U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

Also thanks for reminding me about FOREX. I got to sell off my CAD when the market opens tonight. I forgot to do that on Friday.

Edit it's the weekend. Nevermind

No, I'm pretty sure you left a word or two out. Thanks for copy-pasting that factually incorrect word salad again.

That isn't how radiative forcing for CO2 is calculated. I'm assuming you're referring to the general linear relationship between total RF and global mean equilibrium temperature, but what you're overlooking is that CO2 isn't the only contributor to the total RF. Sorry, it's not as simple as elementary school math.

Total RF can be separated into two categories: anthropogenic and natural. Anthropogenic includes forcings of all of the GH gases, human-associated aerosols, and even contrails (for all the conspiracy theorists out there), and natural includes solar radiance and volcanic aerosols. Each of those requires different equations based off of observational data to compute RF. (All this is explained in painstaking detail within the IPCC reports.) The important concepts of note regarding all of this though is that anthropogenic RF is much larger than natural RF and neither anthropogenic nor natural RF can account for the global increase in energy alone. This is the direct evidence you're ignoring for the sake of argument.

As for model accuracy, you've been asked before to provide something to back up your claims. Either put up or shut up.

Got you to admit that all the info provided has been guess work.

Now the question is do you think its right for the government to pass regulations based on guess work.

Only if it hurts those Republican supporters!

How exactly do you envision science to work? An educated guess (hypothesis) is systematically tested and subsequently rejected or accepted. Hypothesis testing. This is basic. You're clamping onto certain words out of context because you have no *** clue what is going on and have no intention to educate yourself at all.

Congratulations! It's not even a contest anymore. You most definitely are the biggest dipshit in P&R right now.

Webster Dictionary
Science(noun)
knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.


Hypothesis testing
1)Ask a question 2)Make a hypothesis (predict what will happen with your experiment) 3)Research your hypothesis 4)Test your hypothesis 5)Collect/organized your data 6)Results 7)Draw

The problem is that your using biased data to do your Hypothesis testing and then calling it science..

You assume that if you use the word SCIENCE. It means cold hard fact and you present it as such, even if the SCIENCE is fudged.

All the assumptions are clearly laid out in the rationale I posted and I also posted a link to a figure that plainly laid out temperature over the same time interval. They say the same exact thing. I have no other way to explain this further. Not that it would matter because you basically feel it isn't true so nothing I can link could possibly counter that.

Those need to be switched. You collect data and then test.

Not even going to get into the other crap you posted

I feel obligated to point out that Altimaomega has resorted to semantics in order to make himself seem right. That's as clear an indicator for an untenable position as you can get.

Actually there are a few definitions for the word science:

Scientific method:

Put it all together and you have the following.

Science: Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree




Statistically speaking 97% is pretty damn overwhelming.
Just ask John Oliver.

So, I have been going over this report. I am finding several inconsistencies.

A quick aside: In this, and other studies like this, they refer to "proxy temperatures" or "proxy data." These proxies refer to data collected from natural sources whose properties or biology changes with respect to ambient temperature. Examples include: tree rings, ice cores, pollen samples, soil core sample, etc... The idea is by studying the changes in these samples we can infer temperature changes in the environment indirectly. It is important to note, however, that a universally accepted method for deducing actual temperature from this data is not agreed upon and in no way offered in this report or supporting literature. So it is just as likely that these results are incorrect.

My biggest concern is how they simply “conclude” everything is due to human fault.

“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1300 years and perhaps much longer.”


This little excerpt comes from the last paragraph of page 23 of the report. (You can download a PDF version here: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads) Their first line of reasoning cites no sources, which I assume are buried in a figure or table nearby. The second line of reasoning cites one paper, source 11 for this section, “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, PAGES 2k Consortium.” This consortium is a collection of regional teams which monitor “proxy temperatures” within their own region and create data based off their findings. Pretty sweet, honestly, to see this kind of global science research happening.

You can find this paper here: http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PAGES_2k_Consortium_NatGeo_2013.pdf

So lets dig into this paper a bit shall we:

The first section

TL;DR
PAGES 2k Consortium consists of several teams which study proxies around the globe. Each team collects and catalogs their proxy data. Further, for the purposes of this article, each team uses the statistical methods which most suit their data. The purpose of different stats methods is to, to the highest degree possible,identify trends and statistical significance, while eliminating the "noise" in the best way possible for each group's specific data set. This makes sense and is practiced by anyone doing hypothesis testing. They refer to this as "reaching calibration targets" (that last bit is important later)

They also establish in this section that they focus on 30 year analysis.

Lets see what their analysis says in the "Twentieth-century reconstructed temperature" section on page 4 of the PDF.

"Our best estimate of reconstructed temperature for ad 1971–2000 can be compared with all other consecutive 30-year periods within each regional reconstruction."

"In Asia and Australasia, reconstructed temperature was higher during 1971–2000 than any other 30-year period."

Ok this backs up their assertion that temperatures are higher in the last 30 years than any time in the last 1300, for Asia and Australasia.

"The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century, although warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000 according to our reconstruction."

Um...OK so it was warmer in the 1941-1970 than the last 30 years. So would that not mean now isn't the hottest we have seen in the past 1300 years?

"In South America, the ad 1971–2000 reconstructed temperature was similar to the record maximum in ad 1251–1280."

So it was similar in 1251–1280 to what it is now. So still this isn't the hottest it has been, it is a tie. I wonder what human endeavors were causing this, must be a lot of coal burning plants in the 13th century we didn't know about.

"In North America, the reconstructed temperature for the 1971–2000 interval does not include the warm decades since 1980, and therefore underestimates the actual temperature for that interval."

I guess no one took tree samples, collected pollen, or anything else in north America in the last thirty years....weird...

"In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in ad 741–770, and the interval from ad 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000."

So it was a little hotter from 741-770 and significantly hotter in 21-80 AD than now. I'm still not seeing the claim: "last thirty years hotter than last 1300" as justifiable aside from Asia and Australasia.

"Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as ad 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000."

I will concede that it says "probably". However, they think over 1200 years of hotter than today, which is mostly within the "1300 year" time line this paper and the government report cite, is not enough to revoke their "hotter than any other time in the past 1300 years" claim? Also, the exact wording of the climate report is:

"warmer than any time in at least the last 1300 years and perhaps much longer"

Well the 1300 is blatantly contradicted in their source, and the "much longer" is as well. We see times such as the first and second century said to be hotter in some regions.


So where does this idea of it being hotter now than any time in the last 1300 years, as justification for it being induced by humans, come from? Let's read on.

/ja Spoiler <t>

Did you catch it? It is oh so not subtle at all.

"Each individual proxy record contributing to the regional reconstructions was analysed to evaluate whether the values during 1971–2000 indicate higher temperatures than for any other 30-year period (Fig. 4d,e), independent of the procedures used for calibrating the temperature reconstructions."

"independent of the procedures used for calibrating the temperature reconstructions"

So when you throw out all the error correction, accounting for variance, and reduction of noise.


You remember the procedures they used for calibration right? They were the first paragraphs I spoiler'ed up there. Detailing how and why they applied stats and filtering to things. Where they admit:

"Using standardized values circumvents regional differences in the magnitude of temperature variability, which depends on geographical factors and can be influenced by seasonal biases in some proxies."

If you keep reading past the last spoiler'ed paragraph you see:

"The area-weighted average of the best estimate of past temperature from all seven regions indicates that 1971–2000 was warmer than any other time in nearly 1,400 years (Fig. 4b), keeping in mind that this analysis does not consider the uncertainty associated with the temperature estimates, and that the reconstructions are of different lengths."

and

"Large uncertainties remain, especially during the first millennium, when only some regions are represented."


So with all this being said. How exactly can the climate report give this as a separate line of reasoning supporting the "fact" that it is now hotter than it has been in 1300 years and possibly longer AND that these temperatures are clearly unusual (which we saw from their article they are not) AND that it is directly caused by humans. From what this paper says this is only the case when you stop paying attention to statistical error and look at raw indirect data from biological process which are not exact in the slightest.

I am not saying we are not crapping all over the Earth, we certainly are. I just get beyond pissed when people present a "report" to me, expect me to take their word for it because a bunch of PhDs worked on it, and word it in such a way that it is already proven fact. They pass this sh#t off to the masses who they know can't wade through or in most cases even comprehend the resources they cite. I am also kind of sick of professionals using Student's t test as though it is the holy grail of statistical hypothesis testing. Dear god...there are better more sophisticated tests out there.

Maybe you should submit an article to a media outlet or better yet publish a paper on your critiques of the report rather than telling a video game forum. I'm sure they'll all be embarrassed once you point these things out to them.

Good job picking out all the BS, sadly it doesn't matter to the people on this site. Get ready to be called names and ran around in circles.

Why? His post is reasoned and articulate. More than I can say for most.

I really hope my first instinct is incorrect and you're actually not just a sockpuppet account of Altimaomega.

Bolded is something I was indirectly supporting earlier in this thread, before Altimaomega sailed the ship into Dumbfuckistan. The data is scientifically inconclusive as a proof right now, but I still don't think that's a reconciliation of the massive consensus of those who study climate. How many oncologists do you get second opinions from before you take the chemo? If 3 out of 100 recommended chemo, would you reject it?

I'm not implying the 3 are wrong just by popular consensus, but I very deliberately chose this analogy because what are the ramifications of taking therapy if you don't need it, versus ignoring it if you do? (And hence, it is not a strawman)

Regarding proxies: No, there is not a universally accepted method to extracting information from these sources because each method you listed is fundamentally different. What may work for tree rings may not work for ice cores. This isn't indicative of anything other than the constraints of practicing research in natural settings outside of carefully controlled conditions.

First line of reasoning doesn't require a citation. It's either basic chemistry or readily understood and accepted earth science.

As for the next line of reasoning, you're scrutinizing regional data reconstructions when it was expressly noted in your quote that annual mean temperature was averaged over all included regions. This global average is the one referred to in the report. Climate isn't uniform across the planet so of course there will be departures from the global average when numbers are examined on separate regional scales.

The Pages2k Consortium was cited to reinforce the "last 1300 years" statistic. It's worth noting that these reconstructions are far from being the only ones available.

That's not what they mean by "independent of the procedure". They're compiling all their site data and looking at the proportion of which sites meet certain criteria (i.e., are most recent years the warmest). This type of analysis would be independent of each respective record's calibration procedures. What this doesn't mean is that those calibrations were just tossed out.

To address your concerns more broadly, it is important to remember that this is but one piece of the puzzle that was presented to you. While I think that their first line of reasoning (CO2 as a GH gas) is probably the most powerful in its support for man-made global warming, you neglected to mention the third and fourth lines of reasoning, which are quite conclusive as well. Recent temperatures don't need to have been the warmest of the past 1300 years for the anthropogenic warming hypothesis to be true, but it's nice that it is as it provides further evidence. When taken all together, the most logical conclusion to draw is one of human-induced change.

Florida Finds Itself In The Eye Of The Storm On Climate Change - NY Times


Having partially grown up in Miami Beach I can tell you that this never used to happen.

There is a correlation to the current temperature increases beginning right when the Petrolchemical Revolution occurs. Same correlation with the boom of the global population.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

gimme another chance!

the moon landing was a fake!
obama was born in kenya!
global warming is a result of a thermometer company conspiracy to push up demand!

DON'T LET THE CONTEST BE OVER!

Rubio says nowai

He also said acknowledging it would be bad for business and that there is nothing that can be done to stop it. That's if you read between the lines.

Something something something RAWR IMA EAT YOUR FACE! Something something something.

Basically sums up this thread in one sentence...

What is that big glowing fireball in the sky doing up there? I bet that thing has no impact on the global temperature and its fluctuations.

What? The sun heats the planet? No, it is just man and his awesomeness changing the planet despite whatever the sun is doing...

Oh yeah that stuff that plants breathe is now a pollutant? My head hurts...

No, its the stuff that plants exhale that's the pollutant.

It allows humans to live, which is bad according to scientists.

There's a study for that.

So ignorance truly is bliss...

greenhouse gases don't heat up the planet, they trap the heat, like a greenhouse... seriously...

DAMN SON no one thought to check the sun.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

Yes! Don't let Altima snatch away that title so easily.