Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Buckaroo]

On the regular ad-hominem here I don't find it worth worthwhile for me to respond.

You really are new to this, aren't you? Point out an ad-hominem argument directed at you.

 

[r-j]

This is a thread about global warming in the science subforum, i.e. it's for the discussion of the scientific evidence for and against GW and AGW. Anyone who posts on it is either trying to make a point about that topic or is posting in the wrong thread.

If only that were the case. Many many posts are directed at the person, while the science is never addressed. It just seems to be impossible to ignore facts, but as we see

Rossby waves are formed when polar air moves toward the Equator while tropical air is moving poleward. Because of the temperature difference between the Equator and the poles due to differences in the amounts of solar radiation received, heat tends to flow from low to high latitudes; this is accomplished, in part, by these air movements.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/510155/Rossby-wave

Once again, you can see why the waves are a result, not a cause. That doesn't mean they don't matter, because they do. But they are not the cause, any more than the jet stream is. They are the effect, and as a complex system, it's all interacting.

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/Rossby/Rossbyintro.html

This winter in the US this year, 2012/13, we have seem many undulations as the winter storms tracked west to east, often very fast. In fact, it is that there has been no blocking to keep any system in place that has led to so many blizzards, so much snow and rain, and it is happening as I type this. we are up to winter storm 22 for the winter.

As for the winter weather pattern, it's not some huge mystery, nor is it simplistic
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-reports/2009-2010-cold-season.html#ao

I posted that the winters are tending down, and explained, with links, why we know this is so.

Warmer summers cause colder winters, scientists say
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-climate-winter-idUSTRE80C0A520120113

Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming
Melting Arctic ice is to blame for the change in weather patterns, scientists say.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm

No response, and the denial still goes on. Some people still try to say it's not happening.

Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw. Several ideas about possible effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice on weather patterns are discussed in papers referenced by Overland, Wang and Walsh.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

Note that on that page you can see the European winter temperatures on a graph. The downward trend is obvious, even with out the following winters. Once again, I didn't come up with the data on winters getting worse. Science and evidence did.

That still, nobody has responded to these scientific facts, it's surprising.

 

[r-j]

you sound like there is some controversy. outside of the denier blogs there is absolutely no controversy..

I posted multiple times about colder winters, posted links to evidence, which comes from climate scientists who think global warming is the cause, and the response is

What points? Your "argument" has been largely incoherent, as near as I can tell from the last few pages.

Your posts all seem dreadfully unhinged and incoherent. I don't think there's an argument to be found in any of them.

The problem, right here, is obvious to me. Yet it seems the evidence, which again comes from real science, and even the skepticalscience blog, and is irrefutable, is either ignored, or it is claimed it makes no sense.

I find it an important factor in understanding climate, climate change and the world we live on. It's 100% related to the topic.

outside of the denier blogs there is absolutely no controversy..

 

[Buckaroo]

If only that were the case. Many many posts are directed at the person, while the science is never addressed. It just seems to be impossible to ignore facts, but as we see

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/510155/Rossby-wave

Once again, you can see why the waves are a result, not a cause. That doesn't mean they don't matter, because they do. But they are not the cause, any more than the jet stream is. They are the effect, and as a complex system, it's all interacting.

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/Rossby/Rossbyintro.html

Okay, let's look at the links you've provided: The first is an oversimplified soundbite-length description for a popular audience that omits all the important physics. As for the second, ummm... you do realize that this link, which you've already posted once before and so presumably believe is scoring you some points, is not about the atmosphere at all, but about oceanic Rossby waves? Did you even read your own link? What was it you were saying earlier about the perils of blind Googling?

I find it fascinating that after multiple calls from you for us to post "real science," after we have done so you continue to post grade-school level "evidence," much of which you haven't even read yourself.

If you're actually interested in learning something about this subject, I propose looking here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-at...irculations-spring-2004/lecture-notes/ch6.pdf

Warning: There is math here.

 

[Buckaroo]

I posted multiple times about colder winters, posted links to evidence, which comes from climate scientists who think global warming is the cause, and the response is
The problem, right here, is obvious to me. Yet it seems the evidence, which again comes from real science, and even the skepticalscience blog, and is irrefutable, is either ignored, or it is claimed it makes no sense.

I find it an important factor in understanding climate, climate change and the world we live on. It's 100% related to the topic.

Fine. Then state in a few paragraphs, succinctly, what the point of all this "cold winter" nonsense that you've been posting over the last few pages actually is. State your argument, in a single post.

 

[DC]

I posted multiple times about colder winters, posted links to evidence, which comes from climate scientists who think global warming is the cause, and the response is
The problem, right here, is obvious to me. Yet it seems the evidence, which again comes from real science, and even the skepticalscience blog, and is irrefutable, is either ignored, or it is claimed it makes no sense.

I find it an important factor in understanding climate, climate change and the world we live on. It's 100% related to the topic.

well so also the scientists you refer to accept AGW, thus this confirms that there is no controversy if AGW is real or not, its a fact that it is real and happening.

so your post merely confirmed what i said.

 

[lomiller]

I posted multiple times about colder winters, posted links to evidence,

The problem is that you didn't understand the information you were linking too. Winters in general are getting warmer and are expected to continue to get warmer.

You are confusing this with the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which are expected to increase with with global warming. Some of these events are heat waves, rainfall and snowfall/blizzards and even in some cases longer/deeper cold snaps. On average however winters will get warmer.

 

[freesk]

I'll alert the press that climate science is now acceptable to freesk and now the debate can be put to bed. Seriously though, it doesn't matter whether the science is acceptable to you, me or any other individual. It is what it is regardless of whether you accept it or not.
.

You see, I have a problem discussing matters with some of you because there is huge differences of perception. This is an example; you seem to think that science has nothing to do with the people dealing with it. You seem to mix between NATURE and SCIENCE. See, science is all about what people think of the nature. It is all about human concepts, theories acceptance and rejections. Anyway, it seems to be a waste of time, so before you and the bunch return with your ad hominem to teach me more what science is and isn't, I'll let you to your "beyond a shadow of doubt" (DC 7867) convictions (this, by the way, is a religious/political lingo – something you bunch ought to think about).

 

[Buckaroo]

See, science is all about what people think of the nature. It is all about human concepts, theories acceptance and rejections.

And the theory of AGW has been rigorously verified and accepted by the scientific community. So what are you saying again?

ad hominem

<Inigo Montoya>You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.</Inigo Montoya>

I'll let you to your "beyond a shadow of doubt" (DC 7867) convictions (this, by the way, is a religious/political lingo – something you bunch ought to think about).

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[a_unique_person]

There isn't. The climate science taught to all university students includes the standard and accepted AGW theories. As someone once said, the progression of science is what happens as those who can't accept the new theories die off, not because they can be convinced to accept the new theories. The usual sources of dissent are the 'professor emeritus' or those who don't actually specialise in that area. Lindzen and Pielke are prime examples.

The science is still being developed, the actual climate sensitivity is still hotly debated, but the actual underlying science is rock solid and widely accepted. It is what is in the textbooks.

Freeman Dyson is often referred to as a dissenter, as was Muller. Dyson has no idea of the details, and dodges them as soon as you try to pin him down. He is utterly dishonest in his criticism. Muller actually did what any self respecting scientist would do, and created his own
temperature record, which showed warming exactly as the climate scientists had said it was.

 

[lomiller]

You see, I have a problem discussing matters with some of you because there is huge differences of perception. This is an example; you seem to think that science has nothing to do with the people dealing with it. You seem to mix between NATURE and SCIENCE. See, science is all about what people think of the nature. It is all about human concepts, theories acceptance and rejections. Anyway, it seems to be a waste of time, so before you and the bunch return with your ad hominem to teach me more what science is and isn't, I'll let you to your "beyond a shadow of doubt" (DC 7867) convictions (this, by the way, is a religious/political lingo – something you bunch ought to think about).

No you have a huge problem discussing things with people because you ignore any substance presented. The rest of your post is hand waving that utterly ignores everything I've said to you.

To recap: You invented a scenario where a "good scientists" ignores the scientific literature and makes up his mind based on a few documentary and insinuate that we should listen because he's a "good scientist" and therefor to be listened to.

What I've told you repeatedly is that if he was a good scientist he wouldn't be ignoring the literature, he would either endorse it or contribute to it himself.

 

[macdoc]

This winter in the US this year, 2012/13, we have seem many undulations as the winter storms tracked west to east, often very fast. In fact, it is that there has been no blocking to keep any system in place that has led to so many blizzards, so much snow and rain, and it is happening as I type this. we are up to winter storm 22 for the winter.

See it's this that gets under every one's skin....
It IS the blocking that leads to the storms but the blocking is in the far north leading to colder continental temps and storms further south as the frontal gradients are steeper.

You keep tangling weather and climate and your warm oceans cold continents is common knowledge here so why would anyone comment on it.....it's the Arctic Dipole.

Storm systems are not "winter" they are weather....AGW is creating the conditions for more extreme weather any time of the year and a heavier moisture load in the atmosphere means warm air hitting cold excursions developed from blocking highs in the north in the Arctic winter leads to more intense snow storm systems in the south.

You can and do get more intense snow storms with less over all snow pack ( which is what is happening in the Midwest where drought conditions still prevail. )

Winters can see more extremes yet still end up warmer on average ( as with Canada over the past 65 years up 3.2 degrees C. ) while the oil barons in Alberta freeze their butts off under a persistent continental high thanks to the dipole bringing stretches of record lows.
The change in the Arctic is due to AGW.
The consequences are an alteration of the weather patterns further south.

 

[CapelDodger]

Please, don't waste your efforts, my friend.

No effort involved, I do this for fun. I've long thought I had the measure of r-j and nothing that's happened in the meantime has made me any less comfortable with that conclusion.

As those of us unhampered by extremely short-term memories recall that the warm winter East of the Rockies last year was the subject of much comment. Words like "extraordinary" and "remarkable" were bandied about and not just in the media. So r-j's winter cooling trend really wasn't looking good from the start, yet there it was stated out loud. Not, apparently, meant as a joke or irony, but for real.

Remarkable but not surprising.

 

[CapelDodger]

I wonder since when did realclimate become a non valid source of science?

Since realclimategate, didn't you hear about that?

Of course realclimate is a good source of relatively accessible science, but most importantly it's a source of references to the hard science behind the stories of the day. This explains why (like SkS) it has been anathemitised by the denial movement's gurus, to the great relief of many who find reading such things ... discomforting. Now they're excused doing so, by figures of authority.

 

[CapelDodger]

I clearly objected to this nonsense.
It's simply not true, and I showed you valid sources to support my calling nonsense on it. The cold air is what determines the jet stream, what creates it, not the other way around.

The temperature gradient between equator and poles is what creates the jetstream. The cold air nearer the poles has no more influence than the warm air nearer the equator.

Utter tripe. The cold fronts extend farther south when the cold air mass is powerful ...

What do you regard as the "power" of a cold air mass? As it stands your statement makes no sense.

You are presumably aware that when an air-mass moves in one direction an equivalent air-mass moves in the other. The conservation of angular momentum requires that this be the case.

... and it was exactly the earlier times when cold front would sweep so far south Cuba and the Bahamas suffered snow, that makes it so foolish a claim.

So you argue that the current record cold has happened before. Do you see the problem there? One or other of your claims (record cold now and it's happened before) must be wrong. Otherwise we have paradox, and we know how Nature abhorrs a paradox.

Go on, steel yourself to the task and answer me directly : is this record cold, or is it precedented? Berate me for setting such a trap, I deserve it (but don't care) but at least answer. Is it record cold or is it not?

It is when it is very cold that we see powerful jet streams, due to the difference between the air masses.

What we aren't seeing now is powerful jetstreams. In fact we are seeing the opposite. Powerful jetstreams (the result of large temperature gradients on a large scale relative the global circumference) wander less than weak ones (conservation of angular momentum again; a grasp of conservation laws is a good foundation to build understanding of any physical process on).

A reduced temperature differential leads to weak jet streams, and we see less wind, less precipitation (a strong jet stream is needed for snow), and less meandering of the fronts. Like in summer, where the arctic is warm, and the jet stream moves north, and is weak.

A strong jetstream is not needed for snow, all that is required is moist air cooling down. The snow you're seeing (like the snow now in the UK) occurs on the boundary between a cold air flow and a warm one. A strong jetstream has a narrower mixing band than a weak one, and it meanders less.

All this was worked out back in the 19thCE, when Coriolis's error was corrected (he neglected gravity and went with conservation of momentum, when he should have gone with angular momentum).

Right? It's simple

There is a simplicity to it, but it's not as simple as "cold air is powerful, dude, and, like, warm air isn't, y'know?". You have derived a strong jetstream from your own expectation of what must be making your feet feel powerful cold, but in fact it's a weak jetstream which fails to keep that polar air at bay. Welcome to the future. Not every year in Florida, obviously, but more often that you've been used to.

Of course where the jetstream meanders away from the equator warm air penetrates and you see winters like 2011-12 in the contiguous US. Or rain in Greenland during winter. Or wherever the warm air is going right now at Solsticetide.

 

[lomiller]

Tamino has some graphs based on measured, modeled and the recent paper by Marcott et al. showing just how ridiculously fast the earth is warming

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

 

[CapelDodger]

Storm systems are not "winter" they are weather....AGW is creating the conditions for more extreme weather any time of the year and a heavier moisture load in the atmosphere means warm air hitting cold excursions developed from blocking highs in the north in the Arctic winter leads to more intense snow storm systems in the south.

And, on occasion in recent years, rain in Greenland in the depths of winter from warm excursions - which have to balance the cold ones. Where the excursions lie in any particular year and season is a matter of chance, as far as I'm aware, but they have to balance from a global perspective. That's not r-j's perspective, from all the evidence so far provided.

I think from r-j's very localised perspective something must be actively driving the snowy weather to Florida - hence "powerful cold air" and assumption of a "strong jetstream". What's actually happening is that a strong constraining force has weakened and a degree of anarchy has broken out. Weather in the mid-latitudes has become much more unpredictable over the last forty years, and that in itself is a problem. Not an "imagined disaster", but a realised problem, particularly to farmers and agribusinesses.

 

[CapelDodger]

Tamino has some graphs based on measured, modeled and the recent paper by Marcott et al. showing just how ridiculously fast the earth is warming

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

The Wheelchair graph. I have a feeling dissecting and "refuting" it will get the denier community through the coming Arctic summer season - they're so much more comfortable with the distant past than with present and emerging reality.

Neven has boldly called this season's Arctic sea-ice maximum (aka "recovery") at http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/03/max-reached-.html.

 

[Megalodon]

Well, how comes you (aleCc, Megalodon Buckardo) don't cringe just a little when you claim that who does not interpret results as you do is not a scientist or a poor one.

I said nothing of the sort. Retract and apologize or stand as a liar.

I wrote a comprehensive reply to your hypothetical scenario, in which I asked you several questions.

Will you reply at any point?

 

[r-j]

It's not surprising that nobody considers this a science topic. Hundreds of posts contain nothing more than insults. And when real science links and discussion show up, the regulars act like they can't understand what is being said. But nobody ever says anything about the constant nonsense. Especially the Moderators of the forum.

I said nothing of the sort

That question is not so much kriptonite as pure stupid.

Yes, you are... and a liar too.

Now go back under your bridge.

Idiots with big mouths and no shame ... still the braying can be heard ... for the cretins ...

it is now obvious it's mind-boggling moronic.

Mate, you couldn't educate yourself if your life depended on it...

The amount of stupid oozing from the comments in that link makes it clear where you're coming from.

If you can't understand how that sort of "discussion" is about as far away from education (the E in JREF) as you can get, you probably will sit around and claim victory when nobody wants to even try to discuss climate science with you.

It's funny, and it makes you look bad. Not the people you insult. They look smart, for refusing to read that sort of YouTube level comments.