Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic [W:1239:1469]

[MrT]

There are many ways to measure the world’s changing climate. You can chart rising global temperatures, rising sea levels and melting ice. What’s tougher, though, is to find a measurement that easily relates all of that to what people experience in their daily lives.

In a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, however, two Australian researchers do just this by examining a simple but telling meteorological metric — the ratio of new hot temperature records set in the country to new cold temperature records.

The study found that from 1910 to 1960, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1. From 1960 to 2014, however, that changed, as hot records started to happen much more frequently than cold records — and from 2000 to 2014, outnumbered them by more than 12 to 1.

The simple statistic that perfectly captures what climate change means - The Washington Post

 

[MrT]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Here is a link where someone posted the raw data from 1950 to 2014 and then stuck a 15 year rolling average - starting at 1965.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1121DrmzxV46uFUt7D1Yb9qb6Zii_XFZp4qd42uSgOwQ/edit#gid=0

 

[MrT]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And here is a post wherein someone analyzed the possibility that the data is just skewed.

"Did a quick permutation test (10 million shuffles) on the dataset to figure out how likely it was if we randomly assign bins to the years that we'd see the past 15 year data come in as it has.

p<0.000000001 or less than 1 in 10 million (no shuffles had a higher ratio, you can see that some would, as a few years in the last 15 of the dataset were not setting record highs but instead actually had record lows)

Tl;Dr - You have roughly the same chances of becoming president (Last name Bush or Clinton not-withstanding) as this data turning out as it did."

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

There are many ways to measure the world’s changing climate. You can chart rising global temperatures, rising sea levels and melting ice. What’s tougher, though, is to find a measurement that easily relates all of that to what people experience in their daily lives.

In a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, however, two Australian researchers do just this by examining a simple but telling meteorological metric — the ratio of new hot temperature records set in the country to new cold temperature records.

The study found that from 1910 to 1960, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1. From 1960 to 2014, however, that changed, as hot records started to happen much more frequently than cold records — and from 2000 to 2014, outnumbered them by more than 12 to 1.

The simple statistic that perfectly captures what climate change means - The Washington Post

I don't think anyone here disagrees that global warming has happened.

The disagreement is about how much is natural, and how much cause by mankind.

 

[Verax]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I don't think anyone here disagrees that global warming has happened.

The disagreement is about how much is natural, and how much cause by mankind.

The disagreement is between greedy people who only care about themselves versus people who would rather minimally defile Earth's ecosystems for future generations.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The disagreement is between greedy people who only care about themselves versus people who would rather minimally defile Earth's ecosystems for future generations.

For a strawman alert...

See above!

 

[Verax]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

For a strawman alert...

See above!

For pseudo science see LoP's latest posts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

For pseudo science see LoP's latest posts.

Do you mean this one:

I don't think anyone here disagrees that global warming has happened.

The disagreement is about how much is natural, and how much cause by mankind.

Explain please.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

So, if the current CO2 levels (at over 400 ppm) are higher than any levels in at least 800,000 years* (before any humans existed) where is it coming from if not from human activity (i.e., the burning of fossil fuels)? CAGW deniers don't seem to have an answer for that. In general, they just revert to denying all of the science when faced with that question.


*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

 

[soot]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

Oh...

"For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch."*

So... the epoch when Hominini branched off from their Homininae ancestors and evolved, eventually, into us? Otherwise plenty of terrestrial and aquatic mammalian development. The advent of kelp forests. The settling down into the kind of modern flora we have today. All that kind of thing.

That leads in to the Pliocene when global temperatures were still an average of 2 or 3 degrees warmer than they are today. We continue to see the evolution toward and proliferation of modern plant and animal life.

Then we head in to the Pleistocene when ice corers tell us the CO2 concentration was in the ~280ppm range, with its series of glacials and interglacials which very nearly led to the extinction of the Homo lineage.

So your argument would be that you want to go back to the decreasing carbon dioxide levels which during late Pliocene contributed substantially to global cooling and the onset of northern hemisphere glaciation during the Pleistocene.

Yeah, I'm not going to get on board with that.

We know that high CO2 levels, like in the 400ppm range, lead to a climate that is absolutely perfect for the human species (as in the Miocene, Pliocene, and late Holocene).

On the other hand we know that CO2 levels in the 250-200ppm level leads to global glaciation, ice ages, and the near extinction of humanity.

Your argument would be that lower CO2 levels are somehow better?

Explain that to me.

I understand that higher CO2 levels lead to "global warming" which leads to elevated sea levels which leads to a decrease in currently habitable landmass.

But if 70% of the Northern hemisphere is covered in a 2000 foot thick glacier that also kind of reduces habitable land mass.

Why would you want to go back to a period that is thoroughly hostile to life when we're in a period, to which well assume AGW has contributed signifigantly, which is thoroughly pleasant to life?

 

[Verax]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Do you mean this one:

Explain please.

There is a consensus that the majority of global warming is attributable to mankind.

But you also spew pseudo science claiming there is no consensus.

 

[Verax]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

...

While that may all be true I'd like to point out that the rapid change in climate is the biggest problem. Not necessarily that certain life forms cannot exist or flourish in warmer habitats. It is just that those conditions usually came about over very long periods of time relative to our warming in mere centuries or decades. Life has trouble adapting that quickly and these types of events lead to mass extinctions. In the end life will go on just fine but that type of period isn't something we should force future generations to experience.

This isn't meant to be a counterpoint or "correction" of your argument I just wanted to add this as it was related.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Oh...



So... the epoch when Hominini branched off from their Homininae ancestors and evolved, eventually, into us? Otherwise plenty of terrestrial and aquatic mammalian development. The advent of kelp forests. The settling down into the kind of modern flora we have today. All that kind of thing.

Stall followed by side-track to vague irrelevancies.

That leads in to the Pliocene when global temperatures were still an average of 2 or 3 degrees warmer than they are today.

The Pliocene preceded the Anthropocene epoch by at least 2 million years. You make it sound like the arrival of humans "lead" into Pliocene epoch.

We continue to see the evolution toward and proliferation of modern plant and animal life.

"Every day, an estimated 100 plant and animal species are lost to deforestation" . . . "A conservative estimate of the current extinction rate indicates that about 27,000 species a year are being lost." National Wildlife Federation

Then we head in to the Pleistocene when ice corers tell us the CO2 concentration was in the ~280ppm range, with its series of glacials and interglacials which very nearly led to the extinction of the Homo lineage.

Really? You're claiming the last ice age nearly wiped out the human species? Where on earth did you get that idea?

So your argument would be that you want to go back to the decreasing carbon dioxide levels which during late Pliocene contributed substantially to global cooling and the onset of northern hemisphere glaciation during the Pleistocene.

Yeah, I'm not going to get on board with that.

Well, nobody's on board with the idea of "decreasing" CO2 levels since that ship has sailed so a complete straw man FAIL on that one, LotP.

We know that high CO2 levels, like in the 400ppm range, lead to a climate that is absolutely perfect for the human species (as in the Miocene, Pliocene, and late Holocene).

We know of no such thing since there were no humans in either of the first two epochs and only at the very end of the third and CO2 levels were never even close to 400 ppm in that time period as the source I put up here earlier documented.

On the other hand we know that CO2 levels in the 250-200ppm level leads to global glaciation, ice ages, and the near extinction of humanity.

More irrelevancy and the same unsubstantiated extinction claim.

Your argument would be that lower CO2 levels are somehow better?

Explain that to me.

Back to the straw-man attempt again (this would really be embarrassing for someone who could feel embarrassment, LotP). Again, lowering CO2 levels isn't even a topic as that ship has sailed. Trying to limit the increase of it is what the goal is now (but getting less likely to succeed due to the obstructionism of CAGW deniers). We do know, however, that life thrives just fine with CO2 levels much lower than 400 ppm so if we could lower it back to 280 ppm I sure as hell would be "on board" for that. I guess I should say that your argument is for not doing that even if we could.

I understand that higher CO2 levels lead to "global warming" which leads to elevated sea levels which leads to a decrease in currently habitable landmass.

But if 70% of the Northern hemisphere is covered in a 2000 foot thick glacier that also kind of reduces habitable land mass.

Another retreat into an irrelevancy. Are you seriously suggesting that a global ice age could be caused by trying to reduce human generated CO2? That's beyond bizarre.

Why would you want to go back to a period that is thoroughly hostile to life when we're in a period, to which well assume AGW has contributed signifigantly, which is thoroughly pleasant to life?

And back to the straw man evasion for his finale. Wow, LotP, I almost feel sorry for you for beating you up so badly on this issue but really you asked for it with that stew of ridiculous arguments, with confusion of epochs and crazy claims that the last ice age almost wiped out humanity (and I guess a lot of other species).

 

[soot]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

While that may all be true I'd like to point out that the rapid change in climate is the biggest problem. Not necessarily that certain life forms cannot exist or flourish in warmer habitats. It is just that those conditions usually came about over very long periods of time relative to our warming in mere centuries or decades. Life has trouble adapting that quickly and these types of events lead to mass extinctions. In the end life will go on just fine but that type of period isn't something we should force future generations to experience.

This isn't meant to be a counterpoint or "correction" of your argument I just wanted to add this as it was related.

I think that's absolutely a legitimate issue/concern and something that we should be discussing.

If we keep heading the direction we're heading (ever increasing CO2 emissions) we are going to cause extinctions.

But if we pull and about-face and start doing everything in our power to limit CO2 emissions and "capture" atmospheric CO2 such that we return things to pre-industrial revolution levels we're also going to be causing extinctions.

It's reasonable to believe that if we start heading off down the path toward doing everything in our power to reduce CO2 levels to what they were in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene we're likely to get the kind of climate that we saw in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene.

It's reasonable to believe that if we maintain CO2 levels sort of where they are today during the late Holocene or allow them to continue to rise to as the high as ~500 - ~600 ppm range as they were for parts of the Miocene, or get them to level out somewhere between the two as they were doing the Pliocene, we're likely to get the kind of climate we had during the Miocene, Pliocene, and are experiencing today during the late Holocene.

Of course neither of those options takes in to consideration the many factors effecting climate over which we have absolutely no control (solar output, Milankovitch cycles, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation).

But if we are going to control that which it is possibly in our power to influence some control over we should be making that determination with the long-run effects of our influence in mind.

For my part, I love Polar bear and penguins but I love a planet that is widely habitable by humans even more.

I don't want to run the risk of sending us careening in to another ice age.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

So, if the current CO2 levels (at over 400 ppm) are higher than any levels in at least 800,000 years* (before any humans existed) where is it coming from if not from human activity (i.e., the burning of fossil fuels)? CAGW deniers don't seem to have an answer for that. In general, they just revert to denying all of the science when faced with that question.


*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist | Climate Central

Who is saying CO2 increases are not caused by man?

Why do you keep arguing against ideas not presented?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

There is a consensus that the majority of global warming is attributable to mankind.

But you also spew pseudo science claiming there is no consensus.

Consensus does not make science.

That's your pseudoscience.

 

[soot]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The Pliocene preceded the Anthropocene epoch by at least 2 million years. You make it sound like the arrival of humans "lead" into Pliocene epoch.

No, fool, I don't make it "sound like" anything.

The Miocene preceded the Pliocene.

The Anthropocene isn't even a real thing.

It's a "proposed" epoch invented by envornazis.

"Every day, an estimated 100 plant and animal species are lost to deforestation" . . . "A conservative estimate of the current extinction rate indicates that about 27,000 species a year are being lost." National Wildlife Federation

You realize that something like 25,000 of those are bacteria and other microscopic organisms and another 1,987 are insects, right?

Really? You're claiming the last ice age nearly wiped out the human species? Where on earth did you get that idea?

Wow, you really are clueless about this aren't you?

Research the Toba catastrophe theory and how it led to the observable bottleneck in human genetic variation.

We know of no such thing since there were no humans in either of the first two epochs...

LMFAO

You're kidding me, right?

We know what the climate was like when CO2 levels were at ~400ppm.

We know what the climate was like when CO2 levels were at ~250ppm.

We know what kind of climate humans thrive in.

We know what kind of climate is inhospitable to human life.

Are you completely incapable of logical thought?

More irrelevancy and the same unsubstantiated extinction claim.

Correction, the extinction claim you're ignorant of because you don't know even nearly as much about this topic as you like to pretend you do on the Interwebz.

Are you seriously suggesting that a global ice age could be caused by trying to reduce human generated CO2? That's beyond bizarre.

I'm suggesting that we are in an ice age and the only thing keeping it at bey is AGW.

Dude, you just got ****ing owned.

Have a pleasant weekend.

Maybe you could spend part of it studying some of the concepts you've been introduced to here.

I, on the other hand, will be bust actually knowing something about the world we live in and it's geological history.

 

[Verax]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Consensus does not make science.

That's your pseudoscience.

No, but there is a consensus regarding the science. You just refuse to acknowledge the science and the consensus.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And yet . . . .

The Pause is driving down the long-term warming trend | Watts Up With That?

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I don't think anyone here disagrees that global warming has happened.

And how often do we hear the argument that "there has been no warming in ___ years"? Just about every frickin' day.

But you can always count on the denizens of Denierstan to deny that deniers deny.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And how often do we hear the argument that "there has been no warming in ___ years"? Just about every frickin' day.

But you can always count on the denizens of Denierstan to deny that deniers deny.

There has been no "significant" warming over the last 17 years. The slope is almost flat. The numbers cited are so small, they are well within error margins, and there is at least one data record that shows cooling.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

There has been no "significant" warming over the last 17 years. The slope is almost flat. The numbers cited are so small, they are well within error margins, and there is at least one data record that shows cooling.

Yes, and that first couple charts only show temperature data, which does not in any way allow someone to draw conclusions on the CAUSE of that warming.

For years that was the argument, co2 has been increases and temperature has increased, therefore correlation equals causation.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The disagreement is between greedy people who only care about themselves versus people who would rather minimally defile Earth's ecosystems for future generations.

No the disagreement is between those who understand science and religious idios who wish to have us all panic so that they can impose their communist agenda.

 

[Renae]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Climate, it changes.

All the claims of catastrophic imminent danger for the last 20 years not only have NOT panned out, it's as if Mother Nature is actively MOCKING them. Hurricanes, which we've been assured would increase in size, power, frequency as the "Earth heats up"? We're at a 45 YEAR LOW for hurricane activity. I'm actually afraid of the next major system that eventually does manage to form and hit the mainland as humans are stupid and people will try to ride it out. I'm calling for a very wet, cold winter across much of the US, Texas should get hammered badly. I called last winter, I'm calling it again THIS winter.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic



global warming propaganda video made by Al Gore^

10 years later, i still live in Florida, and the beach is in the same place it was when i first went there with my family 25 years ago.