
Note that the sources are GISS, the NCDC, and skepticalscience for the above points. Hard to dismiss them as biased, liars or just wrong or something.
The same can be said about ocean cooling, which is not a prediction of the CO2 theory. The same thing can be said about the land to ocean warming ratio, which also has shown the theory to be wrong. If the land mean is cooling, while the oceans warm, the theory is wrong. (because the theory predicts warming will be greater over land, once again, basic global warming theory)
Same for the upper troposphere in the tropics changes, they have not happened as predicted. If you hypothesize the energy went into causing stronger winds, and the theory is changed to predict an increase in winds from heating instead, you have pulled a fast one, in the mind of your ordinary person.
Antarctica was predicted to warm very fast. Now that it is impossible to keep claiming that, the theory is changed again. Greenhouse gases (water vapor and CfCs in this case) destroyed the ozone, leading to warming of the stratosphere, which increased the southern circumpolar vortex, causing cooling of Antarctica.
So a greenhouse gas increase resulted in cooling. But this doesn’t falsify anything. The theory is adjusted.
When you can simply adjust a theory (and the models based on it) after the fact, the theory can never be wrong. While this is actually how actual science proceeds, sometimes in fits and lurches, with old theory being found to be wrong, in the case of AGW, it seems to matter a bit more, than semiconductor theory or Phlogiston, or the Martian canals.
Despite the ironic tone, the information, sources and reasoning presented are not that hard to follow, though it certainly seems some have trouble with it.
Just saying something isn’t persuasive, scientific or even logical, in a debate. You need to either argue, or present evidence, just claiming something won’t work.
Again, just because you make something up, it doesn’t make it true. In this case, since I presented several different lines of evidence right away, and provided scientific sources for all of it, your claim is absurd.
Here are five different lines of reasoning for the theory, to support what I just said in the previous post.
Of course I left out the obvious one, which is the slight cooling trend, with no obvious cause to explain what has defeated the ever increasing amounts of CO2, which theory predicts should have caused even greater warming, not cooling of the global mean.
But I think we all know how that sixth line of evidence would end up.
Now because a lot of the above is going to be swept away as cherry picking, and climate is about long term trends, here is my refutation of it all, since just saying “that’s all nonsense” isn’t very convincing.
Using Illinois as an example, here is how we know, or don’t know, it’s greenhouse forcing causing the long term warming, in Illinois.
All trends are 100 year trends, using the NCDC database.
summer maximum temps -1.4 F
summer minimum temps + 1.6 F
summer mean temps +0.1 F
winter maximum temps 0.0 F
winter minimum temps + 0.9 F
winter average temps + 0.5
If Illinois is an example of NH land temps, we can say it’s greenhouse warming. Since the most warming is at night, (the lows), and the most warming is in winter.
So I just refuted that there is any evidence that the CO2 theory is wrong.
Using the annual mean shows the same thing.
Annual min +1.5 F
Annual max + 0.3 F
So lows are warming more than daytime highs, theory confirmed. (as long as you accept using Illinois as a global proxy is OK)
No, it didn’t.
The theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect predicted that a continued rise in CO2 and similar gases produced through the rise of the Industrial Revolution would result in an increasing average world temperature.
From that basic point numerous subsidiary hypotheses have been put forth to explain what that would mean in terms of climate change. Focusing on one hypothesis and pretending that it is actually an integral part of the original theory is nothing more than you playing games.
It seems you didn’t actually read the links, or follow the argument at all.
Your constant accusation of “playing games” is a personal insult, in case you are completely lacking in social skills, and don’t realize what you are doing.
I read the cherry-picked links and my assertion stands.
My accusation of “playing games” is my assessment of the way that you have ignored posts, cherry-picked statements to support while ignoring others from the same sources, and generally made snide comments about others’ posts. If you feel insulted by my observations about your posting, change your manner of posting. It is not a personal insult and your attempt to pretend that it is would seem to be one more example of you playing games, (in this case word games), to keep the thread alive.
tomndebb doesn’t need my help but this is definitely not the case. Pointing out that you are debating in bad faith is not a personal insult. Now, if he said you were playing games and should stick to Yahtzee because you’re an idiot, that would be a personal insult, Hope that clears things up.
This is a lot closer to a personal insult than his comment.
It must be like rain on your wedding day, huh.
The problem with answering every last illogical claim is simple. An ignorant person can ask more stupid questions, make more stupid assertions than there is time to respond to. Ignoring such nonsense is essential in an actual debate,
That is an example of an almost constant stream of wrong, answering each instance would be absurd. Nobody claimed “the greenhouse effect is falsifiable”, and saying “FX did” is insulting to the intelligence of the reader. Global warming is no the greenhouse effect, which nobody should have to point out. It’s ironic, since at the same time you are constantly insulting and claiming things, with no evidence.
That you made a Mod note, in this thread previously, not to make personal insults, and then you say something like that, it’s baffling,. You are not debating the points, just making personal comments about a person. In essence you are by example, saying your commentary is OK, and that speaking in great debates as you do, is OK to do. I don’t think you realize this.
Rather than respond to specific points, like the actual data, and the actual theory, you make blanket assertions, with no evidence, or even reasoning to explain your point.
The problem with your claim, is the evidence shows you are dead wrong. In fact, the sheer volume and detail in my posts is much more obvious, they are far too long and detailed, which would be a valid criticism.
Once, rather than show any evidence, you just claim something. That’s not a debate. You keep talking about the person, while avoiding the topic.
While an ordinary insulting person will easily be ignored, saying that, your position as a Mod makes that a threat, not just bad commentary.
Again, if you were just some ill informed person, you would be ignored. But your position makes your accusation a threat, since clearly if you are correct, it’s violation of some rule. In fact, it would be a violation for you to say that, if you were just a regular member here.
Again, just because you claim something, that doesn’t make it automatically true. I showed you half a dozen previous points in the the thread, and you ignore that. Instead repeating a false claim. That’s not a debate. You accused, I showed you were wrong, you don’t respond to anything I posted. You just repeat your accusation. You claim I avoid responding, but when I did, to your evolution point, you just ignore it. I explained what and why evoultion theory makes predictions, and you ingored the point.
In fact, you changed the point completly, now claiming there is only one prediction from global warming.
You must not be reading the links. Climate change always happens, just warming alone isn’t enough to determine if CO2 is the dominant forcing. This has been made clear, multiple times.
It’s an important point, and an example might help you understand why. When a stratovolcano cools the planet, theory says the lower intensity sunlight will cause reduced plant growth, and this will result in less CO2 uptake at first, until the cooler oceans absorb more CO2. This is based on science(!), and some would insist it is more like an effect, rather than theory. It’s just what we know will happen. Less sunlight, less plant growth. Cooler oceans, more CO2 absorption. The only problem with such simplistic thinking, is that it is wrong. That isn’t what happens at all. Does that mean “the theory” is wrong? If you change the theory, to explain what actually is observed, can you still claim the theory was right all along?
You just changed the “theory of global warming” to “that basic point”, so now the debate is no longer about the theory, but all the other hypothesis that come from “that basic point”. It’s a clever language trick.
There you go again. Claiming something (it’s just “that basic point”, not actually a theory at all) and then proceeding to reason as if your point isn’t up for debate.
Except, as I pointed out, with evidence, you are wrong, and it is at least six different expected results from the theory I mentioned.
Of course it is, especially when that is your tactic, rather than debating the scientific points, and the evidence. Accusing others of bad faith, game playing and refusing to respond isn’t debating, it’s personal commentary.
After two very long posts, chock full of science, I summed it up with this.
Your response was in essence, “No that’s not true”.
This is a common tactic, especially when you also accuse at the same time. You simply ignore everything, or worse, claim Tyndall and others never said any of that.
No, and if that was all Arrhenius ever claimed, it wouldn’t be a theory.
Your handwaving about the new theory not making any difference, was incorrect. You ignored my response about it.
See? Instead you accuse me of not responding. Imagine how that looks. Same for this point.
You seriously don’t understand that?