quote:Previously all the rage used to be "global warming this, global warming that." They then adopted the phrase "climate change" in order to use ANY big weather event as further evidence
They had to change the name because some goof balls kept saying stuff like "Call Al Gore" whenever there was a big snowstorm.
It still is global warming, but a couple degrees of global warming causes general climate instability.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QB] [QUOTE]Previously all the rage used to be "global warming this, global warming that."
Which is analogous to other idiots using every lake drying up or every hurricane to scare monger about global warming. Why get enraged by one and not by the other?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why get enraged by one and not by the other?
Because in one case phenomena consistent with global warming are attributed to global warming while in the other case phenomena that are consistent with global warming are being used to argue against it.
"Katrina was caused by global warming" - Plausible, consistent with theory which predicts unusually severe tropical storms.
"Record snowfall on east coast contradicts global warming theory." - No it doesn't. Heavier snow fall in some regions is consistent with global warming.
Also, "enraged" isn't usually my feeling. It's more bemusement/dismay.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What global weather patterns would be inconsistent with global warming?
From my link upthread:
quote: According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
How consistent with global warming!
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, I really don't think I should be responding, because it clearly doesn't matter to you what data is shown and what explanations are given, but against my better judgment I am responding anyways.
When you hear statements from scientists regarding climate change, they (should, and almost always) are talking about trends on the order of 30+ years. Arctic summer sea ice in the last 30 years has been declining, so it is not unreasonable to stipulate that this is due to global warming.
I've seen some papers (and a speaker that came here to campus this week) who has some data showing a ice/ocean temperature cycle on the order of 70 years. So, according to him, the 30 year decrease in sea ice is not in fact global warming, just the down slope of this 70 year cycle. However, he did show that there was a slight overall decrease in sea ice (and warming of ocean temperatures) over the past 100 years that could not be explained by this 70 year cycle. He had no problem stating that this larger trend could very well me anthropogenic global warming. He wasn't certain, but he had no reason to reject this theory.
So increasing Arctic sea ice in the last 3 years is not inconsistent with global warming. It cannot be used as proof to reject the theory.
At the same time, a 3 year (or even 10 year) decrease in sea ice, or increase in Atlantic ocean temperatures cannot be used as proof of global warming. Climate scientists do not claim these things. Some scientists do make these claims, and the media will take these claims and run with them, but they simply cannot be used on their own as proof/disproof either way.
But I still believe, when you look at the ~ 100 year trend, that all of this decadal variation cannot account for the warming we are seeing. Many more scientists and non-scientists are making the same conclusions. They often are not as vocal as the "look! sea ice is melting!" crowd, or the "look! it's snowing outside!" crowd, but these last two groups are using noise as definitive trends. When you use noise and claim it's a bigger signal, you are just becoming noise yourself.
When you boil it down, it's really pretty simple. Ignore the noise, and look at the overall trend.
This is not a complicated concept, and I know you and Lisa and Ron are smart enough to see this. The fact that you ignore this fairly basic explanation, and continue to scream "Al Gore's a filthy liar!" when you have a link that shows some three year increase in sea ice, makes you just part of the noise. You lose credibility every time you do it. You look less rational and more reactionary every single time.Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claiming that Global Warming doesn't exist because of one cold spell or one snowy winter is like claiming that Christianity is not under attack based on how full the pews are on Easter.
Or better, claiming that Abortion is a non-issue because the pews are full on Easter Sunday, so everybody must be good Christians and not getting abortions, or soon will be.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortion is only ethical if those who favor it make it retroactive.
Since many scientists are now admitting that global temperatures have actually been trending downward for the past decade, why do some people still claim that global warming (from any cause) is a fact?
Perhaps left-wingers like the idea of GW because it gives them an excuse for yet another tax, which they use as a pretext for exercising more control over other people.
[ February 15, 2010, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Abortion is only ethical if those who favor it make it retroactive.
You're hard enough to take seriously when you're actually trying to make statements that you could possibly believe are true. Don't strain us further.
quote:Since many scientists are now admitting that global temperatures have actually been trending downward for the past decade, why do some people still claim that global warming (from any cause) is a fact?
First, this statement by you is useless unless you are willing to cite the 'many scientists' and explicitly point us to what you are claiming they are 'admitting.' This is because you have a flatlined record for correctly interpreting climate science when it comes into conflict with your belief that it doesn't exist.
Second, the expected reason why would be because climate scientists actually predicted a medium-scale pattern in temperature variance, one that could very easily mask the predicted 0.3C warming trend. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.
you guys seriously tried this in 2008.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Since many scientists are now admitting that global temperatures have actually been trending downward for the past decade, why do some people still claim that global warming (from any cause) is a fact?
Really? Did you ignore everything from my last post?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
So where's the citations that show how there was no global warming in the last 15 years? That Daily Mail article appears suspiciously absent any citation. It just quotes a couple of scientists versus a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
If we're using your standard of evidence, I can just find an article that says that "yes, global warming exists" — but I'll do you one better. An article written by a competent scientific discussion body, complete with the citations that the Daily "read about breakthrough car that runs on water" Mail conspicuously lacks.
It appears that what you are saying in your preceding post is not really a good view of the situation!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
quote:. . .Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
This is exactly my point. There is a statistical reason why any climate claim under 30 years is absurd. I have the link on my computer up on campus, and I'll post it tomorrow.
IIRC, there is no way to make a greater than 95% certain claim on climate with anything less than 30 years. 30 years being the absolute minimum. Anything below that and the claim is statistically inaccurate.
So, Clive, do you have any links to a 30+ year cooling trend? I mentioned the 70 year cycle in my previous post, and again, I'll try to link to it tomorrow. But even this guy, when talking about the 100 year trend, recognized a warming effect, that he said was almost certainly from anthropogenic sources.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: So, Clive, do you have any links to a 30+ year cooling trend? [/QB]
I don't. On the other hand, there have been other warming periods through out history. Just as those weren't due to human activity, so too is it probable that this isn't one isn't either.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, as Rabbit has pointed out on occasion: scientists are not so stupid as to not have considered the possibility that this is simply a warming period like any other that we have no control over. That was an early hypothesis and the fact is that the normal environmental causes are not sufficient to explain the current trends.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am coming up with a standard response to these threads:
"Science works. If some one is telling you something then they are trying to sell you something." In this case, they are selling gas, coal, SUV's and the desire to keep their energy bills artificially low.
I know, you think the Climate Changers are trying to sell you big taxes to "Control people" or they are trying to keep funding to their expensive lab tests. Seriously?
Which is more likely--Joe is going to lie to you in order to sell you a billion dollars in coal or Dr. Joe is going to lie to you so he can spend another thrilling winter measuring ice thickness in thrilling Antarctica?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps left-wingers like the idea of GW because it gives them an excuse for yet another tax, which they use as a pretext for exercising more control over other people.
Really? Really? You want to go there?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I cannot find a graph of the ocean temperatures that doesn't require a subscription, so I'll try to explain it a little better. The speaker was Petr Chylek and he was looking at surface ocean temperatures for the past 100 years. His data showed a pretty clear cycle on the order of 70 years, with the previous peak being around 1930, then dropping down to a minimum in the 1960s, and then rising again to another peak (or near peak) around 2000.
His argument was that most of the temperature rise we see in the surface ocean is from this cycle. However, when he tried to determine the larger trend, taking out this natural fluctuation and trying to look at the temperature anomaly, he found some evidence for slight unexplained warming. This is what he said could be due to anthropogenic climate change.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Times: World may not be warming I was going to add quotes but it is a short article so anyone can easily read the whole thing. Basically it says some scientists say the research is flawed, and others say it is not.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week’s 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record.
Dr. Menne’s study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the “good” siting category, while 454 fell into the “bad” category. According to the authors, though, “the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average”. Dr. Menne’s study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.
Watt's study hasn't only not been peer reviewed, it hasn't been published. Basically he says he has a study and he says it proves certain things but we're all waiting to see it still.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just find it odd that the temperature recording stations are amazingly accurate even in situations when they should not be...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The judgment "should not be" should be prefaced/clarified with an empirical reasoning. It 'should not be' because of what, exactly?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just find it odd that the temperature recording stations are amazingly accurate even in situations when they should not be...
This is an aggregate analysis. It's very possible that some stations are significantly warmer and some are significantly colder.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Been following the Hatrack Global Warming discussion for a long time now without jumping in. I'm sort of a fence sitter here, that leans toward the "better safe than sorry" mentality.
But did you finish reading your own article Clive?
quote: E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
quote: It 'should not be' because of what, exactly?
if you had read the links you would know this answer
I did. I am not going to presume YOUR judgment rendering a statement about what the data "should be." I don't play mind-reading when it comes to empirical analysis, which is why I am making the request that YOU should preface the statement.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you had read the links you would know this answer
This assumes that we all process data the same way that you do. I have read the links but I can only guess what you mean exactly. Please explain.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:(From DarkKnight's)These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
posted
Quite frankly I think the link was pretty explicit in why the data would be suspect. If the sensors are situated near areas with higher than normal heat, they should come out biased towards higher than normal heat. I don't think this requires a level of abstract reasoning so profound that you need to be anal about making people post their interpretation of the results in the context of an internet debate.
The fact that they AREN'T warmer than normal is weird and unexpected, but plenty of things in science are like that.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it just shows that the concerns for location of these temperature stations are overblown. Initially, you may think that asphalt and the location of buildings would skew the data significantly, but the results seem to show otherwise. The next step is to revise your thinking.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That. "Should be" is not equivalent, in my mind, to "I intuit that it would be." I suspected that this is what DK was doing but it seemed inappropriate to just presume it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You want predictions. Here they are.
We have a really strong El Nino. If it persists we will have an unusually hot summer. The last strong El Nino year was 1998 which is the hottest year on record. This year has a very good chance of meeting or breaking that record if the El Nino persists.
When this summer turns out to be record hot, Lisa, Clyde, and the rest of the deniers will not post here saying they were wrong.
posted
I never denied that there's global warming, so I don't have anything to say I was wrong about. My issue isn't with global warming, and never has been. It's with anthropogenic global warming.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Samp, I like how that photo/screen capture was taken today, off all days, which has to be the coolest day we've had in northern Kansas in the past three weeks.
And I refuse to complain about the heat. It's so nice to sit here and sweat, as opposed to shivering under two layers of clothing. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I never denied that there's global warming, so I don't have anything to say I was wrong about.
You are definitely wrong about your 'no-lose' conceptual portrayal. And you have tried to discredit the idea of warming through ideas of there actually being cooling instead, or that they're on the same level of credibility.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
