Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

r-j, this seems like a simple misunderstanding. Your claim that "winters are colder" is ambiguous.

If that was actually what I was claiming, then yes, that is very ambiguous. You are commiting the fallacy that a lot of people fall into, which is not understanding what somebody says, nor looking at the evidence they use to explain why they said it. I always support my points with evidence, and ask others to do the same. At the time I was telling you the NH winters have been trending colder, I posted evidence that clearly shows this. Multiple times. In this this thread.

Here's my evidence for claiming I posted the evidence already. At the time I told you about the winters.

From 16th March 2013, 01:12 PM

"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it," explained Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and a physicist at the Potsdam Institute.

"These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and north Asia," he said.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm

Clearly cold winters are the next horror that global warming will bring upon us. Warming causes cooling!

That line of reasoning would help explain why the Northern Hemisphere has seen a trend of more extreme winter weather — both bitter cold spells and heavy snows — since around 1988, the researchers say.

“(E)vidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover,” they write in an article published in Environmental Research Letters. And that, they continue, “dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling.”

There you go: warming causes cooling.

http://www.greenbang.com/global-warming-might-cause-colder-winters-more-snow_21263.html

See? So quit complaining that your roof collapsed from record snow, you can't get a flight or even drive anywhere, and start doing something about global warming. Because it's really starting to mess with the weather.

I posted a dozen sources to support my points. Claiming I do not provide evidence is actually a lie, if anyone tried to do it at this point.

As I understand it (I'm sure people will correct me if I'm wrong) the Northern Hemisphere winter, overall, is not colder.

No, nobody here will correct you, and it's not a matter of being wrong. It's just what the measurements show.

This does not mean there has been no global warming. It just means there hasn't been any since 1995, or 2002, it depends on whose data you trust.

(after this is realized, the handwaving away of this is to say the warming switched somehow and is now only in the deep oceans. this may actually be exactly what has happened. nobody knows for sure. yet )

Doesn't change the facts, that since 1995, or 2002, the short term trend is colder. Not much really, except for when you look at the NH winter period.

Then it becomes obvious.

Certain regions in the Northern Hemisphere sometimes experience colder winters, but the models don't make such detailed predictions.

Actually, they do. Models predict long term changes, trends, and they do so for large regions. If models could not predict the changes in winter temperatures for any region, then they are essentially useless. What can they predict?

There seems to be here this misunderstanding about climate models. I advise running one and seeing what they actually are like, because if you don't actually know the first thing about a climate model, it's going to be hard to keep up in a global warming thread. They give them away for free. Climate models.

And, it's not that "Certain regions in the Northern Hemisphere" are now and then having a bad winter, it is a clear trend. And "Certain regions in the Northern Hemisphere" is quite ambiguous. The NH boreal winters is what the Cohen et al paper was speaking of, however, as some may have noticed, the trend is also colder for non-boreal regions as well.

There aren't any climate models that can predict what is going to happen in your state this year.

Not true. There are models that indeed predict just that, as a long term trend, not a specific month or day of course. Not an exact year. But certainly models predict.

It's just that they aren't right. You can predict all kinds of things, but when things don't go as predicted, you have to realize the model was wrong. Then change the model.

That doesn't invalidate predictions that the average temperature of the planet will be higher in 2050. You do understand this, don't you?

If that is the only prediction made, then it's not a climate model. And, as we are seeing, if there was a series of volcanoes, a Maunder type minimum, some ocean circulation changes, a lot lot air pollution, and the global mean was lower in 2050 than it is now, some people would be claiming the model was correct.

You just have to remove all the noise from the signal. Oh sure it's actually colder, but the oceans are still warming, so it's actually warmer.

You see how that sounds? Just like when somebody tries to accuse me of not providing evidence, or ignoring their evidence. It doesn't sound anywhere close to the truth.

I would call it a lie, but usually I consider somebody who is wrong to be stupid, not evil.

 

[r-j]

You made the claim. Where is your evidence about NH winters?

See previous post. Also

The exact same thing I was telling you about a year ago. Of course now I understand why there might be some confusion, since many of the posts I tried to explain it in, vanished from the thread.

But it's right there in the story I linked to.

Journal Reference:
Judah L Cohen, Jason C Furtado, Mathew A Barlow, Vladimir A Alexeev, Jessica E Cherry. Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling. Environmental Research Letters, 2012; 7 (1): 014007 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014007

So almost a year later you are starting to catch up.

As for the "more snow", something else I explained was happening, the Rutgers lab shows this clearly.

Maybe in another year you will get close to where I am, but I doubt it.

 

[r-j]

Street magicians hate you don't they?

Oh, the irony.

Strong possibility, or possibly a similar follow, but Cohen et al. isn’t talking about Arctic cooling.

Actually, if you read the paper, it's very clear what they are saying. No confusion at all.

Do you really have evidence of this?

Of course. If you make some wild claim based on no evidence, in other words, you make something up, that is wrong, and post it in this thread, what do you think is going to happen?

Why would anyone just make something up and post it as fact? When they have absolutely no evidence for it? And certainly, as the minority report here, why would I?

It's one reason I find the claim "Climate models predict colder winters" so fabulous, so over the top, so incredibly idiotic. Why would anyone do that?

Just make that up? And then stick to their guns over it? What is the thinking of somebody who would do that?

As for the NH global mean, that data is available to anyone. So is the seasonal trends, and the annual trends, and almost everything. If nobody here knows how to simply check the data to see if I am right, (or wrong), then we got ourselves a bigger problem here.

Now if a year ago, when I posted evidence like crazy, there had been one single person who responded like a scientist, I might be motivated to do your homework for you on this one.

But now?

Nah. It won't matter at all. You have to see for yourself this time. That way you will understand something.

 

[macdoc]

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

this utter nonsense....it is factually incorrect....

•••

This

S0 News February 25, 2014: Major Flaring, Seismic Watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx3JH...re=c4-overview

Is of interest to solar physicists and those concerned about their satellites and power grids.....what don't you get about the difference between magnetic influences and solar radiation.???

Time and again you've been shown the solar swings and roundabouts in the cycle are a magnitude below the GHG signal....but you try and pretend it's the dominant factor.
What a joke.

••••

Haig, answer the question.
Does CO2 in the atmosphere trap IR?

 

[r-j]

this utter nonsense....it is factually incorrect....

It works better if at this point you post a link to the factual scientific evidence that shows, with out any doubt, the influence of CO2 increase, from mankind's activities, and how you can prove it directly is the cause of global warming.

I would do it for you, except I don't have the link to that web page.

Just saying "you are wrong" in a debate isn't a very good way to win it.








And also, "Nonsense!" is my line.

 

[macdoc]

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

this utter nonsense....it is factually incorrect....

•••

This

S0 News February 25, 2014: Major Flaring, Seismic Watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx3JH...re=c4-overview

Is of interest to solar physicists and those concerned about their satellites and power grids.....what don't you get about the difference between magnetic influences and solar radiation.???

Time and again you've been shown the solar swings and roundabouts in the cycle are a magnitude below the GHG signal....but you try and pretend it's the dominant factor.
What a joke.

••••

Haig, answer the question.
Does CO2 in the atmosphere trap IR?

 

[r-j]

Does CO2 in the atmosphere trap IR?

I'm more interested in HOW it does. What percentage of the IR absorbed goes into heating the atmosphere, and what percentage re-radiates back towards the surface. And does that ratio change? With pressure, altitude and concentration of gases.

Also, it's not like CO2 molecules are little traps that hold onto energy. If they trapped it, it wouldn't cause any warming of anything except the CO2. I see it as "slowing down" the heat that always ends up back in outer space. Since heat is still around, it make it warmer.

Like adding insulation to a house. It slows the rate of heat loss, making the house "warmer". Or in Florida, cooler.

 

[macdoc]

Climate scientists like Dr. Gammon are in a position to make a judgement call...here is his comment from several years ago.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

and the fossil fuel industry's own scientist called the influence of burning fossil fuels on the climate...

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/scien ... .html?_r=2

COULD NOT BE REFUTED....and that was nearly two decades ago.
That you are still following a discredited AGW denier mantra at this point in our knowledge is verging on bathos.
In the flat earth, celestial spheres range of discarded memes.

Even the head of Exxon finally comes out of the closet on it...

“We view climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk,”Tillerson told shareholders. ...

why is Exxon and others promoting reduced emissions in their ads???

Why are the US and China in a carbon pact???

Climate change: US-China carbon pact may shift global action
www.smh.com.au/.../uschina-carbon-pact-may-shift-global-action-20130807-2re2s.html
‎
7 Aug 2013 ... Growing bilateral cooperation between the United States and China to curb carbon emissions may lead to a shift in action towards voluntary ...

Do you really expect to convince the world that AGW is not real.....???!!!

.... shades of a Napoleon complex

 

[Mikemcc]

I'm more interested in HOW it does. What percentage of the IR absorbed goes into heating the atmosphere, and what percentage re-radiates back towards the surface. And does that ratio change? With pressure, altitude and concentration of gases.

Also, it's not like CO2 molecules are little traps that hold onto energy. If they trapped it, it wouldn't cause any warming of anything except the CO2. I see it as "slowing down" the heat that always ends up back in outer space. Since heat is still around, it make it warmer.

Like adding insulation to a house. It slows the rate of heat loss, making the house "warmer". Or in Florida, cooler.

No, that's following the rather contrived explanation implied by 'greenhouse gases'. The heating effect is overwhelmingly because the re-radiated IR radiation is radiated in all directions, including back to the ground. It is not really analogous to home insulation, duvets or glass greenhouses.

You could look at the IPCC AR5 energy budget diagram on how much energy is distributed within the system, also at the Science of Doom website that has a remarkably good description of the science involved.

 

[greybeard]

A new joint report by the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.

Detailed analyses have shown that the warming during this period is mainly a result of the increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Continued emissions of these gases will cause further climate change, including substantial increases in global average surface temperature and important changes in regional climate. The magnitude and timing of these changes will depend on many factors, and slowdowns and accelerations in warming lasting a decade or more will continue to occur. However, long-term climate change over many decades will depend mainly on the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities.

If emissions are not reduced we can expect a rise in temperature of 2.6-4.2C

Are climate changes of a few degrees
a cause for concern?
Yes. Even though an increase of a few degrees in global average temperature does not
sound like much, global average temperature during the last ice age was only about 4 to
5 °C (7 to 9 °F) colder than now. Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated
with widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation as well as
with increases in some types of extreme weather events. These and other changes (such
as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the
natural world.

This is especially relevant because some denialist newspaper commentators have claimed in the past that the Royal Society have become more sceptical of AGW.
Incidentally I have just looked up the term denialist and the way the oxford dictionary defines it seems appropriate.

A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence: the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists'

 

[macdoc]

The Discovery of Global Warming January 2011
Basic Radiation Calculations
The foundation of any calculation of the greenhouse effect was a description of how radiation and heat move through a slice of the atmosphere. At first this foundation was so shaky that nobody could trust the results. With the coming of digital computers and better data, scientists gradually worked through the intricate technical problems. A rough idea was available by the mid 1960s, and by the late 1970s, the calculations looked solid — for idealized cases. Much remained to be done to account for all the important real-world factors, especially the physics of clouds. (This genre of one-dimensional and two-dimensional models lay between the rudimentary, often qualitative models covered in the essay on Simple Models of Climate and the elaborate three-dimensional General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) Warning: this is the most technical of all the essays. Keywords: climate change,

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#L_0395

have fun

 

[r-j]

Fantastic.

 

[r-j]

Additional snow cover is not related to cold weather - more snow is an artifact of more moisture in the atmosphere.

Once more, we see incredible woo woo claims being made. That one is quite simply so over the top woo, it can't be possible. It is not possible somebody is actually claiming that.

On a skeptic forum? And nobody is going to laugh?

You post that on any science board that discusses meteorology, or ask anyone who has even the basic knowledge of how weather works, and they would laugh at you.

I'm not even going to ask for a source, because there isn't one. There never will be one. It's like somebody claiming that gravity is not related to mass.

You just have to laugh.

 

[Corsair 115]

r-j would probably be amazed to learn that Antarctica—in spite of its cold climate—is technically a desert.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j, citations for your claim that 100% of models do not predict colder NH winters

That isn't what you claimed, nor what I challenged you on.

Read The evidence that climate models + science! predict a trend of colder winters (posted 24th February 2014).

Short form: Colder winters are a prediction of climate models.

which states the claim that you say is "100% wrong" (implying that no model predicts colder NH winters).

Thus your claim that my claim is 100% wrong, is "wrong, are wrong, and there isn't any way for you to get out of being wrong." Or maybe you can:
r-j, citations for your implied claim that 100% of climate models do not predict colder NH winters please?
One answer is to that is not your claim - in which case you need to state your claim !

You cited Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling (2012)

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter.

Consensus does not mean 100%, it means majority. The authors are stating that more than 50% and less than 100% of global climate models predict warming NH winters. That implies (see below) that greater than 0% and less than 50% of global climate models predict cooling NH winters.
IOW - that citation supports my claim a bit.

One possibility though needs to be mentioned - it could be that all of the global climate models that are not within the consensus predict no change in NH winter temperatures .

 

[Belz...]

Additional snow cover is not related to cold weather - more snow is an artifact of more moisture in the atmosphere.

Once more, we see incredible woo woo claims being made. That one is quite simply so over the top woo, it can't be possible. It is not possible somebody is actually claiming that.

On a skeptic forum? And nobody is going to laugh?

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you think that it snows more when it's colder ? Have you ever seen real snow ? Because I can tell you that it actually snows less when it's colder, imagine that. Precipitation is not dependant on temperature much.

Oh, we're laughing, alright.

 

[r-j]

Desperation isn't pretty.

 

[macdoc]

Reality

Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling (2012)

I cited that - I have no idea what r-j is doing since he is on ignore as is appropriate.
The paper is a conjecture
The paper clearly states it is regional.
The evidence shows that continental cooling is regional and that there are exceedingly warm records being broken for NH winter.

Boreal winter is NOT NH winter....nor is it Arctic winter.
It covers continental landmass with boreal forests.

Canada covers a big chunk of that and SIberia most of the rest.

The national average temperature for the winter of 2012–2013 was 1.6°C ... the nation, winter temperatures have warmed by 3.2°C over the last 66 years. ...

https://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C03D32A-1

Now just where is NH winters getting colder - this is a 66 year recond

Canada has shown an astounding increase in average temperatures for the past 60 years and parts of Siberia are insanely warm - then cold, then warm. IN other words extreme weather.

Snow fall is NOT an artifact of lower temps - it's an artifact of increasing moisture which is why some parts of the Antarctic desert are gaining mass due to increased snow.
There are a few other glaciers with a similar trend even tho globally ice mass continues to fall.

r-j stated without support that NH winters were getting colder.
He was proven wrong by data.

Lets move on.

 

[Belz...]

Desperation isn't pretty.

Answer my question: do you believe that snow precipitation correlates with temperature ?

 

[ideogram]

Not understanding what you said is not a fallacy. It is an invitation to explain yourself better.

Clearly cold winters are the next horror that global warming will bring upon us. Warming causes cooling!

I wish you wouldn't post stuff like this, it is wrong. If you are joking, humor doesn't work very well on the Internet.

Actually, they do. Models predict long term changes, trends, and they do so for large regions. If models could not predict the changes in winter temperatures for any region, then they are essentially useless. What can they predict?

I did not mean to imply that models can't predict any region. It should be obvious that over time the models will be refined to predict smaller and smaller regions. It seems to me Cohen et al are exploring the limits of the resolution of current models.

And, it's not that "Certain regions in the Northern Hemisphere" are now and then having a bad winter, it is a clear trend. And "Certain regions in the Northern Hemisphere" is quite ambiguous. The NH boreal winters is what the Cohen et al paper was speaking of, however, as some may have noticed, the trend is also colder for non-boreal regions as well.

"Certain regions" as in "Europe and north Asia". Cohen et al also say "large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia." These are not all of the Northern Hemisphere. Can we be clear about this?

Not true. There are models that indeed predict just that, as a long term trend, not a specific month or day of course. Not an exact year. But certainly models predict.

I believe that is what I said, that the models aren't going to predict an exact year. I never said models don't predict.

You consistently ignore the fact that models generate a range of predictions from the most general to the most specific. It should not be hard to understand that we have more confidence in the more general predictions and less confidence in the more specific predictions. When I say that our current models do not predict to the level of detail you want, you accuse me of saying models "don't predict anything". I think you also are having difficulty understanding what other people say.