Anthropogenic Climate Change ( title changed ) - Assertion & Denial

[Dan Hunter]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

I guess you didn't really read my post, or get my point, so I was wasting my time!

I live in the Ottawa area, and I have edited the link, which got truncated in the translation.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

Please, don't talk about science.

We're talking about climate change which is probably not based on real science. Only on money and emotion.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

.............................

[Dan Hunter]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

Great. If this is scientific then go with it. The thing is that every time an older person gets a hot flash it's not global warming. Not even in Oakville.

Thanks for that pearl of scientific wisdom, Gary! :)

I fear I may be wasting my time explaining my point, but here goes....

Scientific Method 101 (in my day anyway)....observe, hypothesize, test your hypothesis. A professional scientist would then publish the results, one way or another.

My observations - we no longer get the prolonged, two week stretches of maximum minus 25 degrees, on either scale. Nor do we get the extreme dumps of snow, I'm talking four feet. Both occurred thirty/forty years ago. My tomatoes haven't frozen on the vine till end September recently, used to be the first week in September.

My hypothesis - it is getting warmer.

Test the hypothesis - this is where it gets problematic. It is clear to most that you really can not use daily, or even monthly temperature records. The variations completely swamp the small overall change in global temperature we are looking for. Remember we are only looking at fractions of a degree to justify warming. I tried to review the heating degree days records for Ottawa (my area to satisfy your curiosity). Even though I had hoped that the smearing effect of daily and monthly variations would yield useful trends, I found that even this showed far too much annual variation from year to year that the warming hypothesis could not be proved. The results didn't go back far enough, 1982. They didn't preclude warming, nor did they prove anything else.

My conclusion, no-one can use temperature records to prove anything one way or the other, unless you take an extremely long-term view, and records are scarce.

So what other tests can I use for the warming hypothesis? Droughts in the mid-west? Flood disasters? Reducing arctic ice? More severe storms and tornadoes? Rising ocean levels? As I type I just heard a news item that the levels rose eleven centimetres in the last century, and the prediction is anothe twenty-nine on the next...may be I got the time scale wrong there.
That's a pretty good array of tests to investigate, which many scientists have done. Some may not be very good scientists, ot the science may not be very good, but on balance I would say the evidence is stronger than the ad-hoc temperature stuff we read about.

Except there are a few records, for instance as posted in the earlier thread, from the controversial Met Office...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h...ase_notes.html

The overall graph clearly shows upward trends, but to reiterate my point above, if you take a ten or sixteen year slab, you would be hard-pressed to prove anything. The overall change in temperature is also very small, but is enough to upset the current balance.

As an interesting aside, I noted that the southern hemisphere figures do show a levelling off in temperature rise over the last few years, which seems consistent with the stories about Antarctica's ice.

I no longer know what the point is of many posters on here, other than to be argumentative, but as most use temperature records to "prove" their point, I dismiss them.

So there you go.....

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

Why do you suppose that is? Easier than real science?

Please, don't talk about science. You choose not to believe in climate change? Perfect. You have the right not to believe in science. But real scientists believe in facts, and there are way too many supporting climate change to deny it. It's all right if you think that the planet is not worth taking care of, or if you believe that everything will be miraculously solved by God, but this is not called science.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

Wikpedia seems to be a climate change theorists bible for the subject. Why do you suppose that is? Easier than real science?

Its much easier to fudge the numbers and the science when you use Wikipedia. The fact is that the Met Office (Jones et al), that bastion of anthropogenic global warming promotion says that there has been no net global warming over the last 16 years. For all the alleged and anecdotal warming in North America there are lots of Europeans that froze their nether regions off with record cold spells last winter. The net effect is that the average global temperatures were relatively stable for the last sixteen years even taking into account all the fudging that has been going into the numbers to make it seem like a crisis that needs to be addressed right now. I think we should start panicking in 16 more years of no new net warming.

They had to rename it climate change because of the lack of warming.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

You're reading what you want and not what was written. A temperature device wasn't mentioned by me. Only the temperature itself. Kind of a mild response to your vulgar comment.

Wikpedia seems to be a climate change theorists bible for the subject. Why do you suppose that is? Easier than real science?

Sorry for my poor attempt at humor, I see that you take the subject of temperature measurement very seriously. I won't trouble you with further (physio)logical digressions on this topic.

Mathieu out

[Gary Ruben]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

You're reading what you want and not what was written. A temperature device wasn't mentioned by me. Only the temperature itself. Kind of a mild response to your vulgar comment.

Wikpedia seems to be a climate change theorists bible for the subject. Why do you suppose that is? Easier than real science?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

Send a picture. A picture of the temperature. :)

Asking for somebody to send a picture of his bodily temperature measurement device on the internet... you're lucky that i'm not underage...

Back on topic... AGW, all the proofs, global trends and scientific analysis you need to understand the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Much better than reading the nutcases around here...

Mathieu

[Gary Ruben]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

*For example, the distance between my balls and the rest of my body correlates very well with temperature over a good range. Scientific? No, but at least there's no logical 'phallacy' (dudum-tss) in my reasoning - i.e. what i'm probing into is representative of what i want to measure.

Send a picture. A picture of the temperature. :)

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

He won't say the area to which he's referring for the first hand data. Refers to relatives in Oakville. And you take him seriously. So he's basically fooled you. You're the moron because you consider that measurement.

Well, I never said his method was good or scientific or whatever. What I said is that, at least in terms of logic, his method is better than yours. I'm open minded and I think there's more than one way of measuring temperatures and trends*.

Forget about Dan. Let's say that his little 'survey' of local temperature in Oakville is unscientific and irrelevant.

What about YOUR method? Still believe your conclusion is correct after I showed you that your approach is fundamentally flawed in terms of logic?

Mathieu


*For example, the distance between my balls and the rest of my body correlates very well with temperature over a good range. Scientific? No, but at least there's no logical 'phallacy' (dudum-tss) in my reasoning - i.e. what i'm probing into is representative of what i want to measure.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

......................

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

He's not compiling anything other than word of mouth. He's given no measurements and I have to think it's because he has none.

That's exactly why I wrote Dan's 'measurement'.

And, strictly speaking, it is a measurement. Imprecise, subjective, some would say completely unscientific. But it is still the measure of a local trend. Which is way better than what YOU did.

Care to elaborate on my comment about YOUR method? Or you still believe in your little moronic fallacy where year-to-year variations around a specific day's mean temperature disprove global warming?

Mathieu

[Gary Ruben]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

.........................

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: UN Climate Report - To Be a Shocker

I know. It can be inconvenient. However, Dan was using where he spends the winters. Where I spend the winters it's not the same and possibly when he tells us where he spends the winters we could find the same trend.

Do you doubt the figures?

Well, both measurements are not correct, but at least, Dan was not making statements that go beyond what his 'measurement' shows. Let's look at both ways, starting with Dan's.

Dan says that winters in the last few years where he lives are much warmer. That may just be a local trend, or it may be linked to a larger, global trend. How do we know? By sampling and compiling enough of these local trends. Dan is just giving us his small contribution to the big picture and I didn't see how he was making unreasonable claims about GW.

Now with you.

Using local daily high/low temperature records and then trying to link this to a global trend is completely moronic (sorry to be harsh, not saying you are a moron, but your claim is). What you are doing is the following:

1-You sample the daily high/low temperature for over 150 years

2-This daily record has a standard deviation of several degrees. Say, June 12 of a given year, the highest recorded temperature at mid-day could be 15C or 25C and everything is still perfectly normal and expected. That's weather (w-e-a-t-h-e-r).

3-Now comes the 'problematic' part: you claim that because the extreme samples are from way back in the past, there's no warming trend. That's completely false and misleading. You have a normal distribution with a large standard deviation, of course you won't see a +0.8C trend with that.

I have to give you some merit, though, your variation of using weather to try and disprove global warming is slightly more sophisticated than average. I guess that you even fell for your own fallacy and you will continue to defend it no matter what.

Mathieu