Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

For those who read this thread:
This is a yet another repeat of r-j's delusion that the words theory, global and warming found in a document means that the document is describing a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" !
In this case we have Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather which contains a single occurrence of the phrase "global warming theory".

Irrelevant link: Check.
No description of a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming": Mate.

The irony being as well that he doesn't seem to realise that the part he quoted disproved what he said only a couple of hours ago about record temperatures and his conspiracy theory about the temperature data being improperly tampered with.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, and it's also quite humorous.

I would say very not humorous, r-j.
Anyone thinking that a source that does not describe a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" is describing that theory is extremely sad.
That anyone would Google for "theory of global warming" and spam this thread with irrelevant links that are not describing a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" is very sad.
That anyone seems to ignorant of English that they cannot tell the difference between the common usage of theory as an idea or concept and the scientific usage of theory is sad.

 

[a_unique_person]

And check.

And mate.



About the serious issue of NH winters getting colder?

GISS shows where it is happening.

And the NCDC NH land winter trend shows it means the actual NH mean is trending down.

Are you claiming that the line on that graph is a trendline? Where did you copy it from, and is this more plagiarism?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

Whoops, r-j: You reply to a post about a measurement that "Overall, the southern continent − 98% of which is covered with ice and snow − is losing 125 cubic km a year" with news about a single Antarctic glacier !

You do know that
* Antarctica is a continent, not a single glacier?
* Antarctica is not 100% volcanic?
* The discovery of melting from geothermal sources is bad news - it means that the Thwaites Glacier is predicted to collapse sooner than it would just from global warming. And

The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier would cause an increase of global sea level of between 1 and 2 meters, with the potential for more than twice that from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

 

[greybeard]

Watts et al use any and all shortcomings to say it's all a scam, or fraud, or something. His enemies do the same thing, just about Watts et al

Both are being unscientific.

Here's your imaginary climate war again r-j. Where in your mind the scientific establishment with over a century of climate research and reams of peer reviewed literature is as bad as Watts's and his discredited followers. You are no different to Watts anyway suggesting fraud with no real evidence to back you up.

 

[Reality Check]

About the serious issue of NH winters getting colder?

What about the inanity of attaching images without any citations of sources, r-j?
What about you not seeing the bad practice of a trend line that misses out some data?

 

[DC]

Yes, and it's also quite humorous.

the irony is that you even now still can't admit your error humorous indeed, not in the way you think it is.

 

[r-j]

Are you claiming that the line on that graph is a trendline? Where did you copy it from, and is this more plagiarism?

Really? You actually don't know what that is? And where anyone can check for themselves?

That might explain a lot. I'm starting to actually believe it's just sheer ignorance at work. If you want to participate in a science discussion, you really really really should learn about the subject first.

 

[DC]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

what is your point? what does that show us about the big picture of Antarctica?

 

[DC]

Classic fallacy of short term measurements. In 1955, when efforts to increase measurements of weather data really cranked up, only 10% of the world had any measurements at all. And the oceans were barely covered at all. Recent trends, when the data is much better, really show what is happening, rather than this "hottest year" pseudoscience.
That actually is almost meaningless in terms of climate. Looking at what is actually real, is scientific.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31687&d=1410893414[/qimg]
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Looking at trends is really what climate is about. The warming trend is obvious in the NH cold season trend below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31689&d=1410893742[/qimg]

If that had continued, there would be little doubt about the AGW theory being correct. Instead, we can see how different things are now.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31688&d=1410893742[/qimg]

So when somebody is selling you "it's hotter than ever" instead of discussing trends and global changes, hang onto your wallet.

there is no doubt, AGW is an observed fact.

 

[CapelDodger]

What is up with calling facts "myths"?

The mythical Pause is just that - mythical.

Skepticalpseudoscience does it all the time. According to absolute nobodies, there is no slowdown.

What myth are you pursuing, a Pause or a Slowdown? Whichever it is, according to experts there is no slowdown in global warming. The energy imbalance remains and that energy has to be somewhere, doesn't it?

According to pseudscience, there is no pause. According to actual real science, not only is it a reality, they want to know why.

It's naturally of interest that there has been little (but some) increase in surface temperatures since the massive outlier of 1998.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/climate-models-simulate-global-warming-pause.html

That article is pretty awful. It confuses climate models with climate model runs and fails to distinguish between the global surface and the climate system as a whole (which includes the entire ocean volume, not just the visible bit). Journalists, eh? But waddya gonna do.

Climate model runs which have a similar ENSO trend since about 1998 match reality because they result in a similar injection of heat into the deeper ocean (below the bit you can see). That's a good validation of the models, don't you think?

I realise, from your posts, that you don't regard heat in the deeper ocean as proper heat, but it's really no different from heat in the atmosphere or the ocean surface. More heat in the climate system will at some point result in higher surface temperatures. "Some point" being about now, by the look of things.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you claiming that the line on that graph is a trendline?

Notice that the graphs are of land temperatures. Notice also that r-j is apparently blind to the colour red in the global chart, as seen over much of the Arctic. Which is understandable; since it's blue he's looking for it's only blue he sees.

 

[r-j]

what is your point?

Considering the extreme resistance so far, to things that shouldn't even be a dispute, lets try to get the basics down before branching into yet another red herring.

R-j, putting aside for the moment that your claim that winters are getting colder is demonstrably false

The ignorance is amusing. I repeated what many scientists said, which I provided links to, both reports and articles, none of which said the entire world was getting colder, much less what you have twisted it into. They said winters are getting colder. They are not saying the entire world is getting colder. Learn the difference. You are never going to win this one. It's your opinion against the entire world of data and science.

(lots of text removed)

It's right there. No, they are not saying the world is cooling, they are saying that the winters have become colder, in the Americas, Europe, China, Russia, that kind of thing. For the entire northern hemisphere to be colder is impossible. It's over the land masses.

And it's theorized that warming is causing the cooling, as in colder winters. Don't live in denial.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097008#post9097008

A year and a half later, it seems the denial is still strong. There is denial of the cooling winter trend, denial there is a theory, denial that the data is correct, and now denial that I bothered to go check the data. It's quite shocking. Most unscientific as well.

The fact that some areas are experiencing spells of unusually cold weather during winter does not mean that winters are getting colder overall, even in those areas, let alone globally. The latter was what you originally appeared to be claiming, but even the former is a debatable claim.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097181#post9097181d

No, what I said was crystal clear, an, supported by the evidence, which is obvious. Just like this nonsense about "no theory", it's absurd that anyone wouldn't know the theory, and so much worse that they would accuse me of making it up.

The apparent contradiction of global warming causing localised cold spells has been seized on by many deniers as evidence it's all nonsense, and the sarcastic tone of your first posts on this thread certainly suggested that was your position. If that wasn't what you were intending to suggest, you need to clarify what your position really is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097181#post9097181

You can read the entire exchange again if you like, I know exactly what I said, and why. my position is still based on the scientific evidence, and while the data has been changed since 2013, it still shows a winter cooling trend.

I'm starting to think some of the adjustments are really making the data garbage at times. Like the example of Chicago. Not only did the cooling of the past, and the warming of the present change the trends, between that and the station moves, it really messed with the extremes, which is a known problem with current analysis.

 

[CapelDodger]

Classic fallacy of short term measurements.

What on Earth is a "short term measurement"? One taken in haste?

In 1955, when efforts to increase measurements of weather data really cranked up, only 10% of the world had any measurements at all. And the oceans were barely covered at all.

Weather data was collected from the entire British Empire after the mid-19thCE (a lot more than 10% of the land-surface in itself) and of course ocean data was kept by ships of the Royal Navy (which were many and ubiquitous). Add the Russians, the US and their navies and there's a lot of data from the 20thCE. And there's even living memory for most of it.

Data was gathered for weather research and forecasting rather than climate change, of course, but then climate change was never an issue until recently.

 

[r-j]

Notice that the graphs are of land temperatures.

You might also notice where it says "trend" on the NCDC graphic. Here's a closer look, the graphics may be fuzzy.

And here is the land and ocean together.

And here is the trend in 2013, when I first told you the NH winters were getting colder.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

 

[CapelDodger]

Hypothetically, r-j, if this winter is warm in the NH will that be a "short-term measurement"?

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: Please cite the source for your "NCDC NH land winter trend" image

A year and a half later, it seems the denial is still strong. There is denial of the cooling winter trend, denial there is a theory, denial that the data is correct, and now denial that I bothered to go check the data. It's quite shocking. Most unscientific as well.

That would be a lie, r-j.

No one denies that boreal winters are cooling in some regions:
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling
We all (except for you) know that it is ignorant to claim that there is a "cooling winter trend" for boreal winters because Cohen et. al. state that there is no such trend.
We all (except for you) know that it is ignorant to claim that there is a "cooling winter trend" for NH winters without citing your sources.

You still have not presented any evidence for a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" other than the evidence that
* you still do know that difference between theory as idea and theory as in scientific theory and
* a phrase is not a description of a scientific theory.

We will accept that "the data is correct" when you provide sources for the data.

1. r-j (8 September 2014): Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
2. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source for these specific temperatures which you state are from the University station.
3. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source that shows that the University station is the rooftop one that was moved to O'Hare.

And now And the NCDC NH land winter trend shows it means the actual NH mean is trending down. leads to
r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite the source for your "NCDC NH land winter trend" image.
r-j (19 September 2014): Please justify what seems to be an arbitrary selection of 1995 as the starting date of the trend line when there is pre-1995 data in the graph.
This looks like the climate change denier cherry picking of 1998 (a very warm year) to falsely claim that global surface temperatures have not increased.

 

[DC]

Considering the extreme resistance so far, to things that shouldn't even be a dispute, lets try to get the basics down before branching into yet another red herring. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097008#post9097008

A year and a half later, it seems the denial is still strong. There is denial of the cooling winter trend, denial there is a theory, denial that the data is correct, and now denial that I bothered to go check the data. It's quite shocking. Most unscientific as well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097181#post9097181d

No, what I said was crystal clear, an, supported by the evidence, which is obvious. Just like this nonsense about "no theory", it's absurd that anyone wouldn't know the theory, and so much worse that they would accuse me of making it up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9097181#post9097181

You can read the entire exchange again if you like, I know exactly what I said, and why. my position is still based on the scientific evidence, and while the data has been changed since 2013, it still shows a winter cooling trend.

I'm starting to think some of the adjustments are really making the data garbage at times. Like the example of Chicago. Not only did the cooling of the past, and the warming of the present change the trends, between that and the station moves, it really messed with the extremes, which is a known problem with current analysis.

boreal winter have to do what exactly with your link to the press release about a study from a part in Antarctica?
and once again you ran away from you claism that have been proven wrong.

 

[Pixel42]

Are you claiming that the line on that graph is a trendline? Where did you copy it from, and is this more plagiarism?

He's using this utility: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

He's using it to cherry pick particular combinations of timescale and region which show a short-term cooling trend, despite the overall global longterm warming trend. You will always be able to find such combinations, of course.

To get the graph he obtained set:

Display trend: ticked, per century, start 1995, end 2014

Timescale: three month

Month: February

Start Year: 1990 End year: 2014

Latitude band: Northern Hemisphere

Surface: Land

To answer Reality Check's question about the odd choice of trend start date, this is the graph you get if you set the start date of "display trend" to 1990 to match the start date of the data.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

The Financial Post has a good article showing the dilemma faced by IPCC as it twists in the wind trying to produce the Sept 27 2014 report

Some quotes:

Outputs from the models, in turn, have driven the extraordinarily costly global climate agenda of recent decades. But it is now becoming clear that the models have sharply over predicted warming, and therein lies a problem.

As the gap between models and reality has grown wider, so has the number of mainstream scientists gingerly raising the possibility that climate models may soon need a bit of a re-think. A recent study by some well-known German climate modelers put the probability that models can currently be reconciled with observations at less than 2%, and they said that if we see another five years without a large warming, the probability will drop to zero.

What’s more, the U.K.’s main climate modeling lab just this summer revised its long-term weather forecasts to show it now expects there to be no warming for at least another five years. Ironically, if its model is right, it will have proven itself and all others like it to be fundamentally wrong.

Complete article here

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/