Departures from Reality

[LowDown]

It's astonishing how many of the factoids and claims being made by alarmists in the popular press have no basis in reality:

"2012 is the warmest year on record by far." This is closely related to another factoid, "global warming is worse than ever/accelerating."

I can't figure out where these factoids came from. Suffice to say that, if they are talking about global temperatures, they are completely wrong. - Global Temperature Page | Watts Up With That?

"If we don't do something about global warming we will face more fires, droughts, floods, storms, ..."

Extreme weather events -- tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and floods -- are no more common on the average than they ever were.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/heat-waves-figure1.gif
http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/new/regplots/real/real_us_2.gif
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure1.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/dk-step5.ytd.gif
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/heavy-precip-figure2.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/dk-step3.ytd.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/dk-step4.ytd.gif

Then there is a long laundry list of things that represent proxies for increased temperatures, so called effects of global warming. Whether they are talking about glaciers, sea ice, or snow cover, it must be asked that since global temperatures have actually stayed about the same for the last 15 years then how could it be that all these things are so much worse if they are caused by global warming?

Regardless, do these descriptions of change comport with reality?

• Is global sea ice shrinking? No. (see links below)
• Are the glaciers of the world all disappearing? No. Some are shrinking, some are growing. There has been a net loss of total glacier mass that goes back to at least 1850.
• Is snow cover shrinking? No.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/namgnld_season1.gif
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nam02.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/ims_data.jpg
Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[iliveonramen]

I wish you were right. I have to trust scientist over something that makes me feel better though.

 

[Threegoofs]

I wish you were right. I have to trust scientist over something that makes me feel better though.

Yes, but he's citing a blog written by a prestigious TV weatherman.

Surely that must count for something.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes, but he's citing a blog written by a prestigious TV weatherman.

Surely that must count for something.

I wish you were right. I have to trust scientist over something that makes me feel better though.

It's too bad that some of us are unwilling or unable to discuss / refute data on its merits.

We would rather trust "scientists" pushing a failing hypothesis, rather than examining the data?

 

[Threegoofs]

It's too bad that some of us are unwilling or unable to discuss / refute data on its merits.

We would rather trust "scientists" pushing a failing hypothesis, rather than examining the data?

Being a scientist myself, I understand that discussing and refuting data needs to be done by people in the position to do so. Those that are experts in the field, those that collect the data and live with the data 24/7.

Thats not me. My training isnt in climate. Its not you either.

So we have to defer to the guys who understand above all - unless you can come up with something they have never addressed. And I havent seen that.

You dont visit a cardiologist for a heart issue and then read a blog by a TV doctor and take that advice instead. You dont read a blog about how a certain chemical marked 'poison' is actually totally safe and tasty too, and then eat it for dinner. You dont mix bleach and ammonia to clean something because some guy who took high school chemistry remembered that it makes for an extra good cleaner.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Being a scientist myself, I understand that discussing and refuting data needs to be done by people in the position to do so. Those that are experts in the field, those that collect the data and live with the data 24/7.

Thats not me. My training isnt in climate. Its not you either.

So we have to defer to the guys who understand above all - unless you can come up with something they have never addressed. And I havent seen that.

You dont visit a cardiologist for a heart issue and then read a blog by a TV doctor and take that advice instead. You dont read a blog about how a certain chemical marked 'poison' is actually totally safe and tasty too, and then eat it for dinner. You dont mix bleach and ammonia to clean something because some guy who took high school chemistry remembered that it makes for an extra good cleaner.

Right, and at one point surgery was considered manual labour, and blood letting used to be thought of as effective treatment.

Once the hypothesis is invalidated by the data, that means that either :
A) the hypothesis was wrong and needs to be discarded, or
B) the hypothesis is flawed and needs to be refined.

Even pachauri (sp?) admitted that the climate had stopped increasing for going on 17 years, meanwhile co2 increases in the atmosphere have been accelerating.

None of the models accounted for this lack of warming.

To maintain the analogy, if your cardiologist is suggesting a method that has a low survival rate when there is a superior procedure available due to your research on the blogs, etc... There's a chance your informing yourself might save your life, even if you lack the skills to perform the procedures yourself.

 

[Dragonfly]

Right, and at one point surgery was considered manual labour, and blood letting used to be thought of as effective treatment.

Once the hypothesis is invalidated by the data, that means that either :
A) the hypothesis was wrong and needs to be discarded, or
B) the hypothesis is flawed and needs to be refined.

Even pachauri (sp?) admitted that the climate had stopped increasing for going on 17 years, meanwhile co2 increases in the atmosphere have been accelerating.

None of the models accounted for this lack of warming.

To maintain the analogy, if your cardiologist is suggesting a method that has a low survival rate when there is a superior procedure available due to your research on the blogs, etc... There's a chance your informing yourself might save your life, even if you lack the skills to perform the procedures yourself.

If you remove the idea/concept/theory that man is 100% to blame for any climate change what-so-ever, and just look at your overall experience in life on this planet, would you say that you feel - generally, the average temperatures throughout the year are warmer/hotter now than they were 20-30 years ago, or would you say they are colder/cooler now than they were 20-30 years ago?

Because having spent 50 years living in the middle-atlantic region of the USA, that my personal experience is cemented in the fact that our winters are warmer. In fact it's even noticeable by my children who've only been alive about 20 years.

Whether or not human beings are to blame for that isn't something I care to speculate on. I just have little doubt the climate is changing, and it's getting warmer.

Based on your experience, is that something you notice too?

 

[flogger]

Being a scientist myself, I understand that discussing and refuting data needs to be done by people in the position to do so. Those that are experts in the field, those that collect the data and live with the data 24/7.

Thats not me. My training isnt in climate. Its not you either.

The nearest you ever got to a scientist was serving one behind the drugstore checkout where you work. I cant believe you've had the audacity to claim this three times now given the derision this gets each time you make it. Your approach to this issue and the methodologies you use to asses its merits are perhaps the least scientific I've ever seen from any on the advocate side :lamo

 

[BmanMcfly]

If you remove the idea/concept/theory that man is 100% to blame for any climate change what-so-ever, and just look at your overall experience in life on this planet, would you say that you feel - generally, the average temperatures throughout the year are warmer/hotter now than they were 20-30 years ago, or would you say they are colder/cooler now than they were 20-30 years ago?

I don't have to go on feeling, the fact is that the climate is warmer today than when I was a youth.

However, it's been definitively cooling the past few years, and the data shows that the climate temperature increases stopped.

Because having spent 50 years living in the middle-atlantic region of the USA, that my personal experience is cemented in the fact that our winters are warmer. In fact it's even noticeable by my children who've only been alive about 20 years.

Whether or not human beings are to blame for that isn't something I care to speculate on. I just have little doubt the climate is changing, and it's getting warmer.

Based on your experience, is that something you notice too?

Now, the question should not be about the temperature and co2, but in toxicity and pollution.

While the hypothesis of co2 induced warming is good for selling fear and pushing an agenda, however you can look at the issues of pollution, and toxicity and you start seeing health numbers; most forms of cancer are increasing, learning disorders are exploding, diabetes is exploding, iq numbers are decreasing, sperm counts have been steadily decreasing, even the life expectancy DROPPED recently...

Ask the right questions and you get better answers.

 

[Visbek]

It's astonishing how many of the factoids and claims being made by alarmists in the popular press have no basis in reality:

"2012 is the warmest year on record by far." This is closely related to another factoid, "global warming is worse than ever/accelerating."... Suffice to say that, if they are talking about global temperatures, they are completely wrong.

The actual claim is by NOAA, which states that 2012 was the hottest average year on record for the United States. "The year consisted of the fourth warmest winter, a record warm spring, the second warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn." NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S. | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

A similar claim, also factual, is that 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record. NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Global temperatures for 2012 were not at the highest levels in recorded history, but they're close. The WUWT page you linked only goes back to 1980... when temperatures went into positive territory.

I can't figure out where these factoids came from.

They come from analyzing decades of data.

Extreme weather events -- tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and floods -- are no more common on the average than they ever were.

Some events, like tornadoes, are not directly affected by global warming.

Others are. E.g. as sea levels rise, hurricanes will do more damage, notably with water surges (as we saw with Sandy and Katrina). In the US, for example, the trend for extreme weather events is on the rise. Extremes | U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI)

And I hate to shock you, but yes, as the planet warms, heat waves are increasing in frequency and area. "From 1951 to 1980, extremely hot temperatures affected only one-tenth of one percent of the globe, before signs of global warming began turning up in the climate records. But in the last three decades, extreme heat events have become more widespread and now affect about 10 percent of the globe. In another decade, the number could rise to about 17 percent." Climate Change Study Ties Recent Heat Waves To Global Warming

Is global sea ice shrinking?

Yes.
http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/sea-ice-extent-at-minimum-months.gif
2012 minimum global sea ice area - Arctic Sea Ice

Are the glaciers of the world all disappearing? No. Some are shrinking, some are growing. There has been a net loss of total glacier mass that goes back to at least 1850.

Uh. You admit that we've had a net loss since 1850, and you still deny the loss of glaciers? Wow, that's a neat trick.

Glaciers are definitely retreating -- and the rate of glacier losses has been accelerating since ~1990. Are glaciers growing or retreating?


[*]Is snow cover shrinking?[/quote]
Yes. The average for 2002-2012 is around 3% less than 1972-1982. Snow Cover | Climate Change | US EPA


In other words, the reason why people believe that global warming is happening is because global warming is happening. The evidence and trends make it quite obvious that this is the case, and that it is going to impact the environment more and more.

 

[iliveonramen]

It's too bad that some of us are unwilling or unable to discuss / refute data on its merits.

We would rather trust "scientists" pushing a failing hypothesis, rather than examining the data?

Everybody is using the same data. The idea scientists are lying to us is just a conspiracy theory.

Also...nobody is "examining the data". Let's not pretend that copy/pasting information cherry picked by someone on a skeptic site is examining anything.

 

[calamity]

It's astonishing how many of the factoids and claims being made by alarmists in the popular press have no basis in reality:

"2012 is the warmest year on record by far." This is closely related to another factoid, "global warming is worse than ever/accelerating."

I can't figure out where these factoids came from. Suffice to say that, if they are talking about global temperatures, they are completely wrong. - Global Temperature Page | Watts Up With That?

"If we don't do something about global warming we will face more fires, droughts, floods, storms, ..."

Extreme weather events -- tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and floods -- are no more common on the average than they ever were.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/heat-waves-figure1.gif
http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/new/regplots/real/real_us_2.gif
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure1.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/dk-step5.ytd.gif
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/heavy-precip-figure2.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/dk-step3.ytd.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/dk-step4.ytd.gif

Then there is a long laundry list of things that represent proxies for increased temperatures, so called effects of global warming. Whether they are talking about glaciers, sea ice, or snow cover, it must be asked that since global temperatures have actually stayed about the same for the last 15 years then how could it be that all these things are so much worse if they are caused by global warming?

Regardless, do these descriptions of change comport with reality?

• Is global sea ice shrinking? No. (see links below)
• Are the glaciers of the world all disappearing? No. Some are shrinking, some are growing. There has been a net loss of total glacier mass that goes back to at least 1850.
• Is snow cover shrinking? No.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/namgnld_season1.gif
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nam02.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/ims_data.jpg
Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...re-now-most-destructive-in-state-history?lite

 

[Threegoofs]

To maintain the analogy, if your cardiologist is suggesting a method that has a low survival rate when there is a superior procedure available due to your research on the blogs, etc... There's a chance your informing yourself might save your life, even if you lack the skills to perform the procedures yourself.

Your analogy fails because for that superior procedure to be shown effective, IT MUST BE PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS.

 

[Threegoofs]

The nearest you ever got to a scientist was serving one behind the drugstore checkout where you work. I cant believe you've had the audacity to claim this three times now given the derision this gets each time you make it. Your approach to this issue and the methodologies you use to asses its merits are perhaps the least scientific I've ever seen from any on the advocate side :lamo

Clearly, this reflects upon your understanding of science.

And the derision comes from you, and is unfounded. Apparently, you don't know any working scientists, and you think we are just imaginary.

 

[KLATTU]

Everybody is using the same data. The idea scientists are lying to us is just a conspiracy theory.

.

You obviously did not read through the climategate emails. OR more likely, defended their indefensible behavior because you are on their 'team;.
No objective person who reviewed those emails could ever come to the conclusion that the scientists who are the primary shapers of AGW hypotheses are completely above board.

Again, the fantasy that AGW hypotheses are the result of a bunch of folks with no agenda who just crunched the numbers and,- oh well, found what they found- is just that. Fantasy.

 

[Visbek]

You obviously did not read through the climategate emails.

You mean, the handful of phrases taken out of context, to play into the expectations of climate deniers?

No objective person who reviewed those emails could ever come to the conclusion that the scientists who are the primary shapers of AGW hypotheses are completely above board.

So you actually sat down and read all 1000+ emails and the 2000+ documents that were released?

Or did you just read one email where the author used the word "trick," and from there concluded that every scrap of data is a giant scientific conspiracy against Edison bulbs? :mrgreen:

 

[LowDown]

The actual claim is by NOAA, which states that 2012 was the hottest average year on record for the United States. "The year consisted of the fourth warmest winter, a record warm spring, the second warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn." NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S. | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

A similar claim, also factual, is that 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record. NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Global temperatures for 2012 were not at the highest levels in recorded history, but they're close. The WUWT page you linked only goes back to 1980... when temperatures went into positive territory.

They come from analyzing decades of data.



Some events, like tornadoes, are not directly affected by global warming.

Others are. E.g. as sea levels rise, hurricanes will do more damage, notably with water surges (as we saw with Sandy and Katrina). In the US, for example, the trend for extreme weather events is on the rise. Extremes | U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI)

And I hate to shock you, but yes, as the planet warms, heat waves are increasing in frequency and area. "From 1951 to 1980, extremely hot temperatures affected only one-tenth of one percent of the globe, before signs of global warming began turning up in the climate records. But in the last three decades, extreme heat events have become more widespread and now affect about 10 percent of the globe. In another decade, the number could rise to about 17 percent." Climate Change Study Ties Recent Heat Waves To Global Warming



Yes.
http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/sea-ice-extent-at-minimum-months.gif
2012 minimum global sea ice area - Arctic Sea Ice



Uh. You admit that we've had a net loss since 1850, and you still deny the loss of glaciers? Wow, that's a neat trick.

Glaciers are definitely retreating -- and the rate of glacier losses has been accelerating since ~1990. Are glaciers growing or retreating?


[*]Is snow cover shrinking?
Yes. The average for 2002-2012 is around 3% less than 1972-1982. Snow Cover | Climate Change | US EPA


In other words, the reason why people believe that global warming is happening is because global warming is happening. The evidence and trends make it quite obvious that this is the case, and that it is going to impact the environment more and more.

Well, you distort and misquote much of what I wrote. For example, you changed the meaning of my first sentence when you pulled it apart and rearranged it. Whether global warming is occurring or not wasn't the question. Whether there is a net loss of glaciers wasn't the question. I find it tiresome dealing with dishonest people. Anyone who's interested can go back and read what I wrote.

Also, I invite anyone who's interested to check out differences in the various available temperature data sets and consider which are most likely to be accurate. Many temperature records have the 1930s as hot as present weather. NOAA (surface stations) has 2012 as 0.5 to 0.6 degrees hotter than 1979 while weather balloons, UAH, and RSU have it as 0.2 degrees hotter.

The issue of which data sets ought to be relied on is covered in this debate:

Any Global Warming Since 1978? Two Climate Experts Debate This - Forbes

2012 was the warmest year in the US? Well, ok, but that's not surprising given a La Nina event lasted well into 2012. It really shouldn't have much of anything to do with global warming trends any more than Alaska having one of the snowiest, coldest springs in a long time means that global warming has reversed. Also, need I remind that this statement usually gets generalized from the "US having the hottest year on record" to "having the hottest year on record", and a legitimate point of fact, at least in the proper context, becomes a piece of propaganda. The fact of the matter is that globally 2012 wasn't remarkable.

Global Temperature Page | Watts Up With That?

 

[KLATTU]

You mean, the handful of phrases taken out of context, to play into the expectations of climate deniers?

:

[LAFF}
Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.

what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.


Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions

All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.


Ed Cook
the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know ****-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know ****-all).

Tiim Osborne
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were

Tim Osborne
Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

 

[iliveonramen]

You obviously did not read through the climategate emails. OR more likely, defended their indefensible behavior because you are on their 'team;.
No objective person who reviewed those emails could ever come to the conclusion that the scientists who are the primary shapers of AGW hypotheses are completely above board.

Again, the fantasy that AGW hypotheses are the result of a bunch of folks with no agenda who just crunched the numbers and,- oh well, found what they found- is just that. Fantasy.

I'm not on any "team". I believe man is having an impact on climate but it's because I generally trust the scientific community.

I find it hard to believe that a small group of scientists or even all scientists have this massive conspiracy going to create a crises that doesn't exist.

It makes much more sense that scientists have found some disturbing things and the conspiracy exists among individuals with a very very large financial stake in the burning of fossil fuels. This isn't the first time that a big industry has tried to muddy the waters when scientists findings challenge their products....

 

[Jetboogieman]

I wish man made climate change wasn't true.

Be really nice if it wasn't.

But it is, and America seems to have this unique, relatively large section of population that denies science. Now I think this has to do with a republican political strategy that got out of hand when they turned the idea of anything to do with climate change into a tax issue in the 90's suddenly it seems anyone right wing feels they have to deny the science based purely on their political affiliation and not based on understanding the science.

Man made climate change is a fact.

Period.

The denialists will continue their march unabated.

But it doesn't change reality.

 

[Visbek]

Well, you distort and misquote much of what I wrote.

You said, and I quote: "2012 is the warmest year on record by far." This is closely related to another factoid, "global warming is worse than ever/accelerating. I can't figure out where these factoids came from."

They came from the following claims:
• 2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States.
• Globally, 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record.
• Each of the last 15 years has been above the 20th century average temperature.
• The glaciers are receding, and at a faster pace than before.
• The oceans are rising.
• CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising.
• Heat waves are becoming more frequent and wide-spread.

People believe these things because they are real, documented and based on evidence.

In addition, it's your own fault if you type a contradictory statement, such as "glaciers are not disappearing, but glaciers have been receding since 1850." Perhaps you ought to clarify your meaning, rather than blame the person who pointed it out.

Many temperature records have the 1930s as hot as present weather. NOAA (surface stations) has 2012 as 0.5 to 0.6 degrees hotter than 1979 while weather balloons, UAH, and RSU have it as 0.2 degrees hotter.

Yes, there are some slight variations in the data. Reliable measures will combine multiple sources of data, including surface and ocean -- as did the NOAA chart I linked. Cherry-picking weather balloon data because it shows less temperature change really does not help your credibility.

2012 was the warmest year in the US? It really shouldn't have much of anything to do with global warming trends....

2012 was the hottest year on record for the continental US, yes. It was about 1º above the previous record and around 3.2º above the 20th century average. Record temperatures were recorded 34,008 times around the US. This contributed to last year's droughts. (FYI La Nina tends to cool, not heat; it most likely kept the rest of the globe from getting hotter.)

There is no question that certain proximate causes drove up temperatures. It's also undoubtedly the case that if the globe wasn't 3º hotter than the 20th century average, the US would not have smashed the record.

Also, need I remind that this statement usually gets generalized from the "US having the hottest year on record" to "having the hottest year on record"....

You are more than welcome to correct people on that specific point, if it makes you feel better.

The fact of the matter is that globally 2012 wasn't remarkable.

It was the 10th hottest year on record, the 36th consecutive year of above-average temperatures, it was 1º hotter than the next hottest year, 3.25º hotter than the 20th century average.

It would really not be a good thing if 2012 was "unremarkable."

 

[KLATTU]

I'mbecause I generally trust the scientific community.

I....

Sorry. I don't.
I have way too much knowledge about academia and the massive liberal bias therin.
And climate science is different from most disciplines- it's completely dominated by liberals.

Climate Science is like Economics with all Paul Krugmans. You just never know if you are getting Krugman the economist or Krugman the Democrat/liberal shilll.

 

[iliveonramen]

Sorry. I don't.
I have way too much knowledge about academia and the massive liberal bias therin.
And climate science is different from most disciplines- it's completely dominated by liberals.

Climate Science is like Economics with all Paul Krugmans. You just never know if you are getting Krugman the economist or Krugman the Democrat/liberal shilll.

That's crazy...generally my knowledge of academia has been that if you write a highly partisan paper not supported by facts you get laughed out of the building.

 

[KLATTU]

I wis
But it is, and America seems to have this unique, relatively large section of population that denies science.Period.

ty.

It's this smarmy 'We're so smart and you are all so dumb" attitude that is the main reason you warmists are getting CLOBBERED in the climate change debate.
Unfortunately for you folks, the problem is not that " we' do not understand science. It's that we do.

 

[KLATTU]

That's crazy...generally my knowledge of academia has been that if you write a highly partisan paper not supported by facts you get laughed out of the building.

........Except there's that Cook survey. Which should have been laughed out of the building. But wasn't . Explain THAT?