Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Latest dire global warming prediction: Cities will become uncomfortable, with helpful picture of the bottom of the ocean   (nbcnews.com ) divider line 114
    More: Interesting, Bottom of the Ocean, global warming, oceans, predictions, human culture, doomsday scenarios, greenhouse gases, climate  
•       •       •

1402 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Oct 2013 at 5:34 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
das
2013-10-09 06:00:17 PM  
Dimmycrats gearing up for an election, I see.
 
2013-10-09 06:21:07 PM  
So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...
 
2013-10-09 06:32:09 PM  
Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze
 
2013-10-09 06:35:07 PM  

styckx: Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze


Yes, cities like New Orleans, Houston, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. are all amused.
 
2013-10-09 06:37:26 PM  
Good. I hate being cold. Personally, I'm looking forward to growing oranges in February in Barrie, Ontario.
 
2013-10-09 06:43:48 PM  

bighairyguy: styckx: Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze

Yes, cities like New Orleans, Houston, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. are all amused.


I'll give you New Orleans and Charleston, but have you ever felt high humidity in Pheonix? I hiked in 120 degree weather outside of the city this summer, and am in complete agreement that NJ in the summer is worse.

/its a dry heat
 
2013-10-09 07:18:07 PM  
I remember when Ted Danson predicted the death of the oceans and shortly afterward us in ten years. In 1988. So this must be hell, which explains why it's getting hotter.
 
2013-10-09 07:21:49 PM  
"dire"
"devastating"
"stark future"
"Life unravels"


YOU ARE NOT HELPING!
 
2013-10-09 07:31:44 PM  
"On average, the tropics will experience unprecedented climate change 16 years earlier than the rest of the world, starting as early as 2020" in Manokwari, Indonesia, Mora said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday.

10 Signs Climate Change Is Already Happening

Unprecedented rate of change in climate demands action


Sorry that horse has already been flogged to death. Those goalposts have been cemented down. You can`t say the climate is *already* undergoing unprecedented change and then say it will *start* to undergo it in a reduced region in 7 years which is in turn 16 years before everyone else...
 
2013-10-09 07:31:49 PM  
zombiesatemygames.com
Looks pretty good to me. Then again, I choose the impossible.
 
2013-10-09 07:33:58 PM  
I like the way that `underwater` and `devastated` has been diluted to `uncomfortable` as well...
 
2013-10-09 07:35:58 PM  

New Farkin User Name: bighairyguy: styckx: Uncomfortable cities already exist and have forever.  Try out a summer in major city like Philly or New York where it will be 95 degrees, 80% humidity and the  120+ degree asphalt  cooking you with little to no breeze

Yes, cities like New Orleans, Houston, Charleston, Phoenix, etc. are all amused.

I'll give you New Orleans and Charleston, but have you ever felt high humidity in Pheonix? I hiked in 120 degree weather outside of the city this summer, and am in complete agreement that NJ in the summer is worse.

/its a dry heat


Not during monsoon season.
 
2013-10-09 07:39:14 PM  

jjorsett: I remember when Ted Danson predicted the death of the oceans and shortly afterward us in ten years. In 1988. So this must be hell, which explains why it's getting hotter.


I remember a lot of the things that have been said as predictions on this subject which is why it is so funny now observing the change in terminology used by climate scientists who are not having the planet play ball with their predictions of doom.

Kids only able to see snow on tv
coastal cities underwater by 2010
that sort of thing

changed to

uncomfortable.

Now the acidification of the ocean is a different matter. that we should do something about. Maybe grind up a lot of Kent and throw it in the ocean?
 
2013-10-09 08:08:10 PM  
I, too, am stupid enough to conflate random blogs and shiattily researched news articles with actual science. The ice isn't melting in my freezer. Thanks, algore.
 
2013-10-09 08:23:31 PM  

FTFA:
With this climate change, what is going to happen is we're going to be moving outside this comfort zone

What climate change?


www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-10-09 09:05:23 PM  
www.skepticalscience.com

Thanks, algore.
 
2013-10-09 09:07:14 PM  

Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...


Because it isn't possible that as scientists have studied climate change over the past 30 years that they've refined their understanding and now make more accurate predictions.
 
2013-10-09 09:08:49 PM  

Krieghund: Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...

Because it isn't possible that as scientists have studied climate change over the past 30 years that they've refined their understanding and now make more accurate predictions.


Thanks for the explanation, albore.
 
2013-10-09 09:12:56 PM  

SevenizGud: FTFA:
With this climate change, what is going to happen is we're going to be moving outside this comfort zone

What climate change?
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


What lack of warming?
 
2013-10-09 09:23:12 PM  
There's already another ACC thread. Leave this thread to be shiatted on by greentext at the last minute.
 
2013-10-09 10:01:39 PM  
So.

I live in Rochester, NY.  Here's a typical August:

4.bp.blogspot.com

OK, serious here now.  First frost is on average 9/29 in Rochester.

I haven't even had to break out my fall jacket yet.  Been that way for a few years.

/This post was originally meant to go with the more trolltastic headline that duplicates this link.
//But I figured I'd post it anyway.
 
2013-10-09 10:05:34 PM  
But doesn't living in high density cities reduce your carbon footprint, thus making cities more livable?
 
2013-10-09 10:08:03 PM  
Well, the more active thread got nuked.
 
2013-10-09 10:26:06 PM  
Wow. The anti-science brigade is out in force today.

Since when is "cities will get hotter" a new prediction? I thought higher temperatures have always been part of the prediction along with all the other effects of having more energy in the system.

Is this the new denier strategy? Just say intensely stupid things that don't even make sense? "They said it would get hotter but they did not specifically mention cities before so ... they are moving the goalposts! They are moving the goalposts!!!!"

/ the stupid burns
 
2013-10-09 10:46:00 PM  
Like the back of a Volkswagen?
 
2013-10-09 10:49:09 PM  

Farking Canuck: Wow. The anti-science brigade is out in force today.


Yeah they piled into this thread in a hurry, didn't they?
 
2013-10-09 10:54:30 PM  

dready zim: I like the way that `underwater` and `devastated` has been diluted to `uncomfortable` as well...


It's a wet heat.
 
2013-10-09 11:00:24 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-09 11:10:51 PM  

Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...


Of all the anti-science, anti-global warming arguments, the one about how scientists are all fabricating data to get their cut of all the sweet, sweet grant money is the most profoundly stupid.
 
2013-10-09 11:12:14 PM  

WelldeadLink: [parody image mocking the way deniers ignore the overall trends to focus on short trends to dishonestly misrepresent the data]


WelldeadLink: [graph of actual data showing a massive increase in average global temperatures starting around 1900]


The fact that you keep posting these two graphs together just shows how completely you do not understand what they say.

If you actually think there is any similarity between these two graphs, just because they both have short lines and pretty colors, you are completely unqualified to even join the conversation. Hush now, the adults want to talk.
 
2013-10-09 11:27:55 PM  

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: [parody image mocking the way deniers ignore the overall trends to focus on short trends to dishonestly misrepresent the data]

WelldeadLink: [graph of actual data showing a massive increase in average global temperatures starting around 1900]

The fact that you keep posting these two graphs together just shows how completely you do not understand what they say.

If you actually think there is any similarity between these two graphs, just because they both have short lines and pretty colors, you are completely unqualified to even join the conversation. Hush now, the adults want to talk.


Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.
 
2013-10-09 11:43:09 PM  

WelldeadLink: Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.


Nope ... nothing missed.

You saw two graphs, one that mocks the way deniers dishonestly represent data and one that plots 10-year average temperatures as 10-year-wide bars, and said to yourself "these look similar therefore I can put them side-by-side and pretend that I am saying something relevant".

The parts that you are missing are as follows:

- the first graph is not trying to present data ... it is just a parody of denier stupidity/dishonesty

- the parody graph is not suggesting that temperature is being represented by a series of short lines ... it is demonstrating that for any time span, a denier will choose to start a trend line at a local maximum and then choose just the right amount of points to achieve a result that gives the flat or negative slope that they were looking for. It is mocking their unethical and demonstrably bad scientific method.

- the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.
 
2013-10-09 11:44:56 PM  
Glad to see the Catastrophists are alive and well.
 
2013-10-09 11:53:51 PM  

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.

Nope ... nothing missed.

...
Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.


Nope, you again missed what you wrote. Not surprising. The second graph is the second part of the first graph in IPCC's AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers. Come back when you catch up on your reading. No, wait. Come back when you catch up on your comprehension.
 
2013-10-10 12:07:25 AM  

Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).


You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27
 
2013-10-10 12:25:00 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27


Because you don't understand these graphs either?

Farking Canuck may have asked for the source of the second graph, but what part of "decadal average" (in the box in part a of the figure on page SPM-27) makes you think his interpretation was wrong?
 
2013-10-10 12:27:04 AM  

WelldeadLink: Nope, you again missed what you wrote. Not surprising. The second graph is the second part of the first graph in IPCC's AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers. Come back when you catch up on your reading. No, wait. Come back when you catch up on your comprehension.


Thank you. And you still don't get that those are decadal averages ... not trends. It says it there on the graph in big letters.

They are not trend lines. I can't say it any simpler for you. Seriously, if you do not understand the difference between a decadal average an a trend line you should look up the word 'simpleton'.
 
2013-10-10 12:28:30 AM  
Humans have spent thousands of years perfecting "inside".

Let's just stick with that.
 
2013-10-10 12:50:55 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27



Farking Canuck is right. The second graph represents decadal averages:

Figure SPM.1: (a) Observed global mean combined land and ocean surface temperature anomalies, from
1850 to 2012 from three data sets. Top panel: annual mean values, bottom panel: decadal mean values 
including the estimate of uncertainty for one dataset (black).
Anomalies are relative to the mean of 
1961−1990
.

In addition, if you were to actually read the report you're linking to, it will tell you why it was graphed in this way:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits 
substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, 
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in 
general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 
years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is 
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5



If you would take a moment to understand, both graphs that WelldeadLink posted are making the same point (in bold above). The first shows how short-term trends can be misleading in relation to long-term climate trends, while the second shows how how such short-term trends can be filtered out - in this case by using decadal averages.

Yet again, it appears you might be having trouble with this really basic idea that short-term trends may be misleading and are in no way mutually exclusive with longer-term trends. What part of this do you not understand? We might be able to help.
 
2013-10-10 12:56:40 AM  

HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27

Because you don't understand these graphs either?


From those graphs, I understand that the temps rose from the 1910s through the 1940s (roughly .4C), then leveled out to the 1980s. Then it rose again up to the 'oughts (roughly .4C). I'm sure you're well aware that most temperature data sets show 1998 as the hottest year, with a level or cooling trend through now.

Farking Canuck may have asked for the source of the second graph, but what part of "decadal average" (in the box in part a of the figure on page SPM-27) makes you think his interpretation was wrong?

I don't disagree with him, I think IPCC graphs are pretty stupid too
 
2013-10-10 01:30:47 AM  

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: Wow, way to miss the points. Read again what you wrote.

Nope ... nothing missed.

...
Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Nope, you again missed what you wrote. Not surprising. The second graph is the second part of the first graph in IPCC's AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers. Come back when you catch up on your reading. No, wait. Come back when you catch up on your comprehension.



Unfortunately, you may indeed be missing the point. You seem to not have understood Farking Canuck's explanation, so let me rephrase it. Those two graph seem similar in a very superficially visual way, but they are plotting different things. In your first graph, each line in blue represents a  short-term trend, abest-fit line based upon a short period. In your second graph, each line represents a decadal average, simply the average for each decade, but plotted as a horizontal line.

Now with that out of the way, both graphs (even though they are portraying different things) are dealing with the same underlying issue.I'll repost the section in the SPM that references the second graph:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits 
substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1).  Due to natural variability, 
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in 
general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 
years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is 
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5


Both graphs are grappling with this idea in bold, that short-term trends can be misleading due to short-term variability and do not necessarily reflect long-term climate trends. The first graph you posted shows how short-term trends (in blue) do not accurately reflect long-term increase in temperature. Each of those blue trends do not accurately show the long-term trend - which was the point of that graph. The second graph is not showing short-term trends, but decadal averages - in fact, a way of filtering out those short-term trends by averaging each decade. By filtering out short-term trends, the longer-term trend becomes clearer.

So in short, the first graph is highlighting the problem, again, that short-term trends may not accurately reflect longer-term trends, while the second graph shows a solution, filtering out short-term trends.

Hopefully this makes sense. Tell me if itdoesn't and I can try to explain it in a different way.
 
2013-10-10 01:37:40 AM  
Dammit people... am I going to boil to death or freeze to death? I need to know where to put all my money.
 
2013-10-10 01:39:27 AM  

DesertDemonWY: HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27

Because you don't understand these graphs either?

From those graphs, I understand that the temps rose from the 1910s through the 1940s (roughly .4C), then leveled out to the 1980s. Then it rose again up to the 'oughts (roughly .4C). I'm sure you're well aware that most temperature data sets show 1998 as the hottest year, with a level or cooling trend through now.



Which is exactly the sort of thingthat IPCC graph was explicitly meant to address - looking at justa relatively short period of time (such as the 1998 to now period you reference) can be misleading. One big reason is the eventyou yourself highlight - that 1998 was an extremely hot year. Drawing a trendline from that extraordinarily hot year can be misleading in terms of the long-term climate trend we're actually interested in. We can get into the exact reasons for this if you want (regression to the mean and a peculiarity of OLS linear regression).

Take a moment to actually understand the graph. I for one am more than willing to help.
 
2013-10-10 01:45:58 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: - the second graph has no trend lines at all. To put it beside a graph that is a series of trendlines is just ... well, stupid. These bars are not trend-lines. They are simply decade averages plotted as decade wide bars (which is a strange way to do it).

You know how I know you haven't been to church lately? Chapter AR5, Verse 27

Because you don't understand these graphs either?

From those graphs, I understand that the temps rose from the 1910s through the 1940s (roughly .4C), then leveled out to the 1980s. Then it rose again up to the 'oughts (roughly .4C). I'm sure you're well aware that most temperature data sets show 1998 as the hottest year, with a level or cooling trend through now.


Which is exactly the sort of thingthat IPCC graph was explicitly meant to address - looking at justa relatively short period of time (such as the 1998 to now period you reference) can be misleading. One big reason is the eventyou yourself highlight - that 1998 was an extremely hot year. Drawing a trendline from that extraordinarily hot year can be misleading in terms of the long-term climate trend we're actually interested in. We can get into the exact reasons for this if you want (regression to the mean and a peculiarity of OLS linear regression).

Take a moment to actually understand the graph. I for one am more than willing to help.



Forgot to add the important bit. Since looking at a relatively short period of time (such as the 1998 to now period you reference) can be misleading, what the IPCC has done in that graph is instead plotted temperature as a series of decadal averages, thereby filtering out some of the variability (because averages reduce extreme values).
 
2013-10-10 01:48:47 AM  

SevenizGud: FTFA:
With this climate change, what is going to happen is we're going to be moving outside this comfort zone

What climate change?
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


The climate change that we repeatedly point out to you, and that you dishonestly hide from.
 
2013-10-10 02:12:21 AM  
The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?
 
2013-10-10 02:14:41 AM  

dready zim: "On average, the tropics will experience unprecedented climate change 16 years earlier than the rest of the world, starting as early as 2020" in Manokwari, Indonesia, Mora said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday.

10 Signs Climate Change Is Already Happening

Unprecedented rate of change in climate demands action


Sorry that horse has already been flogged to death. Those goalposts have been cemented down. You can`t say the climate is *already* undergoing unprecedented change and then say it will *start* to undergo it in a reduced region in 7 years which is in turn 16 years before everyone else...



As is often the case, the details matter. There are of course different things that can change, and at different times, compared to different baselines, and are measured by different metrics. You really have to look at more than just the headlines and a couple of sentences from a news report. This is true of any subject matter, but is especially true of scientific information.

So if we actually do some reading, the paper TFA is talking about defines 'climate' as a synthetic index combining seven variables (near-surface air temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, surface sensible heat flux, and ocean surface pH, if you're interested) and talks about 'change' as exceeding historical variability (as defined by 1860-2005). What this means is that they've defined 'change' as being when even the coldest year will be hotter than what we've seen from 1860-2005. Hopefully it is obvious to you that you  do not need as pronounced of a metric as that in order to detect changes. We are still able to draw meaningful trends even though current yearly temperatures (for example) are not unprecedented. This is the case for the other indicators of 'change' in the links you provide.
 
2013-10-10 02:17:30 AM  

GentlemanJ: The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?



It's a fair point - political boundaries provide a barrier to movement that limits people's ability to adapt to changing climates.
 
2013-10-10 02:27:10 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: GentlemanJ: The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?


It's a fair point - political boundaries provide a barrier to movement that limits people's ability to adapt to changing climates.


Not much, evidently.
 
2013-10-10 04:03:36 AM  
Ah, Damnhippyfreak and Farking Canuck. Two pretend scientists, in the pay of Big Green, threadshiatting their condescending alarmist BS.
 
2013-10-10 04:41:52 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Ah, Damnhippyfreak and Farking Canuck. Two pretend scientists, in the pay of Big Green, threadshiatting their condescending alarmist BS.


img829.imageshack.us
 
2013-10-10 05:00:25 AM  
Warning: never provide user Damnhippyfreak with a citation. If you do so, he will simply refuse to acknowledge what the cited document actually says. For further info: http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317 . Note that this user claims to be a practising scientist, but has never produced any papers, articles or other research material that can be checked online. He is simply paid by breen interests to produce green propoganda on threads such as this.
 
2013-10-10 05:09:55 AM  
Also, see http://www.fark.com/comments/7944016/86623730#c86623730 in which user Farking Canuck lets the mask slip and admits his true agenda. When his true colours show, you can jusdge for yourself whether this is a scientist, with an uncoloured outlook, searchign for the truth, or just a thug trying to impose his dogma for his paymasters.
 
2013-10-10 05:13:48 AM  
I remember when Nature used to publish cutting edge original research.


/ highest impact factor journal acceptance is a 12
// sad
/// should write a similar piggyback manuscript, I guess
 
2013-10-10 05:47:21 AM  
We can forget about the climate when we can build cities in space. Until then, we're just passing time waiting for this barely stable ball of dirt to crumble away.
 
2013-10-10 06:09:38 AM  

Krieghund: Swampmaster: So we have further redefined Global Cooling/ Global Warming/ Climate Change to now: "... climate variability..." and by region none the less... so, all of these studies/ models/ predictions can further manipulate the data to fit any hypothesis they want to give.  Sure, let's write then a big fat government grant check to fund further studies...

Because it isn't possible that as scientists have studied climate change over the past 30 years that they've refined their understanding and now make more accurate predictions.


That's what alarmists have been saying for the last 20 years, as they constantly change their predictions to account for the latest data.

And yet, the predictions have not been getting more accurate. This is because they are subject to a political agenda to predict sudden rapid global temperature rises sometime in the near future.

For example, the MET office (UK government funded weather forecasters, ~UKP100M per year) have been factoring climate models into their one-year forecasts (because climate models predict warming at a yearly rate high enough to be siginficant for weather forecasts). Guess what? 11 out of 12 forecasts in a row overestimated temps. So here we have a flow of knowledge building up over 12 years telling them over and over again that folding in cliamte models only makes their forecast less accurate, and they just ignored it and carried on. Incidentally, the probability of at least 11 out of 12 forecasts being off in the same direction is (12+1)/2^12 - significant to even the most sceptical observer.

The moral of the story is: if you keep your mouth shut and really learn from the evidence you will eventually make some impressive successful predictions and be hailed as a true scientist. OTOH if you first label yourself as a scientist, then make dramtic predictions which don't come true, and keep doing this for long enough, you will eventually become a laughing stock.

By the way: why do you lot feel the need to resort to sarcasm so much. Is it because you are trying to impart a sense of obviousness to your comment? Why would you need to use a rhetorical device to convince others that you are so sure that it is obviously true? Why would you even care what other people believe your level of certainty to be? Plenty of people used to be certain that it was obvious that the world was flat. The fact that they were certain of this had no bearing on reality, as was later discovered. I can only imagine that it is one of two things:

1. You think sceptics are so stupid as to automatically believe anything that someone else believes as long as they seem confident of its obviousness (you may be this stupid; most sceptics are a bit smarter than that I think) or

2. You are really preeching to the choir - you want to earn credibility points with other alarmists by reassuring them that you are a 100% believer - even if this means coming off as an arrogant tool to everyone else.

Maybe it's something different. Do please enlighten us.
 
2013-10-10 06:13:53 AM  

JRoo: We can forget about the climate when we can build cities in space. Until then, we're just passing time waiting for this barely stable ball of dirt to crumble away.


The sad thing is, in your own eyes, you probably think you are just he sort of wise, insightful and balanced person who would be a safe pair of hands in charge of some future global government.

/<shudder>
 
2013-10-10 06:23:17 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: JRoo: We can forget about the climate when we can build cities in space. Until then, we're just passing time waiting for this barely stable ball of dirt to crumble away.

The sad thing is, in your own eyes, you probably think you are just he sort of wise, insightful and balanced person who would be a safe pair of hands in charge of some future global government.

/<shudder>


Whatever dipwad. I just want to fly a spaceship but I'll be dead long before then.
 
2013-10-10 06:34:02 AM  

JRoo: THE GREAT NAME: JRoo: We can forget about the climate when we can build cities in space. Until then, we're just passing time waiting for this barely stable ball of dirt to crumble away.

The sad thing is, in your own eyes, you probably think you are just he sort of wise, insightful and balanced person who would be a safe pair of hands in charge of some future global government.

/<shudder>

Whatever dipwad. I just want to fly a spaceship but I'll be dead long before then.


Dipwad?
 
2013-10-10 06:38:48 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: historical variability (as defined by 1860-2005)


And here is the problem. Climate can naturally vary by more than the amount it varied during the period 1860-2005 so under the criteria for definition, natural variability could be given the label unprecedented climate change.

Two words that back up my premise, Older Peron. Metres of ocean level change in a few hundred years naturally. Explain that and then we can talk about `unprecedented`

The Older Peron transgression was a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies). The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth; in the dendrochronology of the bristlecone pine, which extends back from the modern era to 6700 BCE, the single best year for the growth of the pine was 4850 BCE, early in the Older Peron era.
The Older Peron was a "transgression" in the sense of Sea-level rise, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average.


Sound familiar?
 
2013-10-10 06:40:07 AM  

JRoo: THE GREAT NAME: JRoo: We can forget about the climate when we can build cities in space. Until then, we're just passing time waiting for this barely stable ball of dirt to crumble away.

The sad thing is, in your own eyes, you probably think you are just he sort of wise, insightful and balanced person who would be a safe pair of hands in charge of some future global government.

/<shudder>

Whatever dipwad. I just want to fly a spaceship but I'll be dead long before then.


google `kerbal`...
 
2013-10-10 06:40:51 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: JRoo: THE GREAT NAME: JRoo: We can forget about the climate when we can build cities in space. Until then, we're just passing time waiting for this barely stable ball of dirt to crumble away.

The sad thing is, in your own eyes, you probably think you are just he sort of wise, insightful and balanced person who would be a safe pair of hands in charge of some future global government.

/<shudder>

Whatever dipwad. I just want to fly a spaceship but I'll be dead long before then.

Dipwad?


like dickwad but doesn`t get filterpwnd
 
2013-10-10 06:41:27 AM  
Oh, dickwad doesn`t get filterpwnd.
 
2013-10-10 07:04:05 AM  

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: historical variability (as defined by 1860-2005)

And here is the problem. Climate can naturally vary by more than the amount it varied during the period 1860-2005 so under the criteria for definition, natural variability could be given the label unprecedented climate change.

Two words that back up my premise, Older Peron. Metres of ocean level change in a few hundred years naturally. Explain that and then we can talk about `unprecedented`

The Older Peron transgression was a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies). The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth; in the dendrochronology of the bristlecone pine, which extends back from the modern era to 6700 BCE, the single best year for the growth of the pine was 4850 BCE, early in the Older Peron era.
The Older Peron was a "transgression" in the sense of Sea-level rise, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average.


Sound familiar?


That's very interesting, thanks for posting that.

The question of historical precident is very important, because the alarmists have to try and present the 1978-1998 rise as somehow unprecedented in order to attribute it to mankind. They know about this weakness in their argument which is why Mann et al flattened the last thousand years in order to create the hockey stick graph. That was actually quite a compelling graph - until it was exposed as a lie. It really is pathetic that some people seem to still believe it after having been debunked for so long, and with so much new evidence emerging about past extremes that occurred entirely naturally.

But there is more to it than that. Do you remember "chaos theory"? One of the things it predicted was that complex natural systems, if viewed as compunded chaotic attractors that modulate each other's control variable, produce random-looking fluctuations that resemble "pink noise". That is, noise whose amplitude is constant per-octave rather than per-Hz (white noise). This property makes graphs of pink noise over time appear "scale invariant" in the sense that you can zoom in or out and it looks about the same.

Many systems in the natural world do indeed resemble pink noise, so nature supports theory in this case. The climate is one of those sytsems, and the graphs of temps ranging from days to thousands of years (subtracting off known cycles) does indeed posess scle invariance. So there is both empirical and theoretical justification (and I mean proper theory, not some dubious model) for the chaotic view.

Here's the rub: the climate alarmists insist that the climate ought to be predictable so that they can argue that the recent rise must be anthropogenic. To do this they must account for the unpredictability of weather, and they do this by saying that the timescale make a difference. They say (with a tone of exaggerated certaintyto push the bluff) that obviously the random weather fluctuations would average out over decadal "climate" timescales. But that is a bluff because it pushes the assumption that the noise will be white noise - i.e. resembling a series of independent experiments. The argument does not apply in the case of pink noise, because pink noise is self-correlated. Instead, with pink noise, you expect the same unpredictability on both timescales.

In fact, if "climatology" as opposed to "meteorology" means "of the system that is predictable due to averaging over longer timescales" then climatology does not exist.
 
2013-10-10 07:43:12 AM  
rlv.zcache.co.uk
 
2013-10-10 07:44:41 AM  

GentlemanJ: Damnhippyfreak: GentlemanJ: The same may be said for humans, Mora told NBC News "We have these political boundaries that we cannot cross as easily. Like people in Mexico--if the climate was [sic] to go crazy there, it is not like they can move to the United States."

Is Mora trying to be ironic, or is he a complete idiot?


It's a fair point - political boundaries provide a barrier to movement that limits people's ability to adapt to changing climates.

Not much, evidently.


112 million people in Mexico coming across the border when all the crops fail every year in the region might be somewhat of a step change compared to the relatively limited amount of immigration (legal and illegal) you have now.
 
2013-10-10 08:48:49 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Ah, Damnhippyfreak and Farking Canuck. Two pretend scientists, in the pay of Big Green, threadshiatting their condescending alarmist BS.


My posts in this thread have been:

- one post asking why "cities will get hotter" is 'moving the goal posts' when an increase in average global temperature has always been the key public message of global warming. (Seriously ... how can someone post something that stupid with a straight face?)

- explaining (again and again) to WelldeadLink that there is a difference between a decadal average and a trend line

I am so horrible to deniers ... pointing out those awful facts and all.

Please point me to where 'big green' is located. I currently mock deniers for free ... I would love to be paid for pointing out the intense stupidity inherent in the anti-science movement.

P.S. Is 'big green' something like 'big oil' except with 4 orders of magnitude less revenue annually??
 
2013-10-10 08:48:53 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: historical variability (as defined by 1860-2005)

And here is the problem. Climate can naturally vary by more than the amount it varied during the period 1860-2005 so under the criteria for definition, natural variability could be given the label unprecedented climate change.

Two words that back up my premise, Older Peron. Metres of ocean level change in a few hundred years naturally. Explain that and then we can talk about `unprecedented`

The Older Peron transgression was a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies). The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth; in the dendrochronology of the bristlecone pine, which extends back from the modern era to 6700 BCE, the single best year for the growth of the pine was 4850 BCE, early in the Older Peron era.
The Older Peron was a "transgression" in the sense of Sea-level rise, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average.


Sound familiar?

That's very interesting, thanks for posting that.

The question of historical precident is very important, because the alarmists have to try and present the 1978-1998 rise as somehow unprecedented in order to attribute it to mankind. They know about this weakness in their argument which is why Mann et al flattened the last thousand years in order to create the hockey stick graph. That was actually quite a compelling graph - until it was exposed as a lie. It really is pathetic that some people seem to still believe it after having been debunked for so long, and with so much new evidence emerging about past ext ...


It`s what I always think of when I am told the current warming is unprecedented and have to listen to wild blanket statements like `the sea level has been rising steadily for the last 10,000 years since the last glacial and only now is rising faster due to ACC/AGW/GCC/GW` (except for the time it rose by 3 meters in ~200 years, 5000 years ago for some reason but Shhhh.../that didn`t happen\)

What is so magical about the time period 1860-2005? I read, over 30 years ago before all this hysteria, that the last 3000 years have been unusually stable climate wise and that is what allowed current civilisation to form. This implies that the norm is an unstable climate which we should prepare for instead of feeling guilty about causing. Just because we had widespread temperature measurements does not mean the climate was special during that time (or normal).

I don`t know why but to me it seems important to catalog ALL the precedent events in order to calculate the unprecedented but that`s how I roll, in accordance with Newtons three laws of motion.

Also chaos. It will bite you in the ass at some point. You just can`t predict when.
 
2013-10-10 09:09:13 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Also, see http://www.fark.com/comments/7944016/86623730#c86623730 in which user Farking Canuck lets the mask slip and admits his true agenda. When his true colours show, you can jusdge for yourself whether this is a scientist, with an uncoloured outlook, searchign for the truth, or just a thug trying to impose his dogma for his paymasters.


Your link goes to one of DamnHippyFreak's posts. This is too bad - I was curious to discover what my agenda was.

ProTip for seeing a denier's true colors: On the rare occasion that they present links you need to follow them and read carefully. A key strategy in the anti-science platform is the assumption that 99% of people will not actually check what they link to.

Often their links are:
- not even relevant (as in this case)
- links to blogs which offer no supporting evidence for their lies/arguments
- links to blogs which then link to scientific papers - but when you read the paper you see that they've distorted or otherwise misrepresented the paper
- links directly to the scientific papers but, again, they've distorted or misrepresented the results

Once you start following their links you see that the anti-science position is based entirely on misdirection and deception.
 
2013-10-10 09:10:47 AM  

dready zim: I don`t know why but to me it seems important to catalog ALL the precedent events in order to calculate the unprecedented but that`s how I roll, in accordance with Newtons three laws of motion.

Also chaos. It will bite you in the ass at some point. You just can`t predict when.


Very much agree. What thugs like Farking Canuck don't understand is that to truly be prepared for unexpected natural variations (of the sort "climatologists" are woefully unable to forecast) we need good, healthy economies, something that climatists, in their drive to intervene and spend $$$ are doing their best to prevent. I recently saw this quote from "Red" Ed Milliband, the leader of the UK's socialist party:

"The costs of acting on climate change are something like 1% of national income, 1%-2% of national income, by 2050. So we can either lose three months or six months of economic growth, for the world, and act, or we face this huge risk in relation to the cost of adapting to climate change."

When in government, he enacted eco policies that drove up energy prices, diverting billions of $$$ from the working classes into the hands of goons like Farking Canuck via grants, subsidies etc. Now he is out of government he is trying to get re-elected by promising price clamps on energy costs, a classic Marxist fallacy which virtually guarantees rolling power cuts.

The economic damage all this does, during a recession, is lamentable. And in the final analysis when some natural event does blindside us we will have less resources to get through it.
 
2013-10-10 09:20:51 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Also, see http://www.fark.com/comments/7944016/86623730#c86623730 in which user Farking Canuck lets the mask slip and admits his true agenda. When his true colours show, you can jusdge for yourself whether this is a scientist, with an uncoloured outlook, searchign for the truth, or just a thug trying to impose his dogma for his paymasters.

Your link goes to one of DamnHippyFreak's posts. This is too bad - I was curious to discover what my agenda was.


Innocent mistake corrected - it was Dhf who was boasting about "dominating" a discussion. If you guys had a bit more individuality instead of the usual collectivist climate-loon mindset, people would find it easier to tell you apart.

Protip: you'll never see a climatist loon admit to having made a mistake. They simply can't do it, because they are so indoctrinated.

PS NAME loves science, and has said so on many occasions.
 
2013-10-10 09:23:27 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Ah, Damnhippyfreak and Farking Canuck. Two pretend scientists, in the pay of Big Green, threadshiatting their condescending alarmist BS.


I have never claimed to be a "scientist".

I have been consistent in what I have revealed about my qualifications. I have mentioned bits and pieces over the years but here it is in full: I have a degree in chemical engineering (and my P.Eng license) and I have been working in a materials research facility for 21 years (8 years in research (10 patents) and 13 years in IT).

Also, unlike deniers, I am not claiming to know more than the scientists working in the field. I only claim to be able to be able to read and understand the language used in research papers ... which allows me, for the most part, to understand what the scientists are reporting. They are the ones saying AGW is by far the best explanation for the current warming trend ... not me.

And I again repeat my request - please direct me to this 'big green' organization that will apparently pay me for pointing out denier lies and propaganda. I do ok for money but everyone could use a little more.
 
2013-10-10 09:33:30 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Innocent mistake corrected - it was Dhf who was boasting about "dominating" a discussion. If you guys had a bit more individuality instead of the usual collectivist climate-loon mindset, people would find it easier to tell you apart.


Yeah ... whatever. The fact is that you are making a big deal about the semantics of DHF using the words "dominating the conversation". He was merely commenting on how entertaining it was to see a large number of people in that thread picking apart the denier lies. Usually there is only a few of us.

The first words I said in this thread were "Wow. The anti-science brigade is out in force today." I was pointing out that, at least early in the thread, the deniers were dominating the discussion.

Ironically, unlike you, I wasn't suggesting anything nefarious, just that a lot of the anti-science movement members were up early and actively posting.

But you keep farking that dead horse.
 
2013-10-10 09:39:02 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Innocent mistake corrected - it was Dhf who was boasting about "dominating" a discussion. If you guys had a bit more individuality instead of the usual collectivist climate-loon mindset, people would find it easier to tell you apart.

Yeah ... whatever. The fact is that you are making a big deal about the semantics of DHF using the words "dominating the conversation". He was merely commenting on how entertaining it was to see a large number of people in that thread picking apart the denier lies. Usually there is only a few of us.

The first words I said in this thread were "Wow. The anti-science brigade is out in force today." I was pointing out that, at least early in the thread, the deniers were dominating the discussion.

Ironically, unlike you, I wasn't suggesting anything nefarious, just that a lot of the anti-science movement members were up early and actively posting.

But you keep farking that dead horse.


You keep flogging the dead horse that sceptics are anti science. It's unlikely anybody will take you seriously as long as you choose to mischaracterise those with whom you debate. It's like trying to persuade a cat that 2 plus 2 is 5 by repeatedly calling it a dog. Eventually people just tune out.
 
2013-10-10 09:52:51 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: You keep flogging the dead horse that sceptics are anti science. It's unlikely anybody will take you seriously as long as you choose to mischaracterise those with whom you debate. It's like trying to persuade a cat that 2 plus 2 is 5 by repeatedly calling it a dog. Eventually people just tune out.


Skeptics do not rely on lies and half-truths. The anti-science movement are not skeptics.

Look at the anti-science soldiers in this thread:

SevenIzGud - according to him all trends start at 1998. This is a half truth: it uses real data but it is cherry picked to give a result that pushes an agenda.

WelldeadLink - Plots two images beside each other that are not comparable on any level. I cannot tell if it is straight up deception or ignorance of what a decadal average on his part ... but it is misinformation to push an agenda.

THE GREAT NAME - you have posted a series of ad hominem attacks instead of presenting any science.
 
2013-10-10 10:03:06 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: You keep flogging the dead horse that sceptics are anti science. It's unlikely anybody will take you seriously as long as you choose to mischaracterise those with whom you debate. It's like trying to persuade a cat that 2 plus 2 is 5 by repeatedly calling it a dog. Eventually people just tune out.

Skeptics do not rely on lies and half-truths. The anti-science movement are not skeptics.

Look at the anti-science soldiers in this thread:

SevenIzGud - according to him all trends start at 1998. This is a half truth: it uses real data but it is cherry picked to give a result that pushes an agenda.


1998 is the whore year that was used by both sides - shortly after 1988 the warmist-alarmists were citing it as evidence that global warming was speeding up. So, by your logic they are anti-science!

WelldeadLink - Plots two images beside each other that are not comparable on any level. I cannot tell if it is straight up deception or ignorance of what a decadal average on his part ... but it is misinformation to push an agenda.

Mann's hockey stick graph: straight up deception or ignorance? By your logic, climatologists like Mann are anti-science.

THE GREAT NAME - you have posted a series of ad hominem attacks instead of presenting any science.

Your Boobies calls sceptics anti-science and deniers (a term calculated to suggest crypto-fascist undertones). There is no science in any of your ensuing comments - just whining about graphs, making a big deal over a small error by NAME, and getting defensive. By your logic you are anti-science.

In fact, the more you call people anti-science, then more they will point out that your accusations apply equally to you!
 
2013-10-10 10:11:37 AM  
I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.
 
2013-10-10 10:15:54 AM  

Geotpf: I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.


Climate alarmists are like horny cocker spaniels. They will hump anything what looks like a reason to be alarmed about the climate without worrying too much whether it's the real thing.
 
2013-10-10 10:24:50 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: 1998 is the whore year that was used by both sides - shortly after 1988 the warmist-alarmists were citing it as evidence that global warming was speeding up. So, by your logic they are anti-science!


Cherry picking starting years for trends is blatantly dishonest and anti-science Pointing out a record hot year when it happens and being concerned that it is a bad sign is not the same as cherry-picking a starting point for a trend graph to create a pre-selected slope. The former is expressing legitimate concern about an unknown future ... the latter is unethically manipulating historical data to forward an agenda.

THE GREAT NAME: Your Boobies calls sceptics anti-science and deniers (a term calculated to suggest crypto-fascist undertones). There is no science in any of your ensuing comments - just whining about graphs, making a big deal over a small error by NAME, and getting defensive. By your logic you are anti-science.

In fact, the more you call people anti-science, then more they will point out that your accusations apply equally to you!


They are terms selected because they are the most precise and descriptive. If you don't like the moniker then stop the deceptive actions.

I was not trying to present any science. The science was presented by the scientist in the article. As we already discussed, I do not claim to be a climate scientist.

In each case I was responding to denier posts ... I like to counter their campaign of mis-information.

When dreadly zim suggested that a scientist discussing the warming of cities was "moving the goalposts" ... I pointed out how ridiculous that was.

When SevenIzGud posted the same dishonest graph that he posts over and over and over and over ... I pointed out his ongoing dishonesty.

When WelldeadLink again posted the unrelated graphs as if he was making an insightful post ... I tried to explain the difference between between a trend line and a ten year wide horizontal line used to represent a decadal average.

When you began your tirade of ad hominem posts ... I pointed out how your link about me was incorrect and that your attack on DHF was silly semantics.

Again, I'm not trying to present science here. I leave that to the scientists. I am just pointing out the misconceptions and deceptions of the denier crew.
 
2013-10-10 10:33:52 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: 1998 is the whore year that was used by both sides - shortly after 1988 the warmist-alarmists were citing it as evidence that global warming was speeding up. So, by your logic they are anti-science!

Cherry picking starting years for trends is blatantly dishonest and anti-science Pointing out a record hot year when it happens and being concerned that it is a bad sign is not the same as cherry-picking a starting point for a trend graph to create a pre-selected slope. The former is expressing legitimate concern about an unknown future ... the latter is unethically manipulating historical data to forward an agenda.


Nope. They are exactly the same. Waiting for an outlyer year so you can say "the trend up to the present is an exponential riise" is just the same as cherry-picking a historical date.

It's the same trick the speed camera people use - they wait for an outlying year for accident rates on some road somewhere, announce that accidents are increasing and install the camera.

You can't see the tricks when "your side" uses them because you are blinded by your need to conform.
 
2013-10-10 10:36:12 AM  

Geotpf: I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.


No surprise, I'm probably talking to a complete idiot, but if you don't "buy it",  do comment on what a globally integrated delta_T of 2C, let alone 10C equals.

Then comment on how said energy is either lost, or converted.
 
2013-10-10 10:40:57 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Geotpf: I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.

No surprise, I'm probably talking to a complete idiot, but if you don't "buy it",  do comment on what a globally integrated delta_T of 2C, let alone 10C equals.

Then comment on how said energy is either lost, or converted.


How about if you comment on such instead of calling me names?
 
2013-10-10 10:55:23 AM  

Geotpf: Leader O'Cola: Geotpf: I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.

No surprise, I'm probably talking to a complete idiot, but if you don't "buy it",  do comment on what a globally integrated delta_T of 2C, let alone 10C equals.

Then comment on how said energy is either lost, or converted.

How about if you comment on such instead of calling me names?


He's into "death metal" and probably doesn't even know what integration is. I suggest ignoring him.
 
2013-10-10 11:01:21 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Waiting for an outlyer year so you can say

...

This is a load of crap. Nobody is waiting for anything. There are predictions of what will likely happen and reactions to what does happen.

The data shows that the earth is on clear trend of increased energy retention due to the greenhouse effect. This is having many effects including increased global average temperatures for atmosphere and oceans, receding glaciers, polar ice melt, etc.

It is only natural for everyone to make a big deal every time we hit a new extreme. Just like the 2012 polar ice cap low, the 1998 temperature spike made the news. They will likely make the news again soon for new extremes as the net energy retained is still increasing. If we get a new high in 2017 maybe SevenIzGud will finally choose a new starting point for his graphs ... that would make him a little less boring.

Scientists understand that it is just a combination of the trends predicted by AGW combined with natural variation to create an extreme data point. It is a curiosity for science and something to sell papers and page hits for the news agencies.

When it comes to science it is the trends that tell the real story ... not individual data points. Your insistence that individual years are important to science suggests you are one of those people who gets their science from reporters. This would explain a lot.
 
2013-10-10 11:12:07 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Geotpf: Leader O'Cola: Geotpf: I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.

No surprise, I'm probably talking to a complete idiot, but if you don't "buy it",  do comment on what a globally integrated delta_T of 2C, let alone 10C equals.

Then comment on how said energy is either lost, or converted.

How about if you comment on such instead of calling me names?

He's into "death metal" and probably doesn't even know what integration is. I suggest ignoring him.


Yeah, that's typical. Ignore any questions that you can't answer. Sounds like a GREAT policy.
 
2013-10-10 11:15:50 AM  

HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Geotpf: Leader O'Cola: Geotpf: I don't buy it.

If the average temperture goes up two degrees, or even ten degrees, life in a typical first world city won't change much at all.

Now, those two degrees might matter to a subsistance farmer in Africa or some tiny bug in the Amazon, however, so it's not like I'm saying there is no effect.  But to your average banker on Wall Street or computer programmer in San Jose or Hollywood movie star in Los Angeles, not much will change.

No surprise, I'm probably talking to a complete idiot, but if you don't "buy it",  do comment on what a globally integrated delta_T of 2C, let alone 10C equals.

Then comment on how said energy is either lost, or converted.

How about if you comment on such instead of calling me names?

He's into "death metal" and probably doesn't even know what integration is. I suggest ignoring him.

Yeah, that's typical. Ignore any questions that you can't answer. Sounds like a GREAT policy.


Well, calling me an idiot without adding anything substantial to the discussion wasn't exactly helpful either.
 
2013-10-10 11:29:48 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: You keep flogging the dead horse that sceptics are anti science


Hi THE GREAT NAME,

I contend that the climate system is not magic (i.e. that it does not violate physics). I contend that while the climate system is unquestionably complex, its broad-scale features (such as globally-averaged temperature) are the products of its boundary conditions and emergent phenomena that arise from the same. I contend that multidecadal change in the climate system arises from alteration of planetary energy balance (including through changes in radiative forcings at the top of the atmosphere), as well as internal variability in the climate system related to some of the emergent phenomena I mentioned earlier (such as ENSO). Moreover, I contend that these positions are entirely uncontroversial within the relevant scientific disciplines (atmospheric chemistry and physics, physical oceanography, climate dynamics, etc.).

Do you agree?
 
2013-10-10 11:32:16 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Waiting for an outlyer year so you can say ...

This is a load of crap. Nobody is waiting for anything. There are predictions of what will likely happen and reactions to what does happen.


Maybe you weren't around at the turn of century. Or you have a poor memory. But the alarmism reached fever pitch after the hot year of 1998. It is only much more recently that climatists want it to be an outlier, now it no longer supports their position.

The data shows that the earth is on clear trend of increased energy retention due to the greenhouse effect. This is having many effects including increased global average temperatures for atmosphere and oceans, receding glaciers, polar ice melt, etc.

The original prediction was of increased air temperatures, not energy retention. To predict one and then cite the other as confirmation is moving the goal posts. And not just in a pedantic way: "energy retention" means ocean temperature - and this lags air temperature. So after an increase in air temperature, an increase in ocean temp is sure to follow. It is not new info, and is not a successful prediction of CAGW, only of the phenomenon of heat capacity, which is kids' stuff.

It is only natural for everyone to make a big deal every time we hit a new extreme. Just like the 2012 polar ice cap low, the 1998 temperature spike made the news. They will likely make the news again soon for new extremes as the net energy retained is still increasing. If we get a new high in 2017 maybe SevenIzGud will finally choose a new starting point for his graphs ... that would make him a little less boring.

Any kind of event that can be used in a pro-CAGW argument must be allowed in anti-CAGW arguments too. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to impose arbitrary rules onto the debate, in order to influence the outcome, which is about the most unscientifc thing you could possibly do.

Scientists understand that it is just a combination of the trends predicted by AGW combined with natural variation to create an extreme data point. It is a curiosity for science and something to sell papers and page hits for the news agencies.

But they do not accept that the rise prior to 1998 could have been natural variation. Why is evidence that goes against them allowed to be natural randomness but not events that go in their favour? Not a single climatology institution predicted any kind of slowdown following 1998. In fact, many predicted an increase in the rate of change. So the discrepancy we have now from the predictions is virtually as big as the discrepancy we had around 1995 versus no rapid rise at all. So why is one of these important and the other irrelevent?

When it comes to science it is the trends that tell the real story ... not individual data points. Your insistence that individual years are important to science suggests you are one of those people who gets their science from reporters. This would explain a lot.

No I think you misunderstand. I do not need to present 1998 as important - the trend is still flat or slightly falling temps even if you remove it. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of climatists who happily cited 1998 when it seemed to support their arguments, but insist it be excluded when it does not.

The trend of no rises has gone on long enough to "show up" on climatology timescales. Remember, cliatologists themselves defined the tiemescales they were going to call relevent to climate as decades and centuries (based on a wrong assumption about natural variability resembling white noise). The climate (as in, over a scale of a decade) is outside the error bars on their predictions (even the most optimistic scenario). Based on their definitions, climate change has failed to happen. Scientifically speaking, it's over. All that is left is some kind of quasi-religion practiced by those who have lost their way.
 
2013-10-10 11:35:52 AM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: You keep flogging the dead horse that sceptics are anti science

Hi THE GREAT NAME,

I contend that the climate system is not magic (i.e. that it does not violate physics). I contend that while the climate system is unquestionably complex, its broad-scale features (such as globally-averaged temperature) are the products of its boundary conditions and emergent phenomena that arise from the same. I contend that multidecadal change in the climate system arises from alteration of planetary energy balance (including through changes in radiative forcings at the top of the atmosphere), as well as internal variability in the climate system related to some of the emergent phenomena I mentioned earlier (such as ENSO). Moreover, I contend that these positions are entirely uncontroversial within the relevant scientific disciplines (atmospheric chemistry and physics, physical oceanography, climate dynamics, etc.).

Do you agree?


Not quite sure where you're going here. Are you going to call chaos theory magic? Or do you have some other case to make that isn't good enough to be stated plainly, so you have to play rhetorical games?
 
2013-10-10 11:59:39 AM  

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: [parody image mocking the way deniers ignore the overall trends to focus on short trends to dishonestly misrepresent the data]

WelldeadLink: [graph of actual data showing a massive increase in average global temperatures starting around 1900]


Sigh. Pay attention to what you wrote. What are the "overall trends", and what do they mean? Why do you care if there has been a "massive increase"?
 
2013-10-10 12:16:38 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Are you going to call chaos theory magic?


Do I think chaos theory is magic? Of course not. But some people apparently do. They appear to believe that chaos theory precludes us from knowing how changing the boundary values of a system can change its mean state and other characteristics.

Are you one of those people? Do you believe chaos theory precludes us from understanding how changing planetary energy balance changes climate?

Or do you have some other case to make that isn't good enough to be stated plainly, so you have to play rhetorical games?

I am simply trying to establish whether or not you agree with basic concepts related to the climate system before we have a more meaningful discussion. If you disagree with fundamental aspects of atmospheric physics, for example, there is little point in me spending time trying to have a conversation with you.
 
2013-10-10 12:24:22 PM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Are you going to call chaos theory magic?

Do I think chaos theory is magic? Of course not. But some people apparently do. They appear to believe that chaos theory precludes us from knowing how changing the boundary values of a system can change its mean state and other characteristics.


Actually, we both know that forecasting the weather system (meteorology) is difficult to do accurately. No magic involved there. Are you one of those people who says that the climate must be more easily predicted than the weather?
 
2013-10-10 12:46:59 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Are you one of those people who says that the climate must be more easily predicted than the weather?


I am "one of those people" that understands the difference between initial value problems and boundary value problems. I take it from this question that you either are not, or were unaware of the distinction?

A) If we cranked up the energy of the sun by 10%, would the globally-averaged temperature in 100 years be warmer or cooler than if we did not?

B) Is it warmer in the boreal summer than the boreal winter?

If chaos theory actually precluded our understanding of changes to the broad-scale features of the climate system beyond the timescales of skillful meteorological forecasting, we would be unable to answer these questions.

People who deny that we are capable of making meaningful statements about the role boundary values play in climate will often pretend to say they don't claim to know the answer to A when they of course do, but realize it makes them look inconsistent to acknowledge. Because the B example is even more obvious and incredibly non-sensical to deny, they usually find some way to change conversation rather than acknowledge that chaos is not a barrier to discussing climatic change.

Do you acknowledge that chaos theory is in point of fact not a barrier to understanding the impact of changes in boundary values to the mean state of a system over sufficiently long timescales?
 
2013-10-10 01:15:44 PM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Are you one of those people who says that the climate must be more easily predicted than the weather?

I am "one of those people" that understands the difference between initial value problems and boundary value problems. I take it from this question that you either are not, or were unaware of the distinction?


Prediction is an initial value problem. Chaos theory makes the problem difficult to solve even using numerical methods due to the high sensitivity to initial vlaues due to error amplification. Furthermore, (when the chaotic system is complex) the errors are often scale-invarient (ie pink noise) so that even as you average over longer periods years->decades->centuries, you do not see a fall in the noise.

This applies just as well to alternate scenario problems like "what if there hd been no anthroogenic CO2"? Because to say temps would have remained level in that scenario is itself a prediction.
 
2013-10-10 01:51:07 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Prediction is an initial value problem. Chaos theory makes the problem difficult to solve even using numerical methods due to the high sensitivity to initial vlaues

Some kinds

of prediction are initial value problems.

Predicting a single realization of a given system's response to stochastic processes is not the same thing as understanding and predicting the mean state's response to changes in boundary values.

Do you not understand this?

The specific outcome of a given role of a fair six-sided die is the result of a host of stochastic processes which are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions. That the range of possible results will always be (in the absence of some external change to the boundary values) between 1 and 6, that the mean value over a large number of rolls will converge on 3.5, etc. are dictated by the boundary values of the system.

Moreover, if I change the boundary values of the system, I can make meaningful statements about the mean state even while chaos prevents me from making skillful forecasts of individual realizations. If I trade a fair six-sided die for a fair eight-sided die, I can say that the range of possible results will always be (in the absence of some external change to the boundary values) between 1 and 8, that the mean value over a large number of rolls will converge on 4.5, etc.

Chaos does not preclude us from making meaningful statements about the role boundary values play in the mean state of a system nor preclude us from understanding how changes in boundary values will change the mean state.

Furthermore, (when the chaotic system is complex) the errors are often scale-invarient (ie pink noise) so that even as you average over longer periods years->decades->centuries, you do not see a fall in the noise.

The from a signal detection standpoint, the signal to noise ratio in climate data absolutely increases with an increase in the strength of a signal, the length of a time series, or both. You yourself almost assuredly believe this on some level whether you can admit this or not. You realize that a sufficiently large signal, however short in duration, can be detected above the noise of variability. Such as if we were able to simply turn off the sun instantaneously, or how the Earth is going to respond to the gradual brightening of the sun as it ages.

This applies just as well to alternate scenario problems like "what if there hd been no anthroogenic CO2"? Because to say temps would have remained level in that scenario is itself a prediction.

You are making an assumption that the question "what if there hd [sic] been no anthroogenic [sic] CO2" would necessarily be answered with "temps would have remained level in that scenario". This is not true. Temperature even in the absence of longterm changes in radiative forcing does not "stay level" in terms not varying from a single value. ENSO is the dominant source of interannual variability, and there are other similar phenomena such as the PDO and AMO/AMV which likewise will cause variability even in the absence of forcing. They can and will even give the appearance of sustained trends over insufficiently long periods.

Moreover, the absence of anthropogenic CO2 increases does not suddenly remove the impacts of natural changes in radiative forcings. The climate would have responded to solar variation, volcanism, and orbital forcing had we not pumped CO2 into the atmosphere.

But in terms of a more general statement about whether a sufficiently large increase in CO2 will result in an increase in globally-averaged temperature that we would not have seen otherwise, that is a perfectly defensible position that remains true even in the face of significant unforced variability in the system and the sensitivity of an individual realization of the system to initial conditions, due to the timescale under discussion and the relative magnitudes of the forced and unforced components of climate over that time.

Perhaps you missed this part of my comment?

A) If we cranked up the energy of the sun by 10%, would the globally-averaged temperature in 100 years be warmer or cooler than if we did not?

B) Is it warmer in the boreal summer than the boreal winter?


If chaos theory actually precluded our understanding of changes to the broad-scale features of the climate system beyond the timescales of skillful meteorological forecasting, we would be unable to answer these questions.

People who deny that we are capable of making meaningful statements about the role boundary values play in climate will often pretend to say they don't claim to know the answer to A when they of course do, but realize it makes them look inconsistent to acknowledge. Because the B example is even more obvious and incredibly non-sensical to deny, they usually find some way to change conversation rather than acknowledge that chaos is not a barrier to discussing climatic change.

Do you acknowledge that chaos theory is in point of fact not a barrier to understanding the impact of changes in boundary values to the mean state of a system over sufficiently long timescales?
 
2013-10-10 01:58:58 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Maybe you weren't around at the turn of century. Or you have a poor memory. But the alarmism reached fever pitch after the hot year of 1998. It is only much more recently that climatists want it to be an outlier, now it no longer supports their position.


I never have nor never will give any credence to the argument of "The media was saying 'X'" in a scientific discussion. Reporters are completely ignorant of science and follow a philosophy of "if it bleeds it leads".

So go ahead and whine and cry about what the media said. It just demonstrates where you get your science.

THE GREAT NAME: Any kind of event that can be used in a pro-CAGW argument must be allowed in anti-CAGW arguments too.


Noting the existence local maximums and minimums for what they are is not using them as arguments. The scientific community understands how to use statistics and points like this tend to be smoothed out in the averaging. Sadly the denier community only understands how to dishonestly use statistics to use these extremes to give trend lines that push their propaganda. You will notice that the 1998 point is not a special point when the graph comes from a scientist ... but if a graph comes from a denier then 1998 is the magical "Universal Starting Point for All Trend Lines". So who treats 1998 special???

THE GREAT NAME: But they do not accept that the rise prior to 1998 could have been natural variation.


Natural variation has been effectively ruled out as the primary driver for rapid climb in average global temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries. Again, 1998 is not a special year to scientists ... only to deniers. The evidence is all there in the scientific literature.

THE GREAT NAME: No I think you misunderstand. I do not need to present 1998 as important - the trend is still flat or slightly falling temps even if you remove it. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of climatists who happily cited 1998 when it seemed to support their arguments, but insist it be excluded when it does not.


The average global temperature for 1998 is not ignored. It is calculated into all averages and trends with equal weight as any other year. Your suggestion that it is treated otherwise is 100% false. The only special note 1998 gets from scientists is that it was a local maximum (which it was). Again, it is the deniers that treat 1998 as special.

WelldeadLink:  Sigh.

Sigh all you want. It does not add any credibility to your inane argument.

How about you use your grown-up words and try to explain why a chart of single point decadal averages should be compared to a parody graph of unethical statical methods.
 
2013-10-10 03:44:37 PM  

Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.


Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?
 
2013-10-10 04:03:30 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Warning: never provide user Damnhippyfreak with a citation. If you do so, he will simply refuse to acknowledge what the cited document actually says. For further info: http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317 . Note that this user claims to be a practising scientist, but has never produced any papers, articles or other research material that can be checked online. He is simply paid by breen interests to produce green propoganda on threads such as this.


[facepalm]

And apparently you still haven't gotten your head around the idea that someone else's opinion, even if you've 'cited' it, can still be wrong.
 
2013-10-10 04:05:35 PM  

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?



Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?
 
2013-10-10 04:41:07 PM  

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: historical variability (as defined by 1860-2005)

And here is the problem. Climate can naturally vary by more than the amount it varied during the period 1860-2005 so under the criteria for definition, natural variability could be given the label unprecedented climate change.

Two words that back up my premise, Older Peron. Metres of ocean level change in a few hundred years naturally. Explain that and then we can talk about `unprecedented`

The Older Peron transgression was a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies). The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth; in the dendrochronology of the bristlecone pine, which extends back from the modern era to 6700 BCE, the single best year for the growth of the pine was 4850 BCE, early in the Older Peron era.
The Older Peron was a "transgression" in the sense of Sea-level rise, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average.


Sound familiar?



So just to make sure it's out of the way, you've apparently abandoned your previous point about your perceived inconsistency in predictions of climate change. Just remember that you always need to read more than just the surface into these things, when dealing with climate change or indeed any subject. Again, details matter.

As for your new point you've put forward, there's two important points that you need to keep in mind. First is that the fact that the climate has changed in the past is not mutually exclusive with anthropogenic climate change. Second, is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't just based on looking at trends, but understanding of the underlying processes. The reason we can tell the difference between natural variability and anthropogenic differences (while keeping in mind that both are at work concurrently) is that we have a rough grasp on the major processes involved. I'm really glossing over this for time's sake, but we can get into this more if you want a bit later.
 
2013-10-10 05:41:04 PM  

Jon Snow: Do you acknowledge that chaos theory is in point of fact not a barrier to understanding the impact of changes in boundary values to the mean state of a system over sufficiently long timescales?


Out of all the people arguing from the warmer side, you are the only one I've seen that has been honest over the years. Even you must get tired of seeing others on here arguing from stupidity even though they are on your "side".
As to your question of chaos theory not being a barrier, I agree, it's not a barrier, but must be accounted for. It extends the "sufficiently long timescales" time such that "unprecedented warming" is not as clear cut as people like Michael Mann and others propose.
I don't like being lied to by people who are supposed to be above reproach. The hockey stick was BS, and the 1 tree that was taken out of Briffa's data that completely changed the results should be enough for anyone to take pause about what we are being told by the IPCC. The idea that it is OK to exaggerate if you believe you are right should not be a tenant in anyone's scientific beliefs.
 
2013-10-10 05:58:28 PM  

diaphoresis: Dammit people... am I going to boil to death or freeze to death? I need to know where to put all my money.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-10-10 08:46:27 PM  

MarkEC: you are the only one I've seen that has been honest over the years


While I appreciate the kind sentiment that this shows for me, I can tell you that this has decidedly not been my experience. If you pay attention, there are equally honest people besides me who post in this kinds of threads. You may not see them in every thread, and they may not seem to post very often, but they are around.

Out of all the people arguing from the warmer side

There is no "warmer science", there is just science. There is no "warmer" general circulation of the atmosphere, no "warmer" radiative physics, no "warmer" fluid dynamics.

The physics that underlie the points I make are true irrespective of whether or not humans happen to be altering the climate and apply equally to non-anthropogenic climatic change and the general dynamics of the climate.

Even you must get tired of seeing others on here arguing from stupidity even though they are on your "side".

There are people that make ill-informed claims on this topic from a variety of viewpoints. I do not feel the need to defend any or all of the ones that are not my own.

[Chaos] extends the "sufficiently long timescales" time such that "unprecedented warming" is not as clear cut as people like Michael Mann and others propose.

What does Mike Mann have to do with the paper mentioned in the article, the non-relevance to chaos theory in boundary value problems, etc.?

I don't like being lied to by people who are supposed to be above reproach.

Nobody likes being lied to. Who lied to you?

And no one is "above reproach". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean in this context. Science works because it is successful in the aggregate, not because scientists are flawless robots without human emotion and foibles.

The hockey stick was BS

How did you come to this conclusion?

And what do you believe this means in terms of the reality and attribution of warming to human forcings (principally CO2)?

the 1 tree that was taken out of Briffa's data that completely changed the results

How did you come to this conclusion?

And what do you believe this means in terms of the reality and attribution of warming to human forcings (principally CO2)?

should be enough for anyone to take pause about what we are being told by the IPCC.

What role do you believe the IPCC plays with respect to the primary scientific literature? And what makes you think that without the existence of the IPCC we would not have the same information on the reality and anthropogenic nature of the present climatic change?

The idea that it is OK to exaggerate if you believe you are right should not be a tenant in anyone's scientific beliefs.

I agree. Who said it was okay to do so?
 
2013-10-10 11:16:19 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?


You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".
 
2013-10-10 11:21:33 PM  

WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".


My bad. SPM.1 switches addressing terminology. The second graph is "decadal mean values". So all that's needed is to make the first graph be mean values and you'll find them comparable.
 
2013-10-11 12:50:34 AM  

WelldeadLink: WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".

My bad. SPM.1 switches addressing terminology. The second graph is "decadal mean values". So all that's needed is to make the first graph be mean values and you'll find them comparable.


Well, kudos for being willing to admit you made a mistake.
 
2013-10-11 12:51:13 AM  

WelldeadLink: WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".

My bad. SPM.1 switches addressing terminology. The second graph is "decadal mean values". So all that's needed is to make the first graph be mean values and you'll find them comparable.



Well, sure. If you completely changed the first graph to what the second one is is showing, they would then be comparable, of course. However, as they stand, and as you posted them, they are not directly comparable.

So if you've finally got a grasp on what is actually being plotted in those graphs you posted, take a extra minute and learn what they actually mean. As I explained in more detail earlier, the first is showing how short-term trends do not necessarily accurately reflect long-term trends, and the second is showing a way to filter out those short-term trends through decadal averages.

Does that make sense to you?
 
2013-10-11 04:42:06 AM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Prediction is an initial value problem. Chaos theory makes the problem difficult to solve even using numerical methods due to the high sensitivity to initial vlaues

Some kinds of prediction are initial value problems.

Predicting a single realization of a given system's response to stochastic processes is not the same thing as understanding and predicting the mean state's response to changes in boundary values.

Do you not understand this?

The specific outcome of a given role of a fair six-sided die is the result of a host of stochastic processes which are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions. That the range of possible results will always be (in the absence of some external change to the boundary values) between 1 and 6, that the mean value over a large number of rolls will converge on 3.5, etc. are dictated by the boundary values of the system.


The mean value for the climate could only be meaningful over a very long period, say millions or billions of years. Due to the pink-noise behaviour of the system, it does NOT provide any help whatsoever in making prodictions over shorter timescales.
 
2013-10-11 04:45:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: Again, it is the deniers that treat 1998 as special.


Sooo... you don't like being lumped together with other cliamte alarmists, but nonetheless insist on lumping NAME together with so-called "deniers".

Again, since you obviously didnt understand me last time, I do not need the 1998 year to believe that temps have been flat since around then. Just look at the graphs!
 
2013-10-11 04:46:27 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Warning: never provide user Damnhippyfreak with a citation. If you do so, he will simply refuse to acknowledge what the cited document actually says. For further info: http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317 . Note that this user claims to be a practising scientist, but has never produced any papers, articles or other research material that can be checked online. He is simply paid by breen interests to produce green propoganda on threads such as this.

[facepalm]

And apparently you still haven't gotten your head around the idea that someone else's opinion, even if you've 'cited' it, can still be wrong.


It was a factual report, from the BBC, a pro-warmist media organisation.
 
2013-10-11 04:55:19 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: As for your new point you've put forward, there's two important points that you need to keep in mind. First is that the fact that the climate has changed in the past is not mutually exclusive with anthropogenic climate change. Second, is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't just based on looking at trends, but understanding of the underlying processes.


Allow me to jump in here. This is the whole point that sceptics are trying to make. Where is the justification for high certainty that drives political action and placing massive demands on already struggling western economies?

IF it comes from the trends, THEN we have to be sure we have disgnosed them properly. To conclude the 78-98 rise was anthropogenically driven, there would have to be no other explaination. But, both the theory (chaos theory) and empitical measurements from before and since then show that other factors are in play at climatology timescales. In short: debunked.

IF on the other hand, it comes from theory, well, most sceptics agree with greenhouse effect theory, but are sceptical about the strong positive feedbacks that must be added to get IPCC-style catastrophic predictions.

Now, you probably want to say "a bit of each". Or, in the process of a debate, each time one is challenged you hop across to the other so we end up in a cycle, constantly pointing out the flaws with one approach only for you to hop across to the other. Then you get annoyed, saying "boo hoo its not fair those deniers just disagree with everything we say". In reality, every time you make a weak argument, it ois the RESPONSIBILITY of a sceptic to point that out. Ultimately your position is only as strong as your SINGLE best argument.
 
2013-10-11 05:11:17 AM  

MarkEC: Jon Snow: Do you acknowledge that chaos theory is in point of fact not a barrier to understanding the impact of changes in boundary values to the mean state of a system over sufficiently long timescales?

Out of all the people arguing from the warmer side, you are the only one I've seen that has been honest over the years. Even you must get tired of seeing others on here arguing from stupidity even though they are on your "side".
As to your question of chaos theory not being a barrier, I agree, it's not a barrier, but must be accounted for. It extends the "sufficiently long timescales" time such that "unprecedented warming" is not as clear cut as people like Michael Mann and others propose.
I don't like being lied to by people who are supposed to be above reproach. The hockey stick was BS, and the 1 tree that was taken out of Briffa's data that completely changed the results should be enough for anyone to take pause about what we are being told by the IPCC. The idea that it is OK to exaggerate if you believe you are right should not be a tenant in anyone's scientific beliefs.


This is the point I am trying to make. If each year's weather were uncorrelated, so that each year would be like an independent experiment, then the overall pattern would look like white noise. You could average multiple years together using high-school math, basically dividing the standard deviation by root(N) until, at some timescale, you can talk about very low standard deviations, and the unpredictability of "weather" goes away.

Under that assumption, the 78-98 rise would look really scary, and even the level period we are seeing now would still worry you, since white noise ought to revert to the mean.

HOWEVER, it is not white, it is pink (neighbouring years have a positive correlation, causing bigger low-frequency deviations, so that it does not smooth out as you zoom out). If you forget Mann's graph which strongly implied whiteness for the background fluctuations, and look at the real data, you see very obvious fluctuations at timescales of decades, centuries, millenia and above which do not vanish after a little smoothing. There is also quite a bit of published work on chaos theory both as a mathematical entitiy (you can produce pink noise just be coupling a pair of chaotic exciters) and as seen in nature.

It became, at the time in the 80s, the default hypothesis for complex natural systems. Mann et al fooled us all (yes including me for a while) into forgetting about this and reverting to the white noise assumption). Under pink noise, the recent behaviour does not look at all out of place. The future prognosis would be somewhere between level and a fall of about the same rate as the recent rises, though further rises are possible.
 
2013-10-11 08:10:05 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: So if you've finally got a grasp on what is actually being plotted in those graphs you posted, take a extra minute and learn what they actually mean. As I explained in more detail earlier, the first is showing how short-term trends do not necessarily accurately reflect long-term trends, and the second is showing a way to filter out those short-term trends through decadal averages.


Where is it documented that the first graph is not averages between step changes? In what way are averages based on measured climate states less relevant than averages based upon arbitrary ten-year periods in the human calendar? Where does the IPCC show that decadal averages are a relevant statistical method?
 
2013-10-11 08:25:48 AM  
Just to provide one concrete example of pink noise in the climate system (and this is just an example: I am not going to get in an attrition battle over quantity of citations), below is a link to a paper looking at the spectrum of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

NAO is the main driver of UK weather (it can force the jetstream to pass over us, or to the north or to the south). The pink noise behaviour is clearly demonstrated.

Normally, climatists like Mann and Snow would try to trick us into assuming white-noise behaviour. Then when it does not smooth out in the way expected of white noise, they demand an anthropogenic explaination.

http://www.dma.ulpgc.es/profesores/pacheco/Pink.pdf
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report