• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
r-j said:
How amusing. When I used woodfortrees, it was considered bad. But now?
Click to expand...

WFT is fine. i see no problem with it. the data seems accurate, and is used by all sides. deniers to cherry pick years and dataset, and i use it to debunk the cherrypicking.
 
DC said:
WFT is fine. i see no problem with it. the data seems accurate, and is used by all sides. deniers to cherry pick years and dataset, and i use it to debunk the cherrypicking.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the inherent data errors have been corrected at this site, but there have been issues with the data and tools in the past. The main issue has always been the misuse of the tools by those who cherry pick the data and presentations of the data to depict gross distortions of what the data actually represents.

It does seem that the site has removed its repository of denial documents and has a much more neutral science stand on the issue of climate change than it has even in recent years, so there is always a chance that there has been some change of heart in the site owner and a move toward correcting the previous problems with the site, but you'll just have to pardon my skepticism in the near term.
 
Trakar said:
I don't know if the inherent data errors have been corrected at this site, but there have been issues with the data and tools in the past. The main issue has always been the misuse of the tools by those who cherry pick the data and presentations of the data to depict gross distortions of what the data actually represents.

It does seem that the site has removed its repository of denial documents and has a much more neutral science stand on the issue of climate change than it has even in recent years, so there is always a chance that there has been some change of heart in the site owner and a move toward correcting the previous problems with the site, but you'll just have to pardon my skepticism in the near term.
Click to expand...


what data errors?

i use the site since years, i have never seen any documents there taking any position on AGW. actually, i have seen no documents there whatsoever. i only knew the site as the datatool it is now.

the site owners position plays absolutely no role at all.

do you have any source or evidence for your accusations towards WFT?
 
DC said:
what data errors?

i use the site since years, i have never seen any documents there taking any position on AGW. actually, i have seen no documents there whatsoever. i only knew the site as the datatool it is now.

the site owners position plays absolutely no role at all.

do you have any source or evidence for your accusations towards WFT?
Click to expand...

Early dataset errors involved pushing uncorrected satellite datasets. In it's earlier incarnation, it contained several document pages and position statements in addition to the flawed datasets. Notably several long denialist screeds that were originally tied to the West Virginia forestry org. It is good to see these removed and standard adjusted datasets being used currently. I don't know I find the programs reliable, but most of the problems I have noted from WoodsForTrees graphs over the last 6-7years have been users cherrypicking data.

There is no supporting evidence I can present for these specifics, the archives only support back to 2008. Until any new evidence arises which supports holding the site's graphing calculation programs or datasets to be currently flawed, I will withdraw any commentary upon the validity or reliability of the site's information.
 
Trakar said:
Early dataset errors involved pushing uncorrected satellite datasets. In it's earlier incarnation, it contained several document pages and position statements in addition to the flawed datasets. Notably several long denialist screeds that were originally tied to the West Virginia forestry org. It is good to see these removed and standard adjusted datasets being used currently. I don't know I find the programs reliable, but most of the problems I have noted from WoodsForTrees graphs over the last 6-7years have been users cherrypicking data.

There is no supporting evidence I can present for these specifics, the archives only support back to 2008. Until any new evidence arises which supports holding the site's graphing calculation programs or datasets to be currently flawed, I will withdraw any commentary upon the validity or reliability of the site's information.
Click to expand...

well without any evidence, i will dismiss all accusations.
 
General question. Is using wft images off limits here? Is that why I see attachments instead of just using the wft graphics?
 
r-j said:
General question. Is using wft images off limits here? Is that why I see attachments instead of just using the wft graphics?
Click to expand...

Well, you can't hot-link, but if you want to make screenshots and save them as GIFs or JPEGs and upload them, I see nothing wrong with them, as long as all your data qualifiers are given, etc.,. As I stated previously most of the problems I have noticed with user made graphs from the site over the last 6-7 years have been the tendency for some users to use cherry-picked data to produce distorted representations of more complete data set perspectives.
 
climatereanalyzer030414-638x663-2.jpg


This map from March 4, 2014 shows temperature anomalies across half the globe, with blues and purples being colder than normal and reds and oranges being hotter than normal.
CREDIT: IMAGE OBTAINED USING CLIMATE REANALYZER™ CLIMATE CHANGE INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, USA
Combining all of those outliers for one global or regional average air temperature shows how even an extended cold snap in parts of the world does not even neutralize warmer-than-average temperatures across the globe.
With some record cold temperatures being recorded on March 4, 2014, the world is still 0.11°C warmer than the 1979-2000 baseline on that day. Much of this extra heat is in the Arctic, which was 3.94°C warmer than usual.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3357501/warm-winter-iditarod-minefield-snow/
 
macdoc said:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...lA/s512/climatereanalyzer030414-638x663-2.jpg



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3357501/warm-winter-iditarod-minefield-snow/
Click to expand...

Much of this extra heat is in the Arctic, which was 3.94°C warmer than usual.
Click to expand...
And the Berliner Mauer was torn down ... wait ... nothing new there. There's no "usual" as 1979-2000 is not a climatic normal. Anyway, the not normal temperatures from 1979-2000 were already above the normal and way above what they used to be.

One of the clearer pieces of evidence about global warming is how the Arctic has become warmer during Winter. What is one going to blame? albedo? sooth? the sun is shining in a different fashion?

The average temperature above 80°N during Winter used to be -31°C. This year's, for instance, was some -21°C. The difference comes from tons of heat arriving from lower latitudes by air, and not precisely by ocean streams -during Winter-. Part of it, maybe some 20%, comes from sea ice: similar volumes of sea ice are created each season, but an increasing percentage of such formation -volume, not area- is moving northwards and "winterwards" as the whole ice volume is in a long-term decrease.
 
I'm still waiting for a reply to this question of the "Know Your Planet Challenge":

How come the average global temperature has climbed some 2.7°C since January 1st, yet the planet has become cooler? I don't have the figures now but I wouldn't be surprised if the planet had lost in five months more heat than she gained from January 1st 1970 to January 1st 2014. Is not this proper "global cooling"?
 
r-j said:
With out any data or a source for you claim, it's impossible to know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

A nonsensical reply, that of yours. What I'm saying is crystal clear and unambiguous, besides of it being true and not-as-common-as-it-should knowledge.

Simply work your way around if you don't know what to google, and basically, stop using a disguise of criticism, refusal and defiance just to ask me and others to provide you the links you aren't able to find. And stop asking us to turn every concept into a smoothie just because you can't chew it.

You may need time ahead the next questions. A sneak peak: how come the oceans have warmed, glaciers and ice sheets have melt, yet the sea level has dropped in a recent yearly period? Got it? How about this one?: Can you tell the time the planet is warmer at any given date?

Some of these problems I used 4-5 years ago with 19 yo students. Global warming is an excellent topic to teach science -including math- together with critical thinking. Innumerates that are also strange to science are out, except in their own "temples" and internet venues -where everything is five to seven clicks away of porn-.
 
With out any data or a source for you claim, it's impossible to know what you are talking about.

That you refuse to just provide a source for your claim, it doesn't make the person asking look bad.
 
I worded this question using English to the best of my language knowledge:
"How come the average global temperature has climbed some 2.7°C since January 1st, yet the planet has become cooler?"
​
And now, I've just used Google Translate to turn it into Spanish -a first time for me with my own texts- , as that software is well known to make mistakes even with correct paragraphs. It turned it into
"¿Cómo es que la temperatura media del planeta ha aumentado unos 2,7 ° C desde 01 de enero, pero el planeta se ha vuelto más frío?"
​
That, except for the "01", is both perfect Spanish and exactly what I'm asking. A reverse translation back into English gives this
"How is it that the average global temperature has increased about 2.7 ° C from January 1, but the planet has become colder?"
​
It that better English? Doesn't "cooler" suggest a comparative of cool? :confused:
 
For those who require a reference...

FALSE

Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2014]

Just saw this posted on Facebook today that solar panels drain the sun's energy. Can you please comment?
Click to expand...

Origins:
On 21 May 2014, the National Report published an article positing that scientists have discovered solar panels are draining the sun's energy:
This week, a scientific research facility in Wyoming made a startling discovery that is certain to change the way millions of Americans look at the environmentalism movement, after they found conclusive evidence that solar panels not only convert the sun's energy into usable energy, but that they are also draining the sun of its own energy, possibly with catastrophic consequences far worse than global warming.

Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/solarpanels.asp#K3g1sbYUeu4aVLfB.99
 
How come the average global temperature has climbed some 2.7°C since January 1st, yet the planet has become cooler?"
Click to expand...

It's the mixing of frames of reference.

Average global temperature
Click to expand...
is temperature at a point in time and by inference atmosphere

the planet has become colder...
Click to expand...
is a different frame of reference and would encompass cryosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere and for good measure the lithosphere and perhaps stratosphere and other atmospheric layers...
The former is as precise a number as we are able to measure....
the latter is akin to " hand me a sweater it's gotten chillier".

State your problem using the same frame of reference.
You know what you are looking for....others don't.

I suspect you are after the Northern hemisphere having much more continental surface versus the southern causing temporary anomalies depending on the season.
 
macdoc said:
It's the mixing of frames of reference.


is temperature at a point in time and by inference atmosphere


is a different frame of reference and would encompass cryosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere and for good measure the lithosphere and perhaps stratosphere and other atmospheric layers...
The former is as precise a number as we are able to measure....
the latter is akin to " hand me a sweater it's gotten chillier".

State your problem using the same frame of reference.
You know what you are looking for....others don't.

I suspect you are after the Northern hemisphere having much more continental surface versus the southern causing temporary anomalies depending on the season.
Click to expand...

I'm after nothing: the Earth works that way.

About different "frames", it's not a problem of frames, as both elements relate to the same Earth. And about the "yet it has become colder" part, I don't need any measure at all, precise or not in support of that. It's self evident and it has two main reasons. You were making some comments around the less important of both, yet important.

I'm doing this to show you and others that many years of fighting barbarians may get one stupefied. Let's forget the barbarians once an for all and elevate the level of this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom