SkepticLance Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 There appears to be a glitch in the general pattern of global warming. The ice that was lost at the Arctic is back, and ice in Antarctica is increasing. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html?s=al&promo_code=457E-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Yay, lets be the media and take specific examples and not look at general trends cause that is the definition of climate. I would like to see this so called data mainly cause it is probably wrong or just an anomaly in a trend. The Antarctic ice is thickening cause we screwed up the ozone layer with CFCs that cause an ozone hole and therefore heat to be lost faster into space rather than the earth in that area being insulated by the atmosphere. I also love there plunging temperature in central Britain, I live smack bang in the middle of Britain, woo -10 it used to get a lot colder that is the coldest it has been all year, it has only snowed her twice this year and it was gone after a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Yes, clearly because it got cold in Austin yesterday means that global yearly average temperatures haven't been consistently rising. One can get around this semantic smoke screen by simply calling it what it is... global climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris C Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Ice in the northern hemisphere has a strange tendency to grow back in winter time. Crazy stuff. But it is the seasonal (summer) ice which is of concern now. Also a La Nina now, so global temperatures should be a bit lower than usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted February 24, 2008 Author Share Posted February 24, 2008 Long term climate trends are fairly clear. However, we are currently experiencing a blip in that trend. There was an opposite blip in 1998, an El Nino year, in which temperatures soared. Currently the blip causes temperatures to drop. I would like to point out that blips should not be used as evidence. I am getting a bit tired of every extreme climatic event being used as definitive evidence of catastrophic global warming. Hurricane Katrina was not a result of global warming. It was an inevitability of climatic variability that turned out to be disastrous because of the stupidity of city planners who refused to allow for powerful hurricanes. Warm snaps are not the result of global warming. They are inevitable blips in climate, and have always happened, yet they are often used as evidence for disastrous global warming. The current cold snap is evidence of nothing more than the fact that the climate is variable. However, so are the warmer seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I would like to point out that blips should not be used as evidence. Actually, they should be used as evidence. Why shouldn't they? Because they disagree with your worldview? Come on... You should prepare for more frustration with extreme climatic events being used as definitive evidence of catastrophic global warming... as more are coming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted February 24, 2008 Author Share Posted February 24, 2008 To iNow The reason blips should not be used as evidence is because they are absolutely normal. Hot and cold, and wet, and windy periods have always been a part of the climate. Only if the blips become exceptional, to a degree that is statistically very significant should they be quoted as evidence. And so far this has not happened. In the 1930's, in central USA, there was a time of drought, leading to what has been called the dust bowl incident. People thought that was a sign of long term disaster. Not so. In time, the climate returned to 'normal' and the grass grew once more. There have been times of strong hurricanes, many in number. Times when hurricanes were few. Times of heat waves, cold snaps etc etc. All these things happen from time to time, regardless of global warming, cooling, human activity or catastrophes. Every time these days we see a heat wave, some idiot calls it global warming. The same idiot stays very quiet when there is a cold snap, such as is hitting several Northern areas right now. The blips are, in fact, meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I would like to point out that blips should not be used as evidence. I am getting a bit tired of every extreme climatic event being used as definitive evidence of catastrophic global warming. Hurricane Katrina was not a result of global warming. It was an inevitability of climatic variability that turned out to be disastrous because of the stupidity of city planners who refused to allow for powerful hurricanes. Warm snaps are not the result of global warming. They are inevitable blips in climate, and have always happened, yet they are often used as evidence for disastrous global warming. The current cold snap is evidence of nothing more than the fact that the climate is variable. However, so are the warmer seasons. Yet this is exactly what the article you linked to does. In fact it's worse, because it picks only instances where it is cold and ignores areas of the world that are having mild winters, and offers that up as proof. You're right — statistical fluctuations should not be offered up as support for or against global warming, because it's not. It's cherry-picking data. Articles in the popular media are also not evidence for or against it when the author misrepresents the data or the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jryan Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "evidence." Correction: Until they are used in Climate Models... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Correction: Until they are used in Climate Models... Be specific. Name one single climate model which can be falsified because they used anecdote instead of evidence. I dare ye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jryan Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Are you serious? If you are willing to label all of the tree ring studies provided in this thread as "anecdotal" then MBH98 is nothing BUT anecdotal tree ring data. The whole study was using tree ring data from Sheep Mountian bristle cones, etc tec. to create a global climate model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Yeah... That's about how I thought you'd respond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jryan Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Yeah... That's about how I thought you'd respond... I gave you your answer and that is the best you can do? If ttowntom's data is anecdotal, then so is the data used in MBH98.... How is a tree ring study in China anecdotal, but a tree ring study in California evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I gave you your answer and that is the best you can do? If ttowntom's data is anecdotal, then so is the data used in MBH98.... How is a tree ring study in China anecdotal, but a tree ring study in California evidence? How is this relevant to anything in this thread? ttowntom hasn't posted here, and the only link that has been presented did, in fact, provide only anecdotal evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Global cooling. One year in a row and counting. Come on people, can't you at least be happy that our ultimate doom is one year further in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jryan Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 How is this relevant to anything in this thread? ttowntom hasn't posted here, and the only link that has been presented did, in fact, provide only anecdotal evidence. It's more of a cross thread question... all these AGW threads melt together after a while. Especially when the dismissive methods of iNow never really change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 You can dislike me personally all you want... Your dislike of me will never support your suggestion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not causing global average yearly temperatures to increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jryan Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 You can dislike me personally all you want... Your dislike of me will never support your suggestion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not causing global average yearly temperatures to increase. Your statement gives no information while giving the appearance that it does. I could say that your breathing causes global warming, as your exhales expel CO2. By your own admission, my statement is correct. But when we start talking about whether you should STOP breathing, I think it prudent to consider how much warming you actually cause. It is this question that nobody has answered satisfactorily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 But when we start talking about whether you should STOP breathing, I think it prudent to consider how much warming you actually cause. Interesting point. While I often disagree with inow, I think the board is improved by his continuing to breath. That's not to say that there aren't people on this planet who should act immediately to decrease their personal carbon footprint by deciding to only breath every second day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Interesting point. While I often disagree with inow, I think the board is improved by his continuing to breath. Aww... Please note that jryan's simply trying to move the goal posts. Instead of arguing the science, he's now attacking the policy. He can open a thread in Politics or General Discussion to go over how we respond, or even a post discussing the magnitude difference in human respiration versus industrial and transportational CO2 output... but, right now, his posts are really not much more than unsupported handwaving and I've never been accused of being a patient man. Btw... I still laugh at the n-dimensional filing system comment you made some months ago. I think it was at that point that I started seeing you as a human being and not one of the scores of denialist robots I've encountered frequenting science based fora. I hope the job and the family are well. I'm only a jerk to certain types. I often refer to them as liars and and sheep. The rest, I realize, are in this with me together, simply trying to learn and understand more before our respiration ceases indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Ice in the northern hemisphere has a strange tendency to grow back in winter time. Yeah, that's the funniest part of this article: they seem surprised by the trend across a single year. Ho ho, the ice extent goes up too? Global warming is wrong! Here's some fun graphs: September ice extent from 1979 to 2007 shows an obvious decline. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Source: http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 For SkepticLance's benefit: A graph of 2008 Arctic sea ice trends. Surprisingly we're slightly above the trend line now. Amazing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The Netherlands has had one of the warmer winters in decades, suggesting global warming. But the last Easter was very cold. This must mean that global cooling started on the 21st of March 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 To bascule For someone who accuses others of straw man tactics ..... Avoid hypocricy. Only comment on what people actually say! I have ALWAYS said that the sea ice recovery this past northern winter was a blip - not a long term trend. Even swansont actually agreed with me. Quote from swansont. "You're right — statistical fluctuations should not be offered up as support for or against global warming, because it's not. It's cherry-picking data." Key words being 'you're right.' Bascule, if you want to attack what I say, at least go to the effort of finding out what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now