Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[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.

By the way - in the data set you are examining, is there a monthly global average temperature recorded? I've been looking for the numbers that drive this chart:

Picture1.jpg

It graphs monthly global temperature anomalies (lower troposphere) from 1978 through the present.

[tabibito]

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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25838[/ATTACH]

I'm admitting that it looks real. It is necessary to acknowledge that there is a flattening by comparison with projections, (that can readily be demonstrated) but still trending upwards. That is why I have been pointing to ocean levels. Whatever the weather is doing, there is no denying that the ocean levels are rising, and that can only be a result of ice melting off land masses. I'm guessing that currently, ice over land is only thinning - once land starts to become exposed, the reduced albedo will increase the rate of global warming somewhat dramatically - barring a lack of volcanoes kicking dust particles into the upper atmosphere that is.

As observe:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=k...E8bu8we5tJXwBQ

[seer]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25836[/ATTACH]

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?

The point is there have been naturally warm periods, as a matter of fact if we go back far enough the whole world was one tropical. There is no average temperature, no average climate for the earth.

[carpedm9587]

I'm admitting that it looks real. It is necessary to acknowledge that there is a flattening by comparison with projections, (that can readily be demonstrated) but still trending upwards. That is why I have been pointing to ocean levels. Whatever the weather is doing, there is no denying that the ocean levels are rising, and that can only be a result of ice melting off land masses. I'm guessing that currently, ice over land is only thinning - once land starts to become exposed, the reduced albedo will increase the rate of global warming somewhat dramatically - barring a lack of volcanoes kicking dust particles into the upper atmosphere that is.

As observe:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=k...E8bu8we5tJXwBQ

If you look at the graph, Tabibito, you will see pretty clearly that, although there are cycles in the average temperature, the over-all trend is upwards. 1998 was an unusually warm year, which is why it is selected as the "starting point" for the so-called "hiatus." If you let your eye skip over it and look at the flow of the years before and after it, you can cleaerly see an upward trend in the data. It would be more visible if I could run multi-month graphs, but to do that I need the raw data and I have not been able to find it. The law of large numbers will tend to smooth our variation in samples as the sample size gets larger, and the overall trend becomes more evident. If there is no warming, the line should tend to towards flatness as the measurement interval increases. If we are cooling, it should trend towards dropping. If we are warming it should trend towards rising. Even a lay-person's look at the graph, however, should be enough to see the overall trend.

Yes, geological events can alter the cycle. Indeed, since we have a regular spate of volcanoes going off worldwide, they have some effect on climate. As far as I can tell, unless there is a hugely significant eruption, the effect is a fraction of the overall carbon cycle.

[seer]

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.

How do you know that?

[seer]

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.

They why are powers that be linking these events to AGW? That was exactly what Mann did with Harvey, and what he did with this cold spell in your link.

[Leonhard]

By the way - in the data set you are examining, is there a monthly global average temperature recorded? I've been looking for the numbers that drive this chart:

No I'm very specifically just looking at the US land temperature record. The global one is composed of a lot more sources, such as Russian and Australian sources, and the Oceanographic sources which are arguable the most important ones. However the US data still reflects the global average.

[carpedm9587]

The point is there have been naturally warm periods, as a matter of fact if we go back far enough the whole world was one tropical. There is no average temperature, no average climate for the earth.

No one is claiming there is a "should be" average temperature. What is being claimed is a) that the overall average temperature is rising, b) that human activity is having a significant effect on that, and c) there will be a corresponding impact on human activity. The last time we had this kind of warming, we didn't have over 1/4 of the world's population living in coastal cities that can be serious affected by sea level changes. And the rate of change is such that it is a cause for concern, because it is outpacing anything in the geologic record, AFAIK.

There is a moral dimension: 1B of the world's population (the wealthiest nations) created over half of this polution. 3B of the world's population (the poorest nations) will be significantly impacted for something they made only a fraction of the contribution to. We have, I believe, amoral obligation to be proper stewards of our world, and we have a moral obligation to clean up the mess we made and stop making more. The argument "our economy might be hurt" bears little weight with me - there are higher values than money. It is also not necessarily true. A shift to a renewable energy economy is inevitable. If we do not jump on that bandwagon now, by the time we do, other countries will have become the suppliers and we will be customers (again).

But now I AM going to withdraw. In the past many years, I have never met someone from the right who was ever convinced by any of the data or any of the lines of reasoning. I'm sure there are some out there - but I have never met them. Rejection of global warming as a fact is, IMO, essentially a rejection of settled science, roughly the equivalent of rejecting evolution (i.e., adopting creationism), the age of the earth (i.e., adopting young earthism), or the operation of the cosmos (i.e., adopting geocentrism). Someone who can reject that much science is simply not, IMO, behaving rationally.

We can have many discussions about the likely impact of global warming. THAT is not yet settled, IMO. We can also have lively debates about the best course to take in response. Those are political and economic discussions. But if we're starting at "global warming is a hoax," then, IMO, the person making the claim is either not looking at the evidence, doesn't understand the evidence, is rejecting the evidence, or is simply not discussing rationally.

I leave you all to it.

[carpedm9587]

No I'm very specifically just looking at the US land temperature record. The global one is composed of a lot more sources, such as Russian and Australian sources, and the Oceanographic sources which are arguable the most important ones. However the US data still reflects the global average.

Bummer

I wish I could find the data set the underlay the graph. I just want the monthly values. I suppose I could try to back them out of the graph, but that's almost 500 data points. I don't have that kind of time.

[seer]

There is a moral dimension: 1B of the world's population (the wealthiest nations) created over half of this polution. 3B of the world's population (the poorest nations) will be significantly impacted for something they made only a fraction of the contribution to. We have, I believe, amoral obligation to be proper stewards of our world, and we have a moral obligation to clean up the mess we made and stop making more. The argument "our economy might be hurt" bears little weight with me - there are higher values than money. It is also not necessarily true. A shift to a renewable energy economy is inevitable. If we do not jump on that bandwagon now, by the time we do, other countries will have become the suppliers and we will be customers (again).

OH stop, the US has already cut its Co2 output to early 90s levels. I'm all for more natural gas and nuclear. And yes, we are going to do what is more beneficial for our citizens. And again, how do we compete with a country like China that has minimal environmental regulations, no worker rights a slave wages. Get real Carp... OK, the NFL Playoff are on...

[carpedm9587]

OH stop, the US has already cut its Co2 output to early 90s levels. I'm all for more natural gas and nuclear. And yes, we are going to do what is more beneficial for our citizens. And again, how do we compete with a country like China that has minimal environmental regulations, no worker rights a slave wages. Get real Carp... OK, the NFL Playoff are on...

Unless you have better data, your claim does not appear to be true (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-...port-1990-2014). And "better for our citizens" without a global view, IMO, makes us a poor global citizen.

I do not know how your moral framework functions, but mine is dependent on my choices, not those of others. I cannot justify throwing trash in the river behind our home on the basis that my neighbor is doing it too. I will pay the extra to take the trash to a proper processing facility because it's the right hting to do, even if my neighbor does not and even if it means I have to skip a couplke movies or a night out or buy cheaper food to do it. Likewise, I do not base what I think we should be doing as a nation on the basis of what other countries do. I care what WE do and whether or not we are taking an ethical high road. That our economy may see an impact (which has not been shown to be true) is inconsequential to me.

[seer]

Unless you have better data, your claim does not appear to be true (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-...port-1990-2014). And "better for our citizens" without a global view, IMO, makes us a poor global citizen.

Of course it is true look at the chart you linked, I said we were down to early 1990s levels, and we are.

us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1990-2014.jpg

Likewise, I do not base what I think we should be doing as a nation on the basis of what other countries do. I care what WE do and whether or not we are taking an ethical high road. That our economy may see an impact (which has not been shown to be true) is inconsequential to me.

And I don't want the elderly freezing in Chicago because they can't afford heat, or the young family because they can find good jobs. Now stop interrupting the Playoff...

[carpedm9587]

Of course it is true look at the chart you linked, I said we were down to early 1990s levels, and we are.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25842[/ATTACH]

The graph does not support your claim...

And I don't want the elderly freezing in Chicago because they can't afford heat, or the young family because they can find good jobs.

...and this is fear mongering. Until you can show that a migration to renewable energy sources will cause old people to freeze or jobs to become more scarce, you're asserting without substance. Even if energy prices rise as a result, there are mechanisms for dealing with this as well until economies of scale drive price points to par, which is already happening.

[seer]

The graph does not support your claim...

What, look at 1994 compared to 2014. They are nearly equal.

...and this is fear mongering. Until you can show that a migration to renewable energy sources will cause old people to freeze or jobs to become more scarce, you're asserting without substance. Even if energy prices rise as a result, there are mechanisms for dealing with this as well until economies of scale drive price points to par, which is already happening.

And you guys aren't fear mongering? Where is the increase in extreme conditions over the last 100 years caused by AGW?

[carpedm9587]

What, look at 1994 compared to 2014. They are nearly equal.

2014 is roughly equal to 96, and significantly above 1990. Look at the report. It is also significantly above levels required to make changes, and Trump is reversing the initiatives that would drive them lower.

And you guys aren't fear mongering? Where is the increase in extreme conditions over the last 100 years caused by AGW?

I am not "you guys." I am one person and I have not, to my knowledge, engaged in fear mongering. If you're going to have a discussion with me, then deal with MY statements rather than projecting statements of others onto me. I accept the scientific evidence, and the models that predict a continued increase in sea level rise. I also have a bias towards not poluting our planet. None of that is "fear mongering." Sea levels are demonstrably rising, and the incidence of coastal flooding rising with them. I would prefer we clean up our corner of the world and take a leadership position in a promising new industry. I believe it is economic folly to delay. We will simply cede the leadership to other countries, which are heavily investing in this sector, both on the development and use sides.