I only wish I had your skills.
Scientists predict 'millenium winter'......
- Thread starter carlosMM
- Start date
Exactly - which is why I wanted the last person asking to lay down exactly what he wanted to know.
If, however, we phrase the question the way it is usually understood implicitly by most people, there remain only two general versions:
What was the coldest/hottest decade/year/season/month/day/night (as a running average) in my region/worldwide?
Often, the answer to one of the many other possible questions if given as if it pertained to that questions. A favorite scam of those attempting to deny anthropogenic global warming, btw.
MrCynical
Deity
innonimatu said:
This is a point that really needs to be emphasised. These kind of records are almost always presented with one or two crucial pieces of information missing:
1)How long is the record for the region in question? Few will be accurate back more than a century, and a lot only have a few decades of reasonably accurate data.
2)How many non-record breaking regions are there for every record breaking one?
carlosMM said:
The problem being that if you're looking for the hottest/coldest decade with less than 50 years of data, then it is not remotely surprising or significant if the most recent decade was the most extreme. If you start talking about regions, you can always find a record if you finely divide them enough.
I do get rather tired of seeing news stories on the lines of "this is the (hottest/second hottest/top five) (year/specific month/specific season/arbitrary time period) (on record/in living memory/in round number of years) (in country/city/region) "
It doesn't take in depth statistics to figure out that with this kind of number of permutations most "records" are complete non-events. I sometimes reckon that something the media's scientific reporting needs even more an understanding of science is some understanding of statistics.
on 1) I agree, you need this data. 2), however, really depends on the question.
Icing on the cake, with regards to (right-wing) media standards:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...gn=Feed:+scienceblogs/pharyngula+(Pharyngula)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...gn=Feed:+scienceblogs/pharyngula+(Pharyngula)
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Nagasaki, about 2 hours train ride from Fukuoka.
One of my professors said last year was worse.
deanej
Deity
Also a favorite scam of those attempting to promote anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately our records start in the little ice age, so even if we came up with a way of measuring climate data that wasn't filled with bias, it wouldn't prove anything other than we're no longer in the little ice age.
wrong on many counts.
first off, you will have to bring proof for the claim that people "promote" anthropogenic global warming.
second, show me where they use cherry-picking (which is what I was talking about).
You won't find any scientist doing that, but you will find thousands of lobbyists cherry-picking and promoting "do nothing" politics.
Lastly, what exactly is "our record"? Was there a caveman with a thermometer living during the last ice age or what? You're (intentionally, I am sure) making a claim up that is so broadly oversimplifying the issue that it must give a false impression. That's usually called "a lie".
So: hic Rhodos, his saltas: What is "our record"? And how do you know it "started in the little ice age". And please show the supposed "bias".
deanej
Deity
No proof needed for the first question. The scientists always going "we're causing global warming! We're all going to die!" (I exaggerated for effect, I admit) is evidence enough. Plus calling anyone who disagrees a denier.
For the second: 2010 was declared the hottest year on record... in July! I guess stopping the data collection in the hottest month of the year isn't at all biased, is it? Also, there was a report a while ago attacking anthropogenic global warming that mentioned a climate station located next to an incinerator (sorry, I don't remember more about this).
For the third: Last I checked, we only had solid climate data going back to the industrial revolution, which is also right when the little ice age ended. I find it interested that the little ice age is never mentioned by climate scientists, yet historians talk about it much more often, usually in relation to events like the Vikings abandoning Greenland or Napoleon's failure to conqueror Russia.
For some reason the global warming debate causes people to lose all rational thought, immedietly proclaim their own side right, and call everyone who disagrees a crackpot denier. Both sides do this.
For the second: 2010 was declared the hottest year on record... in July! I guess stopping the data collection in the hottest month of the year isn't at all biased, is it? Also, there was a report a while ago attacking anthropogenic global warming that mentioned a climate station located next to an incinerator (sorry, I don't remember more about this).
For the third: Last I checked, we only had solid climate data going back to the industrial revolution, which is also right when the little ice age ended. I find it interested that the little ice age is never mentioned by climate scientists, yet historians talk about it much more often, usually in relation to events like the Vikings abandoning Greenland or Napoleon's failure to conqueror Russia.
For some reason the global warming debate causes people to lose all rational thought, immedietly proclaim their own side right, and call everyone who disagrees a crackpot denier. Both sides do this.
hm, you have a weird definition of the word "to promote" then.
The media can "declare" all they want. jorunalists are sensationalists. And now show me a scientist "promoting" global warming who misrepresented that. In fact, the media were full of scientists saying that until July it was the warmest year. FACT. Some were making predictions (Rahmsdorf, e.g.) that it might become hottest year on records - but where were those what did what you imply: stop recording in July and pretend the rest stayed as warm?
WHERE?????
yeah, hearsay about "a report" - and not even enough memories to tell us when that incinerator was placed there, and whether it does in fact influence the readings - if it really exists at all.
This is usually about the best level of "proof" climate change deniers can bring, so you are up to par. However, you're just showing that deniers have no solid data to go on.
shifting the goalposts: now it suddenly is "solid" you want - but that required that you define that word. Please do.
and when did you check? Can we please meet in real life? I'd LOVE to meet someone who is 140 years old for real!
also, an outright lie/untruth there, either explicitly or implicitly: you claim that climate scientists never mention the little ice age. Either you know this is not true, or your don't know but implicit claim that you are well-read on what they say, which is not true. Liar or pretender?
to show how wrong you are:
search for "little ice age" at
realclimate.org/
it will give you this (hope this works as intended)
search results
and that's just ONE site!
Yadda yadda - and false. In fact, hundreds if not thousands of scientists have made up their minds after long and careful study, contrary to your claim.
If you are interested in facts instead of just shooting off your mouth with propaganda I can give you plenty of sources. So far, however, you mindlessly blabber the typical denialist propaganda, and either are uninformed or tell lies.
deanej
Deity
Everywhere I've heard about climate records says we only have them for about the past 100-150 years. The graph in "An Inconvenient Truth" ends somewhere in the little ice age.
NONE of the stuff I've heard about global warming from the pro-warming faction has ever referenced the little ice age.
I hate it when people always expect me to remember every little thing I've heard through the Internet and where I got it from months after the fact. How do you expect me to remember? Do you all have a binder where you record every fact you ever encounter? Thankfully, I can tell you where I learned about the report from: the No Agenda podcast (highly recommended if you're interested in an alternative perspective on many subjects, including deconstructing the media, government, global warming, swine flu, and much more; avoid if you are happy to believe everything the ministry of truth (aka the mainstream media and the government) tells you); the problem is when, so I can't tell you which episode (otherwise I'd be able to link directly to the report).
The scientific consensus claims are false. While climate scientists rigidly believe it, I heard (a while ago, so it could be out of date now) that meteorologists do NOT agree with anthropogenic global warming. And you mind seems quite made up. You post can easily be summed up as "deanej, you are a crackpot denier".
While we're on that subject, I'm not on either side of the debate as it is typically thought of. I think both sides are despicable. Personally, while I believe that humans are likely a factor in global warming, I don't believe we're the only cause (or even the main one; that would be the end of the little ice age). And I don't believe in the "we're all going to die! run for your lives!" views that climate scientists express. Earth has had massive climate shifts before and life has always found a way. Plus there's no way a 1-2 degree change could have a large impact. All that ice up north must be right at the freezing point for that to be true. Such circumstances are extremely unlikely at best. The temperature outside where I am hasn't risen above 25 degrees F for several days now, and I'm WAY south of the arctic circle. And even if that ice is right at freezing, we can do as the animals do: move. Global warming is much more an economic problem than an environmental one, and that's because people are greedy and lazy.
NONE of the stuff I've heard about global warming from the pro-warming faction has ever referenced the little ice age.
I hate it when people always expect me to remember every little thing I've heard through the Internet and where I got it from months after the fact. How do you expect me to remember? Do you all have a binder where you record every fact you ever encounter? Thankfully, I can tell you where I learned about the report from: the No Agenda podcast (highly recommended if you're interested in an alternative perspective on many subjects, including deconstructing the media, government, global warming, swine flu, and much more; avoid if you are happy to believe everything the ministry of truth (aka the mainstream media and the government) tells you); the problem is when, so I can't tell you which episode (otherwise I'd be able to link directly to the report).
The scientific consensus claims are false. While climate scientists rigidly believe it, I heard (a while ago, so it could be out of date now) that meteorologists do NOT agree with anthropogenic global warming. And you mind seems quite made up. You post can easily be summed up as "deanej, you are a crackpot denier".
While we're on that subject, I'm not on either side of the debate as it is typically thought of. I think both sides are despicable. Personally, while I believe that humans are likely a factor in global warming, I don't believe we're the only cause (or even the main one; that would be the end of the little ice age). And I don't believe in the "we're all going to die! run for your lives!" views that climate scientists express. Earth has had massive climate shifts before and life has always found a way. Plus there's no way a 1-2 degree change could have a large impact. All that ice up north must be right at the freezing point for that to be true. Such circumstances are extremely unlikely at best. The temperature outside where I am hasn't risen above 25 degrees F for several days now, and I'm WAY south of the arctic circle. And even if that ice is right at freezing, we can do as the animals do: move. Global warming is much more an economic problem than an environmental one, and that's because people are greedy and lazy.
Ah, the tone changes - THANK YOU!
OK, now that you indirectly admit what level of quality your sources have I will happily supply you with better stuff.
Climate records go back different time spans for different types of records. We have direct temperature observations via thermometers for a few decades that recorded temp at different, fixed times of the day. before that, often only the highest, sometimes the highest and lowest temp per day were recorded. Going further back you get bad thermometers, and have to "calibrate" them through non-thermometer data.
All this, thermometer readings, goes back a few hundred years. but we are not clueless about previous temperatures. There are many other methods: we can check pollen, ice cores, lake varves, tree rings. These methods have higher degrees of uncertainty, so you will see larger error bars in temp graphs - but if several different methods consistently give you highly similar reconstructions that's a pretty good hint that you calculated values are close, and that the error bars are just that: potential error.
Take, for example, the famous hockey stick graph by Mann et al. People whine about it - but practically ALL different methods show a hockey stick curve, with the medieval "little ice age" a localized event in Europe and North America. Each method has quite an error bar, but if they all show the same thing, temperatures going very slowly down between 0 AD and 1600 AD, going up a bit after that, then skyrocketing after 1850 AD, then you can be sure of one thing: the sudden change in warming rate is real.
How many scientists have you talked to?
lemme guess: 0
If you bring such a case as an example in a debate like the one we have here, then YES I expect you to remember. You did admit it was pretty weak - but what good is weak here? Do you want to get to the bottom of this or do you just want to goof off?
OK, that's a source, that's fine. I do not expect you to remember the exact episode - I can get a good impression of what your source is without knowing that.
In fact, sadly, the media is NOT the MoT, as you imply. The media has been extremely anti-AGW, especially the established right-wing media (FOX) for years. It somehow does not jibe with what you wrote! The scientific consensus is that there is very strong warming currently, and that humans cause most of the current warming. The media massively promote claims that both claims are wrong. How is the media "in" on the conspiracy you seem to suggest?
After all, governments and media are on two sides of the issue on this, while you claim they are on the same.Evidence, my friend? Any evidence?
Yep. After about a decade of study (data, not opinions!) I can confidently say that the evidence is 99:1. Sadly. Becuase that means we really need to drive electric cars (which suck), or one day face some very tough questions from our kids.
True - you probably aren't even aware of how out of touch with fact your post was. I could spend a lot of time putting facts on the table, with a 99% chance that you ignore my posts. I do not like wasting time. Therefore, I kicked you in the face. Now, there are two options: you're honest, and take my very harsh criticism in stride - then we can talk facts. If yours outweigh mine you will convince me, if mine outweigh yours..... well. So far you have followed this route.
Option two is that you bluster, yell, and run like hell from the discussion, pulling strawmen left and right. I hope you don't.
First of all: thank you!
You have just done what 99% of all denier (I am being unfair, it is only ~90%) refuse to do: you have stated your position in no uncertain terms!
OK; lots and lots of what I term "too-short" ideas. I can understand why you think they are correct, and I blame not only the media but also the scientific community for pushing you into this train of thought, with no easy way for you to see what's wrong. Want me to tell you WHY I think you're wrong?
it's gonna take time (a lot), it will require active participation by you, it will be intellectually challenging, and it's gonna end (I believe) with a very unpleasant realization for you: that man DOES cause most of the warming, and that it is time to change your way of life. So beware!
deanej
Deity
Regarding "An Inconvenient Truth", an interesting blog post I read today suggests that Al Gore caused a lot of these issues by politicising the issue (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...l-gore-responsible-for-destroying-the-planet/). And last night I was thinking that maybe the reason climate scientists tend to label people who disagree with them as "deniers" is because most of the people against them ARE idiots when it comes to science.
I admit that I haven't actually talked with scientists - the best source I would have on the issue is Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog, and Plait used to have a habit of putting a graphic of a sea lion with it's flippers on its ears and the text "la la la I can't here your" as if to mock anyone who disagreed, so I probably haven't been reading those as closely as I should. The press certainly doesn't talk about the little ice age (though, to be fair, most mainstream Americans probably haven't even heard of it).
The MoT label probably doesn't apply as much to the media in this case; it's more for the government stories, such as the WikiLeaks stuff that has been going on and "trains good plains bad". In fact, I don't think Curry even came up with the term until well after Climate Gate cooled down, so global warming couldn't be much of a factor in it (it also more specifically refers to NPR, though in most cases the broader definition is sufficient).
Sorry about the crackpot denier stuff I said with regard to your post - I think we were both expecting each other to just be doing the trolling that tends to happen in political arguments (which, sadly, global warming has become in recent years).
I agree about needing to change habits - regardless of what one thinks of global warming, there's no denying that oil will eventually run out! I'd rather everyone change now and just have slightly higher prices for a while than the economic collapse that could result by waiting until later.
I admit that I haven't actually talked with scientists - the best source I would have on the issue is Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog, and Plait used to have a habit of putting a graphic of a sea lion with it's flippers on its ears and the text "la la la I can't here your" as if to mock anyone who disagreed, so I probably haven't been reading those as closely as I should. The press certainly doesn't talk about the little ice age (though, to be fair, most mainstream Americans probably haven't even heard of it).
The MoT label probably doesn't apply as much to the media in this case; it's more for the government stories, such as the WikiLeaks stuff that has been going on and "trains good plains bad". In fact, I don't think Curry even came up with the term until well after Climate Gate cooled down, so global warming couldn't be much of a factor in it (it also more specifically refers to NPR, though in most cases the broader definition is sufficient).
Sorry about the crackpot denier stuff I said with regard to your post - I think we were both expecting each other to just be doing the trolling that tends to happen in political arguments (which, sadly, global warming has become in recent years).
I agree about needing to change habits - regardless of what one thinks of global warming, there's no denying that oil will eventually run out! I'd rather everyone change now and just have slightly higher prices for a while than the economic collapse that could result by waiting until later.
deanej
Deity
Yeah. At the very least it should answer questions like why a degree or two makes a huge difference.
OK 
Let's start with a few basic things you probably know and understand. I'll post a list of claims without supporting them; those you agree with just answer "yes". That's the fastest way to see what you already know.
1) Earth is a geoid (an earth-shaped object - duh!), not flat.
2) ~70 of Earth's surface is covered by water, mostly open ocean, some shallow seas and even less fresh water
3) Around the rocky/watery Earth there is a layer of mainly gases termed atmosphere
4) This layer consists mainly of gases, plus some water vapor and small solid particles
5) The gases in the atmosphere are ~78% nitrogen, ~21% oxygen, <1% argon and various others in minute quantities
6) ~ 0.4% is water vapor, over the entire atmosphere, at the surface the value is between 1 and 4% generally.
OK so far?
Let's start with a few basic things you probably know and understand. I'll post a list of claims without supporting them; those you agree with just answer "yes". That's the fastest way to see what you already know.
1) Earth is a geoid (an earth-shaped object - duh!), not flat.
2) ~70 of Earth's surface is covered by water, mostly open ocean, some shallow seas and even less fresh water
3) Around the rocky/watery Earth there is a layer of mainly gases termed atmosphere
4) This layer consists mainly of gases, plus some water vapor and small solid particles
5) The gases in the atmosphere are ~78% nitrogen, ~21% oxygen, <1% argon and various others in minute quantities
6) ~ 0.4% is water vapor, over the entire atmosphere, at the surface the value is between 1 and 4% generally.
OK so far?
7) "climate", for our discussion here, means the temperature and other weather patterns on the surface in the long term (decades to centuries or longer, depending on context)
8) "weather" are the short-term fluctuations, over hours, days, weeks, and years up to decades (yes, we will have to refine that later)
9) the energy balance of the earth's surface (water and rock) and atmosphere is "incoming energy - outgoing energy". If there is a net gain in energy, earth warms, if there is a net loss, earth cools.
10) there are three main sources of energy influencing earth's surface: sun (mainly radiation), moon (mainly gravitational forces --> tidal forces), earth (internal heat) (of these the moon is the smallest source and can be ignored here)
OK?
8) "weather" are the short-term fluctuations, over hours, days, weeks, and years up to decades (yes, we will have to refine that later)
9) the energy balance of the earth's surface (water and rock) and atmosphere is "incoming energy - outgoing energy". If there is a net gain in energy, earth warms, if there is a net loss, earth cools.
10) there are three main sources of energy influencing earth's surface: sun (mainly radiation), moon (mainly gravitational forces --> tidal forces), earth (internal heat) (of these the moon is the smallest source and can be ignored here)
OK?
deanej
Deity
OK so far. I did not know that weather could operate at such a large time period; no wonder climate scientists are always saying weather =/= climate whenever people bring up cold winters.
Or indoors.
Similar threads
