Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[Leonhard]

Thanks, you have made my point. There is no weather event that questioners of AGW could point to, and there is no weather event that a supported of AGW couldn't fit into the theory. Tails I win, heads you lose...

Sigh, no seer. Read my latest post. Take a breather first though I think you've gotten stuck on this and you're not thinking clearly.

[tabibito]

Right, thereby linking this cold and snow to climate change. Let me ask you again Carp, what weather event COULDN'T be so linked?





And that would be different than what happened 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 250 years ago? In other words, increased frequency compared to what? The last 40-50 years, the last 200?

Your objections are undersandable. The thing is that global averages have returned to a bit short of what they were about 2000 years ago. Left to itself, the climate would probably have done that about 2300 or 2400AD. But instead of doing that at a nice slow pace (which may perhaps not have resulted in such violent swings in weather patterns), it is happening already.

[carpedm9587]

Right, thereby linking this cold and snow to climate change. Let me ask you again Carp, what weather event COULDN'T be so linked?

See my previous post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post506058

And that would be different than what happened 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 250 years ago? In other words, increased frequency compared to what? The last 40-50 years, the last 200?

We have no complete record of global weather phenomena that far back, Seer, and it is impossible to reconstruct, as far as I know. What we DO have is multiple sources that provide evidence for CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere, and the rate of change of that concentration over time. We also have all of the scientific evidence about what cooncentrations of greenhouse gases do to the climate in general, because those concentrations are definitively linked to global warming and cooling, as tracked by ocean and glacier levels. We also have computer models of the atmosphere that have been shown to be effective predictors, and keep getting better. The way these models are tested, as I understand it, is to take the concentration levels from the past and use them to see if they predict what happens with the climate in the following years. If they can do that, then they should be able to take todays numbers and trends and project what will happen in the coming years. It won't be perfect - models are always an approximation - but it is reasonable.

[carpedm9587]

Thanks, you have made my point. There is no weather event that questioners of AGW could point to, and there is no weather event that a supported of AGW couldn't fit into the theory. Tails I win, heads you lose...

No...you remain fixated on single events. Until you release that fixation, you're just not going to "get it." It's not a loaded game.

[tabibito]

See my previous post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post506058



We have no complete record of global weather phenomena that far back, Seer, and it is impossible to reconstruct, as far as I know. What we DO have is multiple sources that provide evidence for CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere, and the rate of change of that concentration over time. We also have all of the scientific evidence about what cooncentrations of greenhouse gases do to the climate in general, because those concentrations are definitively linked to global warming and cooling, as tracked by ocean and glacier levels. We also have computer models of the atmosphere that have been shown to be effective predictors, and keep getting better. The way these models are tested, as I understand it, is to take the concentration levels from the past and use them to see if they predict what happens with the climate in the following years. If they can do that, then they should be able to take todays numbers and trends and project what will happen in the coming years. It won't be perfect - models are always an approximation - but it is reasonable.

And that will lead to the objection that the climate models were inaccurate - as shown by the (so called) hiatus. True enough the rate of change did slow for a time (not for so long as 17 years, and it didn't stop). 6 or 7 reasonably significant volcanic eruptions during that time, which is the kind of event that cannot be put into models because they can't be predicted, is the reason behind that reduction in rate.

[seer]

That's what you're doing. They're also not doing the contrary "We had a mild winter in the US... therefore global warming is true" They're arguing that milder winters as we've seen recently, are partially explained by the change in global temperature.

Why, why haven't a few milder winters just been a normal part of the ebb and flow of weather.

That's a talk about multiple weather phenomenons seer. Are there more mild winters now than a hundred years ago? Yes or no. That's not a question of whether it was really cold in Denmark in December of 1993 in Denmark (which it was). That's a question of trends as a whole.

I have no idea, were there warmer winters in the distant past? For instance during the Medieval warming period. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...l-warm-period/

[carpedm9587]

And that will lead to the objection that the climate models were inaccurate - as shown by the (so called) hiatus. True enough the rate of change did slow for a time (not for so long as 17 years, and it didn't stop). 6 or 7 reasonably significant volcanic eruptions during that time, which is the kind of event that cannot be put into models because they can't be predicted, is the reason behind that reduction in rate.

The so-called hiatus is claimed from 1998-2015 and is frankly the result of cherry-picking the available evidence to "prove" a desired position. That anyone would accept it as real, especially given the links and the graph I provided below, displays either a lack of impartiality in examining the data, a lack of understanding of the data, or simply a flagrant exercise in confirmation bias.

[Leonhard]

Why, why haven't a few milder winters just been a normal part of the ebb and flow of weather.

Well there you go. Asking proper questions now.

The relationship between the intensity of the weather, and the Earth's global average temperature, is more controversial than whether its getting warmer or not. So far I'm undecided either way.

I have no idea, were there warmer winters in the distant past? For instance during the Medieval warming period. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...l-warm-period/

The Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, were both discussed by the IPCC in their First and Third Review, they came to the conclusion, which now represents the consensus view, that this was primarily confined to the North Atlantic. You can read their reasoning and the sources they cite for their conclusion.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160330...g1%2Findex.htm

Source: IPCC Third Review

Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability. The Bermuda rise sediment record of Keigwin (1996) suggests warm medieval conditions and cold 17th to 19th century conditions in the Sargasso Sea of the tropical North Atlantic. A sediment record just south of Newfoundland (Keigwin and Pickart, 1999), in contrast, indicates cold medieval and warm 16th to 19th century upper ocean temperatures. Keigwin and Pickart (1999) suggest that these temperature contrasts were associated with changes in ocean currents in the North Atlantic. They argue that the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" in the Atlantic region may in large measure reflect century-scale changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (see Section 2.6). Such regional changes in oceanic and atmospheric processes, which are also relevant to the natural variability of the climate on millennial and longer time-scales (see Section 2.4.2), are greatly diminished or absent in their influence on hemispheric or global mean temperatures.

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

Why, why haven't a few milder winters just been a normal part of the ebb and flow of weather.

A few milder winters, and a few deep cold snaps, can be part of a normal ebb and flow of data, can be part of a warming trend, or can be part of a cooling trend. No one is saying otherwise, that I have seen. What IS being said is, these events do NOT disprove the global warming phenomenon. Nor do they prove it. They are consistent with it, and consistent with global stasis, and global cooling. It is the change in frequency and intensity that the warming models predict.

I have no idea, were there warmer winters in the distant past? For instance during the Medieval warming period. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...l-warm-period/

As best we can tell - yes. Warmer winters can be fairly easily tracked in polar and glacial ice core samples and in tree ring thickness, AFAIK.

[carpedm9587]

The relationship between the intensity of the weather, and the Earth's global average temperature, is more controversial than whether its getting warmer or not. So far I'm undecided either way.

This definitely caught my eye. You appear to be far more versed on this than I. From what I have read, I would have said (and have said) that they are linked. Can you explain why you are still undecided on this? I'd hate to hold a position that is not adequately supported.

[Leonhard]

This definitely caught my eye. You appear to be far more versed on this than I. From what I have read, I would have said (and have said) that they are linked. Can you explain why you are still undecided on this? I'd hate to hold a position that is not adequately supported.

Oh its simple, I haven't dug into those parts of the reports yet. I don't even know the state of modern day research on that, I do know its been a longer discussion, but I don't know if they've reached proper consensus yet on it. If there's too much of a hold out I won't consider the issue settled yet.

[tabibito]

medieval warm.jpg

There's the graph from your own citation, Seer. Year 2000 is the end mark of actual data. What has happened in the 17 years since?

[carpedm9587]

Oh its simple, I haven't dug into those parts of the reports yet. I don't even know the state of modern day research on that, I do know its been a longer discussion, but I don't know if they've reached proper consensus yet on it. If there's too much of a hold out I won't consider the issue settled yet.

Fair enough.

[tabibito]

The so-called hiatus is claimed from 1998-2015 and is frankly the result of cherry-picking the available evidence to "prove" a desired position. That anyone would accept it as real, especially given the links and the graph I provided below, displays either a lack of impartiality in examining the data, a lack of understanding of the data, or simply a flagrant exercise in confirmation bias.

Had I been subjecting myself to confirmation bias, it would have tended to support the position that I am arguing for - which is that Global Warming is real, and that it is strongly a result of man-induced forcing.

[carpedm9587]

Had I been subjecting myself to confirmation bias, it would have tended to support the position that I am arguing for - which is that Global Warming is real, and that it is strongly a result of man-induced forcing.

Sorry, Tabibito, my post was not intended as an accusation specific to you. I was pretty sure you accepted the reality of global warming. Are you saying that you look at the data and see the "hiatus" as a real event?

The graph is included here again, for reference

Picture1.jpg