Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[bit_pattern]

OK AleC ( ) - your posts were helpful, this is how the debate eventually dissipated with my protagonist basically giving up until after the weekend. His valiant attempt to continue insisting that the graphs really did show the ground source of GHG's and not their distribution in the atmosphere was comical too!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/index.php?posts/792

While I admit to being somewhat happy with myself and what I've learned today I'm always keen to learn more, so if anyone wants to critique my replies it would be appreciated

 

[aleCcowaN]

(note the last link you posted goes to a "football" -English name of many sports that sometimes are played using the feet- section)

I was following the debate there because of the temporary local shortage of denialists and assorted morons with fingertips, a keyboard and an e-mail account ---the only requirements to dive in; head-chopped ones allowed but no e-mailless fingertips are welcome!---. Your reasoning there is perfect but that forum is plenty of deeply ignorant people -in the matter on debate- that don't want to learn a thing.

I found that short thread about Australia's contribution to AGW and the long thread on carbon -sort of cousin of this one- to suffer an exaggerated version of the problems in this one. The problem is not ignorance because ignorance is queen and such monarchy is not going to face any revolution during our lifetime nor our great-grandchildren's. The problem is what is science and what is not, and the lack of values on it that a vast majority shows.

To explain it simpler, we're suffering here of a sort of adversarial system copycat syndrome, that is, people in general have a little scientific education which might include a teacher showing water electrolytic dissociation and making a test tube emit a pop sound with a match or dissecting a cow heart. People also tries to forget those disagreeable or dull experiences and take refuge in TV, where modern Columbos and Perries Masons, as many Sherlock Holmes as Lassies, lame doctors following lame paths in diagnosis, and captains of intergalactic or transdimensional spacecraft will show how to reason to reach the truth.

Hence, the intellectual values of this mass are opposing each other with anything at hand that is not a weapon, all in front of a judge that tells what is serious and what is not. Later, a bunch of housewives and retired postmen will tell what they consider to be the truth and they'll hardly fail. Or they intend to be "sceptic" about everything except the bad ones, because they'll confess or show their real faces just before the end credits.

Well, the adversarial system of law is not how science works, as science constantly rethinks its production and it's not looking for "the truth of the expedient" but just the truth. That doesn't mean that science doesn't benefit sometimes from the clash of swords. It's as simple as denialists are only trying to gain the jury -the public-, not to reach the truth, and whoever thinks I'm saying a platitude, think it again. Do you really believe that the general public is aware of that?

In my country we say "educate the sovereign" what is the challenge of modern democracies. People can't generally understand climate science, but people can understand how they are addressed and why. Don't criticize too much their TV programs, but tell them the difference.

In that Australian sport forum, there's a twist, and it has to do with the mechanics of hate -what I've already spoken about-, in this case, through the "amiable" war and hunting that is disguised in sport. Not only the system is adversarial, but you have to do whatever is needed to defeat the opponent, with "defeat" being a cultural construct for overpower and a mild term for killing, killing an eating, capturing and enslaving or raping. Of course, there are rules, but some sports include in their logic real damage -hopefully a temporary one- like boxing, or breaking the rules all the time and behind the umpire's back, like all those ungentlemanly sports that are made for thugs to play as gentlemen or for gentlemen to play as thugs.

People with so highly education and ethics are taking the side of denialism there, and they love their sport, and they love their tvs, and they love to win, and they love to be pleased . How can they be wrong doing that as long as they show now and then a hint of "third half comradeship" as a proof of their commitment in climbing the social ladder?

 

[macdoc]

warm is the new normal

this is quite astonishing

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month

By Philip Bump

This image sums up 2012, temperature-wise.
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/201201-201210.gif?w=470&h=331

Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

more
http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/

 

[macdoc]

warm is the new normal

this is quite astonishing

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month

By Philip Bump

This image sums up 2012, temperature-wise.
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/201201-201210.gif?w=470&h=331

Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

more
http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/

 

[aleCcowaN]

this is déjà vu all over again -Yogi Berra

About the average mentioned, it was 20th century's average.

 

[bobwtfomg]

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month

This is really misleading as we experience local weather not gobally averaged temperatures, it should read something like "If you're 27 or younger you've never lived through a month that's globally been colder than the 20th century average."

Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia.

and assuming the image in the article is accurate quite a large area of central Africa.
Sorry if this seems like nit picking but this kind of poor journalism is a boon for those who want to dismiss AGW out of hand, I would be surprised if the denialosphere hasn't already picked up on it as an example of "alarmist lies"

 

[macdoc]

What don't you understand about average - this is climate not weather.
If you are going to nitpick at least do it with some insight.
This is large scale broad brush - it's global not local.
If you live in a cave you might experience the temperature in the cave - so what....the article is global.

Any denialist remaining are seriously enough warped in their view of reality that they are irrelevant.

 

[aleCcowaN]

and assuming the image in the article is accurate quite a large area of central Africa.

No info about X means no info about X, not "X too", so don't contribute yourself.

About people of any age experiencing the average monthly temperature of a whole planet ...

Some time someone will be concerned enough to compare average temperatures experienced by a youth today with the correspondingly experienced by his or her grandfather having the same age and location. That WILL be giving AGW a needed personal touch.

 

[bobwtfomg]

sorry my mistake about central Africa - the difference between the grey meaning no info and the slightly lighter grey meaning meaning cooler than average is rather confusing.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201210.gif

 

[macdoc]

easy enough to find Alec - nearly all areas have records going back in time with the arrival or spring, birds, plants, ice free rivers etc etc.
The biome is NOT fooled by a manufactured controvery.

Season creep
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In phenology, season creep is a neologism that refers to observed changes in the timing of the seasons,[1][2] especially earlier indications of spring[3] widely observed in temperate areas across the Northern Hemisphere.[4][5] Phenological records analyzed by climate scientists have shown significant temporal trends in the observed time of seasonal events,[6][7] from the end of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century.[5][8]
In Europe, season creep has been associated with the arrival of spring moving up by approximately one week in a recent 30 year period.[9][10]
Other studies have put the rate of season creep measured by plant phenology in the range of 2–3 days per decade advancement in spring, and 0.3–1.6 days per decade delay in autumn, over the past 30–80 years.[11]
Observable changes in nature related to season creep include birds laying their eggs earlier and buds appearing on some trees in late winter.[12] In addition to advanced budding, flowering trees have been blooming earlier, for example the culturally important cherry blossoms in Japan,[13][14] and Washington, D.C.[15][16][17] Northern hardwood forests have been trending toward leafing out sooner, and retaining their green canopies longer.[18] The agricultural growing season has also expanded by 10–20 days over the last few decades.[19]

The effects of season creep have been noted by non-scientists as well, including gardeners who have advanced their spring planting times,[20] and experimented with plantings of less hardy warmer climate varieties of non-native plants.[21] While summer growing seasons are expanding, winters are getting warmer and shorter, resulting in reduced winter ice cover on bodies of water,[22] earlier ice-out,[23] earlier melt water flows,[24] and earlier spring lake level peaks.[25] Some spring events, or "phenophases", have become intermittent or unobservable; for example, bodies of water that once froze regularly most winters now freeze less frequently,[8][26][27] and formerly migratory birds are now seen year-round in some areas.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season_creep

The further north - the greater the shift.

I would guess any family farm in the midlatitudes would have first hand experience of the changes.

in Norway as their outfield alpine summer ranges. Average timing of the 1st harvest became earlier in all areas over the last 2 decades, but more so in the northernmost area (Forollhogna).

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v53/n1/p55-61/

It is a benefit for some....not all that many tho.

 

[bobwtfomg]

What don't you understand about average - this is climate not weather.
If you are going to nitpick at least do it with some insight.
This is large scale broad brush - it's global not local.(1)
If you live in a cave you might experience the temperature in the cave - so what.(2)...the article is global.

Any denialist remaining are seriously enough warped in their view of reality that they are irrelevant.

1)Of course I understand the figures were about global averages which is why I suggested an alternative headline "If you're 27 or younger you've never lived through a month that's globally been colder than the 20th century average." that didn't imply the opposite.
2)so this article can't honestly tell me I never experienced a colder-than-average month in 27 years that's so what! I'm not disputing the figures in the article which all seem to come from here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10

unfortunately I don't think the denialists are irrelevant yet,e.g. witness the latest attacks by the tory right on wind farms in the uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/16/john-hayes-windfarms-gas-nuclear

 

[CapelDodger]

this is déjà vu all over again -Yogi Berra

About the average mentioned, it was 20th century's average.

That makes it less impressive than the 30-year average, but impressive all the same.

At 27 they also won't have experienced a time when climate change wasn't an issue of public debate and controversy. Some can easily be led to think that it's long been the norm ("they" were predicting a new ice age in the 70's, y'know, and what about that nucoolar winter which never happened?) and nothing terrible has resulted.

As terrible things start to result they are reluctant to change their views, especially if they have previously been challenged and thereby strengthened. Fortunately (and as the US Republicans found out) there really aren't enough of them to matter. In my experience the younger generation are well aware of AGW and blithely ignore it; they know it's ridiculous to deny it.

 

[CapelDodger]

1)unfortunately I don't think the denialists are irrelevant yet,e.g. witness the latest attacks by the tory right on wind farms in the uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/16/john-hayes-windfarms-gas-nuclear

It's alternative energy that's the target there, not AGW. The AGW debate is a largely discarded cover for the real reactionary target, which is a changing energy market. Change is not good for those who've been doing so well as things are, and only see their product becoming increasingly valuable. The assault on Solyndra is not a back-door assault on AGW, obviously; quite the reverse.

The struggle is over the kind of energy market and infrastructure we have over the next few decades : the estabished model or a new, more distributed model based on renewables? There will be change towards the latter, obviously, but every delay or acceleration in the process translates to vast amounts of money.

It'll be fought out in public opinion on economic arguments, not AGW denial. That, I think, has been left to its own devices and fundamental needs. Being explicitly associated with AGW denial has become an embarrassment to serious people.

It was never about climate change. It was about what almost happened in the 70's and 80's after the oil-shocks, and the knowledge that gradually it will. The aim is to make it gradual enough not to affect essential people's pensions to any sensible degree.

 

[bit_pattern]

Great post Alec

.

In that Australian sport forum, there's a twist

You wouldn't be the first person to do a double take on that point!

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/ian-plimer-is-con-artist-one-of.html?m=1

Bit_pattern was a previous identity of mine

 

[CapelDodger]

No info about X means no info about X, not "X too", so don't contribute yourself.

About people of any age experiencing the average monthly temperature of a whole planet ...

Some time someone will be concerned enough to compare average temperatures experienced by a youth today with the correspondingly experienced by his or her grandfather having the same age and location. That WILL be giving AGW a needed personal touch.

Something which has bugged me since I first got involved online is the simplistic concentration on surface temperatures. I see how it happens, of course, but we all know how fleeting surface temperatures are. A cloud comes across the Sun, you shiver and reach for a shirt.

The question is, of course (and it's what models are good at answering) : what happens to rainfall patterns in a warmer world than we've ever, as a civilisation, experienced? That's the first question, anyway; after that come the questions of what that might mean in a 7 billion human context.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is really misleading as we experience local weather not gobally averaged temperatures, it should read something like "If you're 27 or younger you've never lived through a month that's globally been colder than the 20th century average."

That's not obviously the case. The last 27 years have been markedly warmer pretty much everywhere than the 20thCE average, and 12 of those years don't contribute to that average. There may have been record cold local incidents, even record cold weeks, but a month is quite a long time in weather. It takes a lot to be seriously weird as a whole monthly average.

Sorry if this seems like nit picking but this kind of poor journalism is a boon for those who want to dismiss AGW out of hand, I would be surprised if the denialosphere hasn't already picked up on it as an example of "alarmist lies"

Who really listens to them any more? It's an inward-facing circle of the truly lost. The good that the story does far outweighs any damage.

In the unreal and elective arena of blog-debate it's maybe a small problem, but it can easily be let go. It is, perhaps, time to leave them to it (whatever it is these days). This, I'm quite convinced, was the year that AGW denial died. It'll race around the farmyard for a while yet, of course, in ever-decreasing circles but the life went out of it.

Look at this thread. There used to be fights every night, always something to watch, but now it's a tea-dance while we talk about the weather. It used to be mud, blood and beer but there's none of that verve left. Just the same lame old lame-old while we wait for the first Russo-Canadian War to break out.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah - my fangs are getting dull

I reallllllllly want the discussion to move on to the reality and what group of policies can best address the consequences for the various areas.

Tropics will have a very different set of challenges than mid latitude and high latitude and then there is both the short term issues - extremes, and the long term, sea level and major movements of biome ranges.

As mentioned earlier the US is uniquely vulnerable to climate change which is oddly ironic.
It's past the point of mitigating the damage - the climate IS changed and will continue to change- all we can do is slow the change timing a bit.

I'm interested in what the courts will do to some of the C02 emitters now the EPA Is under Obama's wing. It took the courts to deal with S02 and if coal had to deal with the costs of emissions downstream they'd be complete uncompetitive.
There has been some success in preventing new plants opening and closing down the worst but still a long ways to go.
This the interesting arena.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Great post Alec



You wouldn't be the first person to do a double take on that point!

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/ian-plimer-is-con-artist-one-of.html?m=1

Bit_pattern was a previous identity of mine

Thank you!

That was cool! Congratulations! It's nice to know that now and then there's a signal among such noise, I mean, these forasphere, twitsphere, etc.

If you take another look to the decadal latitudinal CO2 image, Mauna Loa's latitude is a good point to represent the whole planet. They didn't even imagine that, by attacking those data, they were not disputing a thing.

 

[bit_pattern]

Thank you!

That was cool! Congratulations! It's nice to know that now and then there's a signal among such noise, I mean, these forasphere, twitsphere, etc.

If you take another look to the decadal latitudinal CO2 image, Mauna Loa's latitude is a good point to represent the whole planet. They didn't even imagine that, by attacking those data, they were not disputing a thing.

Oh well, we have Ubuki now anyway (you know "the most modern hi-tech measurement man has!" ) so its all academic anyway!

BTW that 'Ripper' user was the one who originally repeated that Plimer smear against NOAA, he'd disappeared for a few years only recently resurfaced. As far as they go, he's not the worst, the other flag bearer for the cause must repeats the same David Evdns/Jo Nova arguments, no matter how often they're debunked. Ripper might not be smart but st least he tries to discuss the evidence

 

[aleCcowaN]

easy enough to find Alec - nearly all areas have records going back in time with the arrival or spring, birds, plants, ice free rivers etc etc.
The biome is NOT fooled by a manufactured controvery.

I meant specifically that comparison, a Google Earth like applet with tiny human doodles geographically distributed which you can click on and compare your time with your grandparents' : temperatures, humidity, species gone and species come, etc.

Humanizing global warming by making a limited and rather poor post in a blog or forum, with enough figures to make it boring but not explanatory nor exemplifying, only fuels the "debate" with the usual mediocre ones. Most people are severely innumerate and as they are not willing to be aware of, least of all acknowledge, their own incompetence in that area, they tend to think that figures don't contribute much and also to think that those that explain things using many figures are lost in details and the trees prevent them from appreciating the woodland.

(Of course, if it were money, they'd understand, as money is money, not figures, don't get confused! )