Do record lows mean global cooling?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:45 pm

Paulie: you have correctly restated the issue.

....................... so............ STOP DENYING THE SCIENCE.

Its just that simple.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:34 pm

Boobo doesnt understand the difference between challenging a hypothesis and "denying" a scientific law. Boobo is clueless. Challenging a hypothesis based on one or multitude of contradictory evidence is the very foundation of science. Boobo's insistence on accepting his preferred hypothesis that predicts we are all gonna die, is evidence that it is Boobo who is denying the scientific process!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Paul Anthony » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:05 am

Religions are infamous for calling those who disagree "deniers". For some, climate change is their new religion. :evil:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:14 pm

Sadly Paulie....words have meaning. Labels can be applied as anyone may wish. Pick any label: apply it. Just that simple. Here's an example: Paul.... you are a xyz. Place any label you like at xyz.

Now.........the same thing really does not apply to using actual definitions. Paul: you deny the majority and well settled position of climate qualified scientists. Try to address the substantive issues........ rather than moronically apply another label. J S: you too.

Ha, ha. direct questions never answered. Always go for the distraction, the ab hominem, the label.

What happens to any atmosphere when you add co2 to it?====>Thats SCIENCE.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Paul: you deny the majority and well settled position of climate qualified scientists. Try to address the substantive issues........ rather than moronically apply another label.
While boobo moronically blathers on with incessant psychobabble, not once has he provided the evidence or cited a scientific paper that demonstrates observed changes are driven by CO2 and NOT natural climate change. Instead he evokes the nebulous scientists saying..blah blah blah. Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't mean it is causing climate change. Water vapor is a more abundant and so more powerful GHG. El Ninos cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. As we observe, changes in transport of heat by winds and oceans change temperatures. It is well documented that the Arctic warming and melting ice of the 1930s was due to natural oscillations that pushed warmer water into the Arctic, CO2 was not the driver. The hottest temperatures ever recorded happened on July 10, 1913 in Death Valley demonstrating how natural mechanisms drive record high temperatures when CO2 was very low. A "warm blip" was observed all around the globe in the 1930s and 40s. Maximum temperatures in northern California have yet to exceed the 30s, nearly a century of insensitivity to rising CO2. What climate dynamic causes that? Does that dynamic happen elsewhere?

For once boobo, name the scientists AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2. But you ALWAYS avoid addressing that crucial issue, preferring nonsense psychobabble. So for once answer the substantive questions. And not just you, but none of the alarmists here who never answer that question.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:25 pm

As always JS............ its NOT ME but the consensus of qualified climate scientists most notably as represented by the position papers of the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm ............ or as you refer to it: psychobabble.

We've touched on this 2-3 times before.........the climate we experience is A COMBINATION of natural oscillations THAT INCLUDES the physical components of climate as they change over time. So your argument is more linguistic than scientific. Can any COMPLEX system that has many interactive causes and effects be intelligently described as being "caused" by any one of them? No. and those that do?===>psychobabblers, dissemblers, fools, charlatans, distributors of FUD, Merchants of Doubt. Not a good group you are a part of JS.

From the IPCC: "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century." https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... ns-of.html

Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by robinson » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:40 pm

No, we are not there.

Confusing a graph with reality is what gets a lot of people in trouble. They start to panic and run about hysterically.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:53 pm

ROTFLMAO More psychobabble. And a big graph of rising Co2 tells us absoutely nothing about climate sensitivity. Zilch! Nada! Again you avoid the substantive issues

Of course its not you. That's painfully obvious. You are clueless about the science, yet you fill your posts with all sorts of drivel about how CO2 will cause us all to die as if you understand the science

You continue to avoid the only pertinent issue with your psychobabble.

So again name the scientists (just a few who comprise your so-called consensus) AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2.

Just quote what was in their paper that turned you into such a paranoid alarmist showing why natural variability can NOT account for over 95% of observed changes. Over the years I have presented a bundle of peer reviewed evidence showing how natural variability is the best explanation for regional changes, and thus when averaged together account for global change. That's undeniable to all except those who make the ridiculous claim that regions aren't part of the globe. ROTFLMAO

If your paranoid beliefs had any susbstance at all, providing the evidence of climate sensitivity to CO2 should be a simple task. However if your paranoia hinges on a ridiculous belief that the "consensus is the evidence" then you will be totally incapable of doing so because as you admit you do not understand science and why evidence is important.

And again a big graph of rising Co2 tells us absolutely nothing about climate sensitivity to CO2. Nothing!. Zilch! Nada!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:59 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Can any COMPLEX system that has many interactive causes and effects be intelligently described as being "caused" by any one of them? No. and those that do?===>psychobabblers, dissemblers, fools, charlatans, distributors of FUD, Merchants of Doubt. N

From the IPCC: "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century." https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... ns-of.html
Indeed by your own analysis and IPCC claims that temperature rise was and will be due to the single variable of rising CO2 puts them in the category of "psychobabblers, dissemblers, fools, charlatans, distributors of FUD"

Now stop avoiding the issue! Describe the EVIDENCE the IPCC make such a foolish claims and worse turn you into a paranoid alarmist.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:46 am

JS: your argument is that of a childs. A meaningless repetition of why, or in your case "describe the evidence" or "name the scientists" ad naseum.

I have always stated the IPCC (and Gubment like NASA) were my primary sources as sometimes more simply explained by the popular press.

You still don't understand what amounts to simple English Speaking skills: of course "if" you add co2 to the atmosphere, it will heat up===BECAUSE CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. Just as "if" you moved the Earth closer to the Sun, then THAT one change in one variable would also heat up the Earth.

You really are showing your roots.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You still don't understand what amounts to simple English Speaking skills: of course "if" you add co2 to the atmosphere, it will heat up===BECAUSE CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. Just as "if" you moved the Earth closer to the Sun, then THAT one change in one variable would also heat up the Earth.
More stupid science, false equivalencies and psychobable from Boobo. Again just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it does not determine the earth's sensitivity to it. That is undisputed SCIENCE. The earth is far more sensitive to water vapor. So STOP your ridiculous rants and diversions and simply answer the questions! Your refusal to answer reveals your total lack of scientific comprehension!

So again name the scientists (just a few who comprise your so-called consensus) AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2.

Very telling you can not name even one!!!! All you got is heaps of paranoid BS!!!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:56 pm

Water vapor is not increasing.

Sucks to be you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:44 pm

ROTFLMAO Boobo doesnt even know what the consensus believes!!! CO2 by itself is calculated to only raise a fraction of observed temperature change. Its the water vapor feedback that is theorized to do much of the warming. Water vapor rises during El Ninos and so rose during the 80s and 90s.

So again name the scientists (just a few who comprise your so-called consensus) AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2.

Very telling you can not name even one!!!!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:19 pm

water vapor is not increasing.

Sucks to be you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:25 pm

for grins...googling a list of scientists who aren't on Big Fossils Payroll, I find I have overstated the pro-AGW consensus of formal professional organizations. Those who are in essence Big Oil themselves have moved to a neutral position: a change from their disagreement, but not yet fully honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... ate_change
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:29 pm

[ytube][/ytube]
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:41 pm

More diversions, more boobo BS. Such a stuid argument, the consensus is not evidence.

So again stop the BS and name the scientists (just a few who comprise your so-called consensus) AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2.

Very telling you can not name even one!!!!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:07 pm

I call impasse. JS: stuck on stupid and baseless denial, the Baghdad James of Science Denial.

............but I have recognized "another" difference between us........you want the name of specific scientists of which the Google is FULL OF, if you actually cared. but you don't. It is just a dodge. But more deeply, in fact, I don't rely on single scientists as you do. As I have stated from the start: I use the IPCC and gubment sources as primary moving to more popular/public sources for dumbed down explanations. As you do, you can find single scientists or single website to support any nutball notion you have.... just as you have.

Consensus is not proof. Imagine what that makes minority views with no support at all?

Natural: as you increase green house gases, the temp goes up. BASIC science.... as sea level plainly reflects.

Sucks to be you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Consensus is not proof. Imagine what that makes minority views with no support at all?
More stupid psycho babble as you refuse to answer for the umpteenth time. The minority view is based on EVIDENCE that does not support the AGW hypothesis. Consensus views are for sheeple. Evidence is for science.

So again name the scientists (just a few who comprise your so-called consensus) AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2. Wyy do you keep dodging the issues???

And to misinterpret that request and suggest I am relying on one scientist, is just more boobo BS. Indeed you can google names but that is not the whole issue. You must give a name AND their scientific paper AND their evidence! Its the evidence that is crucial. But you cant do anything but whine because you cant find the evidence that you can just mindlessly copy and paste without thinking for yourself.

There can be no sincere truthful discussion unless we identify the evidence that is the basis of our debate and your paranoid beliefs. I have provided a heap of evidence showing temperature changes have been more cyclical. You provide psychobabble. Sucks to be scientifically ignorant, so I understand why this simple request is nearly impossible for you to answer.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:29 pm

Boobo, thank you for illustrating exactly what Taleb has argued that mainstream media and consensus thinking is basically
a presumptuous club for people with 1) a lack of understanding of complex systems, 2) a fear of diverging from the norm, 3) zero independent thought.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:33 pm

Yes....lets all think what the fewest people think. "Thats the ticket."
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:42 am

ROTFLMAO Still clinging to the foolishness that the consensus is the evidence.

You waste all your time and effort on meaningless retorts and blather, when if you knew what you were talking about, you could have provided the evidence immediately.

How pitiful that don't even know why you believe what you believe, yet your brain squirms with fears we are all gonna die. That is why you keep dodging the issues you know nothing and gutlessly fear to have independent thoughts. Just pitiful!

So again name the scientists (just a few who comprise your so-called consensus) AND their paper AND the evidence they presented that demonstrates recent climate changes are NOT due natural oscillations but due to CO2.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:54 am

Enough. Warnings issued.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:54 am

I am locking this topic until Tuesday.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:57 am

I am also locking Jim Steele's user account until Tuesday.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Pyrrho » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:58 pm

Mr. Steele's user account and this topic are now unlocked.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by robinson » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:58 pm

Alert the media
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Lausten » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:01 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote: Local conditions are purely local, they aren't part of the globe.
Another Lausten-ism, "local conditions are not part of the globe." :D
Lausten wrote: You can only talk about the whole thing all at once. That's the rule.
Merry Christmas Lausten, you always make me smile. So by your rule both the inuit and the Hawaiian will both decide what to wear based on global temperature. Did you make that rule up by yourself?
As George W Bush once said, I have no idea what I meant by that. Of course local conditions are part of the globe. However they are local, they are not global. Each affects the other, but you need to be careful how you use the terms. Local conditions are not global conditions is what I think I was thinking at the time.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:13 pm

Lausten wrote:
JIm Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote: Local conditions are purely local, they aren't part of the globe.
Local conditions are purely local, they aren't part of don't represent the globe.

In context, anybody that wanted to understood what you were saying. A direct blow against those who want exceptions to the whole to be taken as the alternate reality. It just ain't true.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:18 pm

To dismiss local and regional changes as "not global" or "cherry-picking" is merely a rhetorical device to dismiss the contradictory climate dynamics. Climate scientists are constantly examining local and regional climate change and engaging in local sensitivity and attribution analyses to determine to what extent CO2 warming has had locally. They ar not cherry picking anymore than skeptics who show the lack of sensitivity at those regions

Again the global average temperature is a chimera of regional temperature changes combined to make a global average. Only the statistic is global, not the climate. In order to scientifically dissect the contributions from natural variability vs landscape changes vs CO2, local changes must be understood. The one piece of evidence that drives the consensus opinion is that their models of natural variability can not the explain the change so it must be CO2. That opinion is bad science and ignores the fact they not yet adequately modeled natural variability.

As posted before, IPCC climate scientists expect polar regions to be most sensitive to CO2 effect. But their models underestimated Arctic sea ice loss while totally failing to predict Antarctic sea ice gain. As seen below their models of natural variability failed to simulate the 1930s Arctic warm blip. There was an Arctic cooling trend from 1930 to 2000. Arctic temperatures only jumped up when the loss of insulating ice allowed heat to ventilate but their natural variability models failed to incorporate that effect.

The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit published Attribution Of Polar Warming To Human Influence in Nature. http://www.nature.com/naturegeoscience . But their model results shown below, failed to simulate the high heat during Arctic’s earlier natural warming (black line), a warming climate scientists called “the most spectacular event of the century”. Their “natural models” grossly underestimated the 40s peak warming by ~0.8° C (blue line) and when CO2 and sulfates were added the models cooled that warming event further (red line).

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19679
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:44 pm

1. Why are scientists studying co2 levels since the sensitivity of co2 is near zero?

2. Chimera. Doesn't mean at all what you are saying.

3. How do you conclude natural changes aren't modeled correctly? You must have a presumed outcome that is not met?

4. Sea Level keeps going up. Ice and Snow continue to decline. ...... Ha, ha..........they are linked. Imagine that.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:51 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: 1. Why are scientists studying co2 levels since the sensitivity of co2 is near zero?
Never said sensitivity is near zero every where. Only that it is near zero in several places. Thus ther must be climate dynamics more powerful that CO2 warming. To understand climate sensitivity to CO2, we must look at each region and other contributing factors and only then calculate the effect of CO2 on the global statistic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: 2. Chimera. Doesn't mean at all what you are saying.


Chimera means exactly what I am saying. Regional temperature change can be the result of heat ventilating from the oceans, loss of vegetation, changes in heat transport and natural oscillations, radiative effects from greenhouse gases, loss of wetlands and heat capacity, increases in impervious surfaces that reduce soil moisture, pavements that store heat, changes in wind directions that affect adiabatic heating, etc. etc.... It is totally silly to think global temperature change is the result of one single variable- CO2. The average global temperature statistic paraded around by warmunistas is undeniably the result of all those different dynamics. Because the global average is NOT just the result of GHG, but the result of many different dynamics, the statistic is a chimera. If we want to know how much global temperatures have increased due just to CO2, then we must subtract all the other effects.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. How do you conclude natural changes aren't modeled correctly? You must have a presumed outcome that is not met?
Wrong!!! And now you are reverting to denigrating the arguer tactic. And you have it totally backwards. It is my perusal of the models and their failure to simulate observations of natural change that has made me a skeptic.

And why do you even ask such a question when, for example, the published modeling results I posted above, clearly show their models of Arctic temperatures including just natural variability as well as when they added CO2 still failed to simulate past temperature changes. And if you read the scientific literature, you will find that scientists readily admit they do a poor job modelling changes in natural oscillations, clouds, monsoons, precipitation, droughts....

Here are results from a CO2 driven model clearly showing how they failed to simulate droughts in North America. All it does is suggest future catastrophes. But would you trust a doctor whose past diagnoses were utter failures???

Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:4. Sea Level keeps going up. Ice and Snow continue to decline. ...... Ha, ha..........they are linked. Imagine that.
Wrong again. Winter and Fall snow pack has been increasing. The SIerra Nevada now have about 200% of normal just 2 years after virtually no snow.Natural oscillations explan that pattern not rising CO2 because they are linked (ha haaah)! Again, the sea level rise statisitic is a chimera as explained many times. Why are you afraid to start a thread just on sea level rise, stating why you think it is conclusive proof of CO2 warming?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by robinson » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:43 pm

Well, in the past sea level was a good indicator of the global ice balance. When it was warmer, higher oceans. When glacier building started, lower oceans. The Holocene transgression (warmest period of the Holocene) had sea levels 3 meters higher than present. So if we ever warm up like in the past, we should see higher sea levels.

But if the current warming is different than in the past, it;s not clear what will happen.
alley2000.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:41 pm

Most snow in living memory in the Sahara/Algiers

Image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... emory.html
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Lausten » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:04 am

JIm Steele wrote:Most snow in living memory in the Sahara/Algiers

Image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... emory.html
Huh. I guess the climate is changing.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by robinson » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:13 am

For the only time in recorded weather history, snow fell in the Sahara desert in southern Algeria on February 18, 1979. The storm lasted only half an hour and the snow was gone within hours.
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question44491.html

2017

Image
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:18 am

Lausten wrote: Huh. I guess the climate is changing.
Climate is always changing.

Still it is funny English scientists were claiming their children wont kow what snow is. Bobbo erroneously claims there is less snow just like the models predict. Yet the Sahara is experiencing more snow.

This is NOT consistent with rising CO2. Is it change due to ocean oscillations?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by robinson » Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:27 pm

It's mostly because it was friggin colder than hell.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:42 am

Local weather != Global climate. Weather is a function of climate; that unusual weather patterns emerge may be indicators of climate change...even if it snows in the Sahara.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Do record lows mean global cooling?

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:45 am

Pyrrho wrote:that unusual weather patterns emerge may be indicators of climate change...even if it snows in the Sahara.
Of course it is an indicator of climate change. But is it all natural? or all or in part due to CO2? How do we tell the difference?

All we can say is snow in the Sahara runs contrary to climate models based on CO2 warming and contrary to climate scientists' claims regards the end of snowfall. Below is northern hemisphere (global) extent trends. Remember Mann's global(?) hockey stick only accounted for the northern hemisphere because there was not enough data from the southern to know a truly global trend

Although snow extent has decreased during the spring, it has increased during fall and winter.

Image

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo