Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Pixel42]

Actually 30 years is a standard observational window, has been for decades.

As the minimum to reliably identify significant global climate trends, yes.

 

[Megalodon]

Oh yes, because NCDC records showing that Florida winters are getting colder (trend) does not actually support my comment that Florida winters have been getting colder(trend). Who can argue against your logic?

You are wrong.

Unless you can show that the trend is statistically significant, your assertion is just that.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, but it seems not to sink in.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The intelligent might ask, how can that be? And it gets so much worse. Florida has a trend of -1.3 per century. The thirty year trend is -1.2 (1983-2013) (.1 per decade)

I can't believe it! You used figures first time in this subject !!!!! Amazing innovative approach on your part!!!!!!!!

Where the figures came from? Did you calculated it?

 

[Pixel42]

I can't believe it! You used figures first time in this subject !!!!! Amazing innovative approach on your part!!!!!!!!

Where the figures came from? Did you calculated it?

He's getting them from this link, which I originally posted:

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

He's been quoting figures derived from it ever since I posted it, though he didn't start quoting the right figures until I explained how to set the parameters correctly.

As Megalon says, it's the concept of whether the trend derived from the figures he's quoting is statistically significant that he now seems to be struggling with.

 

[pteridine]

Certainly this entire thread is about the very serious problems associated with fossil fuels, but I don't recall anyone anthropomorphizing them the way you suggest. People knowingly pandering and peddling despite knowing the harm they can do can rightly be called evil, and may well have.

Nor have their been much in the way of un-objective support for alternatives.

It really seems to me you are tying to construct straw men to rail against rather than having any type of discussion.

It seems to me that you don't want much of a discussion. I point out that there are problems with all alternatives and you accuse me of "..tying to construct straw men to rail against rather than having any type of discussion." Is this a standard tactic of yours or just a standard part of the JREF pack attack?
Knowingly pandering fossil fuels? Where do you draw the line for this? Ammonia is necessary as a fertilizer to provide food [or corn for ethanol, if you like that plan.] Ammonia is made by the Haber process using nitrogen and hydrogen. Hydrogen comes from methane reforming. If you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you stop eating so as to dissociate yourself from the pandering of evil men. Your exhalations are also part of the problem but if you stop eating, that will solve itself.
There has been a great deal of un-objective support for alternatives. The 'hydrogen economy' had a great deal of support by the technically ignorant before people actually thought it out. Some are still promoting it.
Undersea sequestration of CO2 as hydrates was supported until someone pointed out a heat of formation problem.
Corn-based ethanol was supported even though people realized that using food for fuel had many problems, including hidden costs to the consumer for other foods and the ethics of diverting food from those in need.
Biomass combustion was supported even though it was known early on that collection and processing of biomass would often take more energy than could be derived unless it was in isolated situations such as sawmills or using sugarcane bagasse to distill ethanol.
Algal biofuels are still being touted even though it is known that anyone growing algae can't possibly make enough fuel to pay for the process and to make any money would likely have to sell algal-based omega-fatty acids as food supplements.
Do you want a discussion or not?

 

[quarky]

I've probably already mentioned this here, but I'm too lazy to go through the thread:

One of the effects of climate change is a loss of temperance.
Where I live, this March has been abnormally cold.
That doesn't imply, that overall, the temperature is not rising.

In the past few years, we've had recording breaking floods, as well as record breaking droughts. We've also had tornadoes; not normally associated with this zone.
We've had record breaking heat, and cold...though, overall, heading toward heat.
I've witnessed new migratory patterns in birds; new schedules of amphibian mating times; certain plants and trees crapping out; others taking their place.

Some of these disruptions are not obvious to the untrained eye.
Most people live lives fairly removed from such stuff.
All they notice is higher energy bills; for heating and cooling.
They don't watch the frogs. Or the trees. Or the birds.

 

[lomiller]

It seems to me that you don't want much of a discussion.

Excuse me? I've responded to you substantively and in depth multiple times, and you have yet to post a single substantive response.

I point out that there are problems with all alternatives and you accuse me of "..tying to construct straw men to rail against rather than having any type of discussion."

You were arguing against a position no-one had taken and against exaggerated weakened versions of real positions. This is is precisely what a straw-man is. Do you normally take exception when you are accused of things you've actually done?

Is this a standard tactic of yours or just a standard part of the JREF pack attack?

Yes, pointing out logical fallacies is a fairly stranded thing here, as they will be any place people actually want want to have a meaningfully discussion.

 

[DC]

It seems to me that you don't want much of a discussion. I point out that there are problems with all alternatives and you accuse me of "..tying to construct straw men to rail against rather than having any type of discussion." Is this a standard tactic of yours or just a standard part of the JREF pack attack?
Knowingly pandering fossil fuels? Where do you draw the line for this? Ammonia is necessary as a fertilizer to provide food [or corn for ethanol, if you like that plan.] Ammonia is made by the Haber process using nitrogen and hydrogen. Hydrogen comes from methane reforming. If you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you stop eating so as to dissociate yourself from the pandering of evil men. Your exhalations are also part of the problem but if you stop eating, that will solve itself.
There has been a great deal of un-objective support for alternatives. The 'hydrogen economy' had a great deal of support by the technically ignorant before people actually thought it out. Some are still promoting it.
Undersea sequestration of CO2 as hydrates was supported until someone pointed out a heat of formation problem.
Corn-based ethanol was supported even though people realized that using food for fuel had many problems, including hidden costs to the consumer for other foods and the ethics of diverting food from those in need.
Biomass combustion was supported even though it was known early on that collection and processing of biomass would often take more energy than could be derived unless it was in isolated situations such as sawmills or using sugarcane bagasse to distill ethanol.
Algal biofuels are still being touted even though it is known that anyone growing algae can't possibly make enough fuel to pay for the process and to make any money would likely have to sell algal-based omega-fatty acids as food supplements.
Do you want a discussion or not?

no, that is not part of the problem, that and also the, when you feel so strong about it stop eating nonsense is the usual nonsense we hear from the denier nutters. and that is a strawmen.
we all are adding to the problem of AGW, some less , some more. its about how much do we as a society want to keep adding to the problem. nobody is suggesting a full stop and stop emitting CO2 at all. nobody is propsing this. we are merely pointing out that there are manny problems with the way we do things and we are trying to find alternatives to it.
also this topic is about the science of AGW, in non US politics you can find another topic that deals with solutions to the ptoblem, here the debate is actually about the problem.

so why don't you spare us your strawmen? why don't you for exa,ple answer my first post i made to you? where you made several claims i asked you to backup with evidence, you simply ignored that post, why?
do you accept that your claims about the MWP etc were wrong? or do you still belief in that myth?

 

[DC]

It seems to me that you don't want much of a discussion. I point out that there are problems with all alternatives and you accuse me of "..tying to construct straw men to rail against rather than having any type of discussion." Is this a standard tactic of yours or just a standard part of the JREF pack attack?
Knowingly pandering fossil fuels? Where do you draw the line for this? Ammonia is necessary as a fertilizer to provide food [or corn for ethanol, if you like that plan.] Ammonia is made by the Haber process using nitrogen and hydrogen. Hydrogen comes from methane reforming. If you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you stop eating so as to dissociate yourself from the pandering of evil men. Your exhalations are also part of the problem but if you stop eating, that will solve itself.
There has been a great deal of un-objective support for alternatives. The 'hydrogen economy' had a great deal of support by the technically ignorant before people actually thought it out. Some are still promoting it.
Undersea sequestration of CO2 as hydrates was supported until someone pointed out a heat of formation problem.
Corn-based ethanol was supported even though people realized that using food for fuel had many problems, including hidden costs to the consumer for other foods and the ethics of diverting food from those in need.
Biomass combustion was supported even though it was known early on that collection and processing of biomass would often take more energy than could be derived unless it was in isolated situations such as sawmills or using sugarcane bagasse to distill ethanol.
Algal biofuels are still being touted even though it is known that anyone growing algae can't possibly make enough fuel to pay for the process and to make any money would likely have to sell algal-based omega-fatty acids as food supplements.
Do you want a discussion or not?

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.

 

[quarky]

Pulling out would go a long way to addressing the problem.

 

[Buckaroo]

btw, every single problem you point out is swarfed 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.

Yep. Once one dismisses the straw man and nirvana fallacies, it doesn't seem like there's much left. Pteridine, what exactly are you trying to discuss?

 

[r-j]

Actually 30 years is a standard observational window, has been for decades.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

Of course it is.

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the

climate system.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/518.htm

But even a shorter period is enough to see a trend, especially when all the data goes in the same direction. Sea level change is calculated by far less than 30 years, and the rate of rise is published regularly. It's somewhere between 2.8 and 3.6 mm a year, going up, based on a very short period.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel2/sl_ns_global.png The predictions about the rate are based on satellite data from 1993.
If you try and argue that it's too short a period to say it's going up, you would be some kind of denier. Even so, sea level has gone down in some places, up in others. The ocean has no actual global sea level, any more than the ocean or atmosphere has an actual global temperature. So we average the data and get a global figure, which does not reflect the shoreline everywhere.

Temperature data that shows a rate of increase, or decrease, is a regular thing. Climate needs a much longer period to say it's changed, because a small change in average temperature isn't climate change. Because warming and cooling periods are a regular thing for most of the world. All the temperature data shows this. It's why I've been trying to get the deniers to look at the data, rather than simply repeat what they are told.

Ben Santer and others have explained a number of times that the there is effectively a 17-year mimumum observational period, any less than that and it is difficult to pick out statistical significance.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

Sounds good. So now we have from 1996-2013 to look at observations of temperature and rainfall, to see if there is a change. Using many years is a must to avoid mistaking a few years of heat or cold for a trend. But it would be unscientific to throw out the sea level data because it starts in 1993. Just as it's not scientific to deny 23 years of data is meaningless for looking at winter temperature changes.

Which is what makes it so easy to see that the Florida winters have started a colder (trend) phase. it shows in a thirty year period, it shows in a 20 year period, it show up in 17 years of data. Same for all the other regions of the US that show a trend towards colder winters. It doesn't mean climate change, because you see the same thing has happened over and over, even in the short time period we have good data. trends of increase and decrease show up in most all records.

It's the same for precipitation. You can see a change in a decade, and it's not climate change, it's just weather. Even thirty years of a trend doesn't mean the climate has changed. It just means the temperature has gone up or down. Those who bothered to look at the data will know this, it's obvious.

But all this is just a meander started by my mentioning the winters have been getting colder, and how people in the middle of winter (still!) might not feel like arguing over global warming. What really shows the change is the spring and summer trends, which have become alarming in some parts of the US. Especially the precipitation trends.

 

[r-j]

I don't rebut temperature data. I just don't interpret it wrongly, or place significance on cherry-picked data .

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.

If you can't see for yourself how agreeing that cherry-picking limited areas and time periods does not produce meaningful trends and then asserting as fact, based on very limited cherry picked data, that a particular trend does indeed exist then there really is no hope of educating you..

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?

No I didn't. You asserted

I'm not going to play "he said she said". Everything is in black or white here. We don't need anyone to tell us what was said.

I repeat: I am not dismissing the idea that recent unusually cold spells in winter in some parts of the world are the beginning of a trend towards colder winters in some regions. I'm just saying that the data is not sufficient to establish that..

I understand. But opinions are worthless. Your beleif about it doesn't matter.

I already saw the data. It was me that gave you the link to it, remember?

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. In any case, it was after tI posted that, then you posted the link to the NCDC. I've been using it for years. And can prove it with ease. You just started looking at it.

I just have enough mathematical knowledge to know how to interpret it correctly.

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

 

[lomiller]

But even a shorter period is enough to see a trend, especially when all the data goes in the same direction. Sea level change is calculated by far less than 30 years, and the rate of rise is published regularly. It's somewhere between 2.8 and 3.6 mm a year, going up, based on a very short period.

It's also tested for statistical significance when the trend is calculated, something you have refused to do with your "colder winters". Not only is sea level rise tested for statistical significance, it passes those tests, something your "colder winters" doesn't do.

 

[r-j]

I've probably already mentioned this here, but I'm too lazy to go through the thread:

One of the effects of climate change is a loss of temperance.
Where I live, this March has been abnormally cold.
That doesn't imply, that overall, the temperature is not rising.

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.

 

[r-j]

It's also tested for statistical significance when the trend is calculated, something you have refused to do with your "colder winters".

Not that it will matter, but it's not scientific to call the trend for colder winters - your "colder winters" - like I own them.

If the data doesn't show colder winters, they don't actually exist. Sadly, for the deniers here, it's not possible to change the winter weather because you don't agree with it. You still can't grasp that I linked to multiple papers and studies about why it's happening. You can deny it all you like, but it won't change the facts.

 

[aleCcowaN]

He's getting them from this link, which I originally posted:

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

He's been quoting figures derived from it ever since I posted it, though he didn't start quoting the right figures until I explained how to set the parameters correctly.

As Megalon says, it's the concept of whether the trend derived from the figures he's quoting is statistically significant that he now seems to be struggling with.

Thank you! I see s/he got now the 30-year period but half-way, as s/he is selecting any 30 years in a row. And the "irrelevant" fact that her/his trends are not there . Not surprisingly -for the moral and intellectual quality of that character- the supposed trends are declared in an ambiguous manner, so nobody is able to duplicate the given results.

The only "trend" that resembles her/his figures is that for November, last decades. I have here, a little South from my location, the same kind of trend for September: a region about the area of Florida has a frost-free period similar to that one century ago, but frosts start and end 4 or 5 weeks later, so April is now practically frost free -as May generally is too- and late September/early October temperatures show a cooling trend.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not that it will matter, but it's not scientific to call the trend for colder winters - your "colder winters" - like I own them.

They are called "your colder winters" because they only exist within the realm of your imagination. That was clear from the very beginning for almost everybody except you.

 

[DC]

Not that it will matter, but it's not scientific to call the trend for colder winters - your "colder winters" - like I own them.

If the data doesn't show colder winters, they don't actually exist. Sadly, for the deniers here, it's not possible to change the winter weather because you don't agree with it. You still can't grasp that I linked to multiple papers and studies about why it's happening. You can deny it all you like, but it won't change the facts.

what are you talking about? non of your posts are scientific at all. so whats your point?

you cherry pick some locations and say winters are getting colder... based on a short period of time and with no calculations of the statistical significance of that alleged trend of your cherry picked regions.

what is your point? distraction of the actual problem? this topic ic about global climate change, not some regional changes, but global ones. and about climate, not weather. so a few cold or warm winters mean nothing, its the long term trends we are discussing here.

are globaly winters getting colder or warmer?

 

[uke2se]

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).