Climategate 2.0

[beyelzu]

We show that in the global average, the magnitude of heat extremes significantly increased while that of cold extremes decreased at a faster rate.

Growing prevalence of heat over cold extremes with overall milder extremes and multiple successive events | Communications Earth & Environment

This article is from 2022 and looks at climate through 2018.

Despite the rapid warming that is the cardinal signature of global climate change, especially in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising much more than elsewhere in the world, the United States and other regions of the Northern Hemisphere have experienced a conspicuous and increasingly frequent number of episodes of extremely cold winter weather over the past four decades. Cohen et al. combined observations and models to demonstrate that Arctic change is likely an important cause of a chain of processes involving what they call a stratospheric polar vortex disruption, which ultimately results in periods of extreme cold in northern midlatitudes

Meanwhile we also have studies showing how agw climate change can lead to polar vortexes and cold weather events.

Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States.

I’ve got to say that I’ll take the published science by experts using data over the feelings and vague recollections of a lay person.

[ceptimus]

-FX- is questioning if the climate change models predicted the increased frequency of extreme cold events. There's no doubt that the models can be tweaked to predict such events now.

It's a little like psychologists explaining that a criminal behaves the way he does, because his mother didn't love him, and mistreated him as a child. But when it's pointed out to the psychologists that his mother was actually very loving, and never mistreated him, then they say, 'In that case, his behaviour is due to him being smothered with affection as a child'.

Any model that can be tweaked, after the event, to explain what actually happened, is not much use as a predictive model, though it may still be useful in building understanding about the phenomena it's attempting to predict.

Another common science that is useful, while not generating accurate predictions, is economics. Witness politicians and news reporters explaining why the stock market rose, or inflation decreased: they always have a plausible sounding explanation, even when the trend is in the opposite direction to what they were promising or predicting previously.

[beyelzu]

Hi cept, how’s it going?

I understand what you are saying but FX also made a factual claim about the frequency of cold weather events, one of the links holds that the opposite is true, the second link just explains how agw is causing a polar vortex.

I also disagree that economists can’t make predictions and I would suggest that if you want to look at the work of economists, you should look at the work of economists and not politicians and news reporters who are not economists.

Politicians and reporters push things like flat taxes and the gold standard that have very little support from economists.

As to the predictive power of our climate models.

However, more recent analyses, dating back decades, have found that many of even the earliest models were remarkably accurate in their predictions of global temperature increases. Now, as computing power increases and more and more refinements are added to modeling inputs, modelers are more confident in defending their work. As a result, says Dana Nuccitelli, author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics, “there’s definitely been a shift away from outright climate science denial; because the predictions have turned out to be so accurate, it’s getting harder and harder to deny the science at this point.”

It’s not clear to me that they lack predictive power.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...-a-nobel-prize

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

Show your data, not your feels.

I did that for about 8 years, at which point I realized data, facts, are the last thing that will matter when it comes to political/religious beliefs.

I can prove this, but again, data/facts will not matter in that regard either.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Also, there is that problem of it is getting colder.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

lol. Who told you that? And why do you believe them?

Originally Posted by beyelzu

ironic, isn't it?

[mickthinks]

Only in the Dunning-Kruger sense, dude!

When you wrote:

Originally Posted by -FX-

Also, there is that problem of it is getting colder.

... "it" was clearly the entire globe, as in "Anthropomorphic Global Warming". Now you are pretending that "it" was the weather in some places, er ... sometimes.

You're arguing in bad faith.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by -FX-

ironic, isn't it?

What a wonderful example of a climate denier being disingenuous!

I included two links, one that said the magnitude of cold weather events had decreased for the earth as a whole and another that explains how a particular region has cold events because of agw, you ignore the first, quote the second and ignore all context to say that the source supports a cooling trend when it expressly does not.



This is why I don’t bother to talk to you directly most of the time.

Dialogue isnt really possible when one person argues in bad faith.

It’s not even a good job of selectively quoting, the bolded part says the earth is warming, fucktard

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Gonna climate deny troll, put some imagination in.

[-FX-]

If you look at the high quality stations in the GHCN data

The actual data shows cooling trends. If you look ate the "adjusted" data, what is presented to the public, there is warming.

The one thing they haven't adjusted (and can't easily adjust), is the snowfall data

The snow data matches the actual temperature data, but if you use the "adjusted" data, it becomes obvious the adjusted data is bogus.

[mickthinks]

The actual data shows cooling trends.
No, they don't.

... it becomes obvious the adjusted data is bogus. No, it doesn't.

Are you qualified to opine on what the data shows? No, you aren't.

[-FX-]

If you were really sure you would bet money on this. Easy money for you. So, how much do you want to bet?

[LarsMac]

"Never bet on a sure thing,..." - Bat Masterson

[fragment]

Originally Posted by -FX-

If you look at the high quality stations in the GHCN data

The actual data shows cooling trends. If you look ate the "adjusted" data, what is presented to the public, there is warming.

The one thing they haven't adjusted (and can't easily adjust), is the snowfall data

The snow data matches the actual temperature data, but if you use the "adjusted" data, it becomes obvious the adjusted data is bogus.

Evidence required.

Couple of obvious unaccounted for problems with your claims:

Raw data are affected by a bunch of things other than temperature. It would be scientific malfeasance to not attempt to estimate the impact of biases.

Snowfall is affected by precipitation rate as well as temperature.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

Evidence required.

The data is the evidence. There isn't anything else.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by -FX-

The data is the evidence. There isn't anything else.

Which data? You mention "high quality stations in the GHCN data" but I don't know what you think that is, nor have I seen your analysis of it. You're just making unsupported assertions here. If you can back it up, let's see it.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

Which data? You mention "high quality stations in the GHCN data" but I don't know what you think that is, nor have I seen your analysis of it. You're just making unsupported assertions here. If you can back it up, let's see it.

The thing about the GHCN data is simple. Anyone can look at it. The authorities don't make it easy, nor do they explain how and why they "adjust" it before they present it to the gullible public. But you can look at it. With effort and patience.

The "adjusted data" is easy to look at. Of course. But they do not show the unadjusted values on the same page. Back in 2014 one could compare the adjusted values with the actual data. They ended that, most likely after quite a few people questioned them and pointed out the absurdities that show up.

Here's an example

The TOB is claimed to be the largest reason they have to "adjust" what they show the public. The following are examples, you can look at all of the states yourself.

moyhu: USHCN adjustments plotted for USA and States





The TOB claim is based on "the time of observation changed, before the change, in the past, idiot COOP weather nerds would often record the same daily high temperature (Tmax) because they were complete idiots. Since the time changed now the observations are correct, and we have to alter all this past records to make the past cooler. And also make the recent past warmer."

Even if you buy that, which means you are an idiot, but even if this were the case, ALL the COOP idiots did the same errors. Yet each state, and even within a state, the adjustments are different. Fuck, even stations near each other have different adjustments. It's exceedingly obvious when you just look at the data.

Which you won't do of course,. But if you spent a few minutes and check all the states, there would be no reason to have to explain it.

Quality stations, which do exist, show the same trends, extremes and cyclic patterns, well known for a very long time. The adjusted data does not show any cycles, and in fact show absurd situations that can't actually happen.

The radical global warmers are so blinded by ideology, they don't notice, or of they do, as we can read about in the emails, they simply adjust more to make the data match, when it doesn't.

It's so absurd, especially the farther back one looks, that we have this insane situation where the adjusted data show a very cold period, which in fact was extremely warm. Historic records, newspaper and magazines, as well as the COOP records, which note more than temperatures, all make it obvious how Orwellian the "climate experts" have become.

One can easily show this, in many many instances. However, experience has shown the "true believers", (who blindly swallow whatever throbbing cock the "experts" and the IPCC is shoving down their throats, or up the ass,) the true believer isn't swayed by data, facts, logic or reason.

Which is why I would only bother if there was serious money on the table, a bet, and a serious way to make sure the loser can't weasel out of it.

Otherwise, it's a complete waste of time.

[-FX-]

For the completely clueless, a COOP station is run by a weather nerd, geek or enthusiast. They are very particular about accuracy, and many of the long complete quality records are from these stations.

TOB = time of observation

The bogus adjustments are made because "in the past the time of observation (when the Tmin and Tmax records were recorded from the instruments) were bad times, observers were idiots, and a COOP observer might record yesterdays high as todays"

Anyone who has actually used a Min/Max thermometer, and records daily high/low records knows how fucking stupid that claim is.

The first thing a weather observer learns is how not to do that.

Which is why these intellectual climate experts, who have never actually recorded data about the weather, are a goddamn joke. But dangerous jokers.

I understand that you, dear reader, probably are even dumber than they are.

[Crumb]

As a side benefit, I also don't see your climate change denial.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

-FX- is questioning if the climate change models predicted the increased frequency of extreme cold events. There's no doubt that the models can be tweaked to predict such events now.

As is most often the case, you are incorrect. But in such an extreme way, it's not even possible to explain to you why. Since it wouldn't matter in any case, gentle mockery is probably the best response.

Or just ignore it.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Growing prevalence of heat over cold extremes with overall milder extremes and multiple successive events | Communications Earth & Environment

This article is from 2022 and looks at climate through 2018.

No, they don't show what they claim. Even more wrong, they claim in the opening line, "Temperature extremes with altered characteristics are one of the most threatening impacts of global warming."

That's complete bullshit, it's simply made up. It's not just wrong, it suffers from fractal wrongness.

And just like other made up shit, it does not exist anywhere else, except that 2022 paper. Because they actually made it up.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

If the data showed only that "the United States and other regions of the Northern Hemisphere have experienced a conspicuous and increasingly frequent number of episodes of extremely cold winter weather over the past four decades.", then one could argue from that fact. But that isn't what the data shows, and Cohen has published, in the sources they are using, that a "cooling trend for winters" is happening. Not "periods of extremely cold winter weather".

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Meanwhile we also have studies showing how agw climate change can lead to polar vortexes and cold weather events.

Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States.

This Post hoc analysis , (statistical analyses that were not specified before the data were seen) is just more bullshit. Post hoc theorizing, generating hypotheses based on data already observed has become very popular of late, because it's no longer possible to just had wave away the trends in temperature, as well as snow.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I’ve got to say that I’ll take the published science by experts using data over the feelings and vague recollections of a lay person.

Except you don't. You calmly accept nonsense from others online who say stupid shit, based on their "feelings and vague recollections". Which is ironic. And delicious.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by -FX-

You calmly accept nonsense from others online who say stupid shit, based on their "feelings and vague recollections".

Oooh lookee -FX- making a self-serving claim for which he has no evidence or grounds! Why does that keep happening?

[LarsMac]

A larger number of Wind Turbines were built over in the next county last year.

Word at the diner is that they are responsible for the record setting amount of Snow we received this Winter.

I offered evidence to the contrary.
I am no longer invited to the morning Coffee club.

[-FX-]

None of that is true.

[LarsMac]

none of what is true?

[mickthinks]

I took FX for a contrarian but now I'm thinking it's Tourette's

[JoeP]

Renewable energy sources destroyed by extreme weather. Climate change is fighting back.

Baseball-Sized Hail Smashing Into Panels At 150 MPH Destroys Scottsbluff Solar Farm | Your Wyoming News Source