Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[lomiller]

Lolmiller,

Dragging the conversation back a couple of pages,

IIRC you work in the nuclear industry?

Nope. I'm an Electrical Engineer and as a student spent my summers and a year long co-op working in Hydroelectric Power Generation and transmission never did any Nuclear.

 

[lomiller]

Somewhat timely, given recent discussions have touched on how long a period you need for statistical significance. Tamino gives some examp;es of things changing so fast you can get a statistically significant trend in only 10 years.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/

 

[r-j]

Time and time again we’ve explained that natural variations can mask a trend on short time scales, and the time scales used to deny the danger of climate change are short.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/

Unless they are hundred years or more of data. Poor tamino, he reads like a warrior in the blogoliscious gumbo jumbo wars.

Yet some parts of the earth are screaming so loudly that not even limiting time to ten years can drown out the message. Perhaps best-known is the sea ice in the Arctic. Its extent has declined so fast that even the last 10 years show a significant trend

yep, poor tasmino, he reads like a hysterical old lady describing the Arctic as "screaming". And the heck with trends and statistics like we learned here can't possibly be important in just 10 years. If it's a screaming ice pack, ten years actually means something.

Unlike 20, 30 or a hundred years of hard data. Florida has a twenty yer trend that would seem alarming if you imagine it will keep going. Almost 3 degrees colder since 1990, which obviously means in 20 more years it will be deadly cold, and by 2100 Florida will be the climate of Alaska.

Meanwhile the summers, already one degree hotter since 1910, will be another degree hotter by 2100.

Which is of course nonsense. The past does not control the future like that. But it does illustrate why predicting global climate change is still far far away from science.

That doesn't mean the warming in the more northern climates isn't somewhat matching the theory of warming from greenhouse gases. Warmer winters, cooler summers, and increased rainfall is evident in some area. The drastic winter warming in states dominated by maritime climates also fits with warming oceans. Maine shows no summer warming trend, but an obvious winter warming trend.

The problem, or mistake, is using the very cold times to start the trend calculations. It's why some educated moron can claim the 80s were warmer than the 70s, the 90s were warmer than the 80s, etc etc, but when you look at the complete record you realize why that is fraud. It's what I pointed out in that propaganda paper about the drastic warming since the seventies.

It won't fool anyone who looks at the data.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7612
Trend: 0.145 ±0.157 °C/decade (2σ)
β=0.014526 σw=0.0019048 ν=17.050 σc=σw√ν=0.0078651
Does that show global temperatures are warmer?

That really needs a Duh , r-j!
A positive trend is ... warming, so yes!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7615

Trend: 0.134 ±0.089 °C/decade (2σ)
β=0.013430 σw=0.0010786 ν=16.855 σc=σw√ν=0.0044281
Does that show warming?

A positive trend is ... warming, so yes!
For the periods you are talking about (20 and 30 years) the warming is statistically significant.

I mentioned winters were getting colder ...

Yes you made this vague assertion and still do not undersatnd that r-j, Cherry picking data about local winters is just wrong !

 

[Reality Check]

Here again is what you (and everyone else) has avoided answering.
...

Here again is a post showing when you plot global temperatures over statistically significant time periods, you get positive trends, i.e. warming.

r-j, do you really want us to explain the simple fact that a positive trend in a graph means that a value is increasing.

 

[r-j]

It's the trend that's estimated, with an uncertainty that needs to be calculated before its meaning can be assessed.

Depending on the person, ten years is fine for ice, twenty years is enough to freak out over globally, but a hundred years of hard data is useless. Your science, it's irrefutable.

You might use USA temperature data as a proxy for global temperatures but that is prone to error,

In fact, there are some places in the US where the temperatures are pretty close to the global average.

e.g. what about winter temperatures on the other hemispheres?

If they all showed warming, the US would be an anomaly, but the NH winters in large areas show the same sort of trend, with more extreme cold spells and more snow. This current late cold is an anomaly, as was last years warm winter, extreme early very warm spring.

This is what you regard as "misbehaviour"

It's what was in the article. Truth is, they would have faced unlimited fines except the law says if you don't get caught in six months, no fine.

The other things are clearly wrong, but understandable. Seeing Kevin Trenberth wondering about the extreme cold and the lack of warming was priceless. Like any normal person, he can't understand why there isn't more warming, and why in the hell is the winter so early, so cold, and why is it lasting so long?

We could use some global warming about now.

 

[Reality Check]

What is happening with a "global temperature" is very much different than with a verified climate research station in a single location, with a solid set of data for over a hundred years. Or even a region of data centers.

Wow - stating the obvious, r-j!

You seem to be avoiding answering a straight question. For a regional dataset, is there anything you accept as valid in regards to determining if the average temperatures of a given time period, a year, season, month, is there anything you won't dismiss as meaningless?

You seem to be avoiding understanding a straight anwer, requiring knowldege of basic English, i.e. the difference between the words

• global
• local

Anything you do with a single regional (local) dataset is meaningless in the context of global temperatures.

We will accept your assertion that "winters are getting colder" as soon as you provide us with the evidence, e.g. a list of every region in the world along with their statistically significant temperature trends. You can then point out that every one of these regional datasets has a negative trend.

We know that this is impossible because there are regions where the winters have become warmer.
We know this is irrelevant (and getting close to trolling for a thread on global warming) because global winter temperatures have increased.

 

[Reality Check]

Pure chance those two states would happen to show cooling winters, in the midst of the argument.

No chance at all: r-j, Cherry picking data about local winters is just wrong !

 

[Reality Check]

Let me make is simple for you. It's because a measurement of the daily temperature, the monthly average, none of that is estimated, none of it is uncertain. It's averages of real data, but it's all based on known values.

Let me make it simple for you r-j.
You are the only one here displaying ignorance of the meaning of uncertainty in the analysis of the temperature data.
This is statistical uncertainty in the trend, i.e. given that there is noise in the input data, how certain can we be that a trend has not been produced by this noise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/temp...alculator.html

Trend and Uncertainty
...
How does this uncertainty arise? The problem is that every observation contains both the signal we are looking for, and spurious influences which we are not - noise. Sometimes we may have a good estimate of the level of noise, sometimes we do not. However, when we determine a trend of a set of data which are expected to lie on a straight line, we can estimate the size of the noise contributions from how close the actual data lie to the line.

 

[tsig]

Has the claim moved on from "colder winters in general" "to colder winters in specific areas"?

The claim is skittering around like a flea on a hot stove.

 

[Reality Check]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/

Unless they are hundred years or more of data. Poor tamino, he reads like a warrior in the blogoliscious gumbo jumbo wars.

Smart Tamino, stating the obvious once again in a vain attempt to educate climate change deniers.
Too Little Time

Those in denial of global warming and its danger have tried to make a big fuss over what they perceive as a lack of warming recently. How recently depends on just how much they’re willing avoid seeing.

Time and time again we’ve explained that natural variations can mask a trend on short time scales, and the time scales used to deny the danger of climate change are short. Time and time again we’ve illustrated that certain known factors (like the el Nino southern oscillation) have acted to do just that. For those in denial, any such explanation falls on deaf ears. But for the sake of those who are honestly wondering, let’s take a look at what climate data have revealed very recently. In particular, let’s look at the last decade (plus a couple of months) — let’s see what has happened since the start of 2003.

Such a short time span should be a denier’s dream! Ordinarily we wouldn’t expect to find significant climate-related changes over such a brief period.

Then he shows that there are significant trends in ice and snow data over the last decade. This looks (to me) due to smaller natural variations in the amount of ice or snow.

 

[r-j]

Nobody has ever claimed the NH global winter temperatures are dropping. When Hansen talks about colder winters in the Uk and Europe, he means just that. If I say Florida has a trend of colder winters, it means Florida. If I tell you some regions are having a trend of colder winters, that is what it means. Learn to read what is on the page.

As for the trend of warmer winters, expected to show up from greenhouse gases as the cause, the primary corn and soy belt region matches this behavior, if you use a hundred years of data. Some places show this in much shorter periods as well, but we have all learned that for hard data and actual temperature records, you can't trust the NCDC. That was joke. lol

Looking at the corn soy is very interesting. Spring is much warmer, and has been coming earlier.

Summer trend shows no increase in summer

and there it is, warmer winters.

See album for rainfall data.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1045&pictureid=7631

Don't want to spam up the thread with data.

 

[r-j]

Division 3 of Montana shows temperature trends very much like that of Canada just to the north of there. You can see the drastic increase in winter average temperatures, and the lack of warming for summers. It is very much like what we expect to see if warming is from the added greenhouse gases.

 

[Reality Check]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/too-little-time/

Unless they are hundred years or more of data. Poor tamino, he reads like a warrior in the blogoliscious gumbo jumbo wars.

Smart Tamino, stating the obvious once again in a vain attempt to educate climate change deniers.
Too Little Time

Those in denial of global warming and its danger have tried to make a big fuss over what they perceive as a lack of warming recently. How recently depends on just how much they’re willing avoid seeing.

Time and time again we’ve explained that natural variations can mask a trend on short time scales, and the time scales used to deny the danger of climate change are short. Time and time again we’ve illustrated that certain known factors (like the el Nino southern oscillation) have acted to do just that. For those in denial, any such explanation falls on deaf ears. But for the sake of those who are honestly wondering, let’s take a look at what climate data have revealed very recently. In particular, let’s look at the last decade (plus a couple of months) — let’s see what has happened since the start of 2003.

Such a short time span should be a denier’s dream! Ordinarily we wouldn’t expect to find significant climate-related changes over such a brief period.

Then he shows that there are significant trends in ice and snow data over the last decade. This looks (to me) due to smaller natural variations in the amount of ice or snow.

 

[Reality Check]

Nobody has ever claimed the NH global winter temperatures are dropping. .....

No one else is interest in cherry picked NH temperatures.
Everyone else knows that NH temperatures are not global temperatures!
r-j, Cherry picking data about local winters is just wrong !

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: you have just debunked your own claim that winters are getting colder

Division 3 of Montana shows temperature trends very much like that of Canada just to the north of there. You can see the drastic increase in winter average temperatures, and the lack of warming for summers.

r-j: you have just debunked your own claim that winters are getting colder with these examples of winters getting warmer .

 

[AlBell]

To complete the story

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=229&pictureid=7603[/qimg]

Unpublished estimates of climate sensitivity - From CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo)

UhHuh.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/02/meet_the_new_climate_deniers_117759.html

There are few things sadder than the “climate denier.” He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality. He can’t recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he’s a denier.

The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.

“Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,” The Economist writes. “The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, no more warming.

The Economist has been decidedly alarmist on global warming through the years, so it deserves credit for pausing to consider why the warming trend it expected to continue has mysteriously stalled out.

The deniers feel no such compunction. They speak as if it is still the late 1990s, when measurements of global temperature had been rising for two decades. In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that “we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.” In a passage devoted to global warming, though, he didn’t mention the latest trend in global warming.

A denier feels the same righteous sense of certitude now, when warming has stopped, as he did a decade ago. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently opined that “sensible people accept the fact of warming” — but apparently not the fact of no-warming. He scorned those “who manipulate the data in transparently bogus ways to claim that warming has halted or even reversed course.” Does he include James Hansen, the famous NASA scientist, among these dastardly manipulators? No one this side of Al Gore has warned as persistently about global warming as Hansen. He nonetheless admits that “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Why the stall in warming? According to The Economist, maybe we’ve overestimated the warming impact of clouds. Or maybe some clouds cool instead of warm the planet. Or maybe the oceans are absorbing heat from the atmosphere. Although the surface temperature of the oceans hasn’t been rising, perhaps the warming is happening deep down. James Hansen thinks new coal-fired plants in China and India, releasing so-called aerosols into the atmosphere that act to suppress warming, may be partly responsible for the stasis in temperatures.

Hansen writes that knowing more about the effect of aerosols on the climate “requires accurate knowledge of changes in aerosol amount, size distribution, absorption and vertical distribution on a global basis — as well as simultaneous data on changes in cloud properties to allow inference of the indirect aerosol forcing via induced cloud changes.” Is that all? He ruefully notes that the launch of a satellite with a sensor to measure all of this failed, with no follow-up mission planned.

Hey, but don’t worry. The science is all “settled.”

What is beginning to seem more likely is that the “sensitivity” of the global climate to carbon emissions has been overestimated. If so, the deniers will be the last to admit it.

 

[r-j]

UhHuh.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/02/meet_the_new_climate_deniers_117759.html

I guess I was ahead of my time.

 

[r-j]

r-j: you have just debunked your own claim that winters are getting colder with these examples of winters getting warmer .

Not if we believe that the trends are useless, as we have been told over and over. The NCDC doesn't give enough data to know that the graphs I posted actually mean anything!

If we ignore that bit of ridiculous, some of the US data matches the world average, which is pretty darn cool to look at. The snow and rainfall data is far more interesting than the temperatures as well.

Not having the Canada data sucks, but there is enough US data to figure out what is going on in the lower part of Canada. Right now it's cold and snowy. Very unusual.

 

[DSo]

Reason for all this? My apartment contains 5 buckets of CO2 in excess on what it contained in 1940, the year it was built. Of those buckets, one and a half was generated in the USA. If it was just my apartment! but it is all the wide world, from pole to pole and from the surface of the Dead See to the high troposphere.

On the plus side, the generation of that CO2 has allowed for human population to explode to over 7,000,000,000 during the industrial age. Accompanying the population growth has been a general (but clearly not uniformly distributed) trend towards greater life expectancy and I would argue "human happiness" (more leisure time, smaller family size, etc, etc ...). A far larger issue than naval gazing about temperature trends, IMHO, is how do we provide for continued growth and accommodate each individual's desire to improve their lot in life, while mitigating and managing the impacts of AGW.

The piece about everyone's desire to improve his or her lot life is key. Fossil fuels provide the greatest thermodynamic "bang for the buck" in terms of energy density and fungibility. To remove FF's from the equation will, in effect kill the shortest and easiest route for a large part of the world's population to improve their lot in life. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

Now, there is going to a bunch of chatter about solar, wind, etc, etc ... but that way I see it, FF's are going to produced and burned for a long time coming. So we better get good at adapting, managing and mitigating any negative impacts.