Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

Dude B.W. you put curse on me... got down to 5 degrees (Celsius) here; and this is meant to be 'Neverwinter Land'; you know 'down under'; 'crocodile dundee-', 'mad max' 'kangaroos' etc...
How I wish for a bit of that Global Warming! LOLOL
Being the Weatherman must be a great job because even if all your pretty 'Weather Probability Distribution' tables/graphs are wrong and you call 'Sunny Day' and it turns out 'Thunder-storms & lightening' you can be wrong every single time and still never loose your job...I bet in RL Genava is a 'Weatherman' :->

Except for my overseas adventures I've lived where I'm at since the 1950s and the heat never used to bother me the way it does now. It gets hot where I live. The thing is, this year hasn't been so bad. In fact, it's been downright pleasant most of the time. Of course, it summer here. Stay warm.

You two should learn something about statistics. Because while what you observe is right, your conclusions are wrong because science and math!

Been using the same boat ramp since the 1960s.

[Daruwind]

Ok, I have serious question B.W. Can you show me ANY prediction that was saying like there won´t be any more snow? I don´t mean any long term crap about thawing glaciers and green antarctica. I mean predition saying there won´t any snow storms, snowing etc..anywhere...

Because there is slight difference between actual weather and long term average...

[B. W.]

Ok, I have serious question B.W. Can you show me ANY prediction that was saying like there won´t be any more snow? I don´t mean any long term crap about thawing glaciers and green antarctica. I mean predition saying there won´t any snow storms, snowing etc..anywhere...

Because there is slight difference between actual weather and long term average...

It's encouraging for me to know that even at my advanced age my memory is still better than a young whippersnapper like yourself. Are you telling me you don't recall the signs in the national parks that repeated the predictions of the AGW crowd having to be taken down because of all the snow? It was brought up in this thread and that's only one example.

Going back to the boat ramp, back in the early seventies it was predicted that it would soon be too high above the water to be useful because of the coming ice age.

Then came the AGW crowd in the late 90s proclaiming that it would be under water in 10 years because of all the melting ice. 20 years later it's still there, just like it was in the 1960s. The truth is there has been a lot of melting ice, but there has also been a lot of ice building up at the same time. You guys only focus on the melting ice and so buy into your self fulfilling predictions that are erroneous.

I think they probably had it right back in the 70s with the prediction of a coming mini-ice age.

[Daruwind]

It's encouraging for me to know that even at my advanced age my memory is still better than a young whippersnapper like yourself. Are you telling me you don't recall the signs in the national parks that repeated the predictions of the AGW crowd having to be taken down because of all the snow? It was brought up in this thread and that's only one example.

Going back to the boat ramp, back in the early seventies it was predicted that it would soon be too high above the water to be useful because of the coming ice age.

Then came the AGW crowd in the late 90s proclaiming that it would be under water in 10 years because of all the melting ice. 20 years later it's still there, just like it was in the 1960s. The truth is there has been a lot of melting ice, but there has also been a lot of ice building up at the same time. You guys only focus on the melting ice and so buy into your self fulfilling predictions that are erroneous.

I think they probably had it right back in the 70s with the prediction of a coming mini-ice age.

I don´t give crap about some signs in US park. I´m asking about prediction that said there won´t be any snow in my corner of world..czech republic. Like never ever. Else your point is pointless...

Same argument with rising water. It is about speed. There is limited amount of water on earth so with CZ sitting on average 450m above sea level....

See. I´m coming from nuclear/particle science. So while we are making a lot progress (recently Axions, fifth force...) the fussion is still 20 years ahaead ;-) which was in 60/70/80/90 as well.

[B. W.]

I don´t give crap about some signs in US park. I´m asking about prediction that said there won´t be any snow in my corner of world..czech republic. Like never ever. Else your point is pointless...

Same argument with rising water. It is about speed. There is limited amount of water on earth so with CZ sitting on average 450m above sea level....

See. I´m coming from nuclear/particle science. So while we are making a lot progress (recently Axions, fifth force...) the fussion is still 20 years ahaead ;-) which was in 60/70/80/90 as well.

Those signs you don't give a crap about were originally put there based on the computer models you've been touting. Why are you suddenly moving the goalposts?...oh wait

[Daruwind]

Those signs you don't give a crap about were originally put there based on the computer models you've been touting. Why are you suddenly moving the goalposts?...oh wait

Can you show me where I said something like that exactly? Because you cannot.

You understand that every ..decade let´s say you have better equipment, better computers, better input data and better models? In middleage people believed the Earth is center of cosmos so we have to stick with that? Because I was born in 1987 I could hardly stick with 60´s or 70´s or 80´s models. If anything I´m sticking with stuff from last decade or two. Same like in my nuclear physics. When I started masters, there were no Higgs Boson. Well it is here now. I was sitting in control room a few times for Atlas detector...in other words. Scientist must keep his mind open to think especially about new information and findings...That´s how you make progress..So naturally I would love to know how snowy day and global warming are excluding each other.

Anyway you keep deflecting question how snowy day,two, week or even month or even year or two means no global warming. You cannot explain it huh?

[Genava]

Then came the AGW crowd in the late 90s proclaiming that it would be under water in 10 years because of all the melting ice.

It is very convenient to listen exclusively to the non-scientific claims and to ignore the claims based on scientific studies.

The truth is there has been a lot of melting ice, but there has also been a lot of ice building up at the same time. You guys only focus on the melting ice and so buy into your self fulfilling predictions that are erroneous.

The ice sheets are monitored by satellite thanks to gravimetry (which is a really accurate method):
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO

[B. W.]

I don´t give crap about some signs in US park. I´m asking about prediction that said there won´t be any snow in my corner of world..czech republic. Like never ever. Else your point is pointless...

Same argument with rising water. It is about speed. There is limited amount of water on earth so with CZ sitting on average 450m above sea level....

See. I´m coming from nuclear/particle science. So while we are making a lot progress (recently Axions, fifth force...) the fussion is still 20 years ahaead ;-) which was in 60/70/80/90 as well.

Can you show me where I said something like that exactly? Because you cannot.

You understand that every ..decade let´s say you have better equipment, better computers, better input data and better models? In middleage people believed the Earth is center of cosmos so we have to stick with that? Because I was born in 1987 I could hardly stick with 60´s or 70´s or 80´s models. If anything I´m sticking with stuff from last decade or two. Same like in my nuclear physics. When I started masters, there were no Higgs Boson. Well it is here now. I was sitting in control room a few times for Atlas detector...in other words. Scientist must keep his mind open to think especially about new information and findings...That´s how you make progress..So naturally I would love to know how snowy day and global warming are excluding each other.

Anyway you keep deflecting question how snowy day,two, week or even month or even year or two means no global warming. You cannot explain it huh?

It's obvious you've barely been browsing the links I've been posting; either that or your memory really is going. I've provided many links that showed where warming predictions haven't materialized. Here's the one where they had to take down the signs in Glacier National Park that claimed the glaciers would be gone by 2020; a prediction based on the best estimates of Global Warming Scientists. The glaciers aren't gone, they are growing. Here, I'll post it again for you. Maybe you'll read it this time:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/0...by-2020-signs/

The signs weren't put up decades ago. They were put up in 2009. Which computer model was that?

[Daruwind]

I was asking for any prediction saying that we won´t be getting any snowy days...no natura park sings. Stop deflecting.

[Genava]

It's obvious you've barely been browsing the links I've been posting; either that or your memory really is going. I've provided many links that showed where warming predictions haven't materialized. Here's the one where they had to take down the signs in Glacier National Park that claimed the glaciers would be gone by 2020; a prediction based on the best estimates of Global Warming Scientists. The glaciers aren't gone, they are growing. Here, I'll post it again for you. Maybe you'll read it this time:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/0...by-2020-signs/

The signs weren't put up decades ago. They were put up in 2009. Which computer model was that?

I think you are getting old, we already discussed this:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15796989

It was neither "the best estimates of Global Warming Scientists", nor the models and scenarios used by climate scientists. None of the authors is a climate scientist nor has any background in atmospheric science.

[Stario]

Then came the AGW crowd in the late 90s proclaiming that it would be under water in 10 years because of all the melting ice. 20 years later it's still there, just like it was in the 1960s. The truth is there has been a lot of melting ice, but there has also been a lot of ice building up at the same time. You guys only focus on the melting ice and so buy into your self fulfilling predictions that are erroneous.

BRAVO!!! well said B.W.

[B. W.]

I was asking for any prediction saying that we won´t be getting any snowy days...no natura park sings. Stop deflecting.

What you're doing is trying to move the goal posts.

I think you are getting old, we already discussed this:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15796989

It was neither "the best estimates of Global Warming Scientists", nor the models and scenarios used by climate scientists. None of the authors is a climate scientist nor has any background in atmospheric science.

Well, there's no doubt that I'm getting old, but my memory is intact and so is my response to that assertion. Maybe you should go back and read it.

The article you cited back then was peer reviewed and published in a recognized "science" magazine. Among the research articles cited was an IPCC report. Irregardless, the prediction was wrong, wrong, wrong. The glaciers are growing.

From the government article you cited on that post:

Glaciers, by their dynamic nature, respond to climate variation and reveal the big picture of climate change. Unable to adapt, like living creatures, GNP’s relatively small alpine glaciers are good indicators of climate, the long-term average of daily weather conditions.

You can't have t both ways. The fact is we're not talking about a little snowfall. These are major snowstorms occurring on the summer solstice two years in a row. Taking the definitive statement above from the article you cited and applying it here is problematic for the AGW theory.

[Daruwind]

What you're doing is trying to move the goal posts.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15926419

Nothing like a summer solstice snowstorm to put the chill on the global warming hoax:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/winte...montana/761490

Now say "summer solstice snowstorm" ten times as fast as you can.

No...you started with this. So I was merely asking how ANY "snowstorm" even for solstice is excluding global warming. So explain it or admit you know dumb . Thanks...

You can't have t both ways. The fact is we're not talking about a little snowfall. These are major snowstorms occurring on the summer solstice two years in a row.. Taking the definitive statement above from the article you cited and applying it here is problematic for the AGW theory.

Why? Global warming is about globality, how is Earth doing as whole....you can still have even stronger local effect. Actually due to higher temperature, it is more probably to have stronger floods, hurricanes, droughts...It is mere maths/statistics. If nine places are +2 degree and one is -3, average is getting up +1,5. Temp is going up no matter one place is really cold... You are saying B.W. "look at -3.. there cannot be overall +1,5". But it is.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ext...al-warming.htm

Explain it here to me. How your examples are working.

[B. W.]

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?794812-Is-it-Game-Over-on-the-climate-front&p=15926419&viewfull=1#

So now any article or video that disputes the AGW "theory" (agenda) is moving the goalposts?

No...you started with this. So I was merely asking how ANY "snowstorm" even for solstice is excluding global warming. So explain it or admit you know dumb . Thanks...



Why? Global warming is about globality, how is Earth doing as whole....you can still have even stronger local effect. Actually due to higher temperature, it is more probably to have stronger floods, hurricanes, droughts...It is mere maths/statistics. If nine places are +2 degree and one is -3, average is getting up +1,5. Temp is going up no matter one place is really cold... You are saying B.W. "look at -3.. there cannot be overall +1,5". But it is.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ext...al-warming.htm

Explain it here to me. How your examples are working.

From the IPCC:

Extreme weather event
An extreme weather event is an event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Definitions of rare vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of the observed probability density function. By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense. Single extreme events cannot be simply and directly attributed to anthropogenic climate change, as there is always a finite chance the event in question might have occurred naturally. When a pattern of extreme weather persists for some time, such as a season, it may be classed as an extreme climate event, especially if it yields an average or total that is itself extreme (e.g., drought or heavy rainfall over a season).Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4




This is not a singular event. It has occurred two years in a row. Additionally, if you read the sentence I quoted in my above post that was published in support of the AGW "theory" at a time when the glaciers were receding it clearly says that the receding glaciers in the region are an indication of overall global climate. Now that the glaciers are not receding are we now supposed to ignore what was said in support of your theory? Tell me that is not moving the goalposts.

Also, in the link you provided assertions (predictions) were made that have not come to pass; ex.: there is no drought in the Southeast. I live in the Southeast and it's raining right now. It's a full blown thunderstorm.

[Daruwind]

So now any article or video that disputes the AGW "theory" (agenda) is moving the goalposts?

I asked you about particular post and implication. You just keep changing topics...

I still want answer for question how single or double or tripple snowstorm is contradicting glowal warming...

This is not a singular event. It has occurred two years in a row. Additionally, if you read the sentence

Also, in the link you provided assertions (predictions) were made that have not come to pass; ex.: there is no drought in the Southeast. I live in the Southeast and it's raining right now. It's a full blown thunderstorm.

Make it twenty years in row, trend from it and then we can talk Seriously two years? Come on. You are discarting long term graphs, data and now you are happy with two points in graph? But actually I have no problem with that...Because thunderstorm and no drought in Southeast is proving what? That Global Warming is not existing? Again, extreme weather condition of local changes to anything are alright. Plus I see nothing saying that only possible state for Southeast is drought. Can you point me to exact reference?

https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Impacts

The Southeast is experiencing climate change. Generally, temperatures are expected to become warmer with more extreme heat waves. Changes in rainfall are less certain. Sea level rise coupled with increased hurricane intensity could be detrimental to Southeastern coastlines.

Figure A. Annual average temperature of the southeast United States for the period 1895-2009. The trendline shows a decrease in average temperature.

Temperature Changes

Although annual average temperatures across much of the United States are expected to increase in the future, over the past 100 years annual average temperatures in the Southeast have decreased slightly as shown in Figure A. This cooling has been attributed partially to changes in land use over time from bare fields of cotton and row crops in the early 20th century to the present forest stands, which are cooler and moister than open fields.
Over the last 40 years, however, temperatures have increased throughout much of the Southeast. This is true even in rural areas away from cities and suburbs which are becoming more urban in nature over time. Winters are becoming milder, but the summers are also becoming more sweltering. In parts of the Southeast, like northern Georgia, there are 20 fewer days below freezing each year than there were 40 years ago. The number of days above 90°F is expected to almost triple over the next 100 years. This could cause heat stress not only for humans, but animals and crops as well.
Precipitation Pattern Changes

Figure B. Map of changes in precipitation by season.

Generally, for everyone outside of Florida fall is becoming wetter and all other seasons are the same or becoming drier. Annual average rainfall in many locations is nearly constant, but the rains have been falling in more intense and short-lived episodes, with longer dry spells in between. In some locations rainfall is becoming heavier, but occurrences of drought have also increased by about 10% in the past 40 years. Global climate models have a difficult time predicting whether the rainfall in the Southeast will increase or decrease in the next 100 years, however, because the physical processes that form clouds and rain in the computer models are highly variable and do not do a good job of simulating even the current rainfall well. While water supply from reservoirs is likely to be adequate under good management practices and conservation efforts, more frequent droughts or large population increases will stress the ability of water utilities to meet everyone's needs.

See, nobody is ever saying that Southeast will be Sahara or tropical Forest over night. Heck even your corner of world is getting colder

Which means jack if you compare it with rest of USA....jsut because Southeast is getting little colder can be ofset very easily if rest of USA are getting warmer...

You should stop thinking in extremes only terms. Heck even wetter decade or two means not much in century long trend. Here in Czech, we had pretty dry years, we are slowly drying up. This year right now we are getting tons of rain. Does it change anything? Nope, in long term nope, this year is however saved for aggriculture.

I quoted in my above post that was published in support of the AGW "theory" at a time when the glaciers were receding it clearly says that the receding glaciers in the region are an indication of overall global climate. Now that the glaciers are not receding are we now supposed to ignore what was said in support of your theory? Tell me that is not moving the goalposts.

Not my theories, not my problem


But explain this if you want

[B. W.]

I asked you about particular post and implication. You just keep changing topics...

I still want answer for question how single or double or tripple snowstorm is contradicting glowal warming...



Make it twenty years in row, trend from it and then we can talk Seriously two years? Come on. You are discarting long term graphs, data and now you are happy with two points in graph? But actually I have no problem with that...Because thunderstorm and no drought in Southeast is proving what? That Global Warming is not existing? Again, extreme weather condition of local changes to anything are alright. Plus I see nothing saying that only possible state for Southeast is drought. Can you point me to exact reference?

https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Impacts


See, nobody is ever saying that Southeast will be Sahara or tropical Forest over night. Heck even your corner of world is getting colder

Which means jack if you compare it with rest of USA....jsut because Southeast is getting little colder can be ofset very easily if rest of USA are getting warmer...

You should stop thinking in extremes only terms. Heck even wetter decade or two means not much in century long trend. Here in Czech, we had pretty dry years, we are slowly drying up. This year right now we are getting tons of rain. Does it change anything? Nope, in long term nope, this year is however saved for aggriculture.



Not my theories, not my problem


But explain this if you want

Unbelievable. I starting to think you don't even bother reading your own links or mine or even the ones G posts. We're talking specifically about the glaciers in GNP and the climate report written in support of AGW when the glacier was receding said this:

Unable to adapt, like living creatures, GNP’s relatively small alpine glaciers are good indicators of climate, the long-term average of daily weather conditions.

How is it possible you keep missing that sentence? Those glaciers are growing, not shrinking.

The prediction for drought in the southeast came from the link you posted from Skeptical Science. I guess you didn't read that either.

In the last link you posted, the AGW crowd takes the shotgun approach at predicting future weather. Here's what they said:

The climate is changing in the Southeast, and if you live there, these changes will affect you. However, computer models vary in exactly how and when these changes will occur. For example, average rainfall amounts could increase or decrease and the seasonal patterns and timing of precipitation may change.

Wow! What a prediction. Here's my prediction: average rainfall amounts could increase or decrease in the southeast.

You realize of course that this makes me a genius. My prediction is exactly the same as all those PHD physicists who call themselves climatologists.! Of course I always knew I was fairly smart, so it's no surprise to me.

[Daruwind]

Unbelievable.

Trully. So you will not explain how snowy day destroy whole Glowal Warming. Just rumbling about glaciers but I´m interested in your snowy day comment which you cannot even admit was utter bollock as you keep posting various "look baad weather" articles again and again. Because you cannot admit even one mistake right?

The prediction for drought in the southeast came from the link you posted from Skeptical Science. I guess you didn't read that either.

Plus you realize you are making whole different point? I said exactly:

Plus I see nothing saying that only possible state for Southeast is drought. Can you point me to exact reference?

except scepticalscience is stating nothing that there will be just droughts. Just that the frequence has increased...Plus they are not speaking just about Southeast.. It seems you have problems with reading

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ext...al-warming.htm
The frequency of drought has increased in areas such as the Southeast and the West, and decreased in other areas. Rising temperatures make droughts more severe and/or widespread

https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Impacts
Generally, for everyone outside of Florida fall is becoming wetter and all other seasons are the same or becoming drier. Annual average rainfall in many locations is nearly constant, but the rains have been falling in more intense and short-lived episodes, with longer dry spells in between. In some locations rainfall is becoming heavier, but occurrences of drought have also increased by about 10% in the past 40 years. Global climate models have a difficult time predicting whether the rainfall in the Southeast will increase or decrease in the next 100 years, however, because the physical processes that form clouds and rain in the computer models are highly variable and do not do a good job of simulating even the current rainfall well. While water supply from reservoirs is likely to be adequate under good management practices and conservation efforts, more frequent droughts or large population increases will stress the ability of water utilities to meet everyone's needs.

See, you are missing point. Despite rainfall amount even higher the time distribution means more shorter wetter periods while longer dries inbetween. You are exactly experiencing that....more intense storm.

I´m not discussing glaciers, never started that conversation so keep that for discussion with Geneva. I just took liberty to insert random missing glacier because you seem so obssesive with missing glaciert.. and pls answer your snowy days bollocks.

[B. W.]

Trully. So you will not explain how snowy day destroy whole Glowal Warming. Just rumbling about glaciers but I´m interested in your snowy day comment which you cannot even admit was utter bollock as you keep posting various "look baad weather" articles again and again. Because you cannot admit even one mistake right?



Plus you realize you are making whole different point? I said exactly:


except scepticalscience is stating nothing that there will be just droughts. Just that the frequence has increased...Plus they are not speaking just about Southeast.. It seems you have problems with reading

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ext...al-warming.htm
The frequency of drought has increased in areas such as the Southeast and the West, and decreased in other areas. Rising temperatures make droughts more severe and/or widespread

https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Impacts
Generally, for everyone outside of Florida fall is becoming wetter and all other seasons are the same or becoming drier. Annual average rainfall in many locations is nearly constant, but the rains have been falling in more intense and short-lived episodes, with longer dry spells in between. In some locations rainfall is becoming heavier, but occurrences of drought have also increased by about 10% in the past 40 years. Global climate models have a difficult time predicting whether the rainfall in the Southeast will increase or decrease in the next 100 years, however, because the physical processes that form clouds and rain in the computer models are highly variable and do not do a good job of simulating even the current rainfall well. While water supply from reservoirs is likely to be adequate under good management practices and conservation efforts, more frequent droughts or large population increases will stress the ability of water utilities to meet everyone's needs.

See, you are missing point. Despite rainfall amount even higher the time distribution means more shorter wetter periods while longer dries inbetween. You are exactly experiencing that....more intense storm.

I´m not discussing glaciers, never started that conversation so keep that for discussion with Geneva. I just took liberty to insert random missing glacier because you seem so obssesive with missing glaciert.. and pls answer your snowy days bollocks.

Have you been drinking?

[Daruwind]

Have you been drinking?

That was weak. -1 point out of 10. So with this you admit you cannot explain anything I asked..

Even simpliest direct question...

[B. W.]

That was weak. -1 point out of 10. So with this you admit you cannot explain anything I asked..

Even simpliest direct question...

I'm not talking about a single snowy day as you infer. I asked if you had been drinking because I had to read your comment twice to try and find something coherent in it.

I've pointed out fallacies in the AGW predictions and all you can do is say they are irrelevant; that your "science is perfect".

Well, it isn't and I've proved it. Instead of admitting that mistakes were made in the projections you brush them aside as unimportant.

When you're talking about subverting the standard of living for all but the wealthiest of Earth's citizens, I expect perfection and clearly you don't have it. All you really have is failed predictions and a mass of manipulated data.