|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2008 : 07:16:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
UPDATE AND CAVEAT:
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, and with objection, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech. |
|
PWNED!!!!1 |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/27/2008 07:18:06 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 07:27:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Can you be more specific here please. Define the window you speak of when you say "overall." |
Oh, the last 2,000 years, maybe?| Also, can you define what you mean by "upwards trend." |
Are you just being obtuse?| I guess where I stumble is in the fact that if each year we, as a planet, are pumping out more and more CO2 into the atmosphere then how can we have these sharp downward spikes in the earth's overall surface temps, unless the natural global climate cycle is going to do as it wills in spite of how much CO2 we pump out? |
The trend caused by CO2 is a long-term phenomenon. If the whole planet doubled its output this year, thinking we'd see an immediate doubling of warming would be incredibly naive. The oceans are a rather large heat regulator, for example, which take time to warm up.| With the rate at which India and China, as well as other developing nations, are brining coal fired power plants on line we only increase our global CO2 output, year after year after year after year etc... |
By how much?| Yet we see record breaking downward spikes in the global surface temps? |
Where do those plurals come from? This is one record-setting downward spike.| This tells me that we can pump out all the CO2 we want yet the global climate cycle will do as it pleases, unfettered and unabated by us. |
Except that we've already got the data that says we're adding to the warming. If the CO2 weren't around, the line on the graph would be lower from start to finish. Just because the global climate goes up and down doesn't mean that we can't affect the average. As has already been said, you're missing the forest for the trees.This speaks of local weather. It also says, "OK, so one winter does not a climate make."Local weather.Local weather.No mention of record-low temperatures, and is again about local weather.| Which is why I did not point to my local conditions here in Indiana, we are having a cold and snowy winter, but rather pointed to all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) |
But pointing to one year of data as justifying a conclusion about global climate is as bad reasoning as pointing to record low temps in Minnesota and trying to justify a conclusion about global climate. The latter is geographically local, the former is temporally local.
And now you've got the man whose name you earlier dropped saying that your conclusion is unsupported by the data. Will you acknowledge him? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 07:49:12 [Permalink]
|
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, and with objection, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years” |
Who cares what Anthony Watts said or did not say? I was not pointing to Anthony Watts, but rather I have been pointing to all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS). All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
And just for the record I believe that whoever made that statement was merrily pointing out the fact that last years drop of 0.65 -0.7 C coincides with the 0.7 C the average surface temp of earth has allegedly risen over the last century. Now I would agree, when figuring average temps over a period of time one year can effect the average, but it will not erase it. What I believe this shows is just how minimal of a factor a 0.7 C rise in average surface temps over 100 years really is. In the grand scheme of things it ain't squat.
| This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, |
Which is code for: "This is not what we, or our global warming models, predicted but we must carry on anyway."
http://tinyurl.com/239mgn |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/27/2008 08:53:45 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 08:30:34 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Oh, the last 2,000 years, maybe? |
Do tell.
| Are you just being obtuse? |
No.
| The trend caused by CO2 is a long-term phenomenon. If the whole planet doubled its output this year, thinking we'd see an immediate doubling of warming would be incredibly naive. The oceans are a rather large heat regulator, for example, which take time to warm up. |
But yet we can have a drop of 0.7 C in one year?
Well, China alone builds a a new coal power plant every 7-10 days so do the math.
| Where do those plurals come from? This is one record-setting downward spike |
.
Which shows me that global climate activities will do as they may in spite of any increased CO2 activity.
| Except that we've already got the data that says we're adding to the warming. |
Yes, 0.7 C over the last 100 years or so. Which the data from 2007 shows don't mount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme.
| If the CO2 weren't around, the line on the graph would be lower from start to finish. |
How do you know this?
| Just because the global climate goes up and down doesn't mean that we can't affect the average. |
Nor does it mean that we can.
This speaks of local weather. It also says, "OK, so one winter does not a climate make."
Local weather.
Local weather.
local weather. |
A. You asked for record breaking cold so I gave you record breaking cold.
B. These are all local weather from different cities all over the globe who have all been experiencing an abnormally colder winter. Cororborating the four major global temperature tracking outlets conclusion of global cooling for 2007.
| But pointing to one year of data as justifying a conclusion about global climate is as bad reasoning as pointing to record low temps in Minnesota and trying to justify a conclusion about global climate. |
I pointed to this year as just more evidence for my conclusion and you know that I pointed to more then Minnesota to coroborate the conclusion of the four major global temperature tracking outlets and their conclusion of global cooling for 2007.
| And now you've got the man whose name you earlier dropped saying that your conclusion is unsupported by the data. Will you acknowledge him? |
I was more pointing to the four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) rather then Watts. And he never said that "my conclusion" was unsupported by the data. He said:
| it does not “erase” anything. |
In reference to the 0.7 C rise over 100 years which I have already agreed with. One year will not wipe out an average. But what I say is that 2007 shows us just how minimal and fleeting a 0.7 c rise over 100 and some odd years is.
| This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, |
And here Watts speaks in code for: "this is not at all what we or our global warming models models predicted." |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/27/2008 08:34:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 08:55:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But yet we can have a drop of 0.7 C in one year? |
What prevents it? You must have some idea, or you wouldn't be astounded by it.| Well, China alone builds a a new coal power plant every 7-10 days so do the math. |
It's your claim, you do the math.| Which shows me that global climate activities will do as they may in spite of any increased CO2 activity. |
How much did the one year change the average?| Yes, 0.7 C over the last 100 years or so. Which the data from 2007 shows don't mount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme. |
No, the data from 2007 doesn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to the data from the last two (or more) thousand years.| If the CO2 weren't around, the line on the graph would be lower from start to finish. |
How do you know this? |
You'd be able to subtract nearly 0.7 C from every data point on it, now wouldn't you?| Just because the global climate goes up and down doesn't mean that we can't affect the average. |
Nor does it mean that we can. |
The data is in on that question: we can. The data from 2007 don't falsify those conclusions.| A. You asked for record breaking cold so I gave you record breaking cold. |
But you're missing the point, as usual.| B. These are all local weather from different cities all over the globe who have all been experiencing an abnormally colder winter. Cororborating the four major global temperature tracking outlets conclusion of global cooling for 2007. |
And so you'll ignore Virginia and other places where it's been abnormally warm, disconfirming the four major global temperature tracking outlets conclusion?| I pointed to this year as just more evidence for my conclusion... |
Yes, but you only came to that conclusion by ignoring mounds of evidence in favor of political conspiracy theories. Adding one more data point to a conclusion drawn from false premises is just dumping more bad logic on top of the heap.| ...and you know that I pointed to more then Minnesota to coroborate the conclusion of the four major global temperature tracking outlets and their conclusion of global cooling for 2007. |
Yes, but you're missing the point.| But what I say is that 2007 shows us just how minimal and fleeting a 0.7 c rise over 100 and some odd years is. |
It's not "fleeting," it's still there. Given a 100-year average, an 0.6 C drop from the average can have a maximum effect of lowering the average by 0.006 C. But look at the graph again: the average temperature for 2007 was only about 0.3 C lower than the peak in January, 2007, meaning a maximum effect on the 100-year average of 0.003 C. One year's data is what is fleeting. The average is not.| This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, |
And here Watts speaks in code for: "this is not at all what we or our global warming models models predicted." |
The global warming models are not intended to predict any single year's temperatures. You're still having that forest/trees problem. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 09:36:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, |
And here Watts speaks in code for: "this is not at all what we or our global warming models models predicted."
|
It isn't code and he goes on to say that the data doesn't erase anything, including an overall warming trend.
What Watt is clearly stating, and not in code, is that this is an interesting anomaly, worth investigating.
You, Bill, on the other hand, are saying that you are satisfied that one years data proves that you and the rest of the deniers are correct, and to hell with further investigation as to the reasons why this anomaly has occurred, unless it supports your conclusion. You're just grasping at straws. If further investigation does not support your conclusion, which is likely, you will no doubt ignore that and move on.
Also, after saying that you don't care what Watt thinks, it is interesting that you go back to him and his coded message.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 09:59:42 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| It's your claim, you do the math. |
Sure, with China alone having over 300 new coal fired power plants on the drawing boards and one coming on line every 7-10 days that equals a heck of lot more CO2 then in days gone by.
| How much did the one year change the average? |
Probably as much as a 0.7 C spike in the warming direction would. Again, that is not my point. 2007 just shows how minimal an 0.7 C increase in the global surface average temperature spread out over 100 years really is. I mean the alarmist go ape $hit over a 0.7 C flucuation that is spread out over 100 years and ignore that we just come out of 0.7 C flucuation that hit us in a few months time.
| You'd be able to subtract nearly 0.7 C from every data point on it, now wouldn't you? |
Assuming that all, or some, of the 0.7 C rise in the average temps over the last 100 years was caused my man made releases of CO2. And there in lies the debate.
1. I am not convinced this 0.7 C rise over 100 years is man inspired.
2. The 2007 spike shows just how minimal a 0.7 C rise over 100 years really is
| The data is in on that question: we can. The data from 2007 don't falsify those conclusions. |
Is sure does not falsify a global cooling conclusion.
| Yes, but you only came to that conclusion by ignoring mounds of evidence in favor of political conspiracy theories. |
What mounds of evidence that a 0.7 C rise in the average surface temps of planet Earth over the last 100 years are caused by man released CO2?
| It's not "fleeting," it's still there. Given a 100-year average, an 0.6 C drop from the average can have a maximum effect of lowering the average by 0.006 C. |
Same with a 0.6 C rise. It merely demonstrates that a 0.7 C rise in the average temps spread out over 100 years don't equal squat.
| But look at the graph again: the average temperature for 2007 was only about 0.3 C lower than the peak in January, 2007, meaning a maximum effect on the 100-year average of 0.003 C. One year's data is what is fleeting. The average is not. |
One more time. 2007 shows that the global climate can handle a 0.7 C fluctuation in the average temp that happens in a period of just a few months with no mass extinction and calamities etc... Yet on the other hand the alarmists preach that the sky is falling based off of a 0.7 C fluctuation spread out over more then a 100 years.
So a 0.7 C fluctuation that only takes months to come up on our climate creates no mass extenction etc... But a 0.7 C flucuation spread out over more then 100 years is going to be the end of us all?!?!?!?!
| The global warming models are not intended to predict any single year's temperatures. |
That is rather self evident. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 12:55:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Sure, with China alone having over 300 new coal fired power plants on the drawing boards and one coming on line every 7-10 days that equals a heck of lot more CO2 then in days gone by. |
This is Bill scott code for "I'm going to make a wild claim and then not back it up."| Probably as much as a 0.7 C spike in the warming direction would. Again, that is not my point. 2007 just shows how minimal an 0.7 C increase in the global surface average temperature spread out over 100 years really is. I mean the alarmist go ape $hit over a 0.7 C flucuation that is spread out over 100 years and ignore that we just come out of 0.7 C flucuation that hit us in a few months time. |
It's not the change that's happened that is cause for worry. It's what will happen if the trend continues.Assuming that all, or some, of the 0.7 C rise in the average temps over the last 100 years was caused my man made releases of CO2. And there in lies the debate.
1. I am not convinced this 0.7 C rise over 100 years is man inspired. |
What would it take to convince you?| 2. The 2007 spike shows just how minimal a 0.7 C rise over 100 years really is |
That is irrelevant to what you just said the debate is.| What mounds of evidence that a 0.7 C rise in the average surface temps of planet Earth over the last 100 years are caused by man released CO2? |
No wonder you're not convinced, you're admittedly ignorant of the subject matter.| Same with a 0.6 C rise. It merely demonstrates that a 0.7 C rise in the average temps spread out over 100 years don't equal squat. |
Well, going by nothing more than the data you agree on, it could be a 7.0 C rise nine hundred years from now. Will it equal squat, then?One more time. 2007 shows that the global climate can handle a 0.7 C fluctuation in the average temp that happens in a period of just a few months with no mass extinction and calamities etc... Yet on the other hand the alarmists preach that the sky is falling based off of a 0.7 C fluctuation spread out over more then a 100 years.
So a 0.7 C fluctuation that only takes months to come up on our climate creates no mass extenction etc... But a 0.7 C flucuation spread out over more then 100 years is going to be the end of us all?!?!?!?! |
You are completely without a clue as to what the temperature changes tell us. Your assumptions and conclusions are massively wrong because you're arguing from a position of ignorance.| The global warming models are not intended to predict any single year's temperatures. |
That is rather self evident. |
Then you would have to understand that the models not predicting 2007's data should be expected, and doesn't mean the models are wrong as you've tried to imply. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 14:06:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| What "record low temperatures?" |
http://tinyurl.com/2dbpf5
http://tinyurl.com/37gcrq
http://tinyurl.com/38psmn
http://tinyurl.com/3y5xz8
| It's been unseasonably warm this winter here in Virginia, with a disturbing lack of snowfall. And before you gripe that these are local conditions, you already tried to pass off local data as being meaningful to the global trends. |
Which is why I did not point to my local conditions here in Indiana, we are having a cold and snowy winter, but rather pointed to all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS)
|
It's been an unusually warm winter in Sweden too. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 15:32:47 [Permalink]
|
Wuf! I'm not at all sure whether I want a piece of this'n or not....
Aw hell, ok. Thus far in this thread, we've been talking about green house gasses, coal-fired power plants, anomalies, idiot politicians, greedy capitalists and so forth, ignoring one of the most critical factors of all: the Ocean Conveyor.
"Robert B. Gagosian
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Prepared for a panel on abrupt climate change at the
World Economic Forum
Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2003
Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth's climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earthvs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.
This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.1
It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. A 2002 report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said, “available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.”2
The timing of any abrupt regional cooling in the future also has critical policy implications. An abrupt cooling that happens within the next two decades would produce different climate effects than one that occurs after another century of continuing greenhouse warming.
Are we ignoring the oceans' role in climate change?
Fossil evidence and computer models demonstrate that Earth's complex and dynamic climate system has more than one mode of operation. Each mode produces different climate patterns.
The evidence also shows that Earth's climate system has sensitive thresholds. Pushed past a threshold, the system can jump quickly from one stable operating mode to a completely different one—“just as the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light,” the NAS report said.
Scientists have so far identified only one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: a swift reorganization of the ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and thus play a fundamental role in governing Earth's climate.
The oceans also play a pivotal role in the distribution and availability of life-sustaining water throughout our planet. The oceans are, by far, the planet's largest reservoir of water |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 04:43:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It's been an unusually warm winter in Sweden too.
|
Not down south where I'm living.
Last winter was unusually warm. This year we had no winter.
Some non-anecdotal data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ | The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
