Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

You're the one constantly posting in here about your doubts about AGW.

That's simply not true. I am quite specific and clear about what I am skeptical of, and why.

When I pointed out the NH winter trend didn't match the theoretical changes we should see, the issue of what predictions global warming theory actually makes came up. There were multiple claims that there was no such theory

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

I stated that in a topic about global warming, the theory should be defined, discussed and clearly understood. And for good reasons.

Unless all the evidence is wrong, an absurd position, the warming we know is occurring has not matched what was predicted by CO2 increase.

This was what started the nonsense about global warming not being a theory.

The avoidance of stating clearly what the theory is, what the predictions are, and why, is remarkable, considering it's a topic of science.

Even that frequently quoted blog skepticalscience mentions the theory

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

So why would anyone claim there is no theory? Or not know what the predictions are? That multiple times that many posting here have claimed there is no prediction about the boreal winters is ignorance on a grand scale.

If you don't understand the science of global warming, how can you discuss it?

 

[Reality Check]

There were multiple claims that there was no such theory

There were actual facts stated as you quote:

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

(my emphasis added)
There is a theory called climate science. One of the predictions of this science is that increases in CO2 lead to increases in global temperatures. CO2 has increased, thus global temperatures have increased.

This imaginary "Theory of Global Warming" does not exist.
The science that leads to global warming is well defined, discussed extensively in 100's of papers and textbooks and clearly understood by those who know about it.

Lying about skeptical science does not help your credibility, r-j: There is no "Theory of Global Warming" in your quote. There are the words
* the
* man-made
* global
* warming
* theory

I do understand the science of global warming, including that there is nothing called the "Theory of Global Warming".

 

[Reality Check]

No I showed everyone the evidence multiple times.

Wrong, r-j: you have never cited any evidence about Northern Hemisphere (as in the entire NH) winters getting colder. It won't matter how many times you make a false claim like that. Your lack of citations won't change the fact that you have no citations to back up your assertion .

The predictions for NH high altitude winters (not "NH winters") is for warming.
The measurements for NH high altitude winters are that there is no trend. A reason for this is increases in rain in summer and autumn leading to increased snow cover in some regions and so colder winters in those regions.

I do hope that "D-J-F in the NH hemisphere" is not US states otherwise we have the assertion that the US states are the entire Northern Hemisphere, r-j !

You are right: "The most pronounced winter cooling is in the exact area global warming theory predicts the most warming." as shown by Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012)
which is not your assertion of Northern Hemisphere (as in the entire NH) winters getting colder.

 

[Trakar]

...But none of that is even worth discussing, when the fact of what the NH winter trend actually is can't be agreed on...

The facts are the facts, regardless of whether, or not, we agree on what they indicate.

 

[Trakar]

Wrong, r-j: you have never cited any evidence about Northern Hemisphere (as in the entire NH) winters getting colder. It won't matter how many times you make a false claim like that. Your lack of citations won't change the fact that you have no citations to back up your assertion .

The predictions for NH high altitude winters (not "NH winters") is for warming.
The measurements for NH high altitude winters are that there is no trend. A reason for this is increases in rain in summer and autumn leading to increased snow cover in some regions and so colder winters in those regions.

I do hope that "D-J-F in the NH hemisphere" is not US states otherwise we have the assertion that the US states are the entire Northern Hemisphere, r-j !

You are right: "The most pronounced winter cooling is in the exact area global warming theory predicts the most warming." as shown by Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012)
which is not your assertion of Northern Hemisphere (as in the entire NH) winters getting colder.

And the time frame isn't "the last several decades" it is over a handful of years, and a limited range of the boreal forest regions. The cooling was unconsidered, but it does not fundamentally alter nor require the alteration of any significant climate understanding or principle to understand when it is more fully considered.

 

[lomiller]

No.


Thank you. Had you not attacked Lindzen's credentials in his own area of research, we would not be having this conversation.

Rule of holes app;lies here. you should apologize and stop digging. I criticized Lindzen in a climate science thread and a post specifically referencing him to the climate science community.

Because you pretended someone was saying they were the same thing.

What on earth are you talking about. You are the only person who has tried to bring up Lindzens other work as relevant, it's not. So why did you bring it up?

No.


Thank you. Had you not attacked Lindzen's credentials in his own area of research, we would not be having this conversation.

Rule of holes applies here. you should apologize and stop digging. I criticized Lindzen in a climate science thread and a post specifically referencing him to the climate science community.

I haven't been defending that claim.

Are you are willing to say directly that Lindzen has very little relevance to modern climate science or this thread?

Your words are archived. Anyone who wants to understand the genesis of this conversation can do so:

Why don't we take a look at these posts.

first one
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028334#post10028334

Me answering a post holding up Lindzen as "a great scientists" and inferring his say so alone is sufficient to overturn the 97% of climate scientists who disagree with him.

While it's true I don't specifically reference climate science, this is a climate science thread and the post in question was holding him up as a climate science authority. One would have to be an idiot to think this post references anything else other than climate science.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028536#post10028536

You trying to play up Lindzen as someone relevant to climate science

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028567#post10028567


You admitting to Lindzen's political motivation wrt to climate science but still insisting that his academic record shouldn't be attacked.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028693#post10028693

Me pointing out that Lindzens academic record on teh subject of this thread and the subject I was responding to is in fact very spotty. He's published very few climate science papers and any real contributions are decades in the past and failed to hold up over time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028697#post10028697

Me suggesting you should actually familiarize yourself with his work before suggesting his academic standing is beyond reproach.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10029323#post10029323

Me responding to your attempts to shift the goalposts away from climate science once you realized his relevant credentials are minimal at best.

 

[DC]

That's simply not true. I am quite specific and clear about what I am skeptical of, and why.

When I pointed out the NH winter trend didn't match the theoretical changes we should see, the issue of what predictions global warming theory actually makes came up. There were multiple claims that there was no such theory

I stated that in a topic about global warming, the theory should be defined, discussed and clearly understood. And for good reasons.
This was what started the nonsense about global warming not being a theory.

The avoidance of stating clearly what the theory is, what the predictions are, and why, is remarkable, considering it's a topic of science.

Even that frequently quoted blog skepticalscience mentions the theory
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

So why would anyone claim there is no theory? Or not know what the predictions are? That multiple times that many posting here have claimed there is no prediction about the boreal winters is ignorance on a grand scale.

If you don't understand the science of global warming, how can you discuss it?

what now, boreal winter or NH winter?

 

[DC]

Rule of holes app;lies here. you should apologize and stop digging. I criticized Lindzen in a climate science thread and a post specifically referencing him to the climate science community.



What on earth are you talking about. You are the only person who has tried to bring up Lindzens other work as relevant, it's not. So why did you bring it up?




Rule of holes applies here. you should apologize and stop digging. I criticized Lindzen in a climate science thread and a post specifically referencing him to the climate science community.



Are you are willing to say directly that Lindzen has very little relevance to modern climate science or this thread?




Why don't we take a look at these posts.

first one
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028334#post10028334

Me answering a post holding up Lindzen as "a great scientists" and inferring his say so alone is sufficient to overturn the 97% of climate scientists who disagree with him.

While it's true I don't specifically reference climate science, this is a climate science thread and the post in question was holding him up as a climate science authority. One would have to be an idiot to think this post references anything else other than climate science.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028536#post10028536

You trying to play up Lindzen as someone relevant to climate science

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028567#post10028567


You admitting to Lindzen's political motivation wrt to climate science but still insisting that his academic record shouldn't be attacked.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028693#post10028693

Me pointing out that Lindzens academic record on teh subject of this thread and the subject I was responding to is in fact very spotty. He's published very few climate science papers and any real contributions are decades in the past and failed to hold up over time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10028697#post10028697

Me suggesting you should actually familiarize yourself with his work before suggesting his academic standing is beyond reproach.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10029323#post10029323

Me responding to your attempts to shift the goalposts away from climate science once you realized his relevant credentials are minimal at best.

you should

 

[a_unique_person]

You are obviously confused. I'm the one who keeps pointing out that the evidence is what shows the problems with current global warming theory.

I was doing this winter before last as well, noting that reality is not going along with the predictions. One of the current problems facing climate change science, and especially those who are predicting catastrophic results from global warming, is the NH winters. While it's obvious to people who live in the real world, that we have seen this trend of much worse winters of late, it's also what the scientific data shows.

It's an interesting thing, because those same people claiming disaster and rapid change already happening, either insist winters are not getting colder, or claim that colder winters are a result of global warming.

This has happened right here in this topic.

It's that sort of response from the people making claims about the future, claims they insist are based on science and evidence, that increase my skepticism of their claims. Then when I point this out, the same people who insist everything has to be based on science, engage in the most unscientific behavior, rather than have a discussion about science.

It's a science forum, and this topic is supposedly about the most important scientific issue of all time. So when a scientific fact is brought up, and there is either a blanket refusal to look at it, that's amusing. Even more so when the exact same voices who were claiming warmer winters were more proof of global warming, now want to claim global warming is causing colder winters.

But none of that is even worth discussing, when the fact of what the NH winter trend actually is can't be agreed on.

If the trend was one of warmer winters, more rain, less snow and ice, then it's understandable that one would hand wave winters away. Certainly if the trend was warmer winters, that would be thrown about as often as the decrease of arctic summer ice is.

Arts you seriously basing your claims of a trend on two winters in the continental USA?

 

[lomiller]

Ah, and the other section of his diatribe (I will spare you the entirety of it):

The Antarctic Ice is at the greatest level in recorded history. ( South Pole). They are not melting. They are growing.​

wrt to ice in Antarctica. As mentioned above, many deniers don't know the difference between sea ice and land ice so simply pointing to NASA data on ice volume loss is probabaly effective.

That said there is a small trend to increasing sea ice. This is somewhat paradoxical as air and water temperatures in these areas are increasing. The reason for the increase dispute warmer temperatures isn't know for sure, but the main suspect is lower salinity.

In cases like this you can explain the situation but don't dwell on it. They will be looking for simple repeatable memes not real explanations. Instead you may want to just short circuit them and go right to the temperature data.​

 

[macdoc]

r-j

It's an interesting thing, because those same people claiming disaster and rapid change already happening, either insist winters are not getting colder, or claim that colder winters are a result of global warming.

the usual confusion ...let's take this in Grade 3 steps.

A) NA winters as a climate trend are getting warmer ...period...Canada's is up 3.2 degrees in 66 years and you've been shown this several times. This is a result of Arctic magnification of AGW as warmth is pumped to the poles.

B) as a result of a warmer Arctic the polar vortex is breaking down and the jet stream is weakening....theis allows excursions of intensely cold air normally contained by the polar vortex to chill the continents. This was also show to you and has been in this thread for several years.
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html

The main system that helps determine the weather over Northern Europe and North America may be changing, research suggests.

The study shows that the so-called jet stream has increasingly taken a longer, meandering path.

This has resulted in weather remaining the same for more prolonged periods.

The work was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.

The observation could be as a result of the recent warming of the Arctic. Temperatures there have been rising two to three times faster than the rest of the globe.

According to Prof Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University in New Jersey: "This does seem to suggest that weather patterns are changing and people are noticing that the weather in their area is not what it used to be."

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

We can expect more of the same and we can expect it to happen more frequently”

Prof Jennifer Francis
Rutgers University
The meandering jet stream has accounted for the recent stormy weather over the UK and the bitter winter weather in the US Mid-West remaining longer than it otherwise would have.

"We can expect more of the same and we can expect it to happen more frequently," says Prof Francis

The jet stream, as its name suggests, is a high-speed air current in the atmosphere that brings with it the weather.

It is fuelled partly by the temperature differential between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes.

If the differential is large then the jet stream speeds up, and like a river flowing down a steep hill, it ploughs through any obstacles - such as areas of high pressure that might be in its way.

If the temperature differential reduces because of a warming Arctic then the jet stream weakens and, again, like a river on a flat bed, it will meander every time it comes across an obstacle.

This results in weather patterns tending to becoming stuck over areas for weeks on end. It also drives cold weather further south and warm weather further north. Examples of the latter are Alaska and parts of Scandinavia, which have had exceptionally warm conditions this winter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166

Warming winters AND more severe cold conditions over some areas are BOTH a consequence of AGW.

You have NOTHING that says there is a cooling trend in Northern Hemisphere winters...you tried before ...it was demolished, repeating lies in a science thread do not make them true...they just make the repeater look foolish.

This is from the Canadian government

www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C03D32A-1
Feb 6, 2014 - Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin - Winter 2010/2011. ... across the nation, winter temperatures have warmed by 3.2°C over the last 66 years. ... The weakest temperature trend is observed in the Atlantic Canada region ..

THAT is a trend....that is a long lasting trend.
Like this

Globally

Observed fact....your thesis of colder winters in the NH is wrong....period. Move on.

 

[a_unique_person]

The facts are the facts, regardless of whether, or not, we agree on what they indicate.

I see a clear trend there, but it's nothing like what r-j thinks is happening.

 

[Trakar]

I see a clear trend there, but it's nothing like what r-j thinks is happening.

Again, it depends upon where you start looking at the graph, but, if you look at climate relevant periods of time, there is no declining trend. The last 2-3 years have been a bit cooler than the years before them, but not enough so that it has deflected the 5-year averaged trend downward, yet alone the 20-30 year climate trend lines.

 

[Alphaba]

Concerning the evolution of winter surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), as r-j may not have been able to read my post quoting a paper more recent than the Cohen et al. (2012)'s one, on which he relentlessly relies, let's look at it again:

Juan C. Jiménez-Muñoz, José A. Sobrino & Cristian Mattar (July 2013). "Has the Northern Hemisphere been warming or cooling during the boreal winter of the last few decades?" Global and Planetary Change, vol. 106, p. 31–38 (link).

Fair use quotes:

Recent winter episodes of extreme cold and snow in the NH (e.g. winter 2010) are examples of anomalous cooling. In fact in a recent paper, Cohen et al. (2012) reported a widespread boreal winter cooling during the last two decades (1988–2010), contrary to the warming trend reported in Screen and Simmonds (2010) during almost the same period (1989–2008).

Due to these discrepancies in the sign of the trend for wintertime surface temperature anomalies, we found it convenient to report trends when using a dataset and/or study period different from the ones used in the other works. Hence, in this paper we analyze wintertime trends on average surface temperatures over the mid- to high-latitudes (30N–90N) of the NH using different climatic datasets during the period 1980–2012, as well as the spatial patterns of the trends at different spatial resolutions.
[...]

Fig. 1. The significance level (p-level) of trends in near-surface air temperature anomalies using [...] NCEP-1 and ERA-Interim reanalysis data for the period 1980–2012 [...] in the winter (DJF) season. The sign of the p-level indicates warming (+) or cooling (−). Only pixels with p-level < 0.1 (confidence level of 90%) are displayed. [Edit: of 4, the two last, most complete sets are shown.]

The spatial pattern of wintertime trends in air temperature using the different reanalysis datasets for the last three decades is presented in Fig. 1. The figure displays the level of significance (p-level) instead of the slope in order to detect a warming or cooling trend independently of the warming or cooling rate, and only pixels with p-level < 0.1 are displayed. All the datasets provide similar spatial patterns for the trends. Warming over the Arctic (mainly over Greenland and around the Hudson Bay) is significant as observed in the NCEP-1 and ERA-int datasets (CRUTEM4 and GHCN do not provide valid data over these regions). Over the western part of the NH (mainly the USA and Canada, excluding the Arctic region) almost a neutral trend is observed. A neutral trend is also observed in winter over the eastern part of the NH.

Neutral trend means that results were not statistically significant at least at a confidence level of 90%. Analysis of winter trends over particular regions yielded significant warming only at high latitudes (60N–90N) and over Greenland, and also over the region 30N–90N when using CRUTEM4 and ERA-Int datasets.

TL;DR: For the 1980-2012 period, the trend for wintertime surface temperatures in NH was neutral for most of it, and significantly warming in the Arctic and Greenland.

 

[Trakar]

Concerning the evolution of winter surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), as r-j may not have been able to read my post quoting a paper more recent than the Cohen et al. (2012)'s one, on which he relentlessly relies, let's look at it again:

Juan C. Jiménez-Muñoz, José A. Sobrino & Cristian Mattar (July 2013). "Has the Northern Hemisphere been warming or cooling during the boreal winter of the last few decades?" Global and Planetary Change, vol. 106, p. 31–38 (link).

Fair use quotes:

The fact that (both of) these studies focus on land surface temps as opposed to the entire hemisphere (land and sea) temps skews their data. I'd be more concerned about statements that Winter snows are increasing, which much of the data I've seen seems to contradict.

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/det...re-snow-cover-extent-anomalies-1966-2005_e987

This isn't to say that specific regions haven't experienced increasing D-F snow fall, merely that it doesn't appear to be an overall Northern Hemisphere issue.

 

[Alphaba]

The fact that (both of) these studies focus on land surface temps as opposed to the entire hemisphere (land and sea) temps skews their data. I'd be more concerned about statements that Winter snows are increasing, which much of the data I've seen seems to contradict.

http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/det...re-snow-cover-extent-anomalies-1966-2005_e987

This isn't to say that specific regions haven't experienced increasing D-F snow fall, merely that it doesn't appear to be an overall Northern Hemisphere issue.

Yes, land surface temps certainly aren't about the whole NH, but those studies at least bring some answers about trends in its populated parts.

And, my bad if I haven't understood your reasoning, but doesn't snow cover have the same limitation (i.e. being only about land)? Or is it about albedo?

 

[DC]

Yes, land surface temps certainly aren't about the whole NH, but those studies at least bring some answers about trends in its populated parts.

And, my bad if I haven't understood your reasoning, but doesn't snow cover have the same limitation (i.e. being only about land)? Or is it about albedo?

cmon, there still is some fish left that populates the oceans

 

[Island Skeptic]

Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but anyone with that "pedigree" is probably beyond hope. To paraphrase an old saying involving a horse, you can lead someone to the facts but you can't make them believe them.

Maybe someone else here can offer a more optimistic appraisal...

I agree & ordinarily I would never engage in debate with someone like this guy, but he is a radio host on one of the very few radio stations we have on our island -which is focuses almost exclusively on pseudoscience & "Alt Med." Sadly, my community eats this stuff up & never questions anything. I've been watching several people develop what I can only describe as "followers" (and they can get rather nasty when they feel their "guru" is being "attacked," which only feeds the "guru's" ego even more).

Anyway, it's rather sad that I seem to be the only person openly questioning the conspiracy theorists. My situation is very much like I imagine it is for an atheist to "come out of the closet" in the Bible Belt. If you follow scientific consensus on this island, it is basically committing social suicide. Perhaps I have just discovered the reason why I am the only person openly questioning these people...

 

[macdoc]

Winter snows are increasing, which much of the data I've seen seems to contradict.

There is no reason winter snows should not increase - there is more moisture in the air and especially with more open ocean additional snow pack would be a given.

Another who shall remain nameless thinks that snow is related to temperature - the colder the more snow....nothing could be further from the truth.

This happens too with a more sodden atmosphere...

Floods Affect over 1 Million People in Balkans, Destruction "Terrifying"

May 19, 2014
By Daria Sito-Sucic and Marko Djurica

MAGLAJ Bosnia/KRUPANJ Serbia (Reuters) - Bosnia said on Monday that more than a quarter of its 4 million people had been affected by the worst floods to hit the Balkans in living memory, comparing the "terrifying" destruction to that of the country's 1992-95 war.

The extent of the devastation became apparent in Serbia too, as waters receded in some of the worst-hit areas to reveal homes toppled or submerged in mud, trees felled and villages strewn with the rotting corpses of livestock

more
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ion-people-in-balkans-destruction-terrifying/

more intense rain events....

 

[macdoc]

Good article - puts paid to the colder winter nonsense

Russia and Canada Heat Up Faster Than the Arctic [Slide Show]
New maps show that temperatures are rising quickest across Earth’s northern midlatitudes
May 19, 2014 |By Mark Fischetti

Then

now

There is a complete slide show with the intermediate steps.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russia-and-canada-heat-up-faster-than-the-arctic/