Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The "Pause" in Global Warming

tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:19:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
2014 ranked as the world's warmest year since 1880. [https://www.nasa.gov...] NOAA research published in Science suggests that the pause is merely a "mirage" caused by survey methods. [http://www.sciencemag.org...] HADCRUT4 data presents a trend of 0.165 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1970 to 2015. HADCRUT4 also presents a trend of 0.110 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1900 to 1945, meaning the 1970 - 2015 trend represents a *rise* in temperature rise. The "pause" claims a lack of warming for 20 years, so let me use a model of 20 years from 1900 to 1920, and from 1995 to 2015. It shows a 0.015 degrees C rise per decade from 1900 to 1920, and 0.107 degrees C rise per decade from 1995 to 2015. Meaning there has been a *significant* rise, per HADCRUT4 data. [http://www.skepticalscience.com...] How many of you actually buy the "global warming hiatus," and why?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:12:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:19:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
NOAA research published in Science suggests that the pause is merely a "mirage" caused by survey methods.

It opens up a contradiction that is what lead me to actually look at their data. A few years ago the Hiatus was explained away as caused by a series of 17 volcanoes. Now it's being explained away as an issue that can be erased with weighting.

The explanations are in clear contradiction, and proves that one, or both are completely wrong. The problem with weighting is that it requires a known truth to generate the weight. In most sampling methodologies we weight the populations based on much better Census data that is considered the known truth. What known truth is NASA, and NOAA using that wouldn't have been better, and just dump the old data? Satellite data would work, but doesn't exist for the time period they're using it on the most, the early half of last century.

Weighting is the Statisticians tool for fixing data when they don't have enough money to do the full study, and the unreputables tool of choice to make data say what they want it to say. It leads to confirmation bias, and nothing they presented makes me believe their weighting was nothing other than to remove the Hiatus from the argument. This kind of behavior is what has lead to 60% of published studies failing to be reproducible in psychology journals, and much worse in medical journals. Am I expected to believe that Climatology is immune to these abuses?

There was honestly a better method for accounting for the bias, and the fact that they've avoided it made me suspicious.
Aran55633
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2015 12:15:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm all for global warming. How else are we going to excavate for fossils under the ice sheets?

Bring on the warming! I wanna find some Antarctic dinos!
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 3:43:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The latest study from Stanford that uses a number of data sets. Obviously data scientists never have perfect data to start with, so I like how they use the different data sets to evaluate four different hypothesis.

Hyphoesis 3 states:

For Method A, when x1998 is used as a substitute for _6;1998, the statistical test concludes that the mean has decreased during the hiatus, and thus strongly favors the hiatus claim. However, since this one single observed value is not a consistent estimate of _6;1998, the conclusion is not reliable. In Method B when _6;1998 is estimated from the 1950"1997 regression line, the null hypothesis is rejected in the opposite direction, suggesting that the mean temperature has actually increased during the hiatus period. Thus, the selection effect from choosing 1998 as the reference cut-off year has a tremendous impact on the statistical
conclusion


Here is a little blurb on their technique and level of manipulation of the data before analysis for hypothesis 4.

We have also implemented our methodology on the recently released ERSSTv4 dataset to
compare our results to the results obtained in a recent paper by Karl et al. (2015). Unlike the study by Karl et al. (2015), we do not indirectly impose Gaussianity on the temperature data (in the most general approach that we propose for each hypothesis). We also do not impose an autoregressive structure for modeling the temporal dependence. Instead we account for the temporal dependency more flexibly and non-parametrically using the circular block bootstrap and related methods. The increased sophistication allows one to have more confidence in the results" general validity as our approach makes fewer assumptions.


The full paper can be obtained here:
http://link.springer.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 2:02:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:15:29 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
I'm all for global warming. How else are we going to excavate for fossils under the ice sheets?

Bring on the warming! I wanna find some Antarctic dinos!

(1) This is in no way relevant to the OP, which regards entirely the global warming *hiatus,* and does not hold this as a "Global Warming Discussion Thread."

(2) I hope -- for your own sake -- that you are trolling.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Gallader20
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 1:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/18/2015 12:15:29 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
I'm all for global warming. How else are we going to excavate for fossils under the ice sheets?

Bring on the warming! I wanna find some Antarctic dinos!

I agree with you
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 2:06:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know that this isn't a generic global warming thread, but wouldn't it benefit Europe (especially northern Europe), Russia, Canada, Alaska, Iceland, and Svalbard?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Aran55633
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 7:11:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 2:06:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I know that this isn't a generic global warming thread, but wouldn't it benefit Europe (especially northern Europe), Russia, Canada, Alaska, Iceland, and Svalbard?

It will almost certainly be a detriment to the local fauna and flora, just as any change would be.

And in addition, the permafrost serves to store carbon. As that carbon is released, it will feed into the current trend and further accelerate the rate at which the Earth's temperature is warming.

But I will say that I don't much care for the folks who claim that this is apocalyptic in nature. The current temperature is cooler now than the average (permanent polar ice caps are a recent phenomenon). It's not like life on Earth was any less successful when the temperature was warmer. We may need to adjust, but humans managed to adjust 11,000 years ago when the Earth warmed and much of the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 7:11:51 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 2:06:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I know that this isn't a generic global warming thread, but wouldn't it benefit Europe (especially northern Europe), Russia, Canada, Alaska, Iceland, and Svalbard?

It will almost certainly be a detriment to the local fauna and flora, just as any change would be.

And in addition, the permafrost serves to store carbon. As that carbon is released, it will feed into the current trend and further accelerate the rate at which the Earth's temperature is warming.

But I will say that I don't much care for the folks who claim that this is apocalyptic in nature. The current temperature is cooler now than the average (permanent polar ice caps are a recent phenomenon). It's not like life on Earth was any less successful when the temperature was warmer. We may need to adjust, but humans managed to adjust 11,000 years ago when the Earth warmed and much of the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared.

how many humans were on the earth 11,000 years ago and what would have happened 11,000 years ago if there were 6 to 7 billion humans, a majority on the coast?
Aran55633
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 10:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:50:18 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 7:11:51 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 2:06:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I know that this isn't a generic global warming thread, but wouldn't it benefit Europe (especially northern Europe), Russia, Canada, Alaska, Iceland, and Svalbard?

It will almost certainly be a detriment to the local fauna and flora, just as any change would be.

And in addition, the permafrost serves to store carbon. As that carbon is released, it will feed into the current trend and further accelerate the rate at which the Earth's temperature is warming.

But I will say that I don't much care for the folks who claim that this is apocalyptic in nature. The current temperature is cooler now than the average (permanent polar ice caps are a recent phenomenon). It's not like life on Earth was any less successful when the temperature was warmer. We may need to adjust, but humans managed to adjust 11,000 years ago when the Earth warmed and much of the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared.

how many humans were on the earth 11,000 years ago and what would have happened 11,000 years ago if there were 6 to 7 billion humans, a majority on the coast?

More than anything, I was simply suggesting that many of the "alarmists" exaggerate the effects and make predictions which can't actually be proven. Indeed, some of these predictions already appear to have been false.

On what you said, though... Many groups of humans were displaced by the rising waters, as you certainly realize. Indeed, we have evidence of humans inhabiting areas now occupied by the Great Barrier Reef, those areas having been above sea level and fully attached to Australia during the previous glacial. Rather than just drown in the slowly rising waters, those groups adapted.

The same can be said of us. If anything, we are more capable of handling this issue than our distant ancestors were, and we know that it's coming, gradually, over a very long period of time. We can cope.
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 12:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 10:17:55 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:50:18 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 7:11:51 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 2:06:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I know that this isn't a generic global warming thread, but wouldn't it benefit Europe (especially northern Europe), Russia, Canada, Alaska, Iceland, and Svalbard?

It will almost certainly be a detriment to the local fauna and flora, just as any change would be.

And in addition, the permafrost serves to store carbon. As that carbon is released, it will feed into the current trend and further accelerate the rate at which the Earth's temperature is warming.

But I will say that I don't much care for the folks who claim that this is apocalyptic in nature. The current temperature is cooler now than the average (permanent polar ice caps are a recent phenomenon). It's not like life on Earth was any less successful when the temperature was warmer. We may need to adjust, but humans managed to adjust 11,000 years ago when the Earth warmed and much of the Pleistocene megafauna disappeared.

how many humans were on the earth 11,000 years ago and what would have happened 11,000 years ago if there were 6 to 7 billion humans, a majority on the coast?

More than anything, I was simply suggesting that many of the "alarmists" exaggerate the effects and make predictions which can't actually be proven.

How do you "prove" a prediction other than by it actually eventuating?

Indeed, some of these predictions already appear to have been false.

On what you said, though... Many groups of humans were displaced by the rising waters, as you certainly realize. Indeed, we have evidence of humans inhabiting areas now occupied by the Great Barrier Reef, those areas having been above sea level and fully attached to Australia during the previous glacial. Rather than just drown in the slowly rising waters, those groups adapted.

They were hunter-gatherers. Are you suggesting that this is the situation in Australian coastal towns and cities today?

The same can be said of us. If anything, we are more capable of handling this issue than our distant ancestors were, and we know that it's coming, gradually, over a very long period of time. We can cope.

Unfortunately it's not going to play out slowly, that is the issue. We are talking about a global rise of 2 degrees or more in an eyeblink in geologic terms. Sure humanity will cope. That "coping" may entail a sudden population drop, especially in Asia when meltwater from the Himalayas reduces due to a diminished snow cover. The prospect of millions dying from water shortages and famines may not cause you much concern but governments around the world are worried.

Some of the largely unforseen consequences of rapid global warming are already coming into view:

http://www.smh.com.au...

"I was formerly somewhat sceptical about the notion that the ocean 'conveyor belt' circulation pattern could weaken abruptly in response to global warming. Yet this now appears to be under way, as we showed in a recent article, and as we now appear to be witnessing before our very eyes in the form of an anomalous blob of cold water in the subpolar North Atlantic," Mann said via email.

Rahmstorf also commented via email: "The fact that a record-hot planet Earth coincides with a record-cold northern Atlantic is quite stunning. There is strong evidence - not just from our study - that this is a consequence of the long-term decline of the Gulf Stream System, i.e., the Atlantic ocean's overturning circulation AMOC, in response to global warming."
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 1:41:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:19:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
2014 ranked as the world's warmest year since 1880. [https://www.nasa.gov...] NOAA research published in Science suggests that the pause is merely a "mirage" caused by survey methods. [http://www.sciencemag.org...] HADCRUT4 data presents a trend of 0.165 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1970 to 2015. HADCRUT4 also presents a trend of 0.110 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1900 to 1945, meaning the 1970 - 2015 trend represents a *rise* in temperature rise. The "pause" claims a lack of warming for 20 years, so let me use a model of 20 years from 1900 to 1920, and from 1995 to 2015. It shows a 0.015 degrees C rise per decade from 1900 to 1920, and 0.107 degrees C rise per decade from 1995 to 2015. Meaning there has been a *significant* rise, per HADCRUT4 data. [http://www.skepticalscience.com...] How many of you actually buy the "global warming hiatus," and why?

I don't by almost any of this Climate Change stuff. I do think Climate Change exist and i can see it being possible that man is effecting it, but i think that it is completely blown out of proportion.
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 12:50:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The evolution of climate change denial:

1. Climate change? Nah, the climate can't change.
2. The climate is not changing. Prove it.
3. Humans are too puny to affect the climate. Don't be silly.
4. Hm. Perhaps the climate is changing but it's not humans causing it.
5. Ok, humans are contributing to climate change but it's minor.
6. Climate change is real but there is nothing to worry about, we will cope.
7. Gee it's getting hot. Why haven't science and government done anything?
8. Help!

We are at about 5 or 6 at the moment.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2015 6:33:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:19:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
2014 ranked as the world's warmest year since 1880. [https://www.nasa.gov...] NOAA research published in Science suggests that the pause is merely a "mirage" caused by survey methods. [http://www.sciencemag.org...] HADCRUT4 data presents a trend of 0.165 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1970 to 2015. HADCRUT4 also presents a trend of 0.110 degrees Celsius rise per decade from 1900 to 1945, meaning the 1970 - 2015 trend represents a *rise* in temperature rise. The "pause" claims a lack of warming for 20 years, so let me use a model of 20 years from 1900 to 1920, and from 1995 to 2015. It shows a 0.015 degrees C rise per decade from 1900 to 1920, and 0.107 degrees C rise per decade from 1995 to 2015. Meaning there has been a *significant* rise, per HADCRUT4 data. [http://www.skepticalscience.com...] How many of you actually buy the "global warming hiatus," and why?

The reason for claiming a pause in global warming is that a straight line fit to the satellite data since 1996 to the present shows no statistically significant increase. Satellite data is probably more reliable than HADCru data because it samples the whole earth, rather than just the limited number of ground stations that HADCru uses. Also, HADcru doesn't account for heat increases caused by urban buildup near weather stations. We are now entering an El Nino period that will probably produce a temperature spike like the one in 1996. If the 1996 pattern repeats, we will have some cool years after a few warm ones.

Temperatures have wandered up and down for periods of decades, so picking 1900 to 1920 as some sort of reference is arbitrary. Just putting a line through all the data since 1850 shows variations equally around a very slow increase of roughly a degree per century.

The official estimate of global warming, blessed by the IPCC, is warming of of 0.275 degree per decade. Everyone, skeptical scientists and crisis-believing scientists alike, agree that CO2 should produce the same temperature increase per decade. Skeptics have said from the outset of the controversy that they expect roughly one degree of warming per century. That's interesting, but does not predict a crisis. For example, sea level has increased about 3.5 inches since WWII, so we ought to prepare for about 5 inches more in the next hundred years. The claim that increases are running around 0.11 degree per decade means the global warming skeptics were correct and crisis advocates are wrong.