Global Warming backdown

[Keepitsimple]

Mongolia - See p. 10

I really did find the two graphs interesting and as usual, you see what you want to see I guess. The first graph - to the eye - shows that the 1600's and 1700's with a temperature that is maybe three tenths of a degree below the anomoly line while the twentieth century seems to be at the very best, just AT the anomoly line. That's a swing of only 3 tenths of a degree over 400 years. It's only one area...but you did bring it forward. So on that basis, there's nothing alarming with this particular area. Interestingly, notice that the time scale is only 400 years so you get a fairly decent idea of how the temperature swings up and down for sustained periods.

Taking a look at the second graph - from another station - the time scale is stretched to almost 2000 years and this has the effect of smoothing out all the ups and downs. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the graph. From 1800, it shows a long period of cooling in the 19th century following by a long period of warming in the 20th century - all though a 200 year period where CO2 was rising.

So I'm not sure what to make of all of it.....except that it confirms that natural variability plays a major role in the ups and downs.

[Michael Hardner]

I thought it was very interesting, actually. I will not ccept Waldo's spammed directives diktat to not analyze single-station data.

Just because Waldo says it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Single station graphs also might not include mitigating factors that are put into the full graphs.

Seriously, PhDs spend their entire careers examining these things so a glance at a graph on its own isn't helpful.

[Pliny]

Pliny, we get it... we know you're very afraid of science - it's been stated now, several times over... we get it!

When science becomes political, or heaven forbid religious, it is something to fear.

Don't be so afraid without it, Waldo - and keep the science pure.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

Good try Bonam.....I have Waldo on ignore......his hubris became ...unpleasant.

point of order, Mr. Speaker! The Simple ton ignore reach results from the honorable member waldo calling out Simple ton's continued antics in several of the recent threads that spoke to the Harper Conservative ideological based actions in regards their desire to narrowly select and restrict options within the full suite of family-planning options, vis-a-vis the upcoming summit meetings that will discuss global maternal health initiatives. Apparently, Simple ton didn't take kindly to having his own hubris... and hypocrisy... called out over his incessant calls to have the abortion debate reopened within Canada. Actually, more to the final point of Simple ton's ignore reach, he simply couldn't handle being called on his repeated statements that presumed to have Canada legislate morality. Just setting the record straight, Mr. Speaker...

[waldo]

Waldo these people you are arguing with do not wish to sink to your level of dependency upon scientific peer reviewed literature and not have any thoughts of their own, as is your position. They like to debate and think about things for themselves. They are different then you. They are not beholding to anyone else to know something.

They can determine things for themselves.

So let go of your Mother's apron strings and have a thought all your own. Start with something simple like seeing there is a light in the room. Determine for yourself that it is there, it's real and don't let any peer reviewed literature tell you it couldn't possibly be there or it is a copy of light or anything like that. Just know for yourself it's there. There are lots of other things you can know too.

Pliny, we get it... we know you're very afraid of science - it's been stated now, several times over... we get it!

When science becomes political, or heaven forbid religious, it is something to fear.

Don't be so afraid without it, Waldo - and keep the science pure.

I much prefer your drive-by swipe Pliny-self... as opposed to your presumptive, unknowing, pompous Pliny-self. The science... is the science. Your attempts to marginalize individuals within discussion as relates to the science, is nothing more than your weak-sniveling input that stems from your denying AGW climate change position. Carry on...

[Shady]

NASA and NOAA are...ummmm..."U.S. centric" !!

Waldo burned again.

[waldo]

I really did find the two graphs interesting and as usual, you see what you want to see I guess.

yes... yes, you certainly do. That large expanse of China is studied extensively as relates to palaeoclimatic data coverage/analysis, principally as the actual temperature record throughout the region, essentially, only exists since ~1940. Hence the need for proxy analysis... and in this linked studies case (a now 15+ year old study) tree-ring proxies are relied upon. I'm surprised you didn't jump all over that given your past consternation concerning anything derived within dendro-climatology. But hey, perhaps you're becoming enlightened... we can only hope.

as stated, as shown, the Mongolian trends strongly resemble those seen in recent temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemisphere... simply another independent corroboration of temperature reconstructions and their indications of unusual warming during the twentieth century.

So I'm not sure what to make of all of it.....except that it confirms that natural variability plays a major role in the ups and downs.

wow! Like... what an amazing revelation. Scientists, particularly those in paleo-climatology, completely and absolutely ignore anything and everything to do with natural variability (/snarc).

[Pliny]

I much prefer your drive-by swipe Pliny-self... as opposed to your presumptive, unknowing, pompous Pliny-self.

Is this all peer reviewed and conclusive? Or..did you think this up yourself? If the latter is the case you are on the right track.

The science... is the science.

Yes, and the e-mails, and denials are the politics. And the devotion is the religion.

Your attempts to marginalize individuals within discussion as relates to the science, is nothing more than your weak-sniveling input that stems from your denying AGW climate change position. Carry on...

The temperature rose 1 degree over the last century and is being predicted to drop in the next few decades. That's all we've got.

Things certainly turned cold in the Gore household!!

[jbg]

Single station graphs also might not include mitigating factors that are put into the full graphs. Seriously, PhDs spend their entire careers examining these things so a glance at a graph on its own isn't helpful.

My point is that in the case of the New Jersey data, it's two graphs from stations that are not on top of each other, but both reasonably close and, most important for that area, both equidistant from the Atlantic Ocean. The point is that neither set of data presents alarming trends, unlike the "hockey stick" or other similar graphs presented by the GW alarmists.

Also, the data confirms the life experience of people who have lived for lengthy periods of time during these eras that the climate is more or less unchanged, albeit with extensive year to year variability. The GW alarmists are asking the public to take drastic actions based upon a leap of faith as to what may or will happen. The single-station data is a useful reality check.

Edited June 17, 2010 by jbg

[waldo]

Is this all peer reviewed and conclusive? Or..did you think this up yourself? If the latter is the case you are on the right track.

Yes, and the e-mails, and denials are the politics. And the devotion is the religion.

that's right, Pliny... no one can leverage the actual conclusive peer reviewed science... lest you accuse them of some conspiratorial 'group think' politicization and/or religious devotion!

The temperature rose 1 degree over the last century and is being predicted to drop in the next few decades. That's all we've got.

Things certainly turned cold in the Gore household!!

yes... can we have more... please. Perhaps we could have some interesting discussion over that, ahem... 'next decades cooling prediction' - don't hesitate to qualify that prediction, hey Pliny? And Pliny, c'mon - I thought you were above the Shady practices that rely on tabloid gossip for personal fulfillment.

more to the urgent need Pliny! I'll be away the next 4 or 5 days (don't worry - simply another indoctrination group-think exercise). Keep the thread active - hey Pliny. The onus is on you... don't let me down - hey Pliny?

[waldo]

My point is that in the case of the New Jersey data, it's two graphs from stations that are not on top of each other, but both reasonably close and, most important for that area, both equidistant from the Atlantic Ocean. The point is that neither set of data presents alarming trends, unlike the "hockey stick" or other similar graphs presented by the GW alarmists.

Also, the data confirms the life experience of people who have lived for lengthy periods of time during these eras that the climate is more or less unchanged, albeit with extensive year to year variability. The GW alarmists are asking the public to take drastic actions based upon a leap of faith as to what may or will happen. The single-station data is a useful reality check.

more continued nonsense! For whatever continued relevance you feel a need to attach to the 'hockey stick', just how do you presume to compare paleo centric reconstructions to current temperature trending for those localized New Jersey stations you continue to fixate on?

that's right... albeit with my emphasis that this trend is simply a single localized station... you can, quite casually, dismiss a 2.5 °F upward temperature trend. Sure you can!

[Michael Hardner]

My point is that in the case of the New Jersey data, it's two graphs from stations that are not on top of each other, but both reasonably close and, most important for that area, both equidistant from the Atlantic Ocean. The point is that neither set of data presents alarming trends, unlike the "hockey stick" or other similar graphs presented by the GW alarmists.

Also, the data confirms the life experience of people who have lived for lengthy periods of time during these eras that the climate is more or less unchanged, albeit with extensive year to year variability. The GW alarmists are asking the public to take drastic actions based upon a leap of faith as to what may or will happen. The single-station data is a useful reality check.

1. Untreated and localized analysis by amateurs is only of passing interest. It doesn't amount to analysis.

2. Anecdotal evidence is of even less use.

GW is happening, and the only stake the skeptical climatologists still have in the game is the degree to which our CO2 increases are causing this, really.

[jbg]

more continued nonsense! For whatever continued relevance you feel a need to attach to the 'hockey stick', just how do you presume to compare paleo centric reconstructions to current temperature trending for those localized New Jersey stations you continue to fixate on?

that's right... albeit with my emphasis that this trend is simply a single localized station... you can, quite casually, dismiss a 2.5 °F upward temperature trend. Sure you can!

Over that period of time 2.5F or 1.4C is inconsequential.

1. Untreated and localized analysis by amateurs is only of passing interest. It doesn't amount to analysis.

2. Anecdotal evidence is of even less use.

GW is happening, and the only stake the skeptical climatologists still have in the game is the degree to which our CO2 increases are causing this, really.

Why would you have significant policy actions taken based upon data that may be "treated" or "analyzed" with a particular agenda in mind. Raw, untreated data has no agenda.

[Keepitsimple]

GW is happening, and the only stake the skeptical climatologists still have in the game is the degree to which our CO2 increases are causing this, really.

That is precisely the only stake that sceptics have ever had in the game......all the rest is just noise from the alarmists. There might be a fringe group that doesn't believe in Climate Change or doesn't believe that this phase of Climate Change is a warming one......but I have not seen any of those on this board. It's simply a question of how much is CO2 contributing to the warming over and above natural variability and of that, how much is human induced. Remember, the science does not prove that CO2 causes the "excess warming" that seems to prevail - it's just that they can't find anything else to account for it.....and so by a process of elimination, some scientists have settled on CO2 as being a major driver - even though there are recent and older cyclic occasions where natural variability has overwhelmed the presence of CO2 and produced cooler times or times that were equally as warm.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

Why would you have significant policy actions taken based upon data that may be "treated" or "analyzed" with a particular agenda in mind. Raw, untreated data has no agenda.

Because we rely on scientists to tell us the truth, and they achieve success by submitting theories that stand up to peer criticism.

Data needs to be treated and analyzed when there is complexity involved.

[Michael Hardner]

That is precisely the only stake that sceptics have ever had in the game......all the rest is just noise from the alarmists. There might be a fringe group that doesn't believe in Climate Change or doesn't believe that this phase of Climate Change is a warming one......but I have not seen any of those on this board.

Perhaps, but there are those who question the scientists' objectivity to an extreme degree, suggesting that they submit incorrect papers in exchange for bribes.

At least, I think I've read that implication.

It's simply a question of how much is CO2 contributing to the warming over and above natural variability and of that, how much is human induced. Remember, the science does not prove that CO2 causes the "excess warming" that seems to prevail - it's just that they can't find anything else to account for it.....and so by a process of elimination, some scientists have settled on CO2 as being a major driver - even though there are recent and older cyclic occasions where natural variability has overwhelmed the presence of CO2 and produced cooler times or times that were equally as warm.

Hmmm.... not exactly. If there is a graph that shows CO2 increases and corresponding temperature increases, especially when radiation is factored in then that seems convincing.

[Keepitsimple]

Hmmm.... not exactly. If there is a graph that shows CO2 increases and corresponding temperature increases, especially when radiation is factored in then that seems convincing.

And around and around we go....because those same graphs when looked at in detail for even the last century show very wide swings in temperature of 20-30 year durations that show that natural variability appears to overwhelm the presence of CO2.......and how can some/many scientists predict the next 20-30 years might have no warming or even cooling - if in fact CO2 is the major driver - and it's still rising?

Edited June 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[jbg]

Because we rely on scientists to tell us the truth, and they achieve success by submitting theories that stand up to peer criticism.

Except when scientists' funding depends up their being a problem for them to research. There is no incentive for scientists to find their own area of research useless.

[bloodyminded]

Raw, untreated data has no agenda.

It's the readers of the data that are in question.

[jbg]

It's the readers of the data that are in question.

For G-d's sake they don't even have to be able to read the Canadian language to read that data.

[Michael Hardner]

For G-d's sake they don't even have to be able to read the Canadian language to read that data.

But to draw conclusions from it, you need a bit of smarts don't you ?

We have evidence of that from posters like Lictor, who will post an individual crime by a member of a certain religion, committed on the other side of the world - and say that it's evidence that their immigration needs to be curtailed.

I would ideally divide all information consumers/producers into 3 groups:

Experts -> Interpreters & Opinion Leaders -> The rest

A healthy mix of skeptics, and thoughtful opponents can add positive dissonance into the middle group and - hopefully - make the information distribution smoother for 'the rest'

[jbg]

But to draw conclusions from it, you need a bit of smarts don't you ?

We have evidence of that from posters like Lictor, who will post an individual crime by a member of a certain religion, committed on the other side of the world - and say that it's evidence that their immigration needs to be curtailed.

A "Lictor66" situation is not unmixed. While I agree that a single crime committed by a single member of a certain religion does not a pattern make, there are patterns. For example, Jews (of which I am proudly one) are involved disproportionately in financial frauds such as Ponzi schemes or insider trading. Jews rarely commit "honor killings".

Weather data falls into a different category. I agree that more than one station's data in a region is needed, if only to elminate errors. I have laughed at some monthly data on www.wunderground.com that seems to say that hte temperature on a given January day in the U.S. or Canada, at some city (I forget where I saw this) went from 10F to 114F back to 12F in the course of three hours. Those data errors must be smoothed out. More problematic are blobal temperature graphs which purport to place a parellel path on CO2 and temperatures. Putting aside "scale of graph" issues, where the aggregated temperatures seem to match no local records I am very "skeptical".

[Michael Hardner]

A "Lictor66" situation is not unmixed. While I agree that a single crime committed by a single member of a certain religion does not a pattern make, there are patterns. For example, Jews (of which I am proudly one) are involved disproportionately in financial frauds such as Ponzi schemes or insider trading. Jews rarely commit "honor killings".

Weather data falls into a different category. I agree that more than one station's data in a region is needed, if only to elminate errors. I have laughed at some monthly data on www.wunderground.com that seems to say that hte temperature on a given January day in the U.S. or Canada, at some city (I forget where I saw this) went from 10F to 114F back to 12F in the course of three hours. Those data errors must be smoothed out. More problematic are blobal temperature graphs which purport to place a parellel path on CO2 and temperatures. Putting aside "scale of graph" issues, where the aggregated temperatures seem to match no local records I am very "skeptical".

This is why these things are analyzed by groups of people - for both examples - to eliminate personal biases as much as can be expected.

[Pliny]

that's right, Pliny... no one can leverage the actual conclusive peer reviewed science... lest you accuse them of some conspiratorial 'group think' politicization and/or religious devotion!

Per the e-mails - Ignoring data that disagrees with the desired thesis is evidence of political contamination...and further ignoring it - a la Waldo, is akin to religious devotion.

yes... can we have more... please. Perhaps we could have some interesting discussion over that, ahem... 'next decades cooling prediction' - don't hesitate to qualify that prediction, hey Pliny? And Pliny, c'mon - I thought you were above the Shady practices that rely on tabloid gossip for personal fulfillment.

Yeah....it is going down Waldo....sorry....nothing I can do.

As for Al....his world is unwinding, too....poor fellow.

more to the urgent need Pliny! I'll be away the next 4 or 5 days (don't worry - simply another indoctrination group-think exercise). Keep the thread active - hey Pliny. The onus is on you... don't let me down - hey Pliny?

Spoken like a true politician! Engaging in conversation with them one always winds up feeling like he has been slimed.

[Pliny]

Perhaps, but there are those who question the scientists' objectivity to an extreme degree, suggesting that they submit incorrect papers in exchange for bribes.

At least, I think I've read that implication.

You are speaking in the plural when you say "scientists' ", Michael. I don't think anyone is suggesting "they" submit incorrect papers. If anything Waldo throughout this thread tells us that any differing scientist has been bought by big oil or is incompetent.

In actual fact there are only a few scientists with political connections/influence being scrutinized.

Hmmm.... not exactly. If there is a graph that shows CO2 increases and corresponding temperature increases, especially when radiation is factored in then that seems convincing.

Convincing? Perhaps, but not conclusive.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Pliny