It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[Rashiminos]

Also,

WEATHER

is NOT

the same as

CLIMATE

I know, I just have a list of areas to check for glacial advancement (as opposed to a crimson-stained wall).

Spoiler :

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-02-ski-resorts-fourth-of-july_n.htm?csp=24&kjnd=ZvDYDnbztkfM5ZNIeEEgjUl1PCJw4+yBlL4RKnq1bfXS2krZTcQYj2n0dOz0/LSd-2fc5b27e-9095-475d-8437-3db3a53b6b7a_/WIxb9uTn4xEYcifTyoQDypdryWj5uwutnwlJTgoop4BOv2c8gmB7NKN

 

[Dale]

At best the article suggests that a particular model is wrong. It does not directly refute observed warming trends, nor provide an alternative explanation for those trends. If it's the case that warming is indeed happening (likely, at the present time*), then that article does not identify what the causes are, and thereby suggest what measures humanity should take in response (if one is needed, or possible).

Actually, Spencer's paper does refute the models. IPCC use short term validations to check against modeled results, which confirm the ability to make long term predictions. S&B's paper shows that for the most recent short term validation (ie: the last decade) that observations do not validate the IPCC models. If the models fail their own validation technique for the most recent set of observed real data, that brings into the question the long term trend.

In simple terms, if the models couldn't predict the last decade's flat-line, how are they going to accurately predict long term future?

The focus that Trenberth et all have put onto "clouds" is misdirection, as the S&B paper only speculates that the recent flat line may have been in part due to clouds. S&B put forward a hypothesis, which the RealClimate gang focused on and effectively said that the hypothesis is wrong in their opinion, so the data is too. As for the comments about S&B's model being too simple, that's just completely false since Spencer compared observation to THEIR models, not his.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If the models fail their own validation technique for the most recent set of observed real data, that brings into the question the long term trend.

It depends what models you're talking about. Some fail on that decade, some don't. Apparently it depends how well the models reflect the El Nino / La Nina oscillation. I also wonder how many other predictions can be derived from the models, and what the overall correlation between model predictions and actual events is. If you're going to judge the models on their short-term predictions, you'll want to use the entire available dataset.

As for the comments about S&B's model being too simple

It's not the simplicity that's the problem, it's the failure to closely approximate the simplified picture. If you simplify Earth as a sphere, that's entirely reasonable for many purposes. If you simplify it as a sphere of diameter 3000 miles, that's a problem. Likewise if you simplify oceans as mixed down to 25 meters, that's a problem.

 

[NBAfan]

If so then most so-called skeptics aren't really skeptics, since they're doing the same thing.

I don't know about you, but IPCC and 95% of climate scientists are better authority than the mysterious, barely-existant Principia Scientific International.

Also,

WEATHER

is NOT

the same as

CLIMATE

Then why is weather used to say the Planet is warming?

 

[Dale]

It depends what models you're talking about. Some fail on that decade, some don't. Apparently it depends how well the models reflect the El Nino / La Nina oscillation. I also wonder how many other predictions can be derived from the models, and what the overall correlation between model predictions and actual events is. If you're going to judge the models on their short-term predictions, you'll want to use the entire available dataset.

Relying on RealClimate to provide a scientifically objective view is like relying on skeptical science or watt's up with that for scientific objectivity.

Though I am much more inclined to believe satellite data (CERES in this case) and not models. Observation should always trump prediction, and at the end of the day whilst the IPCC models might validate short term against the satellite data, not one of them predicted the 2000's flat-line of SST and air temp.

It's not the simplicity that's the problem, it's the failure to closely approximate the simplified picture. If you simplify Earth as a sphere, that's entirely reasonable for many purposes. If you simplify it as a sphere of diameter 3000 miles, that's a problem. Likewise if you simplify oceans as mixed down to 25 meters, that's a problem.

Yeah you should simplify, but no further than you need to. It's a fine line really in science. Simplification makes it easy to see what changes do, but also reduce accuracy as there be some element (or combo of elements) that work against the output.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then why is weather used to say the Planet is warming?

Why are you making things up?

 

[BasketCase]

He's not. Stronger hurricanes? Screwy rainfall patterns? Heat waves? Global warming alarmists do use weather to say the planet is warming up.

 

[Berzerker]

nevermind

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You realise that weather is roughly climate at a specific place and time right? A snapshot.

Stronger hurricanes is a trend, not weather.
Screwy rainfall patterns, not weather.
Heat waves, if addressed as trend or global phenomena, not weather. If incidental and local can be weather, and shouldn't enter the discussion.

If you can show me a climate scientist using a hot day in august as an argument supporting Global Warming, we'll talk.

hell, check the thread title: that linked weather to climate before we even got started

No. That pointed out hypocrisy. Fox is disingenuous when it suits them, but does not use the same false reasoning when it doesn't.

 

[Berzerker]

Why are you making things up?

He said:

Global warming alarmists do use weather to say the planet is warming up.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why are you making things up?

He said:

No, he said: "Then why is weather used to say the Planet is warming?". That is what I was replying to. And that person replied to Tailless who talked about climate scientists. I'm staying within context.

The person you quoted is noise.

 

[Berzerker]

your 2nd post

You realise that weather is roughly climate at a specific place and time right? A snapshot.

Stronger hurricanes is a trend, not weather.
Screwy rainfall patterns, not weather.
Heat waves, if addressed as trend or global phenomena, not weather. If incidental and local can be weather, and shouldn't enter the discussion.

If you can show me a climate scientist using a hot day in august as an argument supporting Global Warming, we'll talk.

was directed at BC's arguments.

now I'm

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't consider you noise, and it was needed to address you. Funny enough almost none of the examples listed is considered weather.

And I still need to see an example of what NBA was saying.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Nipping an argument tit-for-tat in the bud, then
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Berzerker]

me? I didn't say anything about stronger hurricanes, screwy rain patterns or heat waves etc. That was BC...

but I do agree with this

You realise that weather is roughly climate at a specific place and time right? A snapshot.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe we need to direct the argument towards distinguishing in what ways Climate is different from weather. Now, I'm not a climate scientists so my layman's take on this might be off, and I'd be grateful if I would be corrected when making a mistake.

The biggest difference between weather and climate is the timespan involved. Weather is an occurrence, climate is the accumulation of occurrences. If you look at a span of lets say 10 years and you see the average number of hurricanes increasing, or the number of heatwaves in a specific area increasing compared to the average 5 years ago, then you can talk about Climate Change.

 

[Berzerker]

I suspect scientists have varying trends to watch, a few years to a decade or a few decades. Another for a century or few, and even longer periods like climate changes brought on by orbital variations.

Actually global warming may benefit us wrt monsoons. As the Earth's tilt decreases the monsoons dont travel as far north and south because they follow the sun, ghg may help them keep or expand their range. Thats why the Sahara was rather nice ~10,000 years ago, the sun reached 24.5 degrees north of the equator and it brought the monsoons to N Africa.

 

[Tee Kay]

USAToday

Of course, this is just one model. But are you willing to take the risk?

 

[Dale]

USAToday

Of course, this is just one model. But are you willing to take the risk?

I really wouldn't believe that. India's weather changes due to ENSO.

Also, the following statement made me roll my eyes. It's just another "global warming" proclamation that breaches the laws of thermodynamics.

In the summer, the land warms faster than the ocean. This creates a pressure gradient that draws air masses from the ocean to the continent, bringing moist air that promotes formation of a large-scale monsoon system.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well, then, you better get out there and publish your findings. You'll be famous.