Climate VS Weather

Instead of just attacking deniers, why don't you provide an example of where one posted and confused climate and weather? The only person I've seen confuse them was Chogan. I've never seen you confuse them, because I've never seen you post anything of value relating to climate change.

BTW:

Antarctic sea water shows ‘no sign’ of warming Watts Up With That?
IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years? Watts Up With That?

 

Icarus, you need to post examples, in context, and show where he explicitly confused weather and climate. Otherwise you are just trying to bait someone and get a rise out of them.

 

I seem to remember someone here posted that "global warming is based on repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results." Icarus, ever find that evidence?

 

Those three were in response to this post by flying white dutchman when we were discussing WEATHER:

In no way did anyone say "This disproves AGW."

That post was about the BBC swapping titles for a story that completely changed the point of a story.



You have completely failed in trying to prove the thesis of this thread. This is truly pathetic.

 

Haha, you get proven wrong so you insult people then leave.

http://priuschat.com/forums/freds-house-pancakes/74484-troll-definition-please.html

 

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

 

Anything that proves global warming is climate, everything else is weather

 

I think you are due for another round of "admitting error" after this thread.

 

Well, this has gone beyond bizarre.

Let's take a look at another active thread on Priuschat, shall we? This is from "Climate Change - Anthropogenic or Not?".

" As we previously discussed, we saw that climate models failed to predict 3 months of climate change."

So, first, somebody out there clearly thinks that three months of data is climate. What that I? Did I argue that a season of data amounts to climate? Nope. That wasn't I. I argued strenuously against that view.

In particular, post 4 in that thread:

" 4) Three months is not climate.

As as been discussed repeatedly in threads on this board, global warming is about, at the minimum, long time periods and large areas. Not weeks, not seasons."

I mean, hey, I numbered the points and everything. Just to keep things nice and straight. And here I'm getting shafted anyway.

So, in so many words, you're wrong. If I've ever focused on short-term issues, it has been to answer the particular details of some post.

Unlike some posters here, I realize just how subtle and long-term the issue is.

Let me take the opportunity to illuminate why that is so, since I've been made a target. (Hint: If you don't want to see the facts posted again, then just leave me alone.)

Sunlight at the top of the atmosphere amounts to an energy influx of about 1300 watts per square meter. The entire net impact of anthropogenic change is, at present, equivalent to about 2 watts per square meter (when put on the same scale as sunlight). So any impact is going to be pretty subtle. Both figures I got from the reviled realclimate.org, though of course the facts can be checked against other sources, because the information posted on realclimate.org tends to be correct.

In fact, if we merely kept atmospheric C02 at its current level, the best prediction is that we'd get another 1 degree centigrade rise in world average surface temperatures, eventually. That's how slow and how subtle the effects are, when measured in decades.

Bottom line: If I've confused weather and climate, I apologize. But I don't think I've done that. And I'm sure I have never intentionally done that.

Let me put it this way: If that's the sin in question, then there are other posters to this forum who certainly deserve to suffer in hell long before I do.

 

Chogan, I apologize for bringing you into this retarded thread.

The thing about weather vs. climate and three months: that was because you said "Three months is not climate", but the Climatic Prediction Center made a climate change prediction for the Autumn. The prediction was made in August and it was predicting changes for Oct, Nov, and Dec, and they got it terribly wrong.

But that is completely unrelated to this thread. In fact this thread is completely ridiculous, as the entire thesis of it has been destroyed by the OP being unable to substantiate anything.

I apologize again for bringing you into it.

 

You are doing nothing but showing that 1) you are not rational, 2) you can not follow along in a conversation, and 3) your reading comprehension skills are not very good.

(That is not the content of post #22)

In context, if you look at what he said, he linked how the CRU predicted that we would experience warm winters and snow falls would become exceedingly rare. We experienced the opposite - a cold winter and a lot of snow. In fact, we've experienced a lot of snow in the majority of the winters from the time they made that prediction.

This isn't confusing weather and climate. This is saying that their predictions were wrong. It's a fact. They made predictions that we would experience changes in our climate that would lead to warmer winters and fewer snowfalls, and they were wrong.

The only one confusing anything here is you.

 

That was true here. No snow, temps 10c above average. The forsythia out front, on the 'cold' side of the house, has flowers on it. Not just buds, bright yellow flowers. In Canada. In January.

 

The CRU is in Britain.

 

And it always looks like that in Britain, doesn't it? Nooo, the climate's not changing.