white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
Well this is the actual graph. From a "skeptic" site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...t-not-their-strength-say-clemson-researchers/
View attachment 49408
It has to be "adjusted' because we have better methods for detecting them however who chooses the adjustment?
Definitely analogous. The raw data doesn't appear to be so unclear. And how much adjustment is "really' needed after 1970??
Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.
Lets keep it simple Wayne.
Basically Roger Pielkes case, which you freely quote, relies on cheery picking slivers of data while ignoring a mountain of other evidence that clearly demonstrates the world is warming and that human produced greenhouse gases are the prime cause.
Real simple.
That is completely missing the point basilio.
Rog is a warmist. You clearly cannot discern between the stratas of cc thought. For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial.
ding ding ding, imagine what he thinks about the growing movement of environmentalists not buying into the AGW armageddon?!
Imagine how angry he will get when he finds out that hes Trotsky's useful idiot for the finance/trading industry.
Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.
Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.
Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.
Describing things you do not agree with with all sorts of dogmatic names is not even argument let alone credible in rebutting the science taking in the whole picture. You actually come across as a dogmatic bully who will not take in another's point of view at any cost. It may take awhile but in my view you are going to lose this one eventually as more evidence comes to the fore.
The big side of town and the oil industry go to great lengths to produce rubbish via scientists on their payroll.
Geremy Leggett let that out of the bag in 2005
For you it is the end of the world or nothing... ironical as you do nothing to mitigate, just add hot air. For you, anything but carastrophism is denial. Wayne L
Madame Ghoti's last post answered your request to illustrate the analogy between two different trend analyses. I didn't use the illustration to present a logical argument. Please state what part, if any, is unclear and I'll try to clarify it.Try as I may to understand the logic behind Mesdames ghoti and basilio, the multiple fallacies render their opinions impenetrable religious like dogma.
Lots of twists and double somersaults in there.
Yet the catastrophic case continues to crumble.
That's not in dispute here.Do we now want to go back the endless streams of scientific evidence that the IPCC uses to prove that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human produced greenhouse gases ? There is only about 40 years research on this topic by thousands of scientists but that is still not enough is it Wayne ?
Logically, there is currently no 'footprint' in extreme weather.But lets go back to Rogers little story. When you think about it logically
There are others. Post #3603And in fact no scientist to my knowledge attempts to say that a particular weather event is directly attributed to climate change.
basilio said:The big news in climate science this week has been the release of peer reviewed scientific papers that for the first time have attributed recent floods, droughts and heatwaves to human induced climate change.
Seems reasonable after adjusting for patterns of development?Which brings us back to Munich Re as the largest re insurance company in the world deciding there is something to worry about with the effects of global warming on climate.
They have to pay on results.
Mon cher Monsieur Wayne,
Madame Ghoti's last post answered your request to illustrate the analogy between two different trend analyses. I didn't use the illustration to present a logical argument. Please state what part, if any, is unclear and I'll try to clarify it.
Signor Basilio pointed out some apparent contradictions in your, or perhaps Dr Pielke's, attitude to the IPCC. He didn't need mental gymnastics for that; just to pay attention to what you've written on this thread over the years. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it's OK to cite the IPCC as an authority in this case after treating their work with scorn and contempt in so many others.
Ciao
Indeed if they were biased and arbitrary they would be out of order Wayne.However any biased retrospective arbitrary adjustments are most likely out of order.
Indeed if they were biased and arbitrary they would be out of order Wayne.
But the fact is that the scientific community doesn't make capricious arbitrary adjustments to date. For a start there are scores of other scientists in the relevant field who will check the rationale behind any adjustments and if they think there is an error or something has been missed they will speak up. Science is a collaborative endeavor when it comes to trying to ensure the most accurate information is used when measuring data.
That may be a bone fide reason, but that's not the sort adjustments referred to.I can remember for instance the pains that scientists went to the properly adjust satellite temperatures when it became clear that orbits were degrading and sensors deteriorating.
No ma'am.Your problem Wayne is that you pick and choose which adjustments you want to believe in. If they suit your case you'll take them. If they don't you diss them.
Indeed basilio. Nor does is matter what you and the Acolytes of the Apocalypse believe.The fact is it doesn't matter WTF you believe ( about data, people or scientific facts). When it comes to fairly hard objective evidence facts stay facts.
It is a fact that the planet is warming at a rate higher than science has observed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Observed impacts
With very high confidence, Rosenzweig et al. (2007)[74] concluded that physical and biological systems on all continents and in most oceans had been affected by recent climate changes, particularly regional temperature increases. Impacts include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.[75]
The human influence on the climate can be seen in the geographical pattern of observed warming, with greater temperature increases over land and in polar regions rather than over the oceans.[76]:6 Using models, it is possible to identify the human "signal" of global warming over both land and ocean areas.[76]:6
The recent paper that analysed the heat wave in USA and other events pointed out the extreme temperatures recorded are way out of any current "normal" and in the view of the researchers, influenced by GG emissions and the ongoing warming of the planet. They called it climate dice.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html
It follows that we can state with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.
The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html
“It appears that parts of Russia are on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly,” said co-author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist, also from ESRL.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html
In other words, the 2010 situation isn’t following on the heels of a progression of more and more of these things happening ether over Russia, or frankly over any other place that we can see over the Northern Hemisphere. So it stands out as a . . . black swan.
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3503#more-3503
basilio said:To get to the heart of the issue Wayne you have come to the conclusion that world is not actually warming to any significant degree.
In the last 100 years, 0.74 of 1 degree.:
Well yes and I think basilio would generally agree - a so called "black swan event" occurred which is more likely to occur due to the additional energy in the atmosphere. I would consider 0.74 degrees average across the whole world a substantial increase, particularly as it is still continuing.The NOAA say it didn't happen again the following year so its just an unlucky event. The point is that it is more likely to happen, not going to happen every year, it is still an extreme weather event of low probability.
As I quoted earlier, for the past 30 years, global temperature has shown a linear warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade. Taking your 0.74 figure it will be over 1 degree in 20 years.
Sure probabilities are difficult to quantify however the reality will be how many more "black swan events" occur over the next 20 years.
BTW I think this black swan event creeping into our language everywhere is causing the meaning to be debased. A true black swan event would be a massive volcano or something we have never seen before. It really should be called a low probability event that can be assumed to occur again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?