Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[carpedm9587]

Doesn't look much like a heat wave out West, either (looking at you, toastie).

It's called global warming. So if we widen our view just a tad...

Global.jpg

You cannot refute "global" warming with local stats (even if they are climate-related, even if they span a whole continent) or stats that do not incorporate the entire measurement window.

[Cow Poke]

It's called global warming. So if we widen our view just a tad...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25792[/ATTACH]

You cannot refute "global" warming with local stats (even if they are climate-related, even if they span a whole continent) or stats that do not incorporate the entire measurement window.

I think my mother was a globalist! When we wouldn't eat our green beans, she would always refer to the starving kids in [name the country].



(I offered to ship my green beans to them, but after she applied the board of education to my seat of learning, I never mentioned that again)

[One Bad Pig]

It's called global warming. So if we widen our view just a tad...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25792[/ATTACH]

You cannot refute "global" warming with local stats (even if they are climate-related, even if they span a whole continent) or stats that do not incorporate the entire measurement window.

Absolutely. I've stated a time or two in this thread that local stats should not be used by either side. This was just a tongue in cheek poke at taoist, who stated earlier that cold temperatures in the Eastern US were balanced by sweltering temperatures out West.

Spoilsport.

[carpedm9587]

Absolutely. I've stated a time or two in this thread that local stats should not be used by either side. This was just a tongue in cheek poke at taoist, who stated earlier that cold temperatures in the Eastern US were balanced by sweltering temperatures out West.

Spoilsport.

Oops....

[seer]

This extreme cold is just weather but all heat waves are climate change

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/why...limate-change/

[shunyadragon]

It's called global warming. So if we widen our view just a tad...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25792[/ATTACH]

You cannot refute "global" warming with local stats (even if they are climate-related, even if they span a whole continent) or stats that do not incorporate the entire measurement window.

Very very true.

[shunyadragon]

This extreme cold is just weather but all heat waves are climate change

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/why...limate-change/

Neither extreme cold weather events nor heat wave weather events are evidence of climate change.

[carpedm9587]

This extreme cold is just weather but all heat waves are climate change

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/why...limate-change/

So first of all - this article does the usual job of mixing climate and weather and applying most of the arguments we've heard in this thread. It does not appear to contain anything new..

But I also have to confess that MY picture was improperly used. I misread the image and thought it was an image of average global temperatures for 2017. It is actually average temperatures for one day in 2017 - so although it is global - it is weather - not climate. My bad.

This image is more informative:

Picture1.jpg

It graphs the average annual global temperatures from 1978 through the present. I have not been able to find data that goes further back. What I like about this image is that it does not depend on a base line, which can be arbitrary. Instead, the mid-line of this graph is the average global temperature from 1978 through 2017. It's also the lower troposphere, rather than ground-level, and is based on satellite data, so the accusation that it has been "adjusted" doesn't apply. If you look at it right to left, you can see the clear temperature increase trend.The vast majority of years BELOW the 40-year average are at the beginning of the timeline, and the vast majority of years above the mid-line are at the end.

If you look at the span from 1998-2015, you can see the infamous "18-year span when temperature was actually dropping." This is what is known as cherry-picking. Take THE highest point on the graph, then carve out as many years as you can that remain below that number and, voila, we're actually cooling. If you look at the entire body of data, rather than cherry-picking 18 years out of it, the trend is pretty much undeniable.

[Juvenal]

It seems you are not conversant with the facts. I posted this in another thread:

Have you read the report they're citing. Or tried to read, I should say, through the editing failures and puffed up chain of endorsements replacing the absent author affiliations.

Real papers don't do endorsements, and they start by identifying the authors.

I've read it more than once over the past couple years, when it first showed up on the website of the Heartland Institute. It's been through iterations, with the same cast of characters cycling between the author and endorsement lists.

This paper made its first, most unreadable, appearance in 2016, during the Obama administration. It was originally submitted, seven years late, as a comment opposing the introduction of the clean power plan and higher CAFE standards for cars and light trucks. They required an EPA endangerment finding, duly submitted for comment and approved in 2009.

I'm duly appreciative of the fact they've fixed the pagination. It was beyond difficult reading footnotes and page numbers bleeding off into the next page.


This is the third version I've seen, judging from the submission date, which keeps changing as they release better edited versions without making meaningful changes in the underlying comment. We should note it currently says June 2017, and is now published at thsresearch.files.wordpress.com, with a homepage that makes clear why it's reared its head again, and showing through the report's provenance that Tropical Hot Spot Research is a Heartland affiliate. Likely, they feel Secretary Pruitt will be more receptive to crank science.


The scientific argument, such as it is, is also recycled. Early in their history, satellite measurements were notoriously unreliable in comparison to land and sea stations. When those measurements wandered away from the surface stations, the differences were investigated, and tracked back to unaccounted-for decays in the satellite's orbits.

During the brief period while the satellites were being calibrated, it was possible to pull trends suiting the needs of professional climate cranks.

Similarly, historical measurements on land and sea were subject to systemic biases which made the raw data unreliable. We spent years discussing these issues right here, in TWeb's Nat Sci forum. They have also been addressed, long since, most tellingly with the introduction of the USCRN for land measurements in the US. Sea surface measurements have also been standardized and augmented with temperature measurements at depth, where most of the excess heat from global warming is being captured.


It should be emphasized that correction factors are no longer needed for land and sea surface temperatures today, and haven't been needed since the 90s.

Roy's top 10 list is reliable.

[seer]

Neither extreme cold weather events nor heat wave weather events are evidence of climate change.

Well tell that to the warmist scientists in my link...

[Sparko]

It's called global warming. So if we widen our view just a tad...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25792[/ATTACH]

You cannot refute "global" warming with local stats (even if they are climate-related, even if they span a whole continent) or stats that do not incorporate the entire measurement window.

see the blue? Obviously Trump is taking care of America and has fixed global warming there (except for the liberal Californians!)! If the rest of the world would join Trump he would fix it for them too!

[carpedm9587]

see the blue? Obviously Trump is taking care of America and has fixed global warming there (except for the liberal Californians!)! If the rest of the world would join Trump he would fix it for them too!

Apparently - only for December 28th - apparently that was one of Mr. Trump's good days!


P.S. The graph does not depict what I thought it did - it's weather, not climate. I misused it.

[seer]

If you look at the span from 1998-2015, you can see the infamous "18-year span when temperature was actually dropping." This is what is known as cherry-picking. Take THE highest point on the graph, then carve out as many years as you can that remain below that number and, voila, we're actually cooling. If you look at the entire body of data, rather than cherry-picking 18 years out of it, the trend is pretty much undeniable.

Well I'm glad you admit there was a pause. And no one was saying the temps were dropping, but that there was a pause. Which in interesting as in these very years China and India were ramping up their industries, putting, exponentially, more C02 into the atmosphere.

So first of all - this article does the usual job of mixing climate and weather and applying most of the arguments we've heard in this thread. It does not appear to contain anything new..

No, the point was that scientists on the AGW side were in fact were pointing to certain local weather events as evidence for global warming.

[carpedm9587]

Well I'm glad you admit there was a pause. And no one was saying the temps were dropping, but that there was a pause. Which in interesting as in these very years China and India were ramping up their industries, putting, exponentially, more C02 into the atmosphere.

Actually, I did NOT admit there was a pause. The "pause" appears only if you take the outlier at 1997 and use it as the baseline, then look at the following years. The "pause" is a function of cherry picking. You can see that by doing an analysis of running averages. If you take the running average from 1978-1979, then 1978-1980, then 1978-1981, and continue on until you get to 1978-2107, you see that the running average is on a steady path of increase. That increase slows in cooler years, and climbs more aggressively in warmer years, but the pattern is a continuous, steady increase. The years immediately after 1998 cause that increase to slow to almost zero for 2-3 years, then it re-asserts itself. Of course, as the same set gets larger, that rate of average change will become shallower.

The trick of taking a select set of years to prove a point can be seen as a trick if you note that I can "prove" there is no global warming by choosing the following intervals:

1978-1985
1980-1993
1988-2000
1980-2012 (not sure why they don't use this one - at 32 years, it's longer than the normally cited 1998-2015)

All of these approaches do the same thing: bound the data set by a high year at the start and a low year at the end. It's cherry picking - pure and simple. It is not clear to me how anyone with a high school level math education cannot see this for the statistical error/trick that it is.

No, the point was that scientists on the AGW side were in fact were pointing to certain local weather events as evidence for global warming.

OK - I see where the author accused them of it - but I'm missing where they actually did this. Can you be more specific about where this was actually done?

[Mountain Man]

Have you read the report they're citing. Or tried to read, I should say, through the editing failures and puffed up chain of endorsements replacing the absent author affiliations.

Real papers don't do endorsements, and they start by identifying the authors.

I've read it more than once over the past couple years, when it first showed up on the website of the Heartland Institute. It's been through iterations, with the same cast of characters cycling between the author and endorsement lists.

This paper made its first, most unreadable, appearance in 2016, during the Obama administration. It was originally submitted, seven years late, as a comment opposing the introduction of the clean power plan and higher CAFE standards for cars and light trucks. They required an EPA endangerment finding, duly submitted for comment and approved in 2009.

I'm duly appreciative of the fact they've fixed the pagination. It was beyond difficult reading footnotes and page numbers bleeding off into the next page.


This is the third version I've seen, judging from the submission date, which keeps changing as they release better edited versions without making meaningful changes in the underlying comment. We should note it currently says June 2017, and is now published at thsresearch.files.wordpress.com, with a homepage that makes clear why it's reared its head again, and showing through the report's provenance that Tropical Hot Spot Research is a Heartland affiliate. Likely, they feel Secretary Pruitt will be more receptive to crank science.


The scientific argument, such as it is, is also recycled. Early in their history, satellite measurements were notoriously unreliable in comparison to land and sea stations. When those measurements wandered away from the surface stations, the differences were investigated, and tracked back to unaccounted-for decays in the satellite's orbits.

During the brief period while the satellites were being calibrated, it was possible to pull trends suiting the needs of professional climate cranks.

Similarly, historical measurements on land and sea were subject to systemic biases which made the raw data unreliable. We spent years discussing these issues right here, in TWeb's Nat Sci forum. They have also been addressed, long since, most tellingly with the introduction of the USCRN for land measurements in the US. Sea surface measurements have also been standardized and augmented with temperature measurements at depth, where most of the excess heat from global warming is being captured.


It should be emphasized that correction factors are no longer needed for land and sea surface temperatures today, and haven't been needed since the 90s.

Roy's top 10 list is reliable.

Yeah, and your rationalization totally justifies organizations like NOAA and NASA secretly "adjusting" past temperature data on a monthly basis in order to fabricate a warming trend. And isn't it odd how these "adjustments" only ever seem to go in one direction? That's "settled science", y'all!