[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm open to wagering the next ten years will be cooler than the last ten years. Any takers?

You're on. Pint of Kilkenny on the line.

Done.

See you July 21, 2020.

The Sticky Wicket if you're ever kicking around Victoria by then!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

God Man, did you not click the link?

$1:

From the “weather is not climate” department,

My point was, if you're going to present a questionable claim on a hot month as evidence we're all gonna die from CO2 induced warming, then any weather nuance becomes evidence of any trend you want to push - warming or cooling.

Watts is a meteorologist, and you'll get news about weather, and climate, but weather always comes with a disclaimer like - "From the “weather is not climate” department".

Anybody who reads Watts knows weather is not climate. The same cannot be said about readers of propaganda press releases pimped out by tainted government, and non-governmental organizations to the mainstream media.

I don't think so. Try reading some of the comments beneath Mr. Watt's blog and it'll become evident pretty quickly that many readers of Watt's blog do not make the distinction between weather and climate--a fact that Mr. Watt exploits, despite his disclaimer.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What's interesting here is that increased precipitation is actually indicative of warming that's caused an up-tempo hydrological cycle. I'll be the first to admit that.

But see, that's counter to the AGW belief that global warming causes droughts. Actual warming causes increased precipitation and logically reduces drought and desertification. Desertification is evidence of a reduced hydrological cycle as was seen in the last ice age when portions of northern Europe were reduced to desert and more of the world's surface was desert than is now.

Well, that's the thing, eh? Any weather anomaly - wet, dry, hot, cold, stormy, mild is presented as "consistent with the models". The same is true about climate. Did you not hear Hurley a few posts back claiming a 30 year cooling trend would not discredit global warming theory?

So the thing is the theory cannot be falsified. Anything can be offered as evidence in support, but nothing discredits it.

However one of the tenets of the scientific method is you must be able to falsify your theory. Some set of circumstances must exist by which your theory can be proven false in order for it to be considered scientific. With global warming theory this does not exist, so what does that say?

What theory is it that your are trying to falsify? I would suggest that if you are trying to falsify the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you'd have a long way to go. The radiative properteis of carbon dioxide are readily demonstrable in any laboratory.

Are you trying to falisfy the theory that CO2 is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere?

If you accept that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you must establish a superior theory to AGW. You must explain why the planet is cooling (according to Bart) when the CO2 is going up.

Now Infidel and I are in a different position. We readily accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it is increasing. We take issue with the climate sensitivity being greater than 1. Now, since we are dealing with the ecosystem feedback response, you have a way harder time trying to "falsify" the "consensus" opinion on climate sensitivity. I'm not even sure, in that case, if we are falsifying the theory as opposed to tweaking it to get abetter value for teh climate sensitivity.

[hurley_108]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Well, that's the thing, eh? Any weather anomaly - wet, dry, hot, cold, stormy, mild is presented as "consistent with the models". The same is true about climate. Did you not hear Hurley a few posts back claiming a 30 year cooling trend would not discredit global warming theory?

That is not at all what I said. If there's a 30 year cooling trend on the end of a much longer warming trend, and that cooling fails to cancel out the earlier warming, what's going on? Is global warming over as soon as we get a 30-year cooling trend? What happens if the year after the 30-year trend goes negative, it goes positive again? Is global warming happening again?

You've brought up a good point: What is the standard? Over what period of time does a trend get to say whether we're in global warming or global cooling? 1 year? Clearly not. The entire temperature record? Maybe. Let's take a look at it. Here's a chart of the slope of the entire temperature record, starting at the beginning, and running to a given point:

0:

entire.PNG [ 47.3 KiB | Viewed 104 times ]

As you can see it's pretty jittery at the start, but by about 1890 it starts to settle down a bit. From about 1896 to 1911 it shows a warming trend (increasing warming to about 1902, then the rate of warming slows back to zero at 1911). From 1911 to 1920 it goes back and forth, but from 1920 to present, it's been a warming trend. The rate of warming reached a peak in 1947, and then retreated to 1980, and has been climbing again since. The pink, yellow, and blue lines are the 1-year, 10-year, and 30-year trends respectively. The 30 year looks somewhat calm, so let's take a look at it:

1:

30-year.PNG [ 51.59 KiB | Viewed 102 times ]

The 30-year trend starts in 1910, and from that point to about 1917 oscillates about zero before being a very slight cooling trend to 1927. From 1927 to 1964 it's a warming trend with a maximum warming rate in 1946. From 1964 to 1974 it's cooling with a maximum cooling rate in 1967. In 1977 it touched zero again after a slight warming, but has since then been a warming trend. The 30 year average, as we see, is somewhat variable. It is too variable to define global warming or global cooling, or is it steady enough for that purpose? That may be a matter of opinion, but as the 30-year trend can give warming figures which back-calculate to the -30s in the year 0, I'd still say it's unreliable.

I cleaned up teh chart at this point, dropping the 1- and 10-year trends and adding 70- and 100-year trends:

2:

30-70-100-year.PNG [ 24.54 KiB | Viewed 106 times ]

The 30 is now pink, 70 is yellow, and 100 is blue. The 70- and 100- year trends have been always warming since their starts in 1950 and 1980 respectively.

This, of course, doesn't tell us what time-scale to pick on which to base a determination of global warming or global cooling. Some are clearly higly erratic and some are relatively sedate. Unless there is some physical reason to choose one, any set time period chosen will be chosen based on the person's biases.

I would argue that the trend since records started being kept is the best we can do, and the freest from bias. Therefore, if that trend ever goes to zero or crosses into the negative, THAT would herald the end of global warming.

Since this record reaches almost back to the industrial revolution, unless there is a de-industrial revolution, such an end to global warming would be the death-knell of anthropogenic global warming, as anthropogenic influence would clearly be no match for the other, overriding influences.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Well, that's the thing, eh? Any weather anomaly - wet, dry, hot, cold, stormy, mild is presented as "consistent with the models". The same is true about climate. Did you not hear Hurley a few posts back claiming a 30 year cooling trend would not discredit global warming theory?

So the thing is the theory cannot be falsified. Anything can be offered as evidence in support, but nothing discredits it.

However one of the tenets of the scientific method is you must be able to falsify your theory. Some set of circumstances must exist by which your theory can be proven false in order for it to be considered scientific. With global warming theory this does not exist, so what does that say?

No, not just any weather anomaly, but what I'm saying is that increased precipitation and the retreat of deserts are indications of an increased hydrological cycle which would be actual evidence of warming.

This was the measure of warming before it became a political issue.

AGW cultists assert the ascientific notion that global warming causes bigger, more powerful and more frequent rain storms (hurricanes) which flood places that are magically and simultaneously afflicted by droughts. How more rain equates with more drought in the same location completely eludes me.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

(charts and etc. edited for space - no offense)

Hurley, no offense, but using charts and graphs to justify the factuality of theories that were generated with said charts and graphs is akin to using the Bible to justify the Bible.

The bottom line in the AGW debate is that some people vehemently believe in it while others (like myself) don't. At this point I doubt you or I can change anyone's mind to our point of view.

I'm content to meet Zip at the Sticky Wicket 10 years hence and see who's buying the beer and then I'll consider the matter at rest. You're welcome to join us.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

(charts and etc. edited for space - no offense)

Hurley, no offense, but using charts and graphs to justify the factuality of theories that were generated with said charts and graphs is akin to using the Bible to justify the Bible.

The bottom line in the AGW debate is that some people vehemently believe in it while others (like myself) don't. At this point I doubt you or I can change anyone's mind to our point of view.

I'm content to meet Zip at the Sticky Wicket 10 years hence and see who's buying the beer and then I'll consider the matter at rest. You're welcome to join us.

And on what basis will you be deciding who buys the beer?

[Zipperfish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

And on what basis will you be deciding who buys the beer?

Temperature. Failing that--arm wrestle for who has to pay the first round.

[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

And on what basis will you be deciding who buys the beer?

Temperature. Failing that--arm wrestle for who has to pay the first round.

Temperature. In other words, data. A chart is just a visual representation of data, so why is his use of data any more valid than mine?

[ASLplease]

Fail!

[hurley_108]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Fail!

Hello, and welcome to an adult conversation.

[ASLplease]

a picture is worth a thousand WTFs

[ASLplease]

Dang! its a dog gone darn guod ting AWG didnt happen before Katrina!!!!

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

AGW cultists assert the ascientific notion that global warming causes bigger, more powerful and more frequent rain storms (hurricanes) which flood places that are magically and simultaneously afflicted by droughts. How more rain equates with more drought in the same location completely eludes me.

Fasten your seat belt.

China is experiencing it's worst drought in 50 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8587516.stm

Entire lakes are disappearing.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures ... hotos.html

Yet flooding in China has killed 700+ this year alone.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

A tropical storm is on the way to southern China, to give it another kick in the teeth.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/c ... 408372.htm

This is the critical difference between 'climate' and 'weather'. The long term trend is drought. The short term trend is way too much rain for the ground to absorb.

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Mr. Watt must be desperate. It's unusual for him to suggest that regional temerpatures are indicative of global averages. I expect that from the troglodytes, but Watt used to aim higher.

God Man, did you not click the link?

$1:

From the “weather is not climate” department,

My point was, if you're going to present a questionable claim on a hot month as evidence we're all gonna die from CO2 induced warming, then any weather nuance becomes evidence of any trend you want to push - warming or cooling.

Watts is a meteorologist, and you'll get news about weather, and climate, but weather always comes with a disclaimer like - "From the “weather is not climate” department".

Anybody who reads Watts knows weather is not climate. The same cannot be said about readers of propaganda press releases pimped out by tainted government, and non-governmental organizations to the mainstream media.

No, it does not.