Now you want to argue that the paper isn’t clear enough to understand, and we must listen to you interpret it for us. You do Judah a great disservice with your attitude. It’s not winning you any points here either.
You have added a lot of content, and I don’t have time to respond to it all at the moment, but it’s quite enjoyable reading it all. In the above, who are you talking about? I thought it was myself, but it doesn’t actually say that. You could be talking about Cohen et al 2012, since they clearly note the points you are remarking on.
This is getting ridiculous. You both can’t simultaneously “ignoring” and “using” the data at the same time. :rolleyes:
Finger pointing and calling into question others’ abilities to read doesn’t advance the topic. If I wanted to read that sort of mud slinging, I’d go read the DNC and RNC web sites (and then probably get heavily drunk while clawing at my eyes.)
So…we don’t know how to make instruments that are reliable?
We moved off the OP long ago. But I agree that massaging new data into an extant data set is suspicious at best.
I was referring to your more general in-thread statements than Cohen’s paper.
Obviously if the temperature data is all wrong (the OP of this topic) then all of science based on the data is wrong.
But that isn’t the question the warmer wants to discuss. They want to say there has been no flattening, and in fact the warming has increased, it is much GREATER than we see in the scientific data. That’s what this topic is actually about. So introducing scientific literature and thought, especially a cooling trend for NH winters, pretty much sinks their entire argument. That is why it is fought both tooth and nail. To even admit the science and data is correct, is to lose the debate.
Most people that would be interested in that sort of math aren’t on a community forum. I’ll do it back-of-the-envelope style, but that breaks down (along with my interest) once we get into huge, honkin’ statistical arrays.
Since this was a retrospective data application, the science may yet be right even if the data itself isn’t borne out.
While you may make NH a point to discuss, I wouldn’t base a counter argument on it. It’s very well the case that we’ve had bitter winters in the northern hemisphere the last few years, but we should be cautious to assume that this will hold up long term or that we won’t shift into other trends long term.
All we have is that the model is imperfect. But we all know this. It’s like trying to prove that pizza is delicious.
Why didn’t you pick the aliens? I want to hear about climate change from that show Ancient Aliens.
yet another unsubstantiated claim used to bolster predictions that failed. Global warming is true even when it’s not. That’s one hell of an argument to make. Either the models work or they don’t. Right now, they don’t. It’s not to say that won’t change in the future but it’s the height of arrogance to suggest we have a lock on a full understanding of climate.
Not the point, his refusal to acknowledge that is precisely because a lot of his points will not follow then. What Latif reported was that slowdowns were expected thanks to natural variability, FX and others deny that was pointed out a long time ago. As you have found out.
I think that is missing a lot, back then just for military purposes it was important to find out the temperature and wind data as nuclear fallout needed to be monitored.
Point of order, the ongoing line from the contrarians is that that was not predicted early.
Strawman
Not true as Schneider and many others reported.
Another strawman, as reported by Richard Alley there are issues that scientists still wonder about (specially the number of extreme weather events), but not much for the important parts.
Winds, yes. But wind direction and speed doesn’t tell you enough to know how different pressure systems are interacting to create additional weather thousands of miles away. And the wind data, from what I recall from Cold War era records, was generalized based on month. So it would have been “In January, it blows X direction at gusts upto Y mph.” If you happen to have better records on tap than that, I’d be interested in reviewing them.
Oh you see how the science goes, on this “community board”, where math may be out of the question, but opinions never are.
Quite possible, my error of course. I thought it was a scientific debate.
Oh I agree, and was more than a bit surprised to find, back in 2010, that the snow and temperature trends were heading all the wrong ways, my inquiry spurred on by being trapped in an epic and most unexpected blizzard, as well as those fascinating emails I was looking over at the time. Before that moment, I was staunch supporter of disastrous global warming, and would have scoffed at anything to the contrary.
You can be scientific without having to do a job people get paid good money to do by resting on their discoveries. If you wish to present something different with the underlying data, you’ll need to do the math on it.
I can relate no epiphany of that sort. I’ve always held the “Drunk Drivers” view of climate science activists - on both sides of the fence, for and against.
But your epiphany does raise further questions: Why would a single event change your world view so much? I get being trapped in your house gave you time to research, which is never a bad thing, but just because they don’t understand the changes happening doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. That piece of it is crystal clear. If one thing we have a handle on, it’s a thermometer.
Having a polar (heh, heh, pun) opposite in the winter to the higher temperatures in the summer, as you said, may have created a plateau effect, keeping us relatively stable in average temperature year to year for ten to fifteen years. But if that’s the case, then the only reason the records don’t show warming is because the climate is shifting. It’ll either shift to a freeze winter/burn summer pattern or shift to a more stable pattern of simply milder winters and then continue warming in different regional configurations. Scientists seem to think that the globe will continue warming in the second way, based on projections.
Those projections may be wrong, but we should still attempt to mitigate the CO2 that’s been released. There are several projects and research ideas going on to actively pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Working out the kinks in non-carbon-producing energy generation and moving to those as a principle component of our energy future would also significantly help those efforts, too.
But that is the thing you see, I’m using the data to show why I say what I say I see in the data. By directly linking to the source, it removes many of the problems with this sort of debate. If the data is wrong, the premise of this tropic, then everything could be quite bonkers, an impossible situation if you want to be able to know anything. It’s right there in the topic title, the claim that warming is actually happening, and faster than anyone thought. That is a huge claim to make, it needs much evidence, but suffers none at all.
Well there is the rub, isn’t it? The data shows not only that the rapid steady warming stalled, but also that in fact the annual means is sightly negative since 2002. And certainly the NH winter is suffering from changes that only a denier could ignore.
That is exactly what I thought, until I really looked into the matter. It wasn’t just the record all time back to back blizzards, which shut down the US Post Office for the first time in history, it was the cold. If it had been a strong warm front producing the snow, followed by warm temperatures, it would been hand waved away with ease. More moisture yadda yadda yadda just wave it away. But the temperature trends, as well as the winter snow trends, that got my attention, since it didn’t jibe with the theory. Not at all. Certainly one anomaly, one cold winter is nothing to worry about much. But to find patterns, trends, and ones that couldn’t just be an anomaly, that was most interesting. Coupled with the quite obvious skull fuckery evident in some the purloined letters, a perfect storm of skepticism swept all before it.
I agree, and seriously, who wouldn’t? Ah yes, of course those who own some stock in fossil fuels, they might object, but what person concerned about the world wouldn’t want to reduce the horrific pollution from coal burning? Coal mining? Or to decrease or even eliminate the horror at the gas pump?
I would love to run my already low pollution vehicles on pure ethanol. Or even better, electricity from solar panels. Especially if I owned the panels. Unless you are a lunatic, you are concerned about the world at large, and the effects from the massive amount of carbon mankind is putting into the air, each moment of every day.
Well, one point in Cohen et al(2012) is that if their proposed mechanism is correct, the models could be changed to be able to actually predict a scenario closer to reality. It’s obvious from the data and research that what is observed does not match what the models predict, or predicted.
Not the global mean, but what is happening with the boreal winters. Let us not forget that the rapid loss of arctic sea ice was also not predicted, as it happened far faster than a CO2 theory model would predict.
I might add that linking to the data is only valuable if you’re trained to understand the data.
There is no reason to think that anyone here will draw the correct conclusions from raw data, since no one here (that I know of) is a climate scientist.
It would be like laypersons chiming in on brain surgery techniques or rocket construction procedures.
No, he doesn’t. That entire hypothesis is grounded in a fundamentally false premise. Even if winters were actually colder – they aren’t – just look at the GISS temperature maps for any reasonable time period – there are only short-term regional effects. But even if they were, the relative constancy of the earth’s energy budget would require an explanation for the temperature hiatus that involved either a net change in external forcing or some other fundamental change in the balance of land-atmosphere heat uptake. You don’t change the earth’s average temperature just by moving air masses around.
Thus point (A) is moot. Point (B) on solar variations has been well addressed by a large body of research that relegates it to relative insignificance in the context of climate change in the 20th century and beyond. See, for instance, Figure 8.17 in the IPCC AR5 WG1 which shows anthropogenic CO2 forcing at almost +1.7 W/m2 while net solar forcing contribution is assessed at a mean of about +0.05 W/m2.
Which models don’t work? AOGCMs? ESMs? Regional models? In what way do they not work? The statement is an absurdly meaningless generality. Climate models in fact work well at predicting key climate variables at coarse levels of resolution, and the real challenge is scaling their performance to finer grid resolutions and microclimate behaviors. We have a fundamental understanding of radiative transfer physics and the fact that the impact of 400 and inevitably 500 and 600 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is producing a climate forcing unprecedented in magnitude compared to anything seen in the ice core records, and even the CO2 level itself – let alone the rate of change – is unprecedented since long before man first walked the earth. We are no longer in a normal interglacial but in an unprecedented new climate regime of our own making. That we cannot accurately predict the specific regional changes that will unfold doesn’t in any way detract from the fundamental physics of what is occurring or our understanding of its magnitude and its significant risks.
And you tried to say you alone understand Cohen et al(2012)
When a peer reviewed actual scientific publication states something as clearly as possible, and you still can’t follow along, there is something besides ignorance at work here.
The very reason the cooling trends for large areas of the NH winters are being discussed, is because they are arguing they can’t be “explained away” as natural variation, that bugaboo of climate science.
You are simply saying it isn’t happening. As GIGO would say, show us the evidence, or shut up.
Not quite what the researchers are looking for, remember, this is about climate, long range data points are very useful for them, lets not confuse it with weather.
