• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Article from WUWT

You don't know, but feel expert enough to discuss the topic?

LOL...

Unlike some around here... I'm not egotistical enough to even think I'm an expert. Since you think you are an expert then why don't you tell me what diurnal asymmetry has to do with this thread.

Yes, I posted twice before watching the video.

So?

I already understood exactly what the concept was about.

Oh really? You knew exactly from just two or three general paragraphs what this was about. I find that hard to believe. Probably more likely that confirmation bias was making you think you knew exactly.

What did your "bunch or research" consist of? Searches on Real Climate or Skeptical Science?

I started with Google. Granted... some of those links went to Real Climate but that was because Pat Frank had posted there. At least I did some research instead of just assuming I knew it all.

No, it means he has insight. Insight that you obviously lack.

Really Lord?? Do you seriously want to make yourself look like an idiot again by defending Jack's statement. Because if you do I will gladly make it happen.
 
You picked the article. The main reason the article started with 1998 is because you denialists have been incessantly making a big deal about the lack of warming since 1998.
The article was in a peer reviewed Journal, if you do not like the dates they picked, take it up with them.


Contrary to your denialist preachers... not all of the warming of 2015 and 2016 was caused by the El Nino. Actually most real climate scientists believe that a majority of the warming was not from the El Nino.
If you think Scientist think most of the 2015 and 2016 warming was not from the El Nino, you should easily be able to cite a few papers describing this.
It is fairly unlikely that you can, since the El Nino warming is many times greater than what the warming from AGW would be,
and the El Nino warming is already subsiding.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Look at 2015 and 2016, it is fairly to spot an El Nino event in the record.
2015 82 87 91 75 78 79 72 79 82 107 103 111 87 85 83 81 76 97 2015
2016 116 134 130 109 94 76 84 99 90 89 **** **** **** *** 121 111 86 **** 2016
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year


You linked to nothing but a picture here. Do you think you could actually provide a link to the study or article?

And your not making sense. Like snow and ice melt decreasing albedo. This doesn't need validation. What it needs is quantification.




WTF does diurnal asymmetry have to do with this discussion? And how does this data that you seem to love prove anything about diurnal asymmetry or what we are discussing in this thread? It doesn't.

Don't change the subject.

I was just showing an example of the attempts to quantify how the warming will change the tundra, and pointing out that
the diurnal asymmetry of the observed warming is almost completely different than the warming from an actual greenhouse.
This means that placing a greenhouse structure on the tundra will warm it, just not in the ways the current warming is happening.
With most of the warming in the T-min (evening) of the cooler months.
 
This just might be the stupidest thing you have ever written.

You can insult all you want. That doesn't change your concession of the point. The fact that you may not have realized you had conceded is noteworthy.
 
The article was in a peer reviewed Journal, if you do not like the dates they picked, take it up with them.

Typical denialist tactic. Blame the source for your cherry picking.

There is nothing wrong with the article. It was written in 2014 and correctly predicted the resumption of warming. Again... you picked this article because it doesn't include the warming of 2015 and 2016. You have done this kind of thing numerous times over the last year or so and it is completely dishonest.

If you think Scientist think most of the 2015 and 2016 warming was not from the El Nino, you should easily be able to cite a few papers describing this.
It is fairly unlikely that you can, since the El Nino warming is many times greater than what the warming from AGW would be,
and the El Nino warming is already subsiding.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Look at 2015 and 2016, it is fairly to spot an El Nino event in the record.

Oh... you want a few papers. :lol: You can't even give us a link to the paper associated with the picture of the greenhouse on the tundra. And I don't know if you are ignorant or just playing dumb again but it is almost impossible for there to be any papers concerning the El Nino of 2015/2016 because it takes a couple of years to collect data, analyze and publish something like that. How about a couple of quotes from real climate scientists instead?

Even without El Niño, 2015 would have been a record warm year, but climate scientists believe El Niño was responsible for 8 percent to 10 percent of the warming. Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, estimated that El Niño accounted for 0.07˚C of the above average warming that occurred in 2015. Adam Scaife, head of long-range prediction at the U.K.’s Meteorological Office, expects that El Niño will contribute 25 percent of new record global temperatures in 2016.
El Niño and Global Warming—What’s the Connection?

...according to Professor Michael Mann, the director of Penn State Earth System Science Centre. He said it was possible to look back over the temperature records and assess the impact of an El Niño on global temperatures.

“A number of folks have done this,” he said, “and come to the conclusion it was responsible for less than 0.1C of the anomalous warmth. In other words, we would have set an all-time global temperature record [in 2015] even without any help from El Niño.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/04/is-el-nino-or-climate-change-behind-the-run-of-record-temperatures

I was just showing an example of the attempts to quantify how the warming will change the tundra, and pointing out that
the diurnal asymmetry of the observed warming is almost completely different than the warming from an actual greenhouse.
This means that placing a greenhouse structure on the tundra will warm it, just not in the ways the current warming is happening.
With most of the warming in the T-min (evening) of the cooler months.

A real greenhouse? Are you kidding me?? Everyone who really knows anything about AGW knows that it isn't the same as a actual greenhouse. And how would the different kinds of warming and what time of the day the warming happened change the methane released from the tundra and the feedback associated with it?

Your continuing attempts to wiggle your way out of having been made to look ignorant is only making it worse.
 
You can insult all you want. That doesn't change your concession of the point. The fact that you may not have realized you had conceded is noteworthy.

Sorry Jack.... but my admission that the models have errors that I believe might be around 1 degree Celsius do not constitute a concession that Pat Frank's idiotic conclusions are right when they are based on ill conceived errors of plus or minus 10 degrees Celsius.
The fact that you are not able to realize this on your own is much more noteworthy. As a matter of fact it pretty much destroys all the remaining credibility that you had left.
 
Sorry Jack.... but my admission that the models have errors that I believe might be around 1 degree Celsius do not constitute a concession that Pat Frank's idiotic conclusions are right when they are based on ill conceived errors of plus or minus 10 degrees Celsius.
The fact that you are not able to realize this on your own is much more noteworthy. As a matter of fact it pretty much destroys all the remaining credibility that you had left.

No amount of silly name calling can retract your earlier concession.
 
No amount of silly name calling can retract your earlier concession.

Damn Jack.... I didn't call you or any one else any names in that post. You just saw my description of Frank's conclusions as idiotic and that his errors were ill conceived and without really thinking about it just decided I was name calling.

You do understand the difference between calling someone a name (like "idiot") and describing something they said (like "idiotic") don't you? You obviously don't see that your using incorrect logic to claim I made a concession that Frank is right. And I doubt if anything I am going to say is going to change that.
 
Damn Jack.... I didn't call you or any one else any names in that post. You just saw my description of Frank's conclusions as idiotic and that his errors were ill conceived and without really thinking about it just decided I was name calling.

You do understand the difference between calling someone a name (like "idiot") and describing something they said (like "idiotic") don't you? You obviously don't see that your using incorrect logic to claim I made a concession that Frank is right. And I doubt if anything I am going to say is going to change that.

I suggest you accept your loss gracefully and withdraw to fight again another day.
 
I suggest you accept your loss gracefully and withdraw to fight again another day.

The only place I lost was inside your deluded mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom