I trust the statement of fact and probability as submitted by research and experimentation that is then verified through repeat. That is my “golden middle” that you are always so dismissive of.
I “have the gist” of climate science and yet I completely disagree with Al Gore’s methods to get there as well as his investment in the idea of catastropheism. And look! We are getting there as a nation none-the-less! Do we really need to fund people on either side who distort probability in their wallet’s favor? I say no. Never. Not for the Kochs. Not for Gore. Not for anyone else you identify with ideologically.
You are going into complete nonsense land at this point. It’s always “bits of data”, there is no getting around it. Your example actually proves this, and in regards to “climate change” as well.
Exactly. Just like saying “since 1970 the climate warmed, and since people are around, it’s because of people”. But you may notice there are billions of years of climate. And it warms, much more than at present, and it cools, much colder than at present. You cherry picked a short term trend and blamed a single cause.
It’s not science. That’s simplistic of course, just like your example. Which is why it seems stupid. The real world isn’t that simple.
However, in the practical world of real things and events, it’s possible to be real.
If somebody is saying “The damn winters have gotten colder in the last decade”, and your response is to talk about a 40 year trend, showing the annual temperatures, rather than just LOOKING AT THE WINTER TREND FOR THE LAST DECADE, you are not being scientific. Or fair.
And people know it.
If you want to take the conversation from “damn the winters are getting worse”, to “BUT THE GLOBE IS WARMING YOU DENIER OF SCIENCE”, you are going to have a bad day. Just like we see in this topic. Rather than stick to one thing, something that can be argued over, but something we have good data for, the argument spirals all over the place. And avoids dealing with reality.
Has the globe been cooling?
After that is decided, all kinds of other questions and fist fights follow.
The records for temperature in St Louis, the data, exist. They are real. They are there. It’s no mystery. None. Not a thing is mysterious about it.
If I look at the records, and I have of course, and see that there are many days below 0 F since 2000, then I know climate central and xkcd are wrong.
End of story.
But, and I know this well, the only way YOU will know, is to go look for yourself. Which brings us back to the point I made, anyone should be ale to click on a link and this argument is over. It’s that simple.
The harder question, is how do you get somebody to look at something, that they don’t want to believe?
That is nice, not what the Republican scientist from BYU Barry Bickmore and I point out. Al Gore is eons more correct than the contrarians that are in this thread or out there. And Republican scientists like Richard Alley, Kerry Emmanuel and many others point to the fact that this issue should not had been politicized, but it was, and not by Gore as this issue was present even before he got to popularize the issue.
Nope, you need to show that the data they rely on does not show the temperatures of the city proper, you are still misleadingly using the whole state average.
It is you the one that 1) is not showing the relevant data, you are looking at the data that is not about the city, and 2) you really think that your silly accusation that what I report is the anti science holds. That will not fly when me and many others have pointed at many other items that you also got wrong.
And still you can not get any scientist or expert that will support your cherry picks.
I specifically told you to look at as long as you could for this current interglacial period. There’s even an 11,700 year reconstruction you can look at. I’ll wait.
It is, indeed. Perhaps you should try your own advice:
Except that I don’t. If your point is “Winters are getting colder for the last decade.” then the answer is yes. Thread over. However, you then opened it up to a 100 year trend in #3 and never looked back. A 100 year trend for the globe is up, no matter what base you use for a delta. Certain regions show no change, other regions show a decline, and other regions show an increase in average temperature. The net result is an increase over that time. That is when you went to cherry-picking mode. To try and go back and go “But, but, winters!” is dishonest and quite a bit sketchy.
I agree. You should stick only to your thread’s OP. Close the thread: In the last ten years, winters, alone, have shown a general decrease in average temperature.
Oh, look! Longer term trends are needed for your question! The globe has only been cooling, slightly, if you start at 1998, 2002, or 2007!
But that being said, so what? What happens if we drop to the 1950’s level of temperature? Does that mean that we haven’t been adding a known and provable greenhouse gas to the atmosphere? Or does it simply mean that we helped create 30-50% of a heat wave and the planet’s natural variability kicked in via a process we don’t understand?
I really don’t get why you are so vehement in refusing to understand this. The trend the xkcd comic is describing (i.e., that there has been a dropoff in the occurrence of subzero temperatures in St. Louis over the past few decades, which makes recent occurrences seem extra cold) is real. It does not in any way contradict other data about different climate phenomena such as average monthly temperatures.
And checking the data does indeed bear this out. I didn’t find the specific temperature data set used to make the Climate Central chart, but I found the National Weather Service Forecast Office archive from 1874-present for St. Louis. They don’t have clickable charts, but they do provide downloadable spreadsheets, and if you download the one for “Ranked Occurrences of Temperatures <= 32 and 0 Degrees (1893-present)”, you can verify this for yourself.
Since I was the one who said it’s not too hard to handle these tabular data sources, I guess that means I volunteered to do the cut-and-pasting again, :smack: so here goes. The NWS temperature data is evidently not calibrated exactly the same as the Climate Central source data, but the same trend is clearly visible.
Number of Subzero F Daily Low Temperatures (Annually) in St. Louis, 1970-Present
1970-1979: 5, 0, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 13, 7, 8
1980-1989: 2, 4, 10, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0, 1, 5
1990-1999: 2, 0, 0, 1, 4, 0, 4, 6, 0, 2
2000-2009: 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2
2010-2013: 1, 1, 0, 0
As you can see from the quoted data, you’d have lost your money if I’d been heartless enough to exploit your gullibility by exacting the bet. Yes, in fact, the severity of daily minimum temperatures in St. Louis has been sharply decreasing over the past few decades. The data that I just presented confirms it.
And it turns out they’re not. How about that.
FXMastermind, you gambled that nobody would bother checking the actual data, and you lost.
And, once again, you bring up Al Gore. Why do you bring him up so often? And, once again, you attempt to politicize science by bringing political persuasion into it.
Were you once a Republican and you only started looking at climate science after you saw Gore’s movie, or something? You seem to love bringing up Brickmore’s personal opinions, too, which have no bearing on the actual science.
Can Brickmore provide reasonable certainty that we are boned? No, all we have are probability studies of what might happen based on an incomplete understanding of our climate system. They are getting better, but they are no where near prediction quality. Can Brickmore provide reasonable certainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has caused some of the warming? Yes. So that is the science. And properly repeated and vetted science is what I give deference to.
Well, this shows some local ignorance, virtually in all discussions like this one one side does point at Gore when they point at one that is an alarmist and making lobbing efforts in DC.
The point was however that what you accuse of being alarmists are more often than not more aware of what the science and the scientists are reporting.
The point is that he is not just giving his opinion, he has done research in the matter, his are more than just educated opinions.
So you truly are aware of how that works. So it follows that then you agree with me and many others that you are wrong when trying to point at specific areas and limited time data to “demonstrate” that the whole earth is not warming.
In this this case we are referring to an specific area as the cartoon claimed, not a point that I would make (IIRC it was made by BrainGlutton elsewhere) but it is based on real data.
It follows too that if we talked about the average of the state then we should look at it, but as **Kimstu **showed once again, we are talking about the temperature of a city not the state. You are now certifiably wrong on that specific point and even a cartoon knew more than you.
Gore hasn’t lobbied in Congress for quite a few years and I specifically avoid bringing him up because he is nothing but a political torch. Crazies on both sides rush to defame and defend and it leads to a loss of focus. I have other examples that I use.
Whoa, Gigo, we’re getting hung up on warring words. Time for a game of definitions:
Alarmist - Extreme activist/agenda pusher/poseur for political or financial gain (usually uses the language of Pro A)
Pro A - Trusts science and thinks stringent measures are required, usually with urgency <- You, Mr Brickmore
Pro B - Trusts science and thinks measures are required, urgency isn’t required <- Me
Actual Science Knowledge <- Golden Middle!
Con B - Trusts science but thinks no measures are required
Con A - Mistrusts science, thinks it’s a sham
Denier - Extreme activist/agenda pusher/poseur for political or financial gain (usually uses the language of Con B and sometimes Con A) <- A Grue Eats You
So, when I refer to an alarmist I don’t mean people like you, Mr Brickmore, or myself. I mean the actual people or groups that push hard for change…that happens to benefit them. For instance, I work in construction. There have been many times where companies I work for have specifically co-opted the Pro A language and sense of urgency to push (costly, margin boosting, and ultimately pointless) additions to work that was contracted by a government. This is what I consider “alarmism”. Similarly, a CNN article telling us that by 2060 we are all going to be baked potatoes unless we finance 50 of Ivanpah’s blingin’ new thermal solar power plants is also alarmism.
Your and Brickmore’s political opinions based on your evaluations of the science are not. You both see a more critical need to act than I do. I respect that, but disagree. This is to be expected on the political side.
See, he is giving his opinion on the part that science cannot yet prove. I respect his opinion politically just like I respect yours politically. I disregard both as useless when it comes to actually reviewing the science. It’s not conducive to good science and the understanding of that science to get opinion involved.
Basically I agree, but I’m just saying: He is a Conservative Republican, the point is that at those levels many scientists are more liberal, when you consider this then it is really telling that among active climate change researchers the few that are Republicans are telling us that it is not really a good idea to use politics as a frame for this issue; or I should say, it is really a little bit reckless for people to use politics to dismiss even conservative researchers that give more than just opinions
I agree with your last sentence. And you know what – I see your point and empathize with your logic, but here’s the problem. It appeals to the notion of “truth is always in the middle” which is sometimes a vastly misleading generalization. The truth isn’t “in the middle” – the truth is wherever it is found. The generalization confuses science with politics. It might be true if we had environmental activists on one side and anti-environmental activists on the other, and both had equivalent self-interest. In actual fact we have no such thing; we have climate scientists doing science on one side, and something like a $12 trillion global fossil fuel industry threatened by climate science on the other side – along with all its allies in business and industry. In short, we have science on one side and pretty much the entire global business empire on the other, with most governments, worried about their local economies, tending to line up with the industrialists.
It’s unfortunate in a way that Al Gore decided to throw his hat into this because he’s politically polarizing, he’s rich, and he has investments in green industry (and the non-green kind, too). But guess what. Al Gore isn’t climate science. Climate scientists are. And they’re not getting a lot of support; in fact they’re being smeared on a regular basis by (mostly) conservative media. Readthis post I made a while ago and tell me if you can find a similar example of massive spending and PR spin in support of climate science – now deftly characterized as “the other side” of an issue that really has no sides. Not a single Republican candidate in the 2012 primaries dared acknowledge climate change; Huntsman had the misfortune of having once acknowledged the reality of AGW and had to quickly recant this heresy. When it comes to PR, what Gore does or a ragtag bunch of Greenpeace activists do doesn’t hold a handle to this kind of power. What you’ve established here with a seemingly impartial logic is basically a well-meaning comparison but ultimately an incredibly false equivalency.
It’s actually quite interesting to me, the hoops and leaps of illogical behavior that one encounters, over something as basic, and real, and important to us all, as the weather, and by proxy now, the climate. It’s even invaded one of my favorite web comics. I debunked the comic the day it came out, which was really easy, since it is about the US record cold winter, not actually St Louis, that was just an example city, where the character “came from”, it’s not the city in the comic. But it didn’t matter, St Louis actually is a fine example to use for trends. The objections to finding out St Louis is trending colder winters, are varied, and humorous, and spawn wild leaps like the following.
I find that hilarious in the extreme. xkcd is speaking about long term changes, since 2000 there have been no days below zero since the nineties, so now it happens for two days and everybody thinks it’s really cold. It’s not a mysterious thing, lots of people notice the weather extremes, and they know it goes against the official story about global warming. But rather than discuss that, there are all these efforts to handwave the facts away.
The xkcd is about people saying it’s gotten colder, so data about winter trends, and especially the example city he used, are the only thing that matters. St Louis was the city where “you grew up in”, right? It’s an example city, it’s not the only city that had record cold in January 2014. He picked i because of the climatedepot graphic.
Of course, but even so, the actual city of St Louis still is enoughto debunk this nonsense.
No, I know what science is, and how science works. This is not about the xkcd comic, or St Louis, it’s about the real world. Taking one city to try and prove something about global climate change, or cold winters, or people’s faulty perceptions of cold, is anti-science.
You are now accusing me of cherry picking, because I will not just use one weather station in St Louis to define the trend for winter cooling.
And I seem to be the only one who is laughing over this. We all know what that means.
tldr: I debunk GIGO, xkcd and climate central, all in one post
Quite true. For example, there are several kinds of wrongs going on here. And then there is the wrong of not being able to recognize your errors. Then the real mistake, of repeating them.
It was the winter in Toronto that came up. I already proved the winter temperatures there are trending down, for decades in some cases. the xkcd came up as a sidetrack, and it is not talking about just St Louis, which is obvious from the content. Even so, I used St Louis to prove it is wrong. Now you object to that. It’s priceless.
False of course. There are multiple messages in the comic, of course. The key one is about perceptions of local weather, in regards to climate. And of course, climate change.
There’s the real target, a deceptive, cherry picked presentation,of partial data that is not honest, in any way. It’s the true face of delusion.
And guess what? It uses the exact same NCDN data I used to show why St Louis, as well as much of the rest of the country, is experiencing colder winters. They claim winters are warming, and warming the fastest.
Here is the full “report”, which is not a scientific paper. It is what Wikipedia calls “original research”, it’s not considered a valid source of scientific information. Any more than a debunking of it is.
Most people will not do the work to see if climate central is fooling them. I already had, so I knew it was bogus when I saw it. Which is why I knew the xkcd comic was wrong, he was fooled by climate central.
Lots of people are.
It’s an entire nother debate, so if you really care that much, start a topic, I will show you exactly how and why they are wrong, and how you can confirm it yourself.
Speaking of, Tamino attempted to debunk the Cohen et al (2012) paper using the NCDC data set, which was interesting, for several reasons. He failed of course, but his work was honest, but not his conclusions.
The reason that Climate central uses 1970 I already explained several times now. It is obvious in their St Louis graphic.
They start with the coldest start point possible, unless you go back to 1890, but that has a set of problems for them, so they don’t.
If they showed you all the data, you wouldn’t believe their story. Not one bit.
