Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Pixel42]

Now that is high comedy. Now you are claiming the data has to be interpreted! That it's not possible to look at temperature, and the software trend it produces, and read what it says. Nobpody is cherry picking, all the data is there for anyone to look at.

You cherry picked a particular state (Illinois) which you thought showed a cooling trend over 30 years; when I pointed out that you had entered the parameters incorrectly and that particular state had actually warmed you cherry-picked two other states that happened to show very slight cooling over 30 years. It's a game anyone can play, and it means nothing.

According to your logic, the sea level data, as well as the global temperature mean can't be used to show global warming. Because it's cherry picking, and too short a time period. You really want to stand by that?

That is not my logic.

Nonsense. I posted two publications, and the link is on the pdf document. The other one, that claims warming winters (wrong) did not include the source, but did say it used NCDC data.

I'll take your word for it that the link was somewhere in a pdf document whose link you posted, but that wasn't where I got it from.

I've been using it for years. And can prove it with ease.

Yet you were getting the wrong figures from it until I explained how to set the parameters correctly.

You just started looking at it.

I've been posting data from that site for years. Here, for example.

Then you would be at odds with the NCDC. That you don't know this is amusing.

I am absolutely sure that no-one at the NCDC would agree that a cooling of just 0.1F or 0.2F per decade over 30 years in a particular US state is statistically significant and hence justification for a claim that winters are getting colder.

 

[r-j]

I am absolutely sure that no-one at the NCDC would agree that a cooling of just 0.1F or 0.2F per decade over 30 years in a particular US state is statistically significant and hence justification for a claim that winters are getting colder.

Let's save a vast amount of time and energy. What would you use to tell if in a location, local or state, or even region, what is your criteria to be able to tell if winters are getting colder?

It doesn't matter, you define how to tell. For good measure, might as well do the same for warming trends. Since you disagree with everything, what would you agree with?

 

[Pixel42]

What would you use to tell if in a location, local or state, or even region, what is your criteria to be able to tell if winters are getting colder?

Statistical significance at the p=0.05 level.

 

[r-j]

You cherry picked a particular state (Illinois) which you thought showed a cooling trend over 30 years.

No, and why would you lie about what was said before? Illinois came up, somebody asked about it. I had never looked at that data until it came up in the thread. That the hundred year trend showed colder winters actually surprised me. As for your figures, I was making a point about how you can post something over and over, and if nobody will check, what do you do?

you cherry-picked two other states that happened to show very slight cooling over 30 years. .

Once more, why would make something up? This started with my remark how Florida winters have been getting colder(trend). Then when I prove it, you try to lie about how it all happened? That is dishonest in the extreme. Especially when you then proceed to say it doesn't mean they are getting colder.

I'll take your word for it that the link was somewhere in a pdf document whose link you posted, but that wasn't where I got it from.

Please, spare us. Right after I posted the two documents that used the NCDC data is when you started using the same thing. I also pointed out the one that used ten year trends wasn't showing all the data, and was obviously slanted.

I've been posting data from that site for years. Here, for example.
.

Show us a chart from the page we are using, then I will believe you. You know I meant the US state and regional page. The one we used for Illinois. The one that shows the areas that are having colder winters(trend)

Not that it matters.

 

[quarky]

Can you give us at least a rough idea where you are talking about? One cold winter doesn't make for a trend, just as one record warm March doesn't prove global warming.

One thing that has been happening is earlier spring, and much hotter summers, in many places. Along with colder winters. It's possible your extreme cold is part of a trend. Or it could be an anomaly. That's why long periods of records are used. Our memories of what happened are not to be trusted.

You may have confused me for someone else.
I'm not a denier.
I'm suggesting that the road towards changing climate contains more anomalies than 'normal', and that we should probably expect more extremes, on both ends...with an overall flow towards warm.

Or perhaps I've mistaken your bent.

 

[r-j]

I just wanted your rough location to check and see if your winters are going up or down.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's obvious that r-j is trolling by now. I think we can safely ignore him, as post after post of us pointing out were he has gone wrong doesn't seem to sink in. The discussion with him has completely derailed, and he's stuck in denial (probably fake).

S/He's been stuck in probably fake denial since minute one s/he left the autism-vaccination thread and started posting here more frequently. This r-j person follows what I described in post #7732.

Additionally, this r-j person is trying to use whoever refute his/her posts as characters of a sequel of Waiting for Godot. I mean, you can ignore her/him, but it will be

Vladimir: Alors, on y va ?
Estragon: Allons-y.
Ils ne bougent pas.
​

anyway.

 

[Pixel42]

No, and why would you lie about what was said before?

Sigh.

Here's the actual exchange:

For a real world example, somebody mentioned Illinois. That's a pretty good state to check, as it isn't in the south, the west or the northeast US

OK you didn't specifically state that Illinois showed a cooling trend, but from the context that was certainly what you were implying.

I put in the appropriate parameters and posted the actual figure (as did Reality Check later):

Illinois winter (Dec-Feb) trend over 30 years (1984-2013): warming of 0.6F per decade

You claimed that I had deliberately given the wrong figure, and the right one was something different which you did not specify:

Since nobody bothered to check, I know pixel is having a bit of fun at your expense. The thirty year trend for Illinois isn't +.6 per decade..

I disagreed.

Yes it is.

And it is.

This started with my remark how Florida winters have been getting colder(trend). Then when I prove it, you try to lie about how it all happened?

You have not proved it because you have not shown the calculations that demonstrate statistical significance, and I have not lied.

You know I meant the US state and regional page. The one we used for Illinois. The one that shows the areas that are having colder winters(trend)

No I didn't know that, the site contains a lot of valuable data and I've looked at most of it over the years. I haven't looked at the data for small areas of the US over short periods of time before, because I know doing so is unlikely to give me meaningful information.

 

[pteridine]

btw, every single problem you point out is dwarfed by the problems CO2 is causing. so your position is very weak. we are not looking for the perfect solution, we are looking to less problematic solutions than fossil fueled solutions often are.

As I remember, I was responding to another poster. Given the unintended consequences of some of the solutions, you cannot say that every single problem [of possible solutions to reducing CO2] is dwarfed by CO2. Actually, the melting of permafrost and dissociation of methane hydrates may be a bigger problem than CO2. Maybe my position has gone from very weak to moderately weak.
"Less problematic solutions" for fossil fuels include reduction in demand, more efficient combustion, and orderly transfer to another source of energy, as yet undetermined on this board, likely in that order.

I pointed out that some proposed solutions were not really solutions and that in the face of reality, some were still being advocated. The first thing one can do is to replace coal with natural gas to generate power. Stationary sources are more readily changed, the downstream infrastructure will remain the same, and the change in fuel will be transparent to end users. Stationary sources also provide an opportunity for long term CO2 storage in saline aquifers. All the US needs is a few changes in the laws and the ability to pay the 100% premium for the cost of sequestration.

Fuels are another matter. Hydrocarbon fuels provide the highest energy density, do not require any new technology or infrastructure, and can be produced by chemically reducing CO2. The CO2 will act as an energy carrier
and be cycled between liquid fuels and the atmospheric plenum. There will be no net increase in CO2 by burning these fuels but they will need to be subsidized while petroleum fuels are taxed. The same nuclear reactors that we seem to be unable to build for power production will be needed to chemically reduce the CO2.

 

[quarky]

I just wanted your rough location to check and see if your winters are going up or down.

Foothills of the Cumberland Plateau, near the KY and TN border.
Southern Appalachian Mountains; deciduous forests; riparian zones.

This area is getting rocked by the climate.
My yard is getting rocked by the climate change.

For instance, we grow food.
We normally get our potato crop in by St. Patty's day, possibly because we are Irish; probably because we've been growing potatoes for 40 years.
This year, we haven't planted them yet, because of snow, and 15 (F) temperatures.
So, we've post-ponned.

The worry is that it will got hot, quick and early, and unfriendly to potatoes and other crops...like the Brassicas.

We have had to change the timing and the nature of the plants we grow here.
That's not a bad thing, in itself...but to me, it is at least anecdotal evidence of change.

 

[r-j]

Foothills of the Cumberland Plateau, near the KY and TN border.
Southern Appalachian Mountains; deciduous forests; riparian zones.

If you pick the zone, I can show you the data for where you are. From what you said it's either Div 4 Kentucky, or Division 1 Tenn
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/usclimdivs/data/map.html

Both show a trend of colder winters, with February being much colder. Much warmer spring and summer, (with last spring being the all time warmest). Slight cooling for fall. Year mean temperatures, both show an increase. But oddly enough, Tenn much greater than Kentucky.

Both show long term trend increase in precipitation. The much hotter summers may very well negate that in the real world.

And of course, of all things, both Divisions show winter is colder using a century of data. Kentucky Div 4 is -1.7 century trend. Tenn Div 1 is -1.4

 

[uke2se]

If you pick the zone, I can show you the data for where you are. From what you said it's either Div 4 Kentucky, or Division 1 Tenn
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/usclimdivs/data/map.html

Both show a trend of colder winters, with February being much colder. Much warmer spring and summer, (with last spring being the all time warmest). Slight cooling for fall. Year mean temperatures, both show an increase. But oddly enough, Tenn much greater than Kentucky.

Both show long term trend increase in precipitation. The much hotter summers may very well negate that in the real world.

And of course, of all things, both Divisions show winter is colder using a century of data. Kentucky Div 4 is -1.7 century trend. Tenn Div 1 is -1.4

Utter lie. Tenn Div 1 shows a warming of +0.2F for the winter months (December through February) per decade since 1983, and 0.1F per century since 1895. R-j appears to be lying to get attention.

 

[r-j]

And of course, of all things, both Divisions show winter is colder using a century of data. Kentucky Div 4 is -1.7 century trend. Tenn Div 1 is -1.4

And of course, of all things, both Divisions show winter is colder using a century of data. Kentucky Div 4 is -1.7 century trend. Tenn Div 1 is -1.4

 

[r-j]

Of course the deniers will cherry pick to show warming, even if it means going back to the little ice age. Same for the recent trend of colder winters. As it was noted, you can pick your time periods to show what you want somebody to believe. Unless it's all one direction, like the sea level data 1993-2013, which nobody who wants it to be rising will dispute. It's only a trend the goes against your faith that has to be disputed.

Note that none of the warming/hotter comments were disputed. Only the ones that go against the belief that it has to be warmer everywhere.

Very unscientific.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Of course the deniers will cherry pick to show warming,
.....

Very unscientific.

Haven't seen such twisted bits since the times of the German Democratic Republic.

Morality and intellect are of the essence, r-j.

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course the deniers will cherry pick to show warming, even if it means going back to the little ice age.

The 80's were warmer than the 70's. The 90's were warmer than the 80's. The 2000's were warmer than the 90's. That's globally, over 30 years, and statistically significant. Ther is no need to go back to the Little Ice Age

I have heard a denier claim that the world has been warming for 20,000 years and so this is nothing unusual - a Republican politician, they all look and sound much the same these days - which delighfully picks the Last Glacial Maximum as start-point.

It makes no sense to use a century-scale trend when the signal of AGW has only become significant in the last forty years or so (over half the CO₂ increase has occurred since 1976, and that on an upward curve) but deniers often do it. To understand what AGW is (and will be) we need to look at its era.

Deniers commonly go back to 1900 and draw a least-squares fit line because including pre-signal decades flattens (not flatters) what's actually happening now.

Same for the recent trend of colder winters.

For clarity : what do you mean by "recent"? 3 years? 5? Do you mean this "trend" is global or do you mean "in some places"? Winters have, after all, been warmer recently (the last 3 years) in some places.

For expansion : what do you think is the significance of cooler winters in those places where they've occurred? Do you, for instance, think this negates AGW?

As it was noted, you can pick your time periods to show what you want somebody to believe.

That doesn't make mean people have to believe it. As an exercise, pick a time period up to the present in which you can show that the world is cooling. Not Florida or Kentucky or the bottom of your street but the world. I rather think you'll find that you can't.

Unless it's all one direction, like the sea level data 1993-2013, which nobody who wants it to be rising will dispute. It's only a trend the goes against your faith that has to be disputed.

And what trend are you referring to here?

Note that none of the warming/hotter comments were disputed. Only the ones that go against the belief that it has to be warmer everywhere.

Not a belief held by anybody here.

Very unscientific.

Science demands precision. It doesn't say winters are getting cooler when it means winters are getting cooler in some places. It doesn't define periods by such terms as "recently". In science one might conclude that winters have been cooler in some places in the last 3 years - if the data supported that. It might then go on to suggest what the signficance of this might be.

You, on the other hand, use the term "trend" when you mean "least-squares fit" and airily refer to "winters" without specifying where and the time-period "recently". And you don't tell us what you think this might mean. Not, I think you'll agree, very scientific.

 

[aleCcowaN]

These are the trends for Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida, "Winter" (Dec-Jan-Feb), everything done a la r-j:

And these are the same trends done in a sensible way:

(all values in °F/100-year)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Deniers commonly go back to 1900 and draw a least-squares fit line because including pre-signal decades flattens (not flatters) what's actually happening now.

Besides, deniers like to use data from the Bible Belt (hi, y'all!) because there's a subtrend to cooling within the general trend to warming. We have debated that a lot in previous years.

 

[CapelDodger]

Haven't seen such twisted bits since the times of the German Democratic Republic.

The convolutions are bizarre. The idea that one has to cherry-pick a time-period up to the present to demonstrate global warming is rich from someone who'll go 3 years back or 103 but not thirty or forty. Not globally, ayway; he might cherry-pick a US state or city but not the world.

Morality and intellect are of the essence, r-j.

Actually one can get by on intellect alone, and quite handsomely. Nothing quite beats getting born into a healthy trust-fund, of course; you don't need either then, as demonstrated by the last US President.

 

[CapelDodger]

Besides, deniers like to use data from the Bible Belt (hi, y'all!) because there's a subtrend to cooling within the general trend to warming. We have debated that a lot in previous years.

Indeed we have, and we predicted this line would become more prominent as everything else they clung to melts away. varwoche pointed out years ago the denier tendency to obsess about ever-shrinking fragments of the big picture in the firm belief that these are fundamental bricks which will be knocked out. The Hockey-Stick, SlimeItGate, Antarctica, Sandy wasn't a hurricane, it's cold in Florida right now, weather stations are unreliable, it's a conspiracy!

This form of displacement is common in denial. You see it in companies which are deep in a hole and respond by locking stationary-cupboards and charging staff for coffee. You see it on battlefields where a general positions and re-positons a single battery while all goes to hell around him and his staff are begging for orders. It keeps them busy and distracted from the unfaceable truth.