[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Well, let's see you do better.

I have better things to do that try to piss people off. I just don't get my jollies when I drive people mad with rage.

Unless I'm playing Call of Duty. Then I go out of my way to do that.

Who exactly is being driven mad with rage from what I posted? They need to get a grip if they are.

[DrCaleb]

jj2424 jj2424:

Ooooo, you have bested my argument with such an amazing comeback! You win the internet!

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Well, let's see you do better.

I have better things to do that try to piss people off. I just don't get my jollies when I drive people mad with rage.

Unless I'm playing Call of Duty. Then I go out of my way to do that.

Who exactly is being driven mad with rage from what I posted? They need to get a grip if they are.

No one that I know of, or claimed to know of. But that is the designated purpose of a well designed and successful troll.

Because I can get some people just furious in that game.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Oh, sorry, I forgot that N-Fiddledoggie doesn't believe in the Polar Vortex.

My bad. I shouldn't be showing evidence of it's effects.

No. Of course there's a Polar Vortex, but it doesn't turn summer heat into colder winters. All the warm causes cold hypotheses offered up whenever the weather gets cold are warmist, faith-based, climate-magic, nonsense.

BTW the story in the OP is posted in the category "Weather". Why do you think that is?

The story is only presented as a bit of a smiler because 89 degrees fahrenheit summer heat is considered cold in Death Valley.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Oh, sorry, I forgot that N-Fiddledoggie doesn't believe in the Polar Vortex.

My bad. I shouldn't be showing evidence of it's effects.

No. Of course there's a Polar Vortex, but it doesn't turn summer heat into colder winters. All the warm causes cold hypotheses offered up whenever the weather gets cold are warmist, faith-based, climate-magic, nonsense.

Unless it's the sea ice that moderates the Vortex, keeping it from spawning smaller vortexes, like we see so often in nature. Then when the ice disappears, the moderation is lost and we see weather like we did all winter, and like we see now. And that is the working theory, and is so far backed up by observations.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BTW the story in the OP is posted in the category "Weather". Why do you think that is?

The story is only presented as a bit of a smiler because 89 degrees fahrenheit summer heat is considered cold in Death Valley.

I trust you to know the difference between weather and climate, hence my first comment in the thread. But that doesn't stop Andy from trying to troll the people who just refuse to accept science as fact instead of as 'politics'. Yes, I'm looking at you jj.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Unless it's the sea ice that moderates the Vortex, keeping it from spawning smaller vortexes, like we see so often in nature. Then when the ice disappears, the moderation is lost and we see weather like we did all winter, and like we see now. And that is the working theory, and is so far backed up by observations.

No it isn't. It is no part of a working theory. It is an unsupported pseudo-scientific hypothesis of wishful thinking pushed by people like green wacko, ex-economics teachers in Scientific American. It's based on a few "what-ifs" from sciencey-tists who desperately wish for it to be true to justify their existence as politically pushed administrators pretending to be scientists.

Data-based studies all reveal the fantasy of warm causes cold to be unsupportable.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Unless it's the sea ice that moderates the Vortex, keeping it from spawning smaller vortexes, like we see so often in nature. Then when the ice disappears, the moderation is lost and we see weather like we did all winter, and like we see now. And that is the working theory, and is so far backed up by observations.

No it isn't. It is no part of a working theory. It is an unsupported pseudo-scientific hypothesis of wishful thinking pushed by people like green wacko, ex-economics teachers in Scientific American. It's based on a few "what-ifs" from sciencey-tists who desperately wish for it to be true to justify their existence as politically pushed administrators pretending to be scientists.

Data-based studies all reveal the fantasy of warm causes cold to be unsupportable.

And that is why we love you. Deny the facts even when published as peer reviewed science papers by making up words like "sciencey-tists". Let me know how that works out for you!

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that is why we love you. Deny the facts even when published as peer reviewed science papers by making up words like "sciencey-tists". Let me know how that works out for you!

Let me know when you find this "peer reviewed science paper" offering data supporting your warm causes cold hypotheses? It wasn't mentioned in that blog post you linked to at Scientific American online. You know the one from the ex-economics teacher. It did mention a few pseudo-scientists going "what if...then maybe...". I think they were high sniffing unicorn farts under an Obama funded rainbow.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that is why we love you. Deny the facts even when published as peer reviewed science papers by making up words like "sciencey-tists". Let me know how that works out for you!

Let me know when you find this "peer reviewed science paper" offering data supporting your warm causes cold hypotheses? It wasn't mentioned in that blog post you linked to at Scientific American online. You know the one from the ex-economics teacher. It did mention a few pseudo-scientists going "what if...then maybe...". I think they were high sniffing unicorn farts under an Obama funded rainbow.

Calling it a blog doesn't make it so. And, no, the paper I referenced was on the American Meteorological Society website. There are plenty of papers to choose from on the causes of variability and causes of moderation for the Vortexes. The 2007 paper by Charlton and Polvani was the one I referenced, but there are many others on the same subject. All peer reviewed.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/doSe ... r=AllField

I also cited a simulation from NASA, or are they a blog too?

http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/researchhighlights/SSW/

But hey, the actual weather data may be wrong! We just don't know, being some poor little Canadian website and all. Perhaps this polar cold front really isn't making Eastern North America below average temperatures. We'll know for sure in September.

[N_Fiddledog]

Neither of those links say what you want them to say - that warm summers melt more ice and can necessitate an anomalous cold winter.

The post you linked me to before was in the blogs section of Scientific American. It was from a guy whose previous experience was with an economics magazine, and whose university training was in the field of education.

The paper he and everybody else was linking to at the time was not peer reviewed and was by a woman. He also mentioned several tangentially involved musings where they suggested the possibility of something like what was suggested if certain conditions were met.

Of the three papers I linked you to one directly dealt with the first woman's paper, but I'm not sure if that critique was peer reviewed. It was scholarly and data driven though. The other two were peer reviewed. All three used actual data to show what was suggested was not happening. I think two showed it, but did not deal with the suggestion directly.

Recently I saw out of the corner of my eye where somebody was talking about recent studies that did deal with the question directly. I don't want to look. It's boring. I'm right. You're wrong. Don't make me search. It doesn't actually have much to do with this thread anyway.