Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Roger Ramjets]

Does this issue really come down to who you trust?

Yes. Unless you are an actual scientist working in the field, you have to rely on what other people tell you. What you must decide is whether to accept that the data is accurate and the analysis is valid. Or more simply - Do you trust scientists or not?

Knowledge of how the scientific method works, and its past track record, tells me that climate scientists are almost certainly much more trustworthy than AGW deniers. But that's really just common sense. I trust scientific organizations such as the IPCC, NASA etc. to do science, just like I trust doctors to do medicine and lawyers to know the law. I don't put my trust in random dudes on the internet, or advocacy groups with suspect agendas.

The other person I don't trust is myself. I realize that I don't have the knowledge or expertize to determine whether the science is valid, and I am not arrogant enough to think that I know better than hundreds of scientists who have spent decades studying the issue.

It seems to me that this is literally like: "Conservative - ain't happening; Liberal - yes it is."

There is definitely a correlation, but it's not 1:1. A sizable proportion of conservatives do realize that AGW is real. Here are the results of a recent Gallop Poll:-

Proportion who think that the "Rise in Earth's temperatures is due to pollution from human activities"
Democrats 71%
Independents 51%
Republicans 36%

Another factor that isn't often considered is age. Older people are more likely to be conservative and deny AGW, simply because they are old. They tend to be more set in their ways, and find it harder to change. AGW challenges their beliefs and (potentially) threatens their lifestyle. For some it is easier to deny the truth because then they don't have to change.

 

[Trakar]

...Here's a paper that uses the years from 2000-2006 in it's "20th Century Average" - A Significant Upward Shift in Plant Species Optimum Elevation During the 20th Century...

As you incapable of quoting and demonstrating exactly what in the previous document led you to conclude that the authors were including 19th century and 21rst century data in their calculation and consideration of "the 20th Century Average," perhaps you would do so for this paper. I see no mention of anything in this paper which would lead me to believe that the authors are calculating a 20th century average temperature based upon dates from outside the 20th century, and in fact see no mention of "the 20th century average" at all.

Please support your assertions.

 

[BenBurch]

You know, to be honest, I'm kind of in the middle about this issue. It does seem to me that we are causing climate change, (considering there are 7 billion people on the Earth, common sense says that we'd have to be, but I'm trying not to fall into confirmation bias).

But I'm sorry, both sides of the debate does have a feel of "look at how WRONG they are", it seems to me that the anti-Climate Change people are screaming that louder, to the point of making it a conspiracy, which turns on my "BS detector." However, at the same time, there are quite a few pro-Climate Change people who have pressed the "Panic Button" on this issue, making it seem like if we don't all drive hybrid cars and use the twisty light bulbs soon, the Earth will implode. Again, my "BS detector" is activated.

I'm being completely honest here. I'm putting all my cards on the table. If I am being dim, I'm sorry. This issue isn't like Evolution. That is pretty clear cut compared to this issue. This issue has so many finger points and loud voices I am at the point of wanting just the plain facts, written simply. Now, I'm no scientist, I've read what I can to a point of how I can understand it, but I can't quite wrap my head around a lot of the details. And to me, that's where the science and analogical thinking comes into play. But it seems to me that one cannot get any information without some kind of political-sided pleading going on.

I also find it amazing that this issue is really split between conservatives and liberals. I mean even more so than Evolution. It seems to me that this is literally like: "Conservative - ain't happening; Liberal - yes it is." The thing that leans me towards that this is true is the fact that NASA is on the side that it is, while organizations like The Heritage Institute is saying it isn't. To me, that adds credibility to the Climate Change is real side, but again, that could be simple confirmation bias. Because I trust NASA much, much more than the Heritage Institute.

Does this issue really come down to who you trust?

I'm sorry, I'm kind of venting here but I'm a little frustrated about this. I'm trying to start from "I don't know", but where ever I turn, I get a political view.

Go watch that University of Chicago course I posted a link to. This will take you a few weeks of evenings if you do one per day.

THEN tell me who you think is credible.

Because I have been through three university lecture series on AGW, dozens of books, and a myriad of academic papers, and on the basis of all credible science, we are **********.

 

[Trakar]

...
Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate

On page 7 it says: An increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases its absorption and emission of infrared and also increases slightly its absorption of solar radiation.

On page 16 it says: For comparison purposes, the convective adjustment parametrization was introduced into an H model with fixed sea surface temperatures and was found to reduce appreciably the penetration of water vapor and cloud to high levels.

page 18 and 19 are "References".

You do understand that reports are papers right? This report, just like AR4, is the combination of multiple papers and essays discussions and what not on the climate. I think you're confusing a briefing with a report. You've been implying incorrectly that this was some sort of verbal presentation. It wasn't, is was a scientific paper/report on the climate.

Reports are not papers. Reports are findings and categorizations of existing data. They do not require pre-vetting by field knowledgable authorities, usually they are accepted or rejected in toto based upon how comprehensively they cover the existent data in the range of their self selected topic and perspective. In general, a report is a presentation of existing data in a self-qualified manner, whereas a paper is the presentation of a theory along with supporting data (that may or may not be original) and original findings. It is this theory, the findings and how well the presented data (and general body of relevent data not presented) support this theory that are the primary issues of pre-vetting and later peer-review in the case of Papers.

 

[Trakar]

It wasn't very hard to track down papers to refute this nonsense about the "20th Century Average"

Temperature and precipitation trends in Canada during the 20th century- Trends were computed for 1900–1998 for southern Canada (south of 60°N), and separately for 1950–1998 for the entire country, due to insufficient data in the high arctic prior to the 1950s.

An incomplete dataset referred to as the 20th Century average.

Please quote this reference from the paper,...I see no mention of "the 20th Century average" anywhere in this paper. They do mention "averages of this century" and "averages of the first part of this century" (understandable as this paper was written in 1999 and based upon data collected up until 1998), but I see no mention of "20th century average," as you have asserted.

Here's a paper that uses the years from 2000-2006 in it's "20th Century Average" - A Significant Upward Shift in Plant Species Optimum Elevation During the 20th Century

Again, please quote the section from the paper which supports your assertion, as I see no mention of "20th century average" in reference to dates that are outside the range of 1901-2000 anywhere in this paper.

Here's one that uses 1901-1996 Representing Twentieth-Century Space–Time Climate Variability. Part II: Development of 1901–96 Monthly Grids of Terrestrial Surface Climate

excepting, of course, that this paper does not support your contention as it does not mention any 20th Century average calculation or assessment and only talks about the 1900-1996 dataset in its calculation of monthly terrestrial surface temperatures during the course of the 20th century.

Here's one that uses a dataset from 1912-2002 as it's "20th Century" -20th-century glacier recession and regional hydroclimatic changes in northwestern Patagonia

Again, same problem, mentions of "the 1912–2002 interval," "the 1961–1990 reference period," "1961–1990 mean, but as far as I can tell, no mention of, yet alone calculation of based upon any time frame) a "20th Century average." Please quote the statements from the paper which you feel supports your assertions.

There's no "definition" of the "20th Century", it's just a general description and not to be taken literally to mean the years 1901-2000. The fact that NOAA happened to use it was simply dumb luck in this particular instance.

This is so far from accurate, it isn't even wrong. It misunderstands not just climate science but basic, fundemental science principals and practices that are usually clarified in grammar school. Science uses a very precise and specifically defined language for a reason. This seems to come back to reading comprehension skills, and a familiarity with the language of science in particular. Do understand the differences and distinctions between saying "look at these specific events that have happened during the 20th century," and saying "the average of all the temperatures during the specific time period of the 20th century is...,"?

 

[Trakar]

That's incorrect, the data is available monthly and the paper was written in 2008.

Again, you are simply wrong. (Manuscript received 15 June 2007, in final form 24 September 2007)
It is extremely rare for any paper - especially with multiple authors - to take less than 3-6 months to prepare for submission. Likewise the research to prepare and analyse the data prior to writing up your findings can take anywhere from 3 months to a year (or more). As for the data itself, it is a practical rule of thumb to cut off data an extended period before you begin your analysis as this gives you data that has had a reasonable time for any necessary corrections or adjustments to be made, and almost never includes data after you begin actually writing up the research and findings. 2006 would have been the last full year of data available to the researchers, and it was probably only possible for them to use such a short cutoff, as this paper was a simple revision addendum to an earlier paper.

IOW, they were most likely in a crunch to include 2006 data in this paper

That's a lie. The author of the paper isn't even a member of this forum, let alone explained anything. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and has no basis in science or reality.

Not a lie, a misattribution. "As was explained to you by one of the lead researchers at NOAA who produced the data and reports (in part using as support, the other paper you are misquoting and attempting to distort) you are misquoting and attempting to distort," might have been a more accurate if more awkward manner of statement, but it was simply an unintentional conflation, not a deliberate confabulation.

 

[Pixel42]

I decided to Google some more.

And yet, despite all that googling, you still haven't been able to find a single instance of anyone calculating the 20th century average for any quantity over a baseline longer than the 20th century. To the great surprise of absolutely nobody.

No amount of papers which use the words twentieth century in their title or body whilst happening to also refer to data from outside the 20th century will support your assertion that your incorrect assumption that NOAA had defined 20th century average to be the average from 1880-2006 was a reasonable one.

As you have completely failed to offer supporting evidence for this assertion despite two days of frantic googling, perhaps we can now move on to discussing your equally ridiculous assertion that a current anomaly of 0.5C wrt the average of a given period means that temperatures have risen 0.5C since the beginning of that period. After you have been given every opportunity to offer supporting evidence for that assertion and have once again failed abysmally, we can then move on to discussing whether a rise in average global temperature of 0.5C in 130 years, let alone the actual rise of nearer 0.9C in 130 years, can reasonably be described as insignificant.

Or, even better, you could just stop making self-evidently false assertions so we can drop this absurd argument and move on to discussing something of real importance, such as the likely future extent and impact of AGW and the ways in which it might be mitigated.

 

[Trakar]

You know, to be honest, I'm kind of in the middle about this issue. It does seem to me that we are causing climate change, (considering there are 7 billion people on the Earth, common sense says that we'd have to be, but I'm trying not to fall into confirmation bias).

But I'm sorry, both sides of the debate does have a feel of "look at how WRONG they are", it seems to me that the anti-Climate Change people are screaming that louder, to the point of making it a conspiracy, which turns on my "BS detector." However, at the same time, there are quite a few pro-Climate Change people who have pressed the "Panic Button" on this issue, making it seem like if we don't all drive hybrid cars and use the twisty light bulbs soon, the Earth will implode. Again, my "BS detector" is activated.

I'm being completely honest here. I'm putting all my cards on the table. If I am being dim, I'm sorry. This issue isn't like Evolution. That is pretty clear cut compared to this issue. This issue has so many finger points and loud voices I am at the point of wanting just the plain facts, written simply. Now, I'm no scientist, I've read what I can to a point of how I can understand it, but I can't quite wrap my head around a lot of the details. And to me, that's where the science and analogical thinking comes into play. But it seems to me that one cannot get any information without some kind of political-sided pleading going on.

I also find it amazing that this issue is really split between conservatives and liberals. I mean even more so than Evolution. It seems to me that this is literally like: "Conservative - ain't happening; Liberal - yes it is." The thing that leans me towards that this is true is the fact that NASA is on the side that it is, while organizations like The Heritage Institute is saying it isn't. To me, that adds credibility to the Climate Change is real side, but again, that could be simple confirmation bias. Because I trust NASA much, much more than the Heritage Institute.

Does this issue really come down to who you trust?

I'm sorry, I'm kind of venting here but I'm a little frustrated about this. I'm trying to start from "I don't know", but where ever I turn, I get a political view.

The key, when not being able to personally devote the time and energy toward understanding these issues yourself (and depending upon your background levels of education and experience you are probably talking a minimum of several years worth of dedicated research and learning) is to defer to the opinions of the majority of those who have dedicated their academic and professional lives to understanding and exploring this subject.

Politics is seperate from the science, decide your perspective of the science based upon sound science sources, and then you can figure out what you want to believe about the politics and other social aspects after you have come to an understanding of the science, rather than trying to figure out the science based upon political or social perceptions.

 

[Furcifer]

I have never disagreed that, when the data isn't available for a whole century, an average for that century can be based on the data that is available. In fact I've specifically spelt out that it can, though I was amazed I needed to do so.

And when the data spills over into the 19th or the 21st it's used and still quite often referred to as the 20th Century.

Do I really need to remind you yet again that it's your assertion that data for more than century X can be used in the calculation for the Xth century average which is being disputed? That's the absurd mistake you originally made, along with others which we haven't even got to yet.

And do I need to remind you there are several cases of just that posted in this very thread?
What's absurd about this is the prolonged discussion. Reading a paper and seeing they used the years 1880-2006 and then seeing it referred to as the "20th Century Average" isn't absurd. The fact that NOAA specifically mentions how they used the truncated data set instead of the "full period" is recognition of the fact that people could become easily confused (because the convention isn't real, it's imagined)

OK, why don't you ask them this time? Ask them if they chose 1901-2000 as the baseline for their 20th century average by luck (as you hilariously suggested earlier)

Luck? Where?

or because it's the universally accepted convention.

I don't have to ask, they've provided the reason for doing so, it's "conceptual simplicity", not some made up universally accepted convention nonsense. If that were the case there wouldn't have been a need to point it out like they did.

If you don't maybe I will, though I hate to keep bothering them when they've got so many more important things to do than correct your silly mistakes. Unfortunately for you, I don't have anything more important to do.

Feel free to do so, they will just reiterate what they've already posted. Specifically ask them about this "universally accepted convention".

I said that different base periods are chosen for different purposes but that,

No you said the same one.

once one has been chosen for a particular purpose it isn't arbitrarily changed,

It isn't arbitrary, it's based on more data or more reliable data becoming available among other things.

especially when the anomaly it's being used to calculate is included in a report than is generated every month. Once again you seem to be having reading comprehension issues.

Nonsense. The only thing I fail to comprehend is how making up something makes it true. There's no "universally accepted convention" on what the colloquial usage of "the 20th Century" is to be about.

Nope, still waiting for a single case.

There's been numerous cases, posted here. It's quite clear the term is colloquial and not some "universally accepted convention" like you made up. Denial of this simple fact will not make it any more true. It's one thing to say in most cases it refers to the years 1901-2000 and quite another to insist the whole world should have to follow your made up convention.

 

[Trakar]

Yes. Unless you are an actual scientist working in the field, you have to rely on what other people tell you. What you must decide is whether to accept that the data is accurate and the analysis is valid. Or more simply - Do you trust scientists or not?

While I, in general, fully agree with the entirety of your post, I don't think that it is a requirement to be "an actual scientist working in the field" to have a well considered, well reasoned and scientifically accurate understanding and position on this issue. Arguing the details and specifics of various aspects of climate understandings is a different matter, but you don't have to have detailed knowledge of every intimate aspect of climate science to be able to make a scientifically accurate assessment of the overall and basic principles and findings.

 

[Furcifer]

As you incapable of quoting and demonstrating exactly what in the previous document led you to conclude that the authors were including 19th century and 21rst century data in their calculation and consideration of "the 20th Century Average," perhaps you would do so for this paper. I see no mention of anything in this paper which would lead me to believe that the authors are calculating a 20th century average temperature based upon dates from outside the 20th century, and in fact see no mention of "the 20th century average" at all.

Please support your assertions.

In science and scientific papers it's quite common to use "mean" as a synonym for "average". In statistics we talk of the mean, median and mode, not the "average" per se.
For a data set, the mean is the sum of the values divided by the number of values.
When reading scientific papers and you see this term "mean" you can mentally replace it with "average".

 

[Furcifer]

Reports are not papers.

Nonsense. Yet another imaginary distinction that simply doesn't exist. I've submitted enough "report papers" in my time to know they're the exact same thing. Anyone who has spent any time in University will tell you there's absolutely no difference. Nobody has ever been confused by whether or not they are to submit a "lab report" or a "lab paper" or a "report on the lab" or a paper of the lab". It's a synonym.

 

[Reality Check]

Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate
...
You do understand that reports are papers right? This report, just like AR4, is the combination of multiple papers and essays discussions and what not on the climate. I think you're confusing a briefing with a report. You've been implying incorrectly that this was some sort of verbal presentation. It wasn't, is was a scientific paper/report on the climate.

You do understand that this 'paper' says that you are wrong - it is a report (emphasises in your post).
This was your assertion:

Nonsense. Charney, J.G., et al., 1979: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC,

That's the paper, you're wrong. I don't know what you're talking about.

That assertion is proven to be wrong by the actual document that you quoted from which states that it is a report.

I have never implied that this report was a briefing/presentation or anything else other than what it is - a report as stated in the actual document and by Wikipedia.

A report is not a paper. Trakar stated it better but the main points are:

• It is not published in a journal.
• It is not peer reviewed.
• It does not contain original science.
  It may have simple calculations, e.g. combining the results of 2 papers to get an estimate of climate sensitivity from those 2 papers.

 

[Kestrel]

I posted this link in another thread, but it probably belongs here.

The recently released National Research Council report Understanding the Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for our Climate Future has a lot of good scientific information about climate change in the Earth's past. The entire report can be downloaded as a PDF for free.

 

[Furcifer]

That assertion is proven to be wrong by the actual document that you quoted from which states that it is a report.

Yes, it's a report paper. I fail to see any significance in that.

I have never implied that this report was a briefing/presentation or anything else other than what it is - a report as stated in the actual document and by Wikipedia.

Which is a paper on the subject of climate and climate change. The same as AR4 or any other report or paper on the subject.

A report is not a paper. Trakar stated it better but the main points are:

• It is not published in a journal.
• It is not peer reviewed.
• It does not contain original science.

• 
  
  Complete nonsense.
  
  AR4 also known as The Fourth Assessment Report is an extensive paper on climate change. It was peer reviewed. Are you saying it's not a report despite it being called a report because it was peer reviewed?
  
  
  I think you're making this up as you go along actually. If you can find anything from the MLA or the APA that distinguishes a "paper" from a "report" I'll read it, otherwise it's another example of imagination running amok.

 

[Reality Check]

When reading scientific papers and you see this term "mean" you can mentally replace it with "average".

That is really obvious and does not need satting.
What eveyone is asking you though is: Where are the many papers that calculate a "20th Century Average" (or even a "20th Century Mean") using data outside of the 20th century?

As noted before you have failed to produce any citations to them so far.

 

[Reality Check]

It's a synonym.

That is right - in general report is a synonym for paper. So a high school student's book report is also a book paper.

But there is a distinction in science (you may have noticed the title of this section of the forum ): Scientific papers are not reports. Scientific papers are published in peer-reviewed journals and contain original science.

The fact is that the document in question explicitly calls itsef a report which makes it a report.

 

[Furcifer]

That is really obvious and does not need satting.
What eveyone is asking you though is: Where are the many papers that calculate a "20th Century Average" (or even a "20th Century Mean") using data outside of the 20th century?

There's been numerous cited in this thread already. I don't see any point in citing more.

As noted before you have failed to produce any citations to them so far.

As noted before there's numerous papers cited that clearly don't follow this imaginary "convention". In fact this is the only place on the web where you will find any mention of this "universal convention". That's because it was made up here and only exists in the minds of a few JREF posters.

If you can find anyone else on the internet making claims about this "universal convention" please cite them or PM me.

 

[Furcifer]

But there is a distinction in science (you may have noticed the title of this section of the forum ): Scientific papers are not reports. Scientific papers are published in peer-reviewed journals and contain original science.

The fact is that the document in question explicitly calls itsef a report which makes it a report.

Nonsense. If it exists in science then show reference to it. The MLA, APA or CSE would clearly identify the distinction if one actually exists. Where is it then?

Instead of moving the goal posts it seems the new trend is to just fabricate them as needed. It's a result of trying to over compensate for complete lack of understanding.

AR4 is a scientific paper, there's no question of that. It's completely absurd to claim otherwise. If anyone believes this nonsense I'd expect to see any discussion on it moved to the education forum. I'll be watching my inbox.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, it's a report paper. I fail to see any significance in that.

No it is a report as it states itself.

Which is a paper on the subject of climate and climate change. The same as AR4 or any other report or paper on the subject.

Which is a report (as it states) on the subject of climate and climate change. The same as AR4 or any other report on the subject.

Complete nonsense.

AR4 also known as The Fourth Assessment Report is an extensive paper on climate change. It was peer reviewed. Are you saying it's not a report despite it being called a report because it was peer reviewed?

The AR4 is a report because it calls itself a Report.

Being peer-reviewed is one of the criteria for a document to be a scientific paper. So AR4 is a report because it

• was not published in a journal.
• did not contain original science.
• and states that it is a report!

Charney, J.G., et al., 1979: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. is a report because it

• was not published in a journal.
• did not contain original science.
• and states that it is a report!
• and was not really peer-reviewed (it was reviewed though!).

But I can see where your confusioin came from so: a report

• is not published in a journal
• or is not peer reviewed
• or does not contain original science.

A scientific paper

• is published in a journal
• and is peer reviewed
• and contains original science.

Can you see the distinction that is used in science?