U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 06-21-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Location: CT - close to coast
22,299 posts, read 11,211,966 times
Reputation: 3693
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Well I provided you a link that contradicted your statement.

I disagree with the first bolded statement (the prior 15 years or so have shown no discrepancy with prior warming since 1970). See the link I provided (there's a better link but I'd have to do some digging).

The second bolded statement is misleading. The global warming trend has averaged +0.018C / year. That's tiny compared to year to year random variability. Subtracting the effects of changing in solar ouptut, El Nio, volcanic effects, etc. can be done and makes the pattern more clear (again, see link). Whether subtracting those effects counts as warming depends on what you're looking for.
Be careful with that link you're throwing around. Its from some professor named Nicholas Drapela who got fired for expressing his climate views.. Not sure why you choose a professors blog, which doesnt have any contact information on the site, over pure hardcore nasa/noaa data. The guy likes to oust people which is very unprofessional IMO.

Those volcanoes, Ninos, ect..get factored into the monthly and annual "temperature".. When data gets fed back to us from Satellites, Buoys, land stations it doesnt say "wait, a volcano went off, adjust this number like that"...

Its like using all the Weather Underground stations instead of actual NWS/Local stations. Most of Those W.U weather data you see are from unreliable sources. The station could be in the wrong spot, or not calibrated or not maintained, or spikes not removed, ect.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2012, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
25,122 posts, read 11,502,220 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambium View Post
Be careful with that link you're throwing around. Its from some professor named Nicholas Drapela who got fired for expressing his climate views.. Not sure why you choose a professors blog, which doesnt have any contact information on the site, over pure hardcore nasa/noaa data. The guy likes to oust people which is very unprofessional IMO.
First, you should criticize the content / technique, rather than who is saying it. You could replicate what he did from hardcore nasa / noaa data (take 1970-1995/8 climate data find a best fit line with deviation bars and check if temperatures since then have followed the same trend). That link is not from Nicholas Drapela (where'd you get that idea from), but from Grant Foster, who is a statistician (useful for climate data) who did astronomy research at one point. He has published scientific papers with people in the field. I find his stuff well written and interesting. From whatever reason he prefers to keeps his blog separate from his professional and personal life so there's no contact info, but he's been "outted" enough time it's not hard to figure out who he is.

Quote:
Those volcanoes, Ninos, ect..get factored into the monthly and annual "temperature".. When data gets fed back to us from Satellites, Buoys, land stations it doesnt say "wait, a volcano went off, adjust this number like that"...
They don't get factored in actual temperature data, but one can try to remove the effects with some degree of accuracy and hopefully learn something.. I read the paper on where he describes his methods, it was interesting, but I can't remember much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 08:02 PM
 
Location: CT - close to coast
22,299 posts, read 11,211,966 times
Reputation: 3693
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
]
They don't get factored in actual temperature data, but one can try to remove the effects with some degree of accuracy and hopefully learn something.. I read the paper on where he describes his methods, it was interesting, but I can't remember much.
I dont have the energy to reply to that one right now. Temp is measured and entered, if there's someone who adjust it before it gets entered, I quit and will never talk weather again. Look at the global temp when Pinatubo blew..

Was I really mistaken on who wrote that blog?

But you never answered...What time frame?? Have you looked at the temp data past 10 years? What source?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:16 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,792 posts, read 2,580,258 times
Reputation: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Ah, yes, that's some pretty neat timing on your part. Where were you and your ilk when the arctic ice was near normal a few months ago ? I'm not trying to partake in ridicule, but cherry-picking a current condition that is suitable to your own views is as bad as cherry-picking based on the ice extent a few months ago or claiming the climate is rapidly cooling based on the trend from 1998 to 2009 when the bigger picture doesn't show as much or any cooling. The trend from the record low ice extent in 2007 until now is very clearly upwards, and for what it's worth 2011 also had a bigger-than-2007 melt in summer but still managed to end up higher than 2007 in September and even had an early autumn recovery. It looks pretty bad now but we're not exactly doomed. Conversely 2007 didn't look too bad until a huge melt in July. There is also a new trend since 2007 of a thick, multi-year core of ice that has formed and remained stable in the Arctic. Consequently, even when the ice extent is low the ice coverage is typically very dense (near 100% coverage in the areas that do have ice, this occurred in 2011), and the raw thickness and "multi-year-ness" of the ice makes for a much stronger ice extent than what was there before. The previous regime of rotten ice looks to be a thing of the past.

I may also add it may behoove everyone involved to also check out the trends in the Antarctic sea ice, since that forms the other end of the polar regions. Also global temperatures and weather patterns are an even more important indicator of global climate (obviously).
For the past several years, the summer minimums have been well below average, though not quite as low as in 2007, which was record breaking year. While the area of the ice extent has recovered slightly, especially during winters, the volume has not. A lot of old, thick ice has melted and been replaced with younger, thinner ice during winters. Thus, winter ice extent is somewhat misleading and less interesting. Also, because much of the winter ice is so thin, it can disappear within weeks once the melt starts - which is partly what happened this year.

For what it's worth, here is the trend for September 2011:



As far as cherry picking goes, I'm just noting a rather extraordinary event as the ice extent is well outside of what is normal at the moment. You are more than welcome to come back and post here when the extent is over 2 standard deviations above the average. But we may have to wait until hell literally freezes over until that happens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:19 PM
 
Location: CT - close to coast
22,299 posts, read 11,211,966 times
Reputation: 3693
Ok.. got some energy back...I guess the heat outside got to me. lol (Damn warming)

First.. I'll be honest... I never even bothered talking about this stuff because our records and way we kept them werent the same and just not enough.. But since I get bored easily I decided to research and find out why people say what they say. It all comes to time frame which I'm still waiting for an answer on..

2 highly respected non bias people I like are Jeff Masters of weatherunderground and Anthony Watts who provides unlimited amount of data and graphs.

You'll like the first part here but keep reading and more importantly look at the graph. lol

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Is the globe cooling? | Weather Underground
The three data sets use different methods, such as how they interpolate over missing data regions over the Arctic Ocean, and so they arrive at slightly different numbers for the the global average temperature. All three data sets are considered equally valid, so ignoring two of the three major data sets to claim that the globe has been cooling since 1998 is "cherry picking" the data to show the result you want.

The sharp down spike in 1991-1992 is due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which cooled the Earth for two years (It does pick up those events and register)

Is global warming slowing down?
The global average temperature has declined over the past three years (Figure 1) and global average sea surface temperature (SST) has not increased over the past seven years (Figure 3).

The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling cannot be scientifically defended.
------------------------------------------------

So again...Im going to say. when debating this topic we always have to use a time frame.. I'm talking about within past 10 years. This blog was written in 2009. I know 2010 was warm but not warmer then 05 and 98. So add 3 years to the numbers I outlined in Blue.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:25 PM
 
Location: CT - close to coast
22,299 posts, read 11,211,966 times
Reputation: 3693
I also want to add, naturally for humans we won't talk about something until its already happened, chances are we're at the turning point back down in the long term trend (50-100yrs) but we rather say its been warming, than "we're starting to cool or level off".. I guess its a natural thing for us.

The question is... Who's denying we have not warmed in the past 10 years. And What proof do you have? I'm open ears and yes...I love Al Gores movie and pumped the Warming thing until 2009 when I noticed the data of recent years.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
25,122 posts, read 11,502,220 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambium View Post
I also want to add, naturally for humans we won't talk about something until its already happened, chances are we're at the turning point back down in the long term trend (50-100yrs) but we rather say its been warming, than "we're starting to cool or level off".. I guess its a natural thing for us.

The question is... Who's denying we have not warmed in the past 10 years. And What proof do you have? I'm open ears and yes...I love Al Gores movie and pumped the Warming thing until 2009 when I noticed the data of recent years.
The problem with a few years of "cooling" is there's short-term variability in the earth's climate. You can't really make conclusions based off 3 years. If we have started to cool or level off, we wouldn't really able to tell until a bit afterward. Short-term variability can create appearance of "fake" cooling or leveling off.

For example, look at the chart I posted earlier:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/24707023-post28.html

That last data point isn't real (the data set is an average of hundreds of stations worldwide, weighted so that each spot in the world counts equally. But that super low point only had stations from one part of the globe).

each line is a period that someone who cherrypicked those years as starting and end points could have claimed that warming had stopped and there was cooling. It would have been believable during that time. I don't see how the current period is any different from those fake declines.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:47 PM
 
Location: CT - close to coast
22,299 posts, read 11,211,966 times
Reputation: 3693
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The problem with a few years of "cooling" is there's short-term variability in the earth's climate. You can't really make conclusions based off 3 years. If we have started to cool or level off, we wouldn't really able to tell until a bit afterward. Short-term variability can create appearance of "fake" cooling or leveling off.

For example, look at the chart I posted earlier:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/24707023-post28.html

That last data point isn't real (the data set is an average of hundreds of stations worldwide, weighted so that each spot in the world counts equally. But that super low point only had stations from one part of the globe).

each line is a period that someone who cherrypicked those years as starting and end points could have claimed that warming had stopped and there was cooling. It would have been believable during that time. I don't see how the current period is any different from those fake declines.
I'll take a look at them tomorrow. Ok, so let me ask.. when temperatures at your location go down from the afternoon high, don't you use the term "your cooling down"?, go bigger, when April is a warm month but May and june aren't warmer, we say we've cooled off past couple months.... Right? So now think bigger scale... globally... Annually.. I'm not denying Earth has been torched past 50-100 years but I hope you don't deny we haven't warmed in past decade.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2012, 03:51 AM
 
Location: Laurentia
4,933 posts, read 2,333,510 times
Reputation: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambium View Post
I also want to add, naturally for humans we won't talk about something until its already happened, chances are we're at the turning point back down in the long term trend (50-100yrs) but we rather say its been warming, than "we're starting to cool or level off".. I guess its a natural thing for us.
I second this. What I'm trying to do here is sniff out future trends that are only now emerging, not discussing what happened 15 or 30 years ago.

Quote:
The question is... Who's denying we have not warmed in the past 10 years. And What proof do you have? I'm open ears and yes...I love Al Gores movie and pumped the Warming thing until 2009 when I noticed the data of recent years.
For those 15 and 30 year periods the warming trend is clear, though it has stalled or greatly slowed in the past 10 years or so. Saying that the Earth will cool in the next 30 years is distinctively different from saying the Earth hasn't warmed in the past 30.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2012, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Wellington and North of South
4,000 posts, read 2,641,675 times
Reputation: 1665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambium View Post
I also want to add, naturally for humans we won't talk about something until its already happened, chances are we're at the turning point back down in the long term trend (50-100yrs) but we rather say its been warming, than "we're starting to cool or level off".. I guess its a natural thing for us.

The question is... Who's denying we have not warmed in the past 10 years. And What proof do you have? I'm open ears and yes...I love Al Gores movie and pumped the Warming thing until 2009 when I noticed the data of recent years.
I already supplied you with a link that refutes all of your points.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Weather

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top