LAND & SEA DATA SAY MAY WAS 3rd HOTTEST!
Roger Coppock
corrected for the urban heat island effect, averaged with
derived sea surface temperature data, found at:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
says that last month was the third hottest May on the 124
year global record.
For the month of May, there were 124 year records read.
The Variance is 0.04532.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2129.
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.59 0.632 2.97
2002 14.49 0.532 2.50
2003 14.48 0.522 2.45 <--
2001 14.46 0.502 2.36
1991 14.33 0.372 1.75
1990 14.31 0.352 1.66
1988 14.30 0.342 1.61
2000 14.30 0.342 1.61
1997 14.29 0.332 1.56
1980 14.25 0.292 1.37
1983 14.24 0.282 1.33
1994 14.23 0.272 1.28
MEAN 13.958 0.000 0.00
1908 13.70 -0.258 -1.21
1923 13.70 -0.258 -1.21
1904 13.67 -0.288 -1.35
1910 13.67 -0.288 -1.35
1893 13.66 -0.298 -1.40
1909 13.66 -0.298 -1.40
1911 13.62 -0.338 -1.59
1913 13.62 -0.338 -1.59
1918 13.62 -0.338 -1.59
1890 13.61 -0.348 -1.63
1907 13.54 -0.418 -1.96
1917 13.47 -0.488 -2.29
--
"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."
-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
JohnAndrew
the month, though? Certaintly the subjective impression that many
people got was that the in the northeastern US and parts of Canada,
May was cooler than normal. Which was the impression that people like
"Convection" also were incessantly reinforcing in this newsgroup.
So, Roger, was there a certain among of disconnect here between the
global trend and the regional one? I'm not saying this in an attempt
to discredit the idea that the earth is warming, because I think it
is, and I'd agree that the global trend is the one to watch. But if
people in a given locality are getting a different impression, it's
important to address the anomalies, too.
-JohnAndrew
------
Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message news:<3EE6B179...@adnc.com>...
David Ball
wrote:
Roger, what's the point of the post? Is it any different than
Kevin the Trolls cold-weather posts? If it acceptable to give him a
hard time about his idiotic posts, why shouldn't this post be given
the same treatment?
Roger Coppock
Really, David? (Are you the real David Ball?)
Do you know the difference between weather and
climate? This post deals with global averages
from thousands of stations and 124 year time
spans. Our troll's droppings are weather
reports.
David Ball
wrote:
>>
>> Roger, what's the point of the post? Is it any different than
>> Kevin the Trolls cold-weather posts? If it acceptable to give him a
>> hard time about his idiotic posts, why shouldn't this post be given
>> the same treatment?
>
>
>Really, David? (Are you the real David Ball?)
>Do you know the difference between weather and
>climate? This post deals with global averages
>from thousands of stations and 124 year time
>spans. Our troll's droppings are weather
>reports.
So next May, if the temperature is lower, we now have a
cooling trend? Does that mean if 2003 is cooler than 2002, we have a
cooling trend? Are we going to start posting that 2004 is going to be
the hottest year on record after the first two weeks of the year?
Where does it end, Roger? One month is no different than a day in
terms of long-term climate change, Roger, and you know that as well as
I.
Instead of playing one-upmanship with the Troll, why not
acknowledge that he's an idiot and have done with it. It takes two
seconds to put the lie to everything he posts. Have you ever seen him
sit long enough to actually enter into honest discourse with anyone?
Hell, at the first sign of challenge the coward runs off and creates a
new alias for himself.
You cannot fight his use of faulty statistics by posting more
faulty statistics and in the grand scheme of things, posting these
updates really doesn't show anything meaningful.
Roger Coppock
A rising global mean temperature does not mean that
every temperature on earth rises. If the data
said uniform global rising temperatures, I would
doubt them, maybe reject them. You might want to
start by looking at GLOBAL data. Please see:
In my experience with modeling other complex systems,
addressing anomalies which are a small fraction of the
total picture, (see the map at the URL above), can
cloud one's understanding.
Ian St. John
Sounds like it to me. Trying to keep science clear and unabiguous in the
face of propaganda campaigns from both political sides. You should take his
point.
> Do you know the difference between weather and
> climate?
Do you know the difference between regional and global?
> This post deals with global averages
> from thousands of stations and 124 year time
> spans. Our troll's droppings are weather
> reports.
It is still regional climate and more indicative of the effect of climate
oscillations than global climate change. Specifically the NAO which cools
the north atlantic when in a positive phase as it has been for quite some
time now ( it used to oscillate at decadal scales ).
James
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:kdefevkehlq42vqg3...@4ax.com...
Nor can anyone use Roger's faulty statistics or your bullshit either. Why
don't you two advocates get you stories straight. Apparently David can't
acknowledge anyone else posting anything and should have his own NG whereby
he is the only poster. Roger on the other hand should just fade into the
background and resign himself to mediocrity.
JohnAndrew
"weather," that it doesn't prove that global climate change is
underway without further data, etc. But it certainly does suggest
that this year's weather data continues to be compatible with the
notion that the earth is warming, doesn't it?
---------------------
\Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message news:<3EE6B179...@adnc.com>...
Steve McGee
> The title of this newsgroup it alt.GLOBAL-warming.
> A rising global mean temperature does not mean that
> every temperature on earth rises.
By 2030, the Hadley does 'project' warmer than '1960-1990' temps
for just about everywhere on the planet.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/res_scens/pictures/HadCM3_Maps/H3GGa1_temp_20101961ann.gif
Let me know if this happens.
JohnAndrew
do, or at least you feel you do, and I can't dispute it. But perhaps
out of ignorance, I'd like to ask you whether there isn't at least
some intuitive sense in tracking - not local weather patterns, but
global ones, on a regular basis, to see if they more or less
correspond with what current theories on global warming and global
climate change would lead us to expect.
Clearly one cold or warm spell in a given area of the globe means very
little - it could be "noise" just as easily as "signal" that the
climate is changing. And perhaps one especially hot month or one
especially hot year or pair of years on a global basis doesn't mean
much either.
But for us ignorant laymen, I guess, there's something intuitively
suggestive when the pattern of warm weather or the pattern of cold
weather begins to run more or less consistently in the same direction.
I've certainly seen press releases from environmental organizations
that stress the importance of the last 10 years including - I think
the figure is that they include the 8 warmest years on record - with
the implication being that this is intuitive evidence, at least, that
the climate changes predicted by the models are worth paying attention
to.
And as an ignorant layman, I think I'd see my belief in greenhouse
warming as a theory somewhat shaken if the numbers began to start
running consistently in the opposite direction - at least without some
proferred explanation, such as the greater volcanic activity that I've
seen put forth as the explanation for the apparent reversal of
planetary warming that occurred between roughly 1945 and 1970.
If the monthly or the yearly global temperatures don't matter, David,
could you explain to the laymen out here just why? And if these
global averages are important, is there any way that an interested
layperson can track the global warming debate without simply taking on
faith what one group of scientists or the other is saying about it?
I think it's a wish to have something that's apparently solid to
anchor my belief in the theories, some kind of empirical datum, that
leads me (I can't speak for Roger) to look to the monthly climate
summaries coming out of NOAA. Well, that, and a desire to keep
Convection and "denialist" trolls like him from simply swamping the
newsgroup with articles on cold temperature anomalies, thus giving the
casual visitor to the site the sense that the entire planet is
actually cooling off.
Respectfully, JohnAndrew
-------------
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<lo2fevc4eik87thhj...@4ax.com>...
Roger Coppock
>
> Thanks, Roger. I'm sure that David Ball would say that this is just
> "weather," that it doesn't prove that global climate change is
> underway without further data, etc.
I'm totally surprised, a meteorologist who doesn't want to look
at data. Is David for real?
> But it certainly does suggest
> that this year's weather data continues to be compatible with the
> notion that the earth is warming, doesn't it?
>
Of course it is! If one claims that greenhouse gas forcing is
warming the global mean temperature, then one is obliged to
track at least two facts very closely: the total greenhouse
forcing and the global mean temperature. The latter needs
tracking on a monthly basis. Looking at monthly averages
removes seasonal variation.
Roger Coppock
>
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > The title of this newsgroup it alt.GLOBAL-warming.
> > A rising global mean temperature does not mean that
> > every temperature on earth rises.
>
> By 2030, the Hadley does 'project' warmer than '1960-1990' temps
> for just about everywhere on the planet.
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/res_scens/pictures/HadCM3_Maps/H3GGa1_temp_20101961ann.gif
>
> Let me know if this happens.
>
Very interesting, Steve, very, very, interesting! In all
other model runs I have seen, including the runs I have
made at home, there are always small cool areas, even
after 100 years. Do you have more information about this
gif file? What model and data were used?
"One who joyfully guards his mind
Roger Coppock
>
> You cannot fight his use of faulty statistics by posting more
> faulty statistics and in the grand scheme of things, posting these
> updates really doesn't show anything meaningful.
Should you find faults in my statistics, David, please
promptly give me a specific report. Until you find specific
faults, you have no basis to call my statistics faulty.
In the grand scheme of things, David, my reports are very
meaningful. In fact, they are the heart of the debate. If
one claims that anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is
warming the global mean temperature, then one is obliged to
track at least two facts very closely: greenhouse forcing
and the global mean temperature. The latter needs tracking
on a monthly basis. Looking at monthly averages removes
seasonal variation.
I am shocked that you, who claim to be a weather scientist,
think that the data are irrelevant.
David Ball
Run along, little man. Don't you know it's impolite to intrude
when the adults are speaking. You can play, but only after you figure
out the basics.
David Ball
wrote:
>David Ball wrote:
>>
>> You cannot fight his use of faulty statistics by posting more
>> faulty statistics and in the grand scheme of things, posting these
>> updates really doesn't show anything meaningful.
>
>Should you find faults in my statistics, David, please
>promptly give me a specific report. Until you find specific
>faults, you have no basis to call my statistics faulty.
The data are fine, Roger. Your use of them is inappropriate.
>
>In the grand scheme of things, David, my reports are very
>meaningful. In fact, they are the heart of the debate. If
>one claims that anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is
>warming the global mean temperature, then one is obliged to
>track at least two facts very closely: greenhouse forcing
>and the global mean temperature. The latter needs tracking
>on a monthly basis. Looking at monthly averages removes
>seasonal variation.
You're not doing that. You're playing the proverbial town
crier, "Oh Yeah! Oh Yeah! Last month was the blah, blah, blah..." None
of which is pertinent in the context of climate change. A month is
indistinguishable from a day.
Oh, and there are plenty of people tracking the trends, Roger,
and they are looking at it in far more detail than you, so you might
as well stop the, "we need to track it", nonsense.
>
>I am shocked that you, who claim to be a weather scientist,
>think that the data are irrelevant.
Data are never irrelevant. It is your interpretation that is
irrelevant.
Steve McGee
> Steve McGee wrote:
>
>>Roger Coppock wrote:
>>
>>>The title of this newsgroup it alt.GLOBAL-warming.
>>>A rising global mean temperature does not mean that
>>>every temperature on earth rises.
>>
>>By 2030, the Hadley does 'project' warmer than '1960-1990' temps
>>for just about everywhere on the planet.
>>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/res_scens/pictures/HadCM3_Maps/H3GGa1_temp_20101961ann.gif
>>
>>Let me know if this happens.
>>
>
>
> Very interesting, Steve, very, very, interesting! In all
> other model runs I have seen, including the runs I have
> made at home, there are always small cool areas, even
> after 100 years. Do you have more information about this
> gif file? What model and data were used?
Explore the different scenarios and model runs at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/index.htm
This run is described as:
"HadCM3GGa1 was forced using the historical increase in the individual
greenhouse gases from 1860-1990, and then using the individual increases
in GHGs as described in the IS95a (a 1% per year compound rise in
radiative forcing) emissions scenario (Kattenburg et al., 1996).
Tropospheric ozone was not included as its geographical distribution is
not specified in IS95a. The forcing from 1990-2100 is based upon the
IS95a emissions scenario, however it is slightly less, IS95a assumes a
forcing of 4.39Wm2 on CO2 doubling whereas HadCM3 produces a forcing of
3.74Wm2. The Figure below shows the conceptual experimental design of
the HadCM3CON, GGa1, SRES A2a and B2 integrations."
All the variations have similar distributions, some with slightly
larger cool spots, all over the north atlantic.
Roger Coppock
>
> Data are never irrelevant. It is your interpretation that is
> irrelevant.
Well then, show us your interpretation, David.
The URLs for the data are:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1
David Ball
wrote:
>David, you undoubtedly have vastly more scientific erudition than I
>do, or at least you feel you do, and I can't dispute it. But perhaps
>out of ignorance, I'd like to ask you whether there isn't at least
>some intuitive sense in tracking - not local weather patterns, but
>global ones, on a regular basis, to see if they more or less
>correspond with what current theories on global warming and global
>climate change would lead us to expect.
Which would likely explain why there are thousands of
researchers tracking those very trends, and doing it with a scope and
an understanding that goes way beyond what gets posted to usenet. What
Roger is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with such tracking. No,
he's attempting to offer counterpoint to the stupidity being posted by
Kevin the Troll, but in attempting to do that he is resorting to the
very same ignorant practices that the troll is using.
>
>Clearly one cold or warm spell in a given area of the globe means very
>little - it could be "noise" just as easily as "signal" that the
>climate is changing. And perhaps one especially hot month or one
>especially hot year or pair of years on a global basis doesn't mean
>much either.
Exactly.
>
>But for us ignorant laymen, I guess, there's something intuitively
>suggestive when the pattern of warm weather or the pattern of cold
>weather begins to run more or less consistently in the same direction.
> I've certainly seen press releases from environmental organizations
>that stress the importance of the last 10 years including - I think
>the figure is that they include the 8 warmest years on record - with
>the implication being that this is intuitive evidence, at least, that
>the climate changes predicted by the models are worth paying attention
>to.
Hmmm, and interesting paragraph. Let's see if I can perhaps
explain in more detail the dynamic that is going on....
On the one hand, you have the constituency on usenet that
believes that the sky is falling and waits with baited breath for
every news story, every editorial comment, every snippet of
information that they can use to support their position. To them,
every hot day is evidence of GW. Every storm is proof of the impact of
human beings on the climate system. Every nuance of weather is proof
that bad things are on the horizon. Alistair, Roger and a few others
come to mind.
On the other hand, you have the constituency that believes
that nothing is happening and they too wait with baited breath for
every news story, every editorial comment, every snippet of
information they can use to support their position. To them, every day
that it doesn't set a record high in their town is evidence that GW is
not happening. The lack of a trend in storm occurrence is proof that
human beings can have no impact on the climate system, despite the
fact that no trend should be occurring yet. Every local cold spell is
something that needs to be posted to usenet. Kevin the troll, James,
Titan and a few other come to mind.
Between these two diametrically opposed groups sit the
moderates, people who understand what's going on. People who realize
that this is a very serious problem, but not one requiring anyone to
run around like the proverbial headless chicken. People who realize
that modest changes to the way we do things can have positive impacts.
People who realize that draconian changes are unnecessary.
Should someone from this group put forward a moderate
position, the response from the extremes - groups 1 and 2 - will be
instantaneous.
In the case of group 1, someone will announce that the
moderate doesn't take the issue seriously or doesn't believe that the
problem is a problem. Don't laugh, Alistair has pulled this stunt with
me on numerous occasions.
In the case of group 2, normally a lot less informed that
group 1, some ignoramus who couldn't understand the most basic concept
being discussed makes an unwanted appearance to lob a turd onto
usenet, usually in the form of an op-ed piece written by some equally
stupid individual.
In neither case, will the groups concerned actually read what
is being posted; doing that would require them to put aside their
preconceived notions for a minute and actually pay attention. What's
even worse, the two extremes are so busy trying to solidify their
respective constituencies that they won't even listen to what the
other extreme is saying or doing. If they did, they'd realize that
they are so much alike it's frightening. They'd realize that they are
both using identical tactics, and they might even realize that both
are flat-out wrong.
>
>And as an ignorant layman, I think I'd see my belief in greenhouse
>warming as a theory somewhat shaken if the numbers began to start
>running consistently in the opposite direction - at least without some
>proferred explanation, such as the greater volcanic activity that I've
>seen put forth as the explanation for the apparent reversal of
>planetary warming that occurred between roughly 1945 and 1970.
So the existence of a cold month puts an end to GW for you,
even though a month is a drop in the bucket?
>
>If the monthly or the yearly global temperatures don't matter, David,
>could you explain to the laymen out here just why? And if these
>global averages are important, is there any way that an interested
>layperson can track the global warming debate without simply taking on
>faith what one group of scientists or the other is saying about it?
I never said anything about yearly temperatures. Monthly
temperatures are merely noise superimposed on the climate signal. A
single month's data is completely irrelevant, at least in the context
Roger is using them. They do not form part of a larger whole. What
Roger is doing is posting them as if to say, "See! It's warmer! That
must mean something significant. I can't tell you what it is or why it
is or how it is, but it's just got to be important!"
The problem is, it might be significant. It might not be. When
Roger posts a story like this, it's very important to his side of the
issue but completely bogus to the other extreme. Of course, when Kevin
the troll makes one of his idiotic posts, it's extremely meaningful to
the other trolls out there but complete hogwash to the other side.
>
>I think it's a wish to have something that's apparently solid to
>anchor my belief in the theories, some kind of empirical datum, that
>leads me (I can't speak for Roger) to look to the monthly climate
>summaries coming out of NOAA. Well, that, and a desire to keep
>Convection and "denialist" trolls like him from simply swamping the
>newsgroup with articles on cold temperature anomalies, thus giving the
>casual visitor to the site the sense that the entire planet is
>actually cooling off.
The monthly data coming from a variety of sources has many
uses, but they have to be placed in their proper context. As with any
data, they must be used appropriately. That isn't always easy to do.
The fact is, two wrongs don't make a right, and no matter how much you
might want to put Kevin and the other idiots in their place, they have
a right to be here. Yes, their posts are idiotic. Yes, they don't know
what they're talking about, but at the end of the day, when you have
to resort to the same tactics that they do, you're not very much
farther ahead.
David Ball
wrote:
>Thanks, Roger. I'm sure that David Ball would say that this is just
>"weather," that it doesn't prove that global climate change is
>underway without further data, etc. But it certainly does suggest
>that this year's weather data continues to be compatible with the
>notion that the earth is warming, doesn't it?
So are you planning on making a similar post in June if it is
COOLER than normal?
David Ball
wrote:
>JohnAndrew wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Roger. I'm sure that David Ball would say that this is just
>> "weather," that it doesn't prove that global climate change is
>> underway without further data, etc.
>
>I'm totally surprised, a meteorologist who doesn't want to look
>at data. Is David for real?
LOL. Roger, data is good. Your interpretation is completely
out to lunch and your lack of desire to look deeper is appalling.
>
>
>> But it certainly does suggest
>> that this year's weather data continues to be compatible with the
>> notion that the earth is warming, doesn't it?
>>
>
>Of course it is! If one claims that greenhouse gas forcing is
>warming the global mean temperature, then one is obliged to
>track at least two facts very closely: the total greenhouse
>forcing and the global mean temperature. The latter needs
>tracking on a monthly basis. Looking at monthly averages
>removes seasonal variation.
>
Now please explain cause and effect to us, Roger. Prove it!
James Acker
: David, you undoubtedly have vastly more scientific erudition than I
: do, or at least you feel you do, and I can't dispute it. But perhaps
: out of ignorance, I'd like to ask you whether there isn't at least
: some intuitive sense in tracking - not local weather patterns, but
: global ones, on a regular basis, to see if they more or less
: correspond with what current theories on global warming and global
: climate change would lead us to expect.
: Clearly one cold or warm spell in a given area of the globe means very
: little - it could be "noise" just as easily as "signal" that the
: climate is changing. And perhaps one especially hot month or one
: especially hot year or pair of years on a global basis doesn't mean
: much either.
: But for us ignorant laymen, I guess, there's something intuitively
: suggestive when the pattern of warm weather or the pattern of cold
: weather begins to run more or less consistently in the same direction.
: I've certainly seen press releases from environmental organizations
: that stress the importance of the last 10 years including - I think
: the figure is that they include the 8 warmest years on record - with
: the implication being that this is intuitive evidence, at least, that
: the climate changes predicted by the models are worth paying attention
: to.
For me, one of the most compelling compilations of proxy
evidence of global warming was the study done by John Magnuson
and colleagues (numerous, because of the data sets he consulted).
Magnuson is at the University of Wisconsin. What they did was
compile records of when the spring thaw/breakup occurred, and when
the winter freeze occurred, for many bodies of water. Some of the
records went back 150 years, most of them were at least a century
long. It was Northern Hemisphere-centric because of the difference
in continental land mass in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere.
This data compilation showed a later winter freeze by about
10 days, and an earlier spring thaw by about nine days. About a
year later a researcher published a correction that indicated these
could have been about a day generous due to the progression of the
Earth's orbit (leap year related), but it wasn't that significant.
Though from year-to-year there was variability, and each lake and
river was different, the trend was quite strong: later winter,
earlier spring.
Such a compilation factors in the NAO and the PDO and any
other climate cycles. And I can think of no other way to explain it
other than global warming.
There was a recent study in Nature that compiled numerous
different data types showing species range shifts, earlier nesting,
earlier greening (spring), etc. -- data which is similar "in
direction" to the spring thaw/winter freeze data.
It's data such as this that force the scientifically-
literate skeptics to admit that global warming is taking place.
Many of them are now abandoning that front line of denial and
moving to fallback positions: emphasizing uncertainties about
solar variability, stressing the likelihood of the lower-bound
estimates of warming in the next century and how insignificant
that would be, making clever comparisons that are picked up by
the conservative media that apparently indicate that what we're
experiencing isn't remarkably unusual, emphasizing the uncertainty
in the predictive models.
It's actually somewhat sad. I see an analogous behavior
in the Biblical creationist camp, where many of the "literate"
creationists realized how untenable the young Earth, 7-day
creation, global Noah flood "model" was, and moved to subterfuges
like Intelligent Design. As others have noted, there are also
similarities to the behavior of the tobacco companies regarding
the linkage between smoking and cancer.
: And as an ignorant layman, I think I'd see my belief in greenhouse
: warming as a theory somewhat shaken if the numbers began to start
: running consistently in the opposite direction - at least without some
: proferred explanation, such as the greater volcanic activity that I've
: seen put forth as the explanation for the apparent reversal of
: planetary warming that occurred between roughly 1945 and 1970.
: If the monthly or the yearly global temperatures don't matter, David,
: could you explain to the laymen out here just why? And if these
: global averages are important, is there any way that an interested
: layperson can track the global warming debate without simply taking on
: faith what one group of scientists or the other is saying about it?
As I noted in a response to an earlier set of warming data,
if last year was the second-warmest year and this year is the
fourth-warmest, we're in a "cooling trend". The skeptical community
will eat this up like candy and trumpet this "trend" to the press.
That's why I ended up stating a bet (never accepted) to one skeptic
here that one of these years: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, would
be at least 0.2 C warmer than 2002, based on this NOAA temperature
data. Because when you take out the
year-to-year and month-to-month variability, there's a definite
warming trend. And it's not going to stop. It may slow down
briefly, but it won't stop -- not in the near future, anyway.
: I think it's a wish to have something that's apparently solid to
: anchor my belief in the theories, some kind of empirical datum, that
: leads me (I can't speak for Roger) to look to the monthly climate
: summaries coming out of NOAA. Well, that, and a desire to keep
: Convection and "denialist" trolls like him from simply swamping the
: newsgroup with articles on cold temperature anomalies, thus giving the
: casual visitor to the site the sense that the entire planet is
: actually cooling off.
Did you read the short "Fa caldo a Roma" post I put up
yesterday?
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales
David Ball
wrote:
>David Ball wrote:
>>
>> Data are never irrelevant. It is your interpretation that is
>> irrelevant.
>
>Well then, show us your interpretation, David.
>The URLs for the data are:
>
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
>
>http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1
How many times do you need to be told the basics, Roger? Until
you can establish cause and effect all you are doing is blowing smoke.
A hot month is just a hot month until you can tell us WHY. We've been
over and over this very simple point and you keep getting it screwed
up. How many times do you have to be told that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
establish cause and effect with individual events, and make no mistake
about it, a month is too short a time to make any meaningful
statements.
David Ball
Keeping in mind, Jim, that the NAO and PDO are effects, can
you explain WHY the changes are occurring? Can you quantify from that
how strong the anthropogenic and natural signals are? Can you explain
how increases in GHG levels manifest themselves on the climate system?
Could such information be used to devise more effective mitigation
strategies?
What we've discovered is the effect. We now have one group who
believes that effect is really the answer, when it is really the
starting point for a lot of questions. We have another group who
hasn't even got the wit to understand that we discovered the effect in
the first place.
> There was a recent study in Nature that compiled numerous
>different data types showing species range shifts, earlier nesting,
>earlier greening (spring), etc. -- data which is similar "in
>direction" to the spring thaw/winter freeze data.
Again, using myriad proxy data sources, we've discovered an
effect. We've found a place to start. Why do so many people want to
treat the starting line like it's the finish? What's worse, why are so
many people running the wrong way around the track?
>
>: If the monthly or the yearly global temperatures don't matter, David,
>: could you explain to the laymen out here just why? And if these
>: global averages are important, is there any way that an interested
>: layperson can track the global warming debate without simply taking on
>: faith what one group of scientists or the other is saying about it?
>
> As I noted in a response to an earlier set of warming data,
>if last year was the second-warmest year and this year is the
>fourth-warmest, we're in a "cooling trend". The skeptical community
>will eat this up like candy and trumpet this "trend" to the press.
>That's why I ended up stating a bet (never accepted) to one skeptic
>here that one of these years: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, would
>be at least 0.2 C warmer than 2002, based on this NOAA temperature
>data. Because when you take out the
>year-to-year and month-to-month variability, there's a definite
>warming trend. And it's not going to stop. It may slow down
>briefly, but it won't stop -- not in the near future, anyway.
Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Climate
is, by definition, a long term feature of the atmosphere/ocean system.
Daily and monthly data are mere blips.
James Acker
: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:38:17 +0000 (UTC), James Acker
: <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Getting to the WHY -- in other words, to accurately attribute
causation -- is the province of modeling. Below you allude to the
"first step"; the first step is a basic acknowledgment that global
warming/climate change is taking place, and soundly defeating the
skeptics on that point. Only in the last 2-3 years has that occurred,
and there are still holdouts.
The next step is to quantify, and there's a long way to go.
James Hansen believe that black soot aerosols contribute to warming,
and now we read that aerosols have mitigated some of the warming
effects of increasing atmospheric CO2. So just the "mere" question
of how increasing GHG concentrations affect the climate system is
still unquantified. The models are improving; by 2008 (the next
IPCC report), the field will be much further along. But it won't
be conclusive even then.
: What we've discovered is the effect. We now have one group who
: believes that effect is really the answer, when it is really the
: starting point for a lot of questions. We have another group who
: hasn't even got the wit to understand that we discovered the effect in
: the first place.
True and true.
:> There was a recent study in Nature that compiled numerous
:>different data types showing species range shifts, earlier nesting,
:>earlier greening (spring), etc. -- data which is similar "in
:>direction" to the spring thaw/winter freeze data.
: Again, using myriad proxy data sources, we've discovered an
: effect. We've found a place to start. Why do so many people want to
: treat the starting line like it's the finish? What's worse, why are so
: many people running the wrong way around the track?
Refer to my first section. Nailing down that the effect is
real, and in all probability non-natural, is a very significant
advance. It amounts to a victory, but it's only a set: the match
is far from over.
:>: If the monthly or the yearly global temperatures don't matter, David,
:>: could you explain to the laymen out here just why? And if these
:>: global averages are important, is there any way that an interested
:>: layperson can track the global warming debate without simply taking on
:>: faith what one group of scientists or the other is saying about it?
:>
:> As I noted in a response to an earlier set of warming data,
:>if last year was the second-warmest year and this year is the
:>fourth-warmest, we're in a "cooling trend". The skeptical community
:>will eat this up like candy and trumpet this "trend" to the press.
:>That's why I ended up stating a bet (never accepted) to one skeptic
:>here that one of these years: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, would
:>be at least 0.2 C warmer than 2002, based on this NOAA temperature
:>data. Because when you take out the
:>year-to-year and month-to-month variability, there's a definite
:>warming trend. And it's not going to stop. It may slow down
:>briefly, but it won't stop -- not in the near future, anyway.
: Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Climate
: is, by definition, a long term feature of the atmosphere/ocean system.
: Daily and monthly data are mere blips.
Correct. Which is why when Daly and the Idsiots and a couple
others start shouting "We're cooling down! We're cooling down!",
I'll have a few crystals of halite.
Roger Coppock
Yes
David Ball
wrote:
>David Ball wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2003 18:53:48 -0700, AJFee...@yahoo.com (JohnAndrew)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks, Roger. I'm sure that David Ball would say that this is just
>> >"weather," that it doesn't prove that global climate change is
>> >underway without further data, etc. But it certainly does suggest
>> >that this year's weather data continues to be compatible with the
>> >notion that the earth is warming, doesn't it?
>> So are you planning on making a similar post in June if it is
>> COOLER than normal?
>
>Yes
Then you're better than most.
JohnAndrew
whether the weather seems cooler or warmer than normal.
From the limited scientific background I got on the greenhouse theory
in college, I have come to believe that the world in fact is heating
up, and I think most of the recent scientific research on the subject
confirms this.
But I also think that all human models of the world are just that -
models of the world, and I think it makes sense to keep checking the
empirical data, to the extent we can understand it, to perform a
running check on whether the data seems to confirm the models. If it
doesn't, we need to realize this.
I also think it's important for large numbers of people to come to
some kind of agreement over what the global climate data does and does
not show, what the trends in global climate really seem to be. And I
think most people won't accept this on faith, nor should they.
Instead, they're going to need to see for themselves, to the extent
that they can see and understand, just what the trends are.
Now, I realize that this approach is intellectually crude, that I'm
scientifically not very sophisticated, and that people who are more
sophisticated may need to challenge what I write in order to expose
anyone who reads me to a much more nuanced way of reading and
interpreting the data.
It may be that simply reading the data and putting the most
common-sense interpretation on it is a sadly mistaken way to proceed,
and if so, then we ordinary people out here need to know that.
Which is why people like you are essential, IMHO.
But yes, I do think it makes sense for even fairly ordinary,
unsophisticated people to keep up on what the latest weather data seem
to be, given the huge noisy debate that's underway between "greenhouse
believers" and "greenhouse deniers" over what's actually happening
with the atmosphere.
In this regard, I like something that William Blake wrote in "The
Marriage of Heaven and Hell," which is that "The Road of Excess leads
to the Palace of Wisdom," and that "If the Fool would persevere in his
Folly, he would become wise."
If even a fool like me perseveres for long enough in paying attention
to global weather trends, I believe, he/she will eventually "become
wise" about trends in climate. Although admittedly, it may take a
long, long time.
And although admittedly, the Fool may need a lot of help. ;-)
-----------
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<1v2hevc9frgbuvam5...@4ax.com>...
David Ball
wrote:
>David - Yes, I guess I'm committed to making a similar post in June,
>whether the weather seems cooler or warmer than normal.
And at the end of the day, what will you be able to say? It
was cooler. OK. Have you learned anything? No. Roger hasn't either.
>
>From the limited scientific background I got on the greenhouse theory
>in college, I have come to believe that the world in fact is heating
>up, and I think most of the recent scientific research on the subject
>confirms this.
Again, this falls into the so-what category. You've identified
an already well-known effect. What's the next step? The basic
scientific next step is always a question. Why not start with, "Why?"
Trouble is, when all you're interested in is stating the obvious,
"It's getting warmer", you're not asking Why? That makes assessing
cause and effect rather difficult, don't you think?
>
>But I also think that all human models of the world are just that -
>models of the world, and I think it makes sense to keep checking the
>empirical data, to the extent we can understand it, to perform a
>running check on whether the data seems to confirm the models. If it
>doesn't, we need to realize this.
If I cut my self with a knife, I don't need to cut myself
again and again to prove that I did it in the first place. I might
want to investigate ways NOT to cut myself again.
>
>I also think it's important for large numbers of people to come to
>some kind of agreement over what the global climate data does and does
>not show, what the trends in global climate really seem to be. And I
>think most people won't accept this on faith, nor should they.
>Instead, they're going to need to see for themselves, to the extent
>that they can see and understand, just what the trends are.
That's what the scientific community is doing. Usenet will not
be the proving ground for the validity of the science.
>
>Now, I realize that this approach is intellectually crude, that I'm
>scientifically not very sophisticated, and that people who are more
>sophisticated may need to challenge what I write in order to expose
>anyone who reads me to a much more nuanced way of reading and
>interpreting the data.
It isn't that at all. Why we're dealing with is hypocricy. How
can people on the one hand complain about nonsense posts by others
then turn around and do the very same thing themselves?
>
>It may be that simply reading the data and putting the most
>common-sense interpretation on it is a sadly mistaken way to proceed,
>and if so, then we ordinary people out here need to know that.
>Which is why people like you are essential, IMHO.
Common sense to who? That's the problem. What's common sense
to one extreme is hardly that for the other. The truth lies in the
middle and is spelled out by the science.
>
>But yes, I do think it makes sense for even fairly ordinary,
>unsophisticated people to keep up on what the latest weather data seem
>to be, given the huge noisy debate that's underway between "greenhouse
>believers" and "greenhouse deniers" over what's actually happening
>with the atmosphere.
Absolutely. Keep up with the latest information. Get informed.
Try to understand and then ask questions. At the end of the day, John
Q. Public will have the ultimate say in how policy is shaped.
One word of caution. The debate you see raging, really isn't.
What you have are a few individuals, very vocal individuals, making
largely unsupported statements in the media. That does not a serious
challenge make.
>
>In this regard, I like something that William Blake wrote in "The
>Marriage of Heaven and Hell," which is that "The Road of Excess leads
>to the Palace of Wisdom," and that "If the Fool would persevere in his
>Folly, he would become wise."
Again, I agree completely. I simply don't see the need to
overstate the case. This is already a serious issue without the need
for outrageous sensationalism. What the public desperately needs is
the truth. They don't need to hear that the sky is falling, because it
isn't. They also don't need to hear that nothing is happening, because
it is. Good public policy will not be developed until the public is
given the honest truth, and not the half-truths and no truths
currently being spread. If you want to see the games currently being
played out in the real world, merely look at this forum. It's a
microcosm.
>
> If even a fool like me perseveres for long enough in paying attention
>to global weather trends, I believe, he/she will eventually "become
>wise" about trends in climate. Although admittedly, it may take a
>long, long time.
>And although admittedly, the Fool may need a lot of help. ;-)
>
Again, paying attention is good. Attempting to leap without
first determining where your feet currently are is a recipe for a
serious problem.
JohnAndrew
I don't know if you've ever read the "Prison Diaries" of the Italian
Eurocommunist leader Antonio Gramsci, but he writes a great thing in
there somewhere.
At least in the translation I read, Gramsci writes: "Only the truth is
revolutionary."
I think he could equally have written that "only the truth" is
"conservative," or Christian, or Humanist, or "environmental," or
whatever you choose to name - but truth should be what it's all about,
shouldn't it? It's simpler to defend in the long run than any fiction.
That's why this continuing Internet debate/discussion/shouting match
on global warming is important - so that we can all eventually hammer
out something that looks like it may be the truth. Which hopefully
will make some of us "free," or at least freer to make better
decisions.
----
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2qihevof2d7ekirip...@4ax.com>...
Phil Hays
> Well then, show us your interpretation,
The oceans store heat, and to a large extent, ocean surface temperatures
determine much of the climate patterns we observe. As it takes somewhat
more than a decade for the ocean's "mixed layer" to come to an
equilibrium with a change in surface temperature, samples of surface
temperature spaced closer than a decade are mostly taking samples of the
same climate.
As an "exercise for the student", calculate how long it would take for
the roughly 2.2 W/m*m increase in radiative forcing (as of 1985) to warm
the surface "mixed layer" of 100 meters of the ocean by center estimate
of equilibrium warming of roughly 1.5K. Think of this number as a very
roughly "ocean time constant".
Of course, this ignores a lot of the complexity of ocean circulation,
land surface responses, etc. But the conclusion should be robust: time
intervals shorter than a decade just don't matter much.
So while the daily MSU or surface data might be interesting from a
weather point of view, as are the monthly and seasonal averages, the
decade averages are where we see a climate signal. Yearly averages are
almost interesting.
Or at least that's my interpretation.
--
Phil Hays