Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

non sequitor, unless you can demonstrate an example of the use of the term "20th Century average" which includes measurements outside of the 20th century time frame.

You're exactly right, thankfully it has been demonstrated numerous times. Finally we're getting somewhere.

 

[Furcifer]

Except of course that nothing in this linked presentation supports your contentions of a "20th century average" compiled using measurements not in the 20th century. In fact, "20th century average" is not even mentioned in the document. As to your goalpost shifting "20th century simulations" contention, all it takes is a bit of reading to see that the specifics of what the author was talking about is spelled out later on in the statement:

Incorrect. I don't know why you continue to insists on things you've made up. There's no such convention and numerous sources have shown just how wrong it is to suppose such things.

Notice, again, the clear and deliberate distinction between 19th century and 20th century measurements and occurrences. The early 20th century simulations had to include considerations of the forcing factors and trends established in the decades prior to the start of the 20th century, but nowhere is it implied or stated that 20th century average temperatures were calculated with the inclusion of 19th century temperature measurements.

Nonsense. It's clear from the works cited and now NOAA itself, no such convention exists and nobody follows some made up nonsense.

There are hundreds of examples cited which clearly indicate that. Denial of the evidence doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Trakar]

The likely extent and impact of AGW and the most cost effective ways of mitigating it are almost certainly the most important and challenging topics that can and should be being discussed in the science forum of a board like this. If not here, then where? So it is of real concern to me that such a discussion appears to be impossible, on this or any other forum where I've seen such a discussion attempted.

I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the only solution to the problem is for every sincere poster to simply ignore the heckling, and respond only to reasonable questions and valid, supported points. I know how hard it is to leave ridiculous unsupported assertions unchallenged, none better, but when the result is weeks and pages of pointless argument about the definition of phrases whose meaning is self evident or the difference between well known and understood terms it is clear that such responses only serve the agenda of those who make them.

A recent post by JFrankA asked sensible questions which could form the initial basis of the discussion going forward. This interesting experiment might also generate some on-topic debate. If we can demonstrate that it is possible to have an adult conversation about this subject the mods might eventually take the thread off moderated status, which I'm sure discourages many forum members with worthwhile contributions to make from posting.

I would also like to respectfully request that the mods create a Part 2 of this thread. Not only would that reduce the unnecessary load on the server I'm led to understand is caused by threads as large as this one, it might also help encourage new posters to join the discussion.

Largely agreed, I just don't know how such could be practically implemented successfully in a science forum such as this and still maintain both lively discussion and a viable depth of perspective and consideration.

IOW, if we limit the discussion to those who largely agree, there is very little to discuss.

The important discussions are in finding updates in process and understanding, addressment of technological change and innovation, and the implementation of adaptive measures to minimize the impacts of the changes already in the pipeline. But, while these are important, we are also engaged in trying to help those whose only perspectives of the issue are those they have developed through their political/social contexts.

This isn't just about "bringing the light to the great unwashed masses" it is about helping people to see and understand the realities that have been, and are being, misrepresented by many differing perspectives and agendae.

Until there is a much deeper understanding of exactly what is happening, why it is happening and what must be done to minimize and adapt to the changes that are occurring, among the vast majority of the voting populations of the planet (and in the US in particular), all the rest of the talk is without much significance...

or at the least,

this is the path of my considerations and understandings.

 

[a_unique_person]

For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

The 2010 corn growing season was excellent!Corn yields were record breaking - with 95% of the yields submitted to Agricorp, the provincial average stands at 172 bu/ac (10.79 tonnes/ha); undoubtedly, when all acres are reported this will result in a provincial average yield that is significantly higher than any previous year. Prior to 2010 the highest OMAFRA provincial average corn yield was 156 bu/ac (9.78 tonnes/ha) in 2008

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2010 was the warmest on record at 14.5°C (58.1°F), which is 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).


April weather was abnormally warm and relatively dry resulting in perhaps the best soil conditions and earliest corn planting ever experienced in the province.


I noticed this correlation when I was looking though the anomalies page. Some people just don't understand what a benefit warming may actually be to areas that grow the world's food. They've convinced themselves that Global Warming means drought and desertification. That's the furthest thing from the truth. More heat units means more crops, that's a proven fact.

The rate of development of crops from planting to maturity is dependent mainly upon temperature. Cool temperatures slow down the progress to maturity and warm temperatures hasten maturity. Other environmental factors - such as photoperiod (daily period from sunrise to sunset), soil fertility and available water in the soil - can also influence the rate of crop development.​

What isn't known is what effect warming will have on the water supply.

People have asked "What's alarmist? Define it". An alarmist will look at the above evidence, dismiss what's known and instead focus on the unknown to come to a conclusion that is in contradiction with the actual facts.

It's quite possible the negative model predictions may never match with the positive empirical results.

As you said 'drier', for areas that are already prone to drought, that can spell disaster.

 

[Pixel42]

Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.

"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.

"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

Kudos to the guy for having the integrity to stand down, but personally I think withdrawing the paper would have been adequate. Plenty of intelligent, knowledgable people can be temporarily bamboozled by this kind of fundamentally flawed paper. Many less intelligent and knowledgable people will remain so, at least he caught on eventually.

 

[Warmer1]

This paper by Roy Spencer seems new (published July 2011): On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance.

I do have some doubts about it, e.g. why is a paper about climate sensitivity being published in a journal like Remote Sensing?

Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Puts that to rest doesn't it!

 

[Kestrel]

Thank-you for sharing! I knew this report was being prepared, but its publication slipped my notice. The end of Summer and start of Fall are always busy times for me.

You are welcome. I found out about the report when one of the authors gave a lecture at our local museum.

 

[Trakar]

You're exactly right, thankfully it has been demonstrated numerous times. Finally we're getting somewhere.

Your statement, as has been multipley demonstrated, is either a lie, or a confabulation.

 

[Pixel42]

if we limit the discussion to those who largely agree, there is very little to discuss.

I'm suggesting we limit the discussion to those who make valid, supported, points. That leaves plenty of room for disagreement about the likely extent and impact of AGW and the most cost effective ways to mitigate it, and for the posting and discussion of the interesting new research which is constantly being published. I just see no point in responding to hecklers who, for example, make the same manifestly false assertions over and over again. Any sensible lurkers can see for themselves that what they're saying isn't true, they don't need us to keep pointing it out. Any lurkers who can't see that for themselves are probably as much of a lost cause as the heckler.

This isn't just about "bringing the light to the great unwashed masses" it is about helping people to see and understand the realities that have been, and are being, misrepresented by many differing perspectives and agendae.

Indeed, and I think the best way of contributing on forums like this is for people who are genuinely trying to see and understand those realities to discuss the science and its implications amongst themselves. Attempts to sabotage such discussions by the misrepresenters are best ignored.

 

[Wangler]

Kudos to the guy for having the integrity to stand down, but personally I think withdrawing the paper would have been adequate.

Retract the paper, or publish rebuttals. I guess that the rebuttals may happen in the future, but the resignation serves no purpose IMHO.

Plenty of intelligent, knowledgable people can be temporarily bamboozled by this kind of fundamentally flawed paper. Many less intelligent and knowledgable people will remain so, at least he caught on eventually.

I love how you dismiss the editor as "less intelligent" in your last sentence here.

 

[Mikemcc]

Incorrect. I don't know why you continue to insists on things you've made up. There's no such convention and numerous sources have shown just how wrong it is to suppose such things.




Nonsense. It's clear from the works cited and now NOAA itself, no such convention exists and nobody follows some made up nonsense.

There are hundreds of examples cited which clearly indicate that. Denial of the evidence doesn't make it any less true.

Please provide just oneof these hundreds of citations that explicitly mentions a 20th century average using data from outside of the common definition of the 20th century. You've completely failed to do so thus far. The only papers that you have cited have explicitly made distinctions between 19th, 20th and 21st centuary data. There has also been an e-mail response posted up to show you that NOAA work to the common definition and not your fanciful interpretation.

You are in a club of one.

 

[Reality Check]

You're exactly right, thankfully it has been demonstrated numerous times. Finally we're getting somewhere.

Hi Furcifer, You keep on asserting this but the only citations that I can find have nothing to do with the "20th century average":

• trends are not averages
• Monthly averages are not 20th century averages
• Annual and seasonal averages are not 20th century averages

There are a couple of other references to data that includes annual averages but once again these are not a "20th century average", i.e. a single number for the 20th century.

P.S.This is still outstanding but I understand that it is a public holiday (at least in the USA) so there is no rush:
Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

 

[CapelDodger]

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).

There's a lot to be said for common sense. Not too much, of course, but a lot.

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."

As it should.

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.

Here you exaggerate. How many of these people have you actually come across, rather than heard about? You won't find them on this Forum. You'll find people arguing that something should be done (not me) but nothing so extreme as you suggest. They've been arguing it for a while now.

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.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

I also find it amazing that this issue is really split between conservatives and liberals.

I'm not (using "liberal" in the US American sense). AGW means that thinking has to change, and conservatives hate that. It's what defines them.

[uote]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.[/quote]

And nobody ever got fired for that .

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.

Well, I have no political view (and understand the science) but I have a very jaundiced view of the human race and its so-called "thinking". If that serves I'm here every few days or so .

 

[Pixel42]

Retract the paper, or publish rebuttals. I guess that the rebuttals may happen in the future, but the resignation serves no purpose IMHO.

I'm glad we agree.

I love how you dismiss the editor as "less intelligent" in your last sentence here.

Sorry?

I said many less intelligent and knowledgable people would remain bamboozled. Clearly the editor is not one of those people, as he did not remain bamboozled.

 

[Trakar]

There's a lot to be said for common sense. Not too much, of course, but a lot.

Personally, I have little use for common (non)sense. It occassionally approximates reality but is generally little more than rumor, folklore and rhetoric that has been substituted in the stead of verifiable fact and empiric evidences,...but I thought you were supposed to be the cynic here, not me?!

Here you exaggerate. How many of these people have you actually come across, rather than heard about? You won't find them on this Forum. You'll find people arguing that something should be done (not me) but nothing so extreme as you suggest. They've been arguing it for a while now.

Exaggerates a bit, but not overly much. I guess a lot depends upon your definition of "hits the panic button."

I don't see "driving a hybrid" as doing much of anything to the near-term impacts of climate change, those are pretty much already in the pipeline. The actions we currently take have much more impact in the distant future than anything we will strongly notice in our lifetimes, not that this should be considered without effect, but anyone who expects their actions to change things quickly simply doesn't understand the situation.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

A most excellent overall exposition of the science provided as a service by the American Institute of Physics. The other area of reading I would reccommend would be the National Academies Press publications which are free to read online, and present a wealth of information on both science and policy.

http://www.nap.edu/topics.php?topic=367

 

[Trakar]

Retract the paper, or publish rebuttals. I guess that the rebuttals may happen in the future, but the resignation serves no purpose IMHO.

It is called establishing/maintaining professional and ethical standards, most people with such standards well understand their purpose and value.

I love how you dismiss the editor as "less intelligent" in your last sentence here.

I don't perceive that interpretation of her words at all and am curious about the individual bias and perspective that would motivate such understanding to her statement.

 

[Wangler]

Sorry?

I said many less intelligent and knowledgable people would remain bamboozled. Clearly the editor is not one of those people, as he did not remain bamboozled.

Sorry if I misunderstood; I read it as you lumping him with those "less intelligent and knowledgable" who would remain bamboozled, until he caught on "eventually".

If he was in the former grouping of those who were "more intelligent and knowledgable", I figured that is where he would be mentioned.

It seems obvious that my perception of what was said is where the problem lies.

My apologies if that is not what you intended.

 

[Wangler]

I don't perceive that interpretation of her words at all and am curious about the individual bias and perspective that would motivate such understanding to her statement.

I am also interested in the individual bias and perspective that would motivate the converse to my understanding.

I explained briefly in my response to Pixel, that I read Pixel's statement as lumping the editor with those "less intelligent and knowledgable", regardless of whether or not he "eventually" caught on. It would have read clearer in my mind if Pixel had mentioned the editor in the same sentance as the "intelligent, knowledgable" folks.

It just seemed slightly insulting to the poor editor, IMHO.

I guess the reviewers are firmly in the "less intelligent and knowledgable" camp, until such a time as they come out and decry the paper as foul.

Too bad for them!

 

[Wangler]

It is called establishing/maintaining professional and ethical standards, most people with such standards well understand their purpose and value.



I don't perceive that interpretation of her words at all and am curious about the individual bias and perspective that would motivate such understanding to her statement.

I forgot to mention this in my previous answer, sorry:

I think that the far more interesting question is whether or not folks here think that internet discussion fora are viable venues for scientific rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper.

From the BBC article about the editor stepping down:

"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."

So a paper is published in a peer-review journal, and comments in internet forums result in the journal editor stepping down? Is this really how science is done these days?

 

[L.Y.S.]

So are we at a point in the discussion where we are trying to establish whether global warming is true or false? Or are we at the point where we are debating that it’s natural or manmade? Just checking.