Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
If somebody claims something, like what we saw in my link
A dramatic winter warming trend has developed since 1970, with the coldest
states warming the fastest, according to an analysis of 101 years of temperature records. The data,
collected from thousands of government weather stations, is analyzed in the report Warming Winters
by Climate Central, a science and journalism organization based in Princeton, N.J.
In the past 43 years, average winter temperatures have increased in all of the lower 48 states, at a rate
more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than the rate over the past 100 years.
Click to expand...
http://www.climatecentral.org/wgts/warming-winters/WarmingWintersPressRelease.pdf

you wouldn't allow somebody to just say "That is wrong", and then demand that the group that created it has to do the work to prove it.

It's not simplistic like that. More nonsense.

After I saw multiple papers on the colder winters, I simply checked for myself. The data confirms that in many places, there is a trend, and it's colder winters. Not everywhere of course, that would be insane. When they say "colder winters" we understand they mean "where it impacts people", not in inner Greenland or the vast Mongolia deserts.

But it doesn't matter. As I clearly stated, once you realize I am correct, you will shift the goal posts. Or say "it doesn't matter". That much is certain.

FYI, the northeast US region shows the least cooling, and some states actually show a slight increase in winter trend. Not that I don't think you don't know this, but Climate change isn't going to be the same everywhere. I stated "Not that I don't think you don't know this" so it wouldn't look I was insulting your intelligence by saying it.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
There is the failing of somebody moving my posts to AAH. You never saw them. It's all starting to make sense now.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but it doesn't help you. Look at the timestamps of the posts in AAH. I posted the paper at 1:10 AM, with my first explicit reference to a Rossby wave at 2:09 AM on 3/20, after you claimed that paper had nothing to do with jet streams (evidence that you had no clue what a Rossby wave is). The first instance of your link is at 1:50 PM on 3/20, 12 hours later.

Are you ready to admit your error? Much of the acrimonious nature of these exchanges (not just with me) comes because of your unwillingness to do so anywhere in the thread.
 
Last edited:
I got warning to "Be civil and polite & Address the argument, not the arguer". If only that applied to everyone.

I checked and the AAH posts don't contain the link. I know I linked to a NASA site where Hansen talked about explaining the colder winters in the UK. It's quite possible I am in error, which has nothing to do with climate, climate change, global warming or colder winters.

But by all means, obsess over that. Ignore the science and focus on a person. It's what all real climate scientists do.

Ha

I made myself laugh

For a real world example, somebody mentioned Illinois. That's a pretty good state to check, as it isn't in the south, the west or the northeast US
 
r-j said:
I checked and the AAH posts don't contain the link. I know I linked to a NASA site where Hansen talked about explaining the colder winters in the UK.
Click to expand...

It does contain the link, posted at 1:50 PM on 3/20.

It's quite possible I am in error,
Click to expand...

I suppose that's as good as it's going to get.

which has nothing to do with climate, climate change, global warming or colder winters.
Click to expand...

What it establishes is that you either don't understand, or don't read, the primary-source scientific evidence that you are presented, all the while claiming the scientific high ground while posting links that you either don't read, or don't understand (exhibit B: your posting of a link about oceanic Rossby waves, when the conversation is about an atmospheric jet stream), and are unwilling to admit that you are wrong when you clearly are (the tepid statement above notwithstanding). So your entire participation in this thread is in bad faith, and anything you say on this subject lacks credibility.
 
Last edited:
If global climate change is anthropogenic or has an anthropogenic component that we want to do something about it, what should be done and over what time frame?

If the climate change is not anthropogenic, what should we do to adapt?
 
Last edited:
pteridine said:
If global climate change is anthropogenic or has an anthropogenic component and that we want to do something about it, what should be done and over what time frame?

If the climate change is not anthropogenic, what should we do to adapt?
Click to expand...

First, global climate change is anthropogenic. Science shows us this.

The first thing we need to do is focus research into renewable energy, and energy sources aside from fossil fuels. This isn't going to mitigate all of the temperature increases, but it might help limit it a bit, as long as these energy sources are heavily subsidized and fossil fuels are penalized.

Secondly, we need to focus research into ways to increase food production. A lot of arable land will either be lost or be made useless.

Thirdly, we need to learn to adapt to the changing climate. We have already seen what this means with disaster preparedness. Sandy isn't going to be the last of its kind.

Fourthly, we might need to move away from the capitalist society we have today. That would mean a lot of hardships, but as I see it, it is probably the only way we are going to prevent this from happening again.
 
Belz... said:
Almost every scientist in the field agrees about these climate changes.
Click to expand...

Show us. If "Almost every scientist in the field" thinks winters are warming, rather than cooling, tell us how you know that.
 
Pixel42 said:
Illinois winter (Dec-Feb) trend over 30 years (1984-2013): warming of 0.6F per decade
Click to expand...

Prove it. I really was starting to enjoy your comments, but now you are faced with the problem. How do you prove what you said?

Obviously anyone who simply looks at the data knows if you are right or not. (I already know the answer, I checked when it first came up)

But if somebody calls you a liar, how do you prove you are right?
 
uke2se said:
Fourthly, we might need to move away from the capitalist society we have today.
Click to expand...

Because Communist China is doing such a better job of reducing emissions and protecting the world from climate change.
 
r-j said:
Because Communist China is doing such a better job of reducing emissions and protecting the world from climate change.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's doing a hell of a lot better than the US is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China#Climate_change_mitigation_measures. While its current gross emissions are higher, its energy policy is oriented towards making efforts to reduce carbon emissions, unlike US policy, where climate mitigation is just window dressing. I haven't done the calculation to figure out current emission per capita, but I'd be surprised if it was higher than the US emissions.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
As you say, anyone can enter the appropriate values and find out the answer for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is quite scientific. But how do deal with people who simply won't look?

Now the arguments will be shifted to something unrelated, anything to avoid looking at the facts.
 
r-j said:
Because Communist China is doing such a better job of reducing emissions and protecting the world from climate change.
Click to expand...

Not saying we should move to a communist society. The world isn't a dichotomy. When you grow up, you might learn that.
 
r-j said:
Yes, which is quite scientific. But how do deal with people who simply won't look?

Now the arguments will be shifted to something unrelated, anything to avoid looking at the facts.
Click to expand...

Oh look, Pixel was right.

How about that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom