Global Warming - Science's Double-Standard ?

[waldo]

I will ask again:

would you care to substantiate your inferred claim that the sun is the causal link to the (relatively) recent warming?

let's not let this get buried - hey?

[TimG]

(Regional-scale changes include) - very likely increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation. And, again: the probability attached to that IPCC 'very likely' likelihood assignment is > 90% probability.

So what? Planet gets warmer - the number of days which are classed as 'hot extremes' when compared to today's climate will increase. This is hardly an earth shattering revelation. Even then the studies they used cherry picked their data for maximum trends by starting 50 years ago and excluding the much hotter 30s and 40s.

But one again you miss the key point: there is NO evidence that the number of cold extreme events will increase. In fact, the IPCC says cold extremes have decreased.

I don't see any point is continuing to discuss this point unless you are willing to acknowledge that eyeball's original speculation about increasing number colder cold spells was complete nonsense with no scientific support.

Edited July 18, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why is it ok, during a heatwave to say:

in the USA Today but when skeptics bring up cold winter weather, they are told "that is weather, not climate"?

Isn't this a double standard ?

Depends on the size of the heatwave, if the heatwave covers a large portion of the world and is enough to increase the overall global temperature than it's no problem. The same can be said for a cold period. Problem is the cold periods we have had have been localized events while the majority of the world is hotter than normal. While it was snowing in DC there was a record heatwave in India, (and it's not the only place) but for some reason that didn't seem to get all that much attention.

Of course what the person in the article is talking about isn't a heatwave it's global average temperature.

[waldo]

In the past weather was blamed on witches and demons. Today we have CO2. Nothing has changed except the superstitious have learned how to use pseudo scientific lingo to give their superstitions a veneer of respectability.

What is does argue against long established human tradition of attributing causes to what are random events. In less enlightened times the supernatural would be the cause - today it is pseudo science.

- A claim that more CO2 leads to stronger extremes is nothing but a medieval superstition.

Gee, it looks like there is no conclusive evidence of a trend in extreme temperature events and UHI is part of the problem.

again, per IPCC AR4: (Regional-scale changes include) - very likely increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation. And, again: the probability attached to that IPCC 'very likely' likelihood assignment is > 90% probability.

So what? Planet gets warmer - the number of days which are classed as 'hot extremes' when compared to today's climate will increase. This is hardly an earth shattering revelation. Even then the studies they used cherry picked their data for maximum trends by starting 50 years ago and excluding the much hotter 30s and 40s.

But one again you miss the key point: there is NO evidence that the number of cold extreme events will increase. In fact, the IPCC says cold extremes have decreased.

I don't see any point is continuing to discuss this point unless you are willing to acknowledge that eyeball's original speculation about increasing number colder cold spells was complete nonsense with no scientific support.

my focus has strictly been your posts - your words... I've quoted a smattering of your 'best'. You started with your ridiculous paralleling between superstition/witches & demons and those who recognize AGW climate change (and its CO2 causal association), as a link to the overall trend of increased frequency and/or intensity of extreme events, as attributed to AGW climate change. You went on to assert that, "A claim that more CO2 leads to stronger extremes is nothing but a medieval superstition". When the discussion redirected to focus on IPCC AR4 report references concerning AGW climate change and the increased likelihood of increased frequency and/or intensity of extreme events, you felt emboldened by quoting an irrelevant statement concerning global spatial coverage... emboldened to the point of your saying, "Gee, it looks like there is no conclusive evidence of a trend in extreme temperature events and UHI is part of the problem".

now, with this your latest reply, you do a back-flip and state "no biggee"... suggesting that its "hardly an earth shattering revelation", that a warming climate will bring forward increased 'hot extremes'. But, of course, you 'spiced it up' and countered your own "no biggee" back-flip with unsubstantiated innuendo concerning studies with cherry-picked data. Oh my!

[TimG]

"A claim that more CO2 leads to stronger extremes is nothing but a medieval superstition"

The problem is you can't seem to understand the difference between claim 'stronger extremes' and the claim 'hotter temperatures'. They are two completely different concepts which you conflate (I don't know if it is ignorance or deliberate obfuscation).

1) The claim of 'stronger extremes' is a relative measure. i.e. a week of 35C in Phoenix is not a heat wave there but it would be a heat wave in Toronto. What this also means the the threshold for determining whether a heat wave occurred increases as the temperature increases. i.e. if average Toronto temperatures increase by a degree the the threshold for determining whether a heat wave occurred must also rise. The studies referenced by the IPCC all assume a constant baseline and that introduces a bias that ensures the number of 'heat waves' will increase as temperature rises even if there is no change in the underlying statistics of the weather. The IPCC studies are also biased because they start in the 50s which excludes the much hotter 30-40s. This has the effect of exaggerating any trend over that period.

2) If one wants to evaluate the claim of 'stronger extremes' one must look at BOTH hot and cold spells. However, the IPCC referenced studies claim the cold spells are decreasing in duration (although this number is also biased by the rising baseline). The lack of any evidence for increasing 'cold spells' conclusively demonstrates that the claim of 'stronger extremes' has no supporting evidence.

Now you can obsess about your 'heat wave' quotes from the IPCC as much as you want but it does not support the claim of 'stronger extremes' because the necessary matching 'cold snaps' are missing. IOW, all the IPCC shows by talking about more heat waves is the world is getting hotter - a point I do not dispute.

Now, I have tried explaining this a few times but all you do jump around beating up on strawman. This makes it very tedious to engage in a discussion with you.

Edited July 18, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

TimG, conflate??? ya, ya - that's right... "stronger extremes" (your term) and "hotter temperatures", have absooooolutely nothing to do with each other! Other than the fact that the record high value within those "hotter temperatures" (or the record low value within those "colder temperatures") define the boundary/range limits between which observed temperature values lie... and extremes (like heat waves) are defined as those temperature values that approach within the vicinity of those defined boundary/range limits. Duh!

the only strawman is the one you're attempting to construct in regards cold snaps/spells. Apparently... you feel obligated, you feel justified, in outright dismissing the IPCC position/support statements that indicate an increased likelihood of a decrease in low-temperature days/nights and frost days, that indicate an increased likelihood of an increase in high-temperature days/nights and that indicate an increased likelihood of an increase in warm spells (heat waves). You state you can outright dispense with all of that... because... wait for it... wait for it... because the IPCC stated there weren't a sufficient number of studies that actually investigated cold snaps/spells... notwithstanding daily temperature changes implied a decrease in their frequency.

carry on!

[TimG]

"stronger extremes" (your term) and "hotter temperatures", have absooooolutely nothing to do with each other! Other than the fact that the record high value within those "hotter temperatures"

Stronger extremes is a claim that the variance of the distribution of weather increases. Hotter temperatures is a statement that the mean of the distribution of weather increases. Two different concepts that are completely unreleated with each other. If you don't understand that then go take a remedial course on statistics.

"in outright dismissing the IPCC position/support statements that indicate an increased likelihood of a decrease in low-temperature days/nights and frost days, that indicate an increased likelihood of an increase in high-temperature days/nights and that indicate an increased likelihood of an increase in warm spells (heat waves).

I am not dismissing them I say they prove my point: there is no evidence that climate change is causing an increase in the variance of weather (i.e. stronger extremes). There is only evidence of an increase in the mean. Eyeball's original statement was a claim that 'more energy in the atmosphere' would increase the variance of the weather distribution. Edited July 18, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

Stronger extremes is a claim that the variance of the distribution of weather increases. Hotter temperatures is a statement that the mean of the distribution of weather increases. Two different concepts that are completely unreleated with each other. If you don't understand that then go take a remedial course on statistics.

It's no use TimG, waldo doesn't actually understand even the most basic aspects of the science that he parrots. He is good at scouring the web for links/quotes/youtube videos on climate related stuff, but that's about it.

[eyeball]

Stronger extremes is a claim that the variance of the distribution of weather increases. Hotter temperatures is a statement that the mean of the distribution of weather increases. Two different concepts that are completely unreleated with each other. If you don't understand that then go take a remedial course on statistics.

I am not dismissing them I say they prove my point: there is no evidence that climate change is causing an increase in the variance of weather (i.e. stronger extremes). There is only evidence of an increase in the mean. Eyeball's original statement was a claim that 'more energy in the atmosphere' would increase the variance of the weather distribution.

So if the extra energy doesn't go into the weather where does it go?

[Michael Hardner]

You want to promote good science yet you make a declaration like 'you believe in AGW'?

A faux pas. But how should I have phrased it? Maybe 'the evidence supports AGW'?

Plenty, if not most, skeptics agree that humans affect climate. The debate is how much and whether there is anything we can/should do about it. The fact that people see the need to summarize complex scientific topics with meaningless statements of belief is a bigger problem than confusing weather and climate.

I don't think that's where the public debate is. The public still doesn't seem to be sure it's happening. I don't think it has as much to do with the use of the word 'belief', which probably has only a slightly different meaning than being 'convinced by evidence' by most. It's more about where the collective trust lies right now.

[Michael Hardner]

As the NOAA rep states, “It’s part of an overall trend”…

Sure, but wouldn't it be better for scientists to resist when media ties global warming in to a heat wave ? Otherwise, guess waht we'll be talking about NEXT winter?

[waldo]

Based on your offered quote, I suggest your OP has the wrong emphasis. Certainly, a NOAA rep wouldn’t improperly conflate climate with weather… to me, that quote speaks more to the issue of extreme events and an overall trend of increased frequency and/or intensity as attributed to AGW climate change. As the NOAA rep states, “It’s part of an overall trend”…

Sure, but wouldn't it be better for scientists to resist when media ties global warming in to a heat wave ? Otherwise, guess waht we'll be talking about NEXT winter?

in the context of the (heatwave) extreme event... the reference I interpret the NOAA rep's quote to have been made... it's an appropriate comment. As the NOAA rep states, the heatwave (in question) is part of an overall trend of increased frequency of heatwaves as attributed to AGW climate change.

[Shady]

In the meantime...

June and 2010 are on track towards being the hottest on record.

Yes, in the meantime...

Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government "is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data."

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.

He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

USA Today

Non-partisan satellite data shows real temps. Such as the 0,43 degrees, However, after data is cooked throught the alarmist fudge factory, you get 1.22 degrees. That's a huge difference. Gee, I wonder why?

[TimG]

I don't think that's where the public debate is. The public still doesn't seem to be sure it's happening. I don't think it has as much to do with the use of the word 'belief', which probably has only a slightly different meaning than being 'convinced by evidence' by most. It's more about where the collective trust lies right now.

I think a lot of people forget that human willingness to accept conclusions based on inconclusive evidence depends very much on the cost of accepting those conclusions. For example, the cost of banning DDT was zero for most people in the US so it was easy to convince them to support a ban based on a few studies of eagle eggs. The cost of the ban was much higher in malaria prone countries which meant they were much more sceptical of the science being used to justify the ban.

What this means is one does not believe/not believe in AGW. One must find the evidence convincing enough to justify paying the perceived cost. I use the term 'perceived cost' because most supporters of action on AGW do so because they naively believe the cost to them will be small. People who are sceptical of the need for action perceive the cost to be high.

If it was possible to show conclusively that renewable energy is a sham and reducing CO2 is impossible without a USSR style economic collapse then you would see support for action on AGW drop to a fraction of a percent. The reliability of the science has nothing to do with it.

IOW, if you want to identify your opinions on AGW you need to identify your opinions on the cost of reducing CO2 because that is the opinion that really divides people into sides on this debate.

Edited July 19, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

"stronger extremes" (your term) and "hotter temperatures", have absooooolutely nothing to do with each other! Other than the fact that the record high value within those "hotter temperatures" (or the record low value within those "colder temperatures") define the boundary/range limits between which observed temperature values lie... and extremes (like heat waves) are defined as those temperature values that approach within the vicinity of those defined boundary/range limits.

Stronger extremes is a claim that the variance of the distribution of weather increases. Hotter temperatures is a statement that the mean of the distribution of weather increases. Two different concepts that are completely unreleated with each other. If you don't understand that then go take a remedial course on statistics.

I asked earlier if you were being coy with your use of the word "stronger".

uhhh... are you being purposely coy in choosing your "stronger" wording? Certainly, the question of intensity (versus frequency) is one that exists in arguments concerning hurricanes and AGW , but... heatwaves?

As I said... "stronger extremes" - your term. Perhaps you could elaborate on your term as it applies to the context of the threads principal discussion emphasis; i.e. heatwave extremes, particularly given the fixed day episodic definition of a heatwave.

the only strawman is the one you're attempting to construct in regards cold snaps/spells. Apparently... you feel obligated, you feel justified, in outright dismissing the IPCC position/support statements that indicate an increased likelihood of a decrease in low-temperature days/nights and frost days, that indicate an increased likelihood of an increase in high-temperature days/nights and that indicate an increased likelihood of an increase in warm spells (heat waves). You state you can outright dispense with all of that... because... wait for it... wait for it... because the IPCC stated there weren't a sufficient number of studies that actually investigated cold snaps/spells... notwithstanding daily temperature changes implied a decrease in their frequency.

I am not dismissing them I say they prove my point: there is no evidence that climate change is causing an increase in the variance of weather (i.e. stronger extremes). There is only evidence of an increase in the mean.

as attributed to AGW climate change, the increased likelihood of a decrease in low-temperature days/nights and frost days, the increased likelihood of an increase in high-temperature days/nights and the increased likelihood of an increase in warm spells (heatwaves) are all categorized as extreme events... as attributed to AGW climate change.

[TimG]

So if the extra energy doesn't go into the weather where does it go?

If you add 1cm water to a 2m pool you increase the water level but you will have no effect on the height of the waves on the surface. Same thing with climate. Increasing the average energy content of the atomosphere increases the temperature but it does not change distribution of weather. Edited July 19, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

It's no use TimG, waldo doesn't actually understand even the most basic aspects of the science that he parrots. He is good at scouring the web for links/quotes/youtube videos on climate related stuff, but that's about it.

pffft!

I note you stood silent on your new buddies utter confusion concerning equilibrium climate sensitivity, over his limited grasp on objective prior within Bayesian analysis, on his continued want to describe climate as an initial value boundary problem, etc.

carry on!

[waldo]

If it was possible to show conclusively that renewable energy is a sham and reducing CO2 is impossible without a USSR style economic collapse then you would see support for action on AGW drop to a fraction of a percent. The reliability of the science has nothing to do with it.

if it was only possible!!!

[TimG]

I note you stood silent on your new buddies utter confusion concerning equilibrium climate sensitivity, over his limited grasp on objective prior within Bayesian analysis, on his continued want to describe climate as an initial value boundary problem, etc.

The only one who is confused is you. On the topic of Baysian estimination of confidence intervals it is tough to find a simple explaination that would not leave most people lost. Here is one that does ok:

http://www.statisticalengineering.com/frequentists_and_bayesians.htm

Thus a frequentist believes that a population mean is real, but unknown, and unknowable, and can only be estimated from the data. Knowing the distribution for the sample mean, he constructs a confidence interval, centered at the sample mean.

Here it gets tricky. Either the true mean is in the interval or it is not. So the frequentist can't say there's a 95% probability(1) that the true mean is in this interval, because it's either already in, or it's not. And that's because to a frequentist the true mean, being a single fixed value, doesn't have a distribution. The sample mean does. Thus the frequentist must use circumlocutions like "95% of similar intervals would contain the true mean, if each interval were constructed from a different random sample like this one."

Bayesians have an altogether different world-view. They say that only the data are real. The population mean is an abstraction, and as such some values are more believable than others based on the data and their prior beliefs. (Sometimes the prior belief is very non-informative, however.) The Bayesian constructs a credible interval, centered near the sample mean, but tempered by "prior" beliefs concerning the mean.

When I say the IPCC probability estimates are meaningless I am taking the frequentist position. I recognize that Bayesian analysis is useful in some problems but its results are *always* subjective and depend on the biases of the person doing the calculation.

The efforts to create objective techniques for detemining priors only work for some problems and (ironically) being forced to choose one of many competing objective techniques turns the analysis into a subjective one no matter what word games are used.

Edited July 19, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I think a lot of people forget that human willingness to accept conclusions based on inconclusive evidence depends very much on the cost of accepting those conclusions. For example, the cost of banning DDT was zero for most people in the US so it was easy to convince them to support a ban based on a few studies of eagle eggs. The cost of the ban was much higher in malaria prone countries which meant they were much more sceptical of the science being used to justify the ban.

Ok.

What this means is one does not believe/not believe in AGW. One must find the evidence convincing enough to justify paying the perceived cost. I use the term 'perceived cost' because most supporters of action on AGW do so because they naively believe the cost to them will be small. People who are sceptical of the need for action perceive the cost to be high.

It's more spread out than that. You're convinced or not convinced based on a set of factors, then the decision on courses of action is a whole separate set of criteria.

If it was possible to show conclusively that renewable energy is a sham and reducing CO2 is impossible without a USSR style economic collapse then you would see support for action on AGW drop to a fraction of a percent. The reliability of the science has nothing to do with it.

IOW, if you want to identify your opinions on AGW you need to identify your opinions on the cost of reducing CO2 because that is the opinion that really divides people into sides on this debate.

People are debating whether or not GW is happening in the public sphere. Sure, the courses of action are being debated with that but the discussion on whether or not it's happening is more progressed and deeper, IMO.

[TimG]

It's more spread out than that. You're convinced or not convinced based on a set of factors, then the decision on courses of action is a whole separate set of criteria.

They cannot be seperated. A person's assessment of the scientific evidence is invariably influenced by their feelings on the consequences of the policies. This is true for layman and for scientists. Objectivity is a myth when dealing with inconclusive and contradictory evidence. Edited July 19, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

They cannot be seperated. A person's assessment of the scientific evidence is invariably influenced by their feelings on the consequences of the policies. This is true for layman and for scientists. Objectivity is a myth when dealing with inconclusive and contradictory evidence.

Sure, but isn't it more an issue where they get the information that makes their opinion ? They don't read scientific literature. So the decision is made for them somewhere, and presented to them as a persuasive argument.

[waldo]

Non-partisan satellite data shows real temps. Such as the 0,43 degrees, However, after data is cooked throught the alarmist fudge factory, you get 1.22 degrees. That's a huge difference. Gee, I wonder why?

Shady, buddy... given the nature of your particular front page status message (Accurate, non-partisan NASA satellite data = 0.43 degrees higher than average. Alarmist fudge factory data = 1.22 degrees higher than average), I just had to open-up my ignore on you and read your post I'm replying to...

struggling with C° to F° conversions will certainly help your American wannabe fantasies.

note: it only gets better!!! ... new updated Shady status message clarifies (Accurate, non-partisan NASA satellite data = 0.43 degrees F higher than average. Alarmist fudge factory data = 1.22 F degrees higher than average.)... but still fails to recognize that one of those two quoted numbers is not like the other

[TimG]

Sure, but isn't it more an issue where they get the information that makes their opinion? They don't read scientific literature. So the decision is made for them somewhere, and presented to them as a persuasive argument.

Most scientists do not read the literature outside of their narrow speciality and this means most scientists know less about the science of climate change than a skeptical blogger who does read the relevant literature.

[bloodyminded]

It's more spread out than that. You're convinced or not convinced based on a set of factors, then the decision on courses of action is a whole separate set of criteria.

Yes, of course you're right; in fact, it's an odd claim indeed to which you felt compelled to respond. What we are or are not going to do about the situation has no bearing on what are or are not the pre-existing facts.