[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

That's pretty eerie.

 

That's right. The short term random variables (such as El Nino, El Nina) will throw off the models if you look at just a small slice of the timeframe. That's why when looking at models, you need to look at the larger timeframe. And they have indeed been spot on.

Here is a recent study that look at the claims that climate models overestimate warming. The study refuted that. Average observed trend is almost exactly in line with model average.

The reason they look at 15-year time periods is some skeptic choose 15-year slice and said the model is wrong.

link

 

It's just one year. And you clearly do not understand what 0.04 mean for global temp. If temp is going up at 0.04 per year, that's 4C in 100 years. That would be at the extreme high end of the models.

No need to go the conspiracy route. That just mean you got nothing.

Really, you guys are just pulling this and that and saying, look, it's false when you don't understand half of the things you are posing.

We are now at the point where Scientist has MOVED on. They aren't debating if human is causing climate change. That has settle. The debate are about other things now such as sensitivity.

 

Which date are you talking about? Looking at trends over a span of several decades, coinciding with the period where we actually have enough data to try to analyze what the possible causes were, is not remotely comparable to picking 1998 as the starting point.

Global temperature trends show there has been an average increase in temperature since 1998 (link). It may not have increased as rapidly as some models predicted, but that doesn't mean the warming trend isn't real. If your position was the correct one, shouldn't we have expected temperatures to go down since 1998 (regression to the mean)?

 

It is four one-hundredths (0.04) of a degree over since 1998, so that is not one year, it is 16. If you divide the 0.04 by 16, you get 0.0025, which is 2.5 thousandths of a degree per year on average that temperatures have trended upwards over this time period. Suffice it to say, this is quite a lot less than the scientists projection models predicted.

Extrapolated out to 100 years (0.0025 X 100 = 0.25 of a degree). That is twenty five hundredths of a degree of projected temperature increase over the next century if this trend holds. That is a one quarter of a degree increase over 100 years.

Rolling on the floor, laughing my __ off.

 

Its either a highly unlikely coincidence, or there is a causal relationship. The responsible position would be to assume the latter, because the stakes are too high.

My earlier point is that cherry-picking the 1998 date as your starting point is totally unconvincing. And pointing out that the Earth has been hotter in ages past isn't particularly compelling either. In the past 100 years, we've acquired a large body of knowledge on how the climate changes at geological scales. The same people who have expertise in this area are apparently the ones most concerned about current warming trend. Based on what they understand about how the Earth's climate changes and why, their conclusion by and large is that we are causing the observed warming. Its something that should be taken very seriously and not dismissed out of hand.

 

Your extrapolation (based on the green line in this picture) is absurd:

 

You talk about 0.04 hotter than the previous record as insignificant and now you change it to 0.04 over a few more years.

As usual, you guys like to move that goal post. It still doesn't matter.

I posted earlier about trends. The model has been very accurate. Picking a short period of time and a start year means nothing. And of course you pick 1998, like many skeptics since 1998 was an anomaly warm year due to El Nino, never mind the long term trend.

There is nothing to debate here. You folks aren't scientists and just picking stuff to satisfy your beliefs. As I said, this is settle in the Scientific community. If there are still legitimate case that human isn't causing warming, they need to bring the proof.

(edit - saw the graph posted by durvasa - as I said, it meant jack when you look at a small period of time).

 

If there is correlation but its not casual and its not coincidence, what is left? Excuse me if it seems a stupid question. I'm genuinely confused.

Edit: Nevermind, I understand the distinction now ... wasn't thinking. Do you have any thoughts on what might be the reason behind the correlation, then?

When I asked "Is global warming happening?", I wasn't intending that to mean "Is the temperature today higher than it was at some point in the past?" This would be an under-specified, meaningless question, I agree.

I meant whether the current trend indicates we are in a state of warming. When you chose to answer the question based on today's temperature relative to 1998, I took that to mean that you consider the trend since that date to be more predictive of the immediate future than, for example, the trend since 1988 or 1978, etc. That's why I asked the follow up question.

Alright.

 

IT's not correlation. This isn't a linear regression anymore. The models are multivariate and take into variables that are on different orders and might be unknown. Statistics can do that. These models do not show correlation, they calculate more than that.

 

I posted this in the thread about the creeping dangers of conspiracy theorists but it bears repeating.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/04/creeping-danger-conspiracy-theorists
[rquoter]But the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world have done a great job convincing Americans that climatologists have entered into this massive, incomprehensible conspiracy to fool the world that there’s a problem. The reason, they say, is that climatologists are doing it for the money, so they can continue to live in their climatologist mansions and drive their climatologist Ferraris. (For the 26 percent who might not get it, that was sarcasm.) Meanwhile, the people who selflessly fight for Americans—the billionaire industrialists and oil-industry magnates—speak only truth because, you know, they have no financial reason to suggest climate change is a fraud. After all, they have dedicated themselves to a modest life so they can advance the truth, residing in their tumble-down, billionaire shacks and driving their billionaire 1994 Chevys. (Once again—sarcasm.)[/rquoter]

 

In science, the goal is always to come up with the most probable explanation. You are apparently convinced that CO2 can not be a significant factor in the global warming trend (while most climate scientists disagree), and yet you're unable to provide an alternative natural explanation for it. That we've seen warming under different conditions in the past is not an adequate explanation of the current observations.

If we're in a position to posit a most likely explanation based on computational models which do in fact line up quite well with the experimental data, then I don't see how this can be dismissed as a case of indeterminacy. Skepticism is a good thing; good science relies on it. But science also require putting forward plausible theories to explain observed phenomena, and then through experimentation whittling it down.

Might there be some other natural phenomenon driving this? Yes, but scientists (so far as I'm aware) have not yet been able to identify it. AGW, broadly speaking, is the best explanation we have so far.

Yes, I realized it wasn't random. Glad we're at least in agreement that people who keeping point to this date in an attempt to minimize the global warming trend are cherry-picking to suit their arguments.

 

No, they haven't. I've shown a chart that shows multiple variables including solar radiation, earth's orbit, volcanic ash, and others. The models are multivariate and take into all the things people here have brought up as reasons arguing against the climate models.

They aren't stupid - these scientists do their job and put their models through serious rigor. Do you think the bloggers spreading their criticism have gone through and reviewed the model and methodology before posting their blog? You think their 20 minute analysis is good enough to derail someone who spends their entire life on this stuff?

I mean, it's just ridiculous.

 

Can anyone with knowledge in this area tell me how factual this article is??

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...p-you-from-putting-solar-panels-on-your-roof/

 

Not a fun read...

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...ease-on-the-rise-as-climate-disruption-mounts

 

Except global warming doesn't increase smoothly. THere will be periods it increases not at all, some years it decreases, and then there will be periods where it increase in leaps and bounds. It's not smooth.

What you are doing is taking the through and connecting it to a peak in 1998, thus making it look flat. In science it's considered manipulating data artificially and is literally quack science.



THis clearly shows that most of the heating isn't always going to the surface - but into the oceans. So while the surface temperatures are flat - the earth is still heating. You can see in fact that most of the heat is going into the oceans versus the air near the surface.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergl...ol-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/