Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 - 03:32am PT
|
Look at that pause .
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 - 07:02am PT
|
It is interesting how the same person first use probably over 100 posts about the importance of using confidence intervals in the rhetoric about record years and then continue with "calculating" trends using two points without even using any information about confidence intervals.
It really show a deep understanding...
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 - 07:53am PT
|
Three of the last four years were cooler than nearly all of the previous decade.
Is 2014 significant? Or just a hot button rallying point?
Looking at graphs of global temps, it seems we experienced significant warming in the 80s and 90s. Then warming seemingly ran out of gas. All temperature spikes since 1998 peaked at approximately the same height. The kind of warming seen in the late 20th Century stopped. The Chief posted on this the other day. The difference between the four warmest years, going back 16 years, is minimal. Some might say it's statistically insignificant.
Granted, looking solely at highs could be construed as cherry picking. Smoothing monthly data with a 60 period mean, most recognized datum show a sideways trend for at least the last 10 years, which was last seen back in the 70s.
2014 was an unusual year. Polar vortex. California drought. Record sea ice extent in Antarctica. The Arctic sea ice minimum was larger than 5 of the last 7 years.
Record warming and healthy sea ice at the ends of the Earth.
Was 2014's warming significant? Or just a short term spike in a sideways trend?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 - 08:41am PT
|
Two easy questions:
Was 2014's warming significant?
No, not in the sense of a statistically significant difference between that and the second-highest year. NASA/NOAA reports stated that clearly, as did the UK Met Office with respect to HadCRUT4. I don't know of anyone who has claimed the new records are, by themselves, statistically significant. Here's a more detailed answer by Gavin Schmidt of NASA.
Or just a short term spike in a sideways trend?
Huh? Your "sideways trend" (I think you mean no trend) is certainly not significant, rather there's been a longterm and significant upward trend. The new records are in line with that upward trend, as Tamino showed nicely in It's the Trend, Stupid. Here's an alternative illustration of Tamino's idea:
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2015 - 11:41am PT
|
While the signal-to-noise ratio has been quite loud lately, there has been some awfully good signal in the past couple of pages.
Thanks for that ...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 - 02:02pm PT
|
While the signal-to-noise ratio has been quite loud lately
Well yes but your comment brought to mind something substantive and relevant to various discussions here -- from the Schmidt commentary I linked upthread. Dr. Schmidt notes indications that the satellite temperature indexes (UAH and RSS), being more buffeted around by ENSO, appear to have a lower signal-to-noise ratio than the surface temperature indexes. That's something I would have guessed also from just looking at the satellite series, which show more erratic month-to-month fluctuations.
If you adjust UAH temps for the ENSO effect, they too would have set a record high in 2014, though not by much. On the other hand the GISTEMP record stands even out more, because it occurred in a non-Nino year. On some pseudoscience blogs we've had people claiming for ages that ENSO caused global warming.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2015 - 09:54pm PT
|
Wow that must sting.
Poor John Coleman, weatherman and hardcore denialist.
His opinion is rejected and renounced by his own former company, the Weather Channel, who declared:
The climate of the earth is indeed warming, with an increase of approximately 1 - 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, more than half of that occurring since the 1970s. The warming has taken place as averaged globally and annually; significant regional and seasonal variations exist.
More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.
http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/global-warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029?hootPostID=229120d79777fd4b8ae874f7ea6fd729
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 06:44am PT
|
The Deniers are losing as common sense takes over...
WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.
In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming.
Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 09:02am PT
|
The "underlying utopian agenda" will never be achieved. It's a messy world out there, wildly divergent agendas by multiple different governments and factions. Power and greed are still the primary motivating factors. The agenda will be used as far as taxation and control of the populace will take it, but the utopians and there concerns will be jettisoned to the wayside. There has never been, nor ever will be a benevolent one world government whose high preists (modern scientismists) and officials work in concert for the salvation of nature and a reduced mankind. Does anyone here actually believe that the major emitters of CO2, China and India will torpedo their economies to satisfy western paranoia's, or Russua and Opec will leave their primary cash producing resource's in the ground, or for that matter the western world's populace will suffer quietly under ever increasing taxation, controls, and resultant increased poverty of the mainstream to the benefit of the few?
The new york times is a propaganda organ. The devil is in the detsils of its poll is putting it mildly. Not worth the electrons it takes to appear on your computer screen.
|
|
Chewybacca
Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 09:44am PT
|
Geo-engineering is what happens when you pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Ignorance is denying that these greenhouse gases are a form of geoengineering.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 11:43am PT
|
We've been spraying chemicals into the air, in large quantities, for 150 years. Currently, what, 20-30 billion tons of CO2 a year.
Upwards of 30 gigatons per year, and unlike these fantasies that geoengineering is really happening, right now. Along with so much other unintentional geoengineering from deforestation, soil erosion, or using ocean ecosystems as the ultimate sink. We're definitely changing the planet, heading in directions we won't like. Biologists have noted that "human-dominated ecosystems" are so ubiquitous now, it's hard to find the other kind.
As for the proposed geoengineering "solutions" to greenhouse warming, they look like bad ideas to me for many reasons, including (1) likely to bite back, perhaps drastically; (2) don't solve but excuse delayed action on the real problems; and (3) even if they worked perfectly as planned (which I doubt) it would be like taking heroin to cure your headache. If some geoengineering fix magically kept the atmosphere from frying our crops, we couldn't stop or pause ever.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 11:46am PT
|
Ah, you mean like the 100's of scientist throughout the globe that Monsanto hires annually
No, I don't mean scientists working for corporations like Monsanto.
I mean scientists paid by universities and government laboratories, because they have independence and can go wherever their research takes them. They can publish whatever they find.
You do understand the difference?
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 11:56am PT
|
Only those scientist that do the research and work that you and the others here agree with are true scientist. Right?
No. That's not what I said.
|
|
Roger Brown
climber
Oceano, California
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 12:03pm PT
|
Crunch,
:-)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 02:18pm PT
|
Zzzzzz....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 04:26pm PT
|
you are happy to use the modern conveniences offered by our technologies,
yes or no?
science provides the knowledge to produce the technologies... if you don't like it "just don't clip the bolt"
as far as genetic modification, did it ever occur to you that is exactly what happened in the domestication of various species: cows, sheep, corn, wheat, etc... only thousands of years ago? they are all genetically modified, selected to be of use to humans, by humans...
oh the horror!
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 05:50pm PT
|
The Chief...You have a thing for sheep...Is it the Basque heritage..?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2015 - 05:53pm PT
|
Do you actually ingest them foods ED H?
I just enjoyed a nice beer which used yeasts, malts and barleys that were all scientifically manipulated (perhaps not by molecular biology, but scientific none the less)...
...so yes, in fact, we all ingest genetically modified foods.
You don't have too if you don't want to... I don't eat Fruit Loops, that's a personal choice.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!