Climate change ???

[photohiker]

Why do people post stuff like this:?



Because if you have a certain worldview you can always find something to support it.

If we are to talk about US land temperatures, we should be using anomalies, and the anomalies show that we don't seem to have been in this territory before.



from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scienc ... ature.html (Interestingly, Data source: NOAA, 2012, same as the first graph!)

Why are they so different? No idea, lets call it a draw and focus on the global situation rather than a small part of it. And lets also include ocean temperature because it's the biggest heat sink we have...

Edit: The plots are different because the first one is for a single month (october) over the time, whilst the second if for the whole year. You can have a play here to make your own plots. Try selecting July and adding a line for the long term trend...

[alliecat]

In other words, the original post was a blatant cherry-pick to present a false view of the world in support of a preconceived position. The complete opposite of how science works.

[wayno]

not everyone understands the full implications on inaccuracies in what they are trying to convy, its easy for those with ore knowledge to criticise and chastise those that have less knowledge and i believe that goes against the rules of this forum, its one thing to point out the error of someones ways , its another to be condescending or rude.

[alliecat]

wayno,

It stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that somebody could post such a misleading graph, with the supporting comment, and not be aware that they are misrepresenting the facts. People who don't have an ideologically-driven position don't even know where to find this nonsense. I believe it was a deliberate misrepresentation, and I have every right to say that. If you think that is rude, then you and I disagree - I find deliberately misrepresenting the facts to be incredibly rude.

But that kind of rudeness is apparently okay by you, and apparently ok for this forum.

This forum has had an incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio here over the last 1-2 years. It is one reason I rarely visit and even more rarely post these days. It used to be a useful place; now, not so much. So I'll go away now and leave you all to it.

[Giddy_up]

I seem to be the only one swimming against the tide on this and that's fine and i think i did say i was happy to be the devil on this topic. Further more I have invested in both camps and can rest easy in knowing that,regardless of the outcome my family will be in great shape. On a personal note I think that we will cool, rather than heat to the levels that the computer models forecast. I do laugh at those who believe in absolutes and won't look at the other side and history is littered with them, but love it or hate it, it does exist and whilst warming sounds horrendous take the time to see what happens to the planet when it cools. Much worse than warming.
What I am seeing is computer modelling being taken as actual and as such it may or may not be accurate but is reported as being finite in the outcomes. The man on the street hears this and his opinion is galvanised rather than the media saying we will report the other side tomorrow and we will let you be the judge. The reason behind this is financial and being in business tells me not to pick a side because once money is involved you can't believe anyone?
There have been people here whom disagree and I am also fine with that as debates are good because it stimulates more thought on a subject but take the time to look at the research done by the "devils on climate change" with a clear mind. You just might end up sitting on the fence like me.
Great debate by the way and at no time have I taken offence.
G_U



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[wayno]

Sigh. Why do people post rubbish like this? The US is less than 2% of the earth's surface. Plotting US temperatures and claiming "we have been in this territory before" is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Pathetic.

if you think it shouldnt be posted then alert the moderators and let them deal with it. rather than label it as "rubbish" if you dont want to alert moderators to posts you think are inappropriate then "the signal to noise ratio" as you call it may never change to your liking..

[Hallu]

Well it is rubbish but there may have been a more delicate way to put it lol.

[wayno]

to someone from a technical background like science, it can be as plain as day it may be rubbish but not everyone understands whats being presented in those graphs or what is being misrepresented.
it might be better to explain the misrepresentation,

[photohiker]

Well it is rubbish but there may have been a more delicate way to put it lol.

I think I covered this in my post. "if you have a certain worldview you can always find something to support it."

Google is great for this. If you google for your belief that the temperature is not rising, or the glaciers are not receding or whatever, you will find content that supports your belief even if that belief flies in the face of a tower evidence that betrays that belief as a fallacy.

Here is the first hit for 'Glaciers are growing': http://iceagenow.info/category/glaciers ... the-world/

Yes, the October temperature graph is a cherry pick, but not necessarily by Giddy. Giddy is clearly convinced that his worldview is the correct one, and there is no end of support for it on the web when searched by these methods. On the other hand if Giddy_up deliberately went through all the months of the year on the noaa site and chose October because it was warming the least, then yes, that would be a cherry pick by Giddy.

So Giddy_up, how did you find the october plot?

[Moondog55]

In other words, the original post was a blatant cherry-pick to present a false view of the world in support of a preconceived position. The complete opposite of how science works.

WHAT????

I asked a question and presented a supposition that is all. Personally I'd prefer an ice age but if I need to learn how to swim so be it

[Giddy_up]

Nothing is cherry picked, just random searches and articles posted and a good google search technique and time to find something that collaborated my argument. NOAA is full of contradictory information like all Govt agencies. I have just used data to suit, much the same as the "warm people" do.
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change
and here is my problem, this get put up as being the future but its just model.
http://sealevel.newscientistapps.com/

This man Dr Nils-Axel Morner (sorry about the credentials), whilst a little dated,

Publications (Source: UK Select Committee on Economic Affairs, Written Evidence <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm> )

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project

Some recent scientific papers by the author (to 2005)

The INQUA Commission—www.pog.su.se/sea <http://www.pog.su.se/sea>

Authors homepage—www.pog.su.se <http://www.pog.su.se> .

Mörner, N-A, 2005. Sea level changes and crustal movements with special aspects on the eastern Mediterranean. Z Geomorph. NF, Suppl Vol 137, p 91-102.

Mörner, N-A, 2004d. Changing Sea Levels. In: Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (M Schwartz, Ed), p 284-288.

Mörner, N-A, 2004c. Sea level change: Are low-lying islands and coastal areas are under threat? In: "The impacts of climate changes. An appraisal for the future", p 29-35. International Policy Press.

Mörner, N-A, 2004b. The Maldives Project: a future free from sea level flooding. Contemprary South Asia, 13 (2), p 149-155.

Mörner, N-A, 2004a. Estimating future sea level changes. Global Planet. Change, 40, 49-54.

Mörner, N-A, Tooley, M & Possnert, G, 2004. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Global Planet. Change, 40, 177-182.

Mörner, N-A, 2002. Livello dei mari e clima (Sea Level Changes and Climate). Nuova Secondaria, 10/2002, p 43-45.

Mörner, N-A, 2001. Global and local sea level changes: the interaction of multipleparametres (hydrosphre, cryosphere, lithosphere, ocean dynamics andclimate). Schr. Deutschen Geol. Gesellschaft, 14, 3-4.

Mörner, N-A, 2000b. Sea level changes in western Europe. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Autumn 2000 Ed, p 31-36, ICG Publ. Ltd.

Mörner, N-A, 2000a. Sea level changes and coastal dynamics in the Indian Ocean. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Spring 2000 Ed, p 17-20, ICG Publ. Ltd.

Mörner, N-A, 1999. Sea level and climate. Rapid regressions at local warm phases. Quaternary International, 60, 75-82.

Mörner, N-A, 1996b. Rapid changes in coastal sea level. J. Coastal Res, 12, 797-800.

Mörner, N-A, 1996a. Sea Level Variability. Z Geomorphology NS, 102, p 223-232.

Mörner, N-A, 1995. Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate. GeoJournal, 37, 419-430.

Mörner, N-A, 1995b. Recorded sea level variability in the Holocene and expected future changes. In: Climatic Change: Impacts on Coastal Habitation (D Eisma, Ed), pp 17-28.

Mörner, N-A, 1995a. Sea Level and Climate—The decadal-to-century signals. J Coastal Res., Sp I 17, 261-268.

Plus numerous sea level papers in the period 1969-95.

See also:

Lars Mortensen, 2004; Doomsday Called Off, TV-documentary, Danish TV, Copenhagen.

Says this; Quote,"if you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere". This quote is miss leading in itself. After studying some of his stuff what he actually means is that there has been no acceleration or change in rate of increase across 110 years of data, regardless of warming periods or cooling periods its just happening. Yet the alarmists will have us believe that we are all going underwater because of warming. Not true and there is no actual data to support accelerated inundation. The facts are that it is rising, but it has been at the same pace over a protracted period of time(110 years) So its not the data its how the media thinks we should be given that data to form our opinion. Its tricky but all data can be made "speak", in this case the model says inundation, the actuals say the same but not at the rate that the model does. Why, because the model has cherry picked the worst case and extrapolated that as the norm. Also if you advance the chronology to its end the percentage land mass that is lost is not large "BUT" as most Australians live on the seaboard this is not good as our style of life could be challenged?
Hallu and I had vigorous debate about the Barrier Reef and its loss to global warming but all is not lost if there is warming as the below article shows. Once again its us thats the problem not the environment. It just may be able to deal with the warming, just not our pollution.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... eddle.html

So perhaps warming is a problem for us and our food supplies, but maybe, just maybe the environment is far better placed to deal with the temp change than we think.

[north-north-west]

different story when there isnt enough land left to grow enough food to feed the planet.... farming animals is wasteful of land and energy

Except, for instance, when you're using natural rangelands which aren't suitable for agriculture.

[Swifty]

I agree with everyone's concerns, which mostly seem to relate to Malthusian population-outgrowing-resources issues.
Climate extremes happen all the time, and do not necessarily reflect a direct link to "climate change"
But see the climate change graph for the past 2000 years and looks like we've been through this before in the Middle Ages.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop polluting though!

[Taurë-rana]

Haven't enough time to comment more, but I read in Tas Country today, who have no ideological position, that this summer was the hottest and driest on record. And I've seen the evidence of the sea levels rising. You just have to look at certain places on the coastline around Tassie.
Whether the temperature variations are cyclical or not seems to be a bit of an argument, but something that is fact is that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing, which is very likely to lead to temperatures increasing.
The other thing I have to say is, if the predictions are correct, and we do nothing, then we are screwed. If the predictions are wrong and we do something, there is no harm done.

[photohiker]

and here is my problem, this get put up as being the future but its just model.
http://sealevel.newscientistapps.com/

Perhaps you could explain in more detail what your problem is. The above 'model' is sea level rise based on temperature increases. Are you saying:

a) The temperature will not increase as more CO2 is emitted.
b) The sea level rise per temperature model is wrong (ie. too much rise per temp increase)
c) ??

I would point out that sea level rise is not even around the globe. It is a simple exercise to find data that shows a single location to be not following the trend. Like temperature, this is a simple cherry pick if we are looking for information to support a view that sea level is not rising.

The thing about climate models is that they are ALL WRONG to some extent. No model is perfect, and will probably never be. Paradoxically, they are now way more accurate than they have ever been. We have to view them as a WIP - they are constantly being refined. That does not mean they should be ignored, just that we should accept that they represent the state of our knowledge at this point in time, and our knowledge is continually expanding.

[Taurë-rana]

wayno,

It stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that somebody could post such a misleading graph, with the supporting comment, and not be aware that they are misrepresenting the facts. People who don't have an ideologically-driven position don't even know where to find this nonsense. I believe it was a deliberate misrepresentation, and I have every right to say that. If you think that is rude, then you and I disagree - I find deliberately misrepresenting the facts to be incredibly rude.

But that kind of rudeness is apparently okay by you, and apparently ok for this forum.

This forum has had an incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio here over the last 1-2 years. It is one reason I rarely visit and even more rarely post these days. It used to be a useful place; now, not so much. So I'll go away now and leave you all to it.

alliecat, I agree with wayno has been saying, it seems so obvious to people who have the nous and education and or science background that some of these arguments are incredibly flawed, but not everybody is in that situation. Many, many people just don't have the skills to know that the information they are presenting is misleading, but I also agree with you, that they shouldn't then present isolated data as proof of fact. They can present it and say, then why does this say what it does...

The residents of Tuvalu would probably get a bit upset with people suggesting that climate change and sea level rise isn't happening as they try to prepare themselves for their islands being underwater...

I think perhaps too, a lot of people won't or can't psychologically accept climate change because they can't cope with facing what it means, whether it's in terms of what should be done to combat it which will affect their lifestyle, or if you think about it too much, the future is possibly quite terrifying. So they grab onto anything that suggests that it isn't happening. I'm not referring to anyone here, just in general. So humanity continues to fiddle while the world burns...

[Taurë-rana]

different story when there isnt enough land left to grow enough food to feed the planet.... farming animals is wasteful of land and energy

Depends on how the animals are farmed, and as nnw said, when you use land that can't be used for growing crops, ruminants efficiently convert inedible grass into edible and nutritious meat. Grass fed beef uses fewer resources and energy than feedlot beef.

[Swifty]

The hardest thing for me about the whole climate change thing is getting hold of data that I can believe. We all end up arguing about other peoples' data. So what can one do? I got hold of all the daily data for Liawenee for the period January 1 2001 to today, off the BOM website. I plotted it up, here is a chart of the annual mean maximum temperature I determined for Liawenee for 2001 - 2012. Sure, its local data, and its only twelve years, but here it is. Draw your own conclusions. It's a simple exercise in excel, anyone can do this.

[Hallu]

What's the point in doing such things if you can't even tell us your own opinion ? Besides anyone could argue that plotting the mean annual max temp doesn't mean much, you need to plot the daily average temperature, not only the max temps, and you need to compare all of this to previous decades. Besides, if you look at the last 5 years, and do an average, it's clearly warmer than the first 5 years, while the tone of your reply leads to think that your opinion is that it doesn't get warmer at all.

[Clusterpod]

Climate change and global warming, as terms, do not equate to an increase to local mean temperatures.

[Swifty]

What's the point in doing such things if you can't even tell us your own opinion ? Besides anyone could argue that plotting the mean annual max temp doesn't mean much, you need to plot the daily average temperature, not only the max temps, and you need to compare all of this to previous decades. Besides, if you look at the last 5 years, and do an average, it's clearly warmer than the first 5 years, while the tone of your reply leads to think that your opinion is that it doesn't get warmer at all.

Yeah, still working on the other data, just started compiling today. Might take a little while.
I may be in a position to draw some inferences from a more complete dataset.
As for opinion and tone, the first is more or less worthless without good evidence to back it up, and the second I think is a figment of your imagination.

Climate change and global warming, as terms, do not equate to an increase to local mean temperatures.

Don't inderstand how global warming can not be reflected in an increase in temperature - how else to define it?

[Clusterpod]

Sorry, I should have said "do not necessarily equate".

But climate is extremely complex, and your local weather effects may not be visible for decades, where others have been visible already for decades.

[Hallu]

The key is "local", some area may experience a higher increase in temperature, while some might even get colder, but overall, the Earth is getting hotter and hotter.

[Swifty]

Anyway, Moondog was originally commenting that April was unseasonably warm. Not so in April in Liawenee:
I

(the dates along the bottom are actually years in April, not Jan as it says - Excel bad)

[Swifty]

anyone could argue that plotting the mean annual max temp doesn't mean much

then what does mean much? it's a definite criteria. you can't fob it off so easily!

anyway, back to the data. Bushy Park 1963 - 2012 (yes i know it says 2011 but it goes to 2012) annual mean maxima from the BOM website is shown below. I also put on a 7-year moving average to smooth the data. Steady increase in maximum temperature until 2003, then flat to 2012. I had read reports that this was the case from the "evil skeptics", Bushy Park data seems to be in agreement.

[Nuts]

hahha, a climate change skeptic, quick the pins, a doll with a red westy shirt and healthy crop of hair!!

[PeterJ]

Deniers ought to read more widely. Here is an item from The Age today.

The Arctic's sea ice melted at a record pace in 2012, the ninth-hottest year on record, compounding concerns about climate change underscored by extreme weather such as Hurricane Sandy, the UN weather agency says.

In a report on the situation in 2012, the World Meteorological Organisation said on Thursday that during the August to September melting season, the Arctic's sea ice cover was just 3.4 million square kilometres.

That was a full 18 per cent less than the previous record low set in 2007.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud dubbed it a "disturbing sign of climate change."


Peter

[Hallu]

anyone could argue that plotting the mean annual max temp doesn't mean much

then what does mean much? it's a definite criteria. you can't fob it off so easily!

anyway, back to the data. Bushy Park 1963 - 2012 (yes i know it says 2011 but it goes to 2012) annual mean maxima from the BOM website is shown below. I also put on a 7-year moving average to smooth the data. Steady increase in maximum temperature until 2003, then flat to 2012. I had read reports that this was the case from the "evil skeptics", Bushy Park data seems to be in agreement.

You still don't draw any conclusion anyway. Again, why bother plotting all this data if you don't have any conclusion ? Mine is that you have a steady increase in temperature and a plateau in the 2000s. It doesn't mean global warming has slowed down, since it's just one precise location. You could probably even find places on Earth where the mean temperature has actually decreased.

[wayno]

northern europe has been getting colder.
polar air currents have changed, they used to circulate around the poles but has since changed, coming south, spreading colder air into europe... also britain has been having more easterly winds than usual bringing colder air from europe. no shortage of snow there into spring.
but the heating up around the planet still outweighs the cooling down. thats why ice is melting in vast amounts in most polar and mountain regions.

[Swifty]

You still don't draw any conclusion anyway.

But I did draw a conclusion. Did you not read my post? I drew a conclusion about Bushy Park. I didn't extrapolate it to the ends of the world.

Again, why bother plotting all this data

Because the data is the only thing that matters. And if the Bushy Park data 1963 - 2003 agrees with your "opinion" about global warming, you can't discard the 2003 - 2012 data merely because it doesn't fit with your "opinion". And that data suggests that Bushy Park (and Liawenee for that matter) have had no appreciable warming over the last ten years. That's an honest analysis of that data. I'm not talking about ice caps or anything else. (Everyone has quoted someone else's data. My data, I got myself, and it is readily available to you as well. I did this because, as I mentioned, I don't know how far I can trust other peoples data. Science is all about the data, not "opinion".)

How that warrants a label of "denier" is beyond me.