Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[r-j]

Could you link to that data, I missed it, thanks.

I really don't understand the inability to read.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Plots whatever you want.
.

Yes, which is why it's easy enough to look at the data, rather than letting somebody try and tell me what is up. Not that I hold any hope for an honest discussion here about it.

I'm looking at the plot for the temperature of the winter months (December-February) in the contiguous US since 1895.

It begins.

Once you get to the current data, then it will be time to say "it's just the US, it doesn't mean anything".

Then I will show you the rest of the world, and you will switch to something else. Goal posts, they move all over the place.

And facts, they rarely make a difference.

The best thing (which will come, oh it will come), will be the cherry picking, like we see in the first link I posted. It uses 1970 to show a trend. Shameless fraud.

The "warming is awful" view
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-are-warming-all-across-the-us-15590

Their agenda is obvious. The color code alone is insulting.

They don't show the source, which is annoying, and common among propaganda sites.

I know why. If the source is shown (like in the second link), anyone can confirm the data, or worse, look at it themselves.

I'm skeptical, so I always want to see the data.

 

[r-j]

Once you actually check (and you will have to, no way to link to any graphs), the truth about winter trends in the US will be impossible to deny.

It's why I doubt what both sides say. Neither seem very honest, but the skeptics at least post the data source. I suspect they want people to look for themselves.

 

[Megalodon]

Once you actually check (and you will have to, no way to link to any graphs), the truth about winter trends in the US will be impossible to deny.

It's why I doubt what both sides say. Neither seem very honest, but the skeptics at least post the data source. I suspect they want people to look for themselves.

I've checked it and posted about it above.

Summary: You are wrong for most of the US regions, and probably for the others too, since 11 years is too short a period to estimate a trend in auto-correlated data.

 

[Megalodon]

The best thing (which will come, oh it will come), will be the cherry picking, like we see in the first link I posted. It uses 1970 to show a trend. Shameless fraud.

They actually chose a time period that provides a statistically significant trend? The nerve of some people...

They don't show the source, which is annoying, and common among propaganda sites.

From your link: "An analysis of data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network of weather stations"

I'm skeptical, so I always want to see the data.

So far, you haven't shown the ability to do anything with it.

 

[Buckaroo]

Jesus Christ, you are WRONG! That has been shown time after time. Winters aren't trending towards getting colder.

I simply cannot imagine anyone stupid enough to fail to see that he's wrong after being corrected so many times, so I must now conclude that you are being intentionally dishonest, lying in your posts.

Stop lying.

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097052#post9097052

 

[r-j]

ETA: OK, if I set it to just show the last 10 years and then calculate the trend it shows a very small downward trend of half a degree Fahrenheit since 2004.

I am warming to you, since you are the only one who did the smart thing. After I posted a link with a data source, you checked.

Try looking at the 20, 25 and 30 year trends. You will see what most never have. The difference between the northeast and the rest of the country is very interesting.

You will also know why I consider people who make claims with out looking at data to be nonsense generators.

 

[r-j]

If you honestly believe that this is how the term came into the conversation

It wasn't discussed, but it was in the link I used about colder winters possibly being due to global warming. When you started your "I am so much smarter than you" nonsense I had to laugh.

 

[Buckaroo]

It wasn't discussed, but it was in the link I used about colder winters possibly being due to global warming. When you started your "I am so much smarter than you" nonsense I had to laugh.

You mean that link that you never read before you frantically started searching for the term "Rossby Wave"? Like the one which you thought was scoring points about Rossby waves, but was actually about ocean waves, not atmospheric waves? OK, maybe you're not delusional, like I thought. You're just a liar.

 

[r-j]

I had seen the paper before you posted it. It's about blocking patterns, not jet stream changes. The discussion I started was about the claim that low temperature differentials, based on warmer arctic air, leading to weak jet streams, which "allow" cold air to descend much farther south in winter. Blaming weak jet streams for the colder winters.

Certainly a long cold spell would be from a blocking pattern, but these lead to very dry winters, as there is little snow with out the interaction of moist warm air and cold fronts.

We are seeing record snow, increasing snow, which is not consistent with a blocking pattern in winter. The constant succession of winter storms in the US these last 5 months is not due to a blocking pattern, or warm arctic air. Strong jet streams have been associated with the blizzards, due to the large difference in pressure, and the extreme cold polar air.

What is causing this is of great interest.

 

[lomiller]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-are-warming-all-across-the-us-15590

This link clearly and correctly shows winters are getting warmer.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NCDC_Winters.pdf

This link cherry picks a period that is too short to be statistically significant and incorrectly calls it a trend.


Again even the data you have linked to yourself shows that winters are getting warmer not colder

 

[r-j]

OK, maybe you're not delusional, like I thought. You're just a liar.

And as always, your personal comments are unscientific, rude and not helpful to anyone seeking a scientific understanding. I don't understand why you are still avoiding the science.

Emotional arguments won't sway anyone, much less a skeptic.

As for the European winters, obviously Hansen didn't publish because he is foolish. If he says "the colder winters in Europe", nobody assumes he means the entire NH cooled off. Sometimes you have to be smart enough to grasp the meaning, rather than making things up to argue about.

 

[r-j]

This link cherry picks a period that is too short to be statistically significant and incorrectly calls it a trend.

Try lifting a finger to do some actual work. The NCDC site clearly labels the trend produced, and has two setting. Decade trend and century trend.

The software creates the trend line, based on what time period you choose. It's easy to use, and anyone can do it.

Of course I predicted what you said, just as was expected.

 

[Belz...]

Once you actually check (and you will have to, no way to link to any graphs), the truth about winter trends in the US will be impossible to deny.

It's why I doubt what both sides say. Neither seem very honest, but the skeptics at least post the data source. I suspect they want people to look for themselves.

So why are most scientists lying about this (your opinion) ?

 

[r-j]

So why are most scientists lying about this (your opinion) ?

Once again, if you make up something, like "why are most scientists lying', don't try and say I said such nonsense. That's dishonest.

By sides, I mean the non-scientists who constantly create propaganda, trying to influence people with fraud and dishonest presentations.

Hansen is talking about colder winters in Europe, rather than trying to say it isn't happening.

The other scientists in the links I provided are also looking for a mechanism to explain colder winters. They aren't in denial they are happening.

They know how to calculate a trend. A real climate expert can't just ignore what the data says.

The http://www.climatecentral.org/wgts/warming-winters/WarmingWintersPressRelease.pdf 'paper' is dishonest, and meaningless.

 

[Belz...]

And as always, your personal comments are unscientific, rude and not helpful to anyone seeking a scientific understanding.

I am warming to you, since you are the only one who did the smart thing.

 

[lomiller]

Try lifting a finger to do some actual work.

Your claim, your responsibility to do the work.

The NCDC site clearly labels the trend produced,

You didn't link to the NCDC site or their product, you linked to a site cherry picking a period too short to support your claim of colder winters.

Decade trend and century trend.

Decadal and century trends are different than trends calculated with a decade of data. You can (and in this case must) use 3 decades of data to calculate the per decade trend and get a statistically significant result.

 

[Pixel42]

Try looking at the 20, 25 and 30 year trends.

As a mathematician I know that any trend using less than 30 years' worth of data is unlikely to be statistically significant.

US winter trend over 30 years (1984-2013): warming of 0.35F (0.19C) per decade

Global annual trend over 30 years (1983-2012): warming of 0.16C per decade

The tool doesn't give me the option of calculating global trends for individual seasons, so I looked at the three winter months individually:

Global December trend over 30 years (1983-2012): warming of 0.14C per decade

Global January trend over 30 years (1983-2012): warming of 0.10C per decade

Global February trend over 30 years (1983-2012): warming of 0.12C per decade

Still not seeing anything which indicates a significant winter cooling trend, either in the US or globally.

 

[Belz...]

Once again, if you make up something, like "why are most scientists lying', don't try and say I said such nonsense. That's dishonest.

Almost every scientist in the field agrees about these climate changes. If you claim they are all wrong, I assume you think they are lying, so I'm asking you why you think they are.

 

[Buckaroo]

It wasn't discussed, but it was in the link I used about colder winters possibly being due to global warming. When you started your "I am so much smarter than you" nonsense I had to laugh.

I checked. Went all the way to 10/26/2012. You're talking about the GISS link, right? This?

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

Yeah, it didn't show up until after I had called you out, after you had claimed (embarrassingly for you, no doubt) that the paper I linked to had nothing to do with jet streams. Either show which post contains the first instance of this reference, admit your error, or be branded a liar. There is less disgrace in admitting error than there is in continuing a lie.

 

[Pixel42]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice. [...]

"The sea ice is going rapidly. It's 80% less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic," said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science.

According to Francis and a growing body of other researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.

"This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes," she said. "It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. The pattern can be slow to change because the [southern] wave of the jet stream is getting bigger. It's now at a near record position, so whatever weather you have now is going to stick around," she said.