Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 213. (Read 636458 times)

hmmm....a quick look at historical degree days 1900-2013 shows what's likely statistically significant COOLING for that region, starting about the midpoint 1950-1960.

basic data are here

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive

Looks like to post a chart on this forum I first have to put it on an image hosting service.  Maybe I'll try to figure out, right now it too damn cold around here to do much...

LOL...

I grew up in St.Louis. As I kid we played hockey all winter and dug tunnels in the snow drifts. Now St. Louis is like the south. There is hardly a winter at all, mostly sleet and cold rain. I believe I'm going to die on a different planet than I was born on. 
 

Degree days is a very logical and rational way to measure local and regional temperatures, useful for farmers in particular.

Interesting that that does not mean that extrapolation to global averages or 'global temperature' holds statistical or practical merit.

Also a good subject as it's unlikely that references to 'degree days' will be found in the pseudoscientific mad alarmism of John Cook's website. Although I am sure he will shortly be advised of this dangerous omission.

LOL...

Not only the cold war is over; so, apparently, are cold winters. The official heating season of 1990-91 ends today, and in many places, the weather was the mildest it had been in 30 years.

How cold wasn't it? For the 12-month period that ends today, temperatures in New York and Washington were 18 percent warmer than normal, Boston 14 percent, Cleveland 14 percent, Chicago 9 percent, Seattle 6 percent and even Fairbanks, Alaska, by about 6 percent.

The season included the latest in a string of warm winters that are cumulatively changing the way people think about winter. The National Weather Service measures cold with a unit called the degree-day, which is used by utilities and oil suppliers to measure demand for fuel. But the change has been visible in simpler ways.

In New Hampshire, for example, executives of an outdoor goods retailer are wondering how much long underwear they should stock. And manufacturers of snow blowers have reported a 20 percent decline in business. Price of Natural Gas Drops

Years of warm weather, topped by an exceptionally warm winter, have driven the price of natural gas to a record low. So the industry is now trying hard to sell gas to businesses that out need it all year.

According to Paul G. Knight, a meteorologist at the Penn State Weather Communications Group, a part of Penn State University, the differences in winter temperatures are large, since a change of 3 to 5 percent is considered significant.

Speaking of cold in percentages is not exactly commonplace, but is based on the degree-day, which is a long-established measurement. One degree-day is added to the season total for each degree that a day's average temperature falls below 65. For example, if the average temperature on New Year's Day is 40 degrees, the weather service will count 25 degree-days for that day. New York recorded 3,973 degree-days, or 895 below normal. Washington, which was also 18 percent warmer than normal, recorded 3,398, or 724 degree-days short.

If that seems abstract, consider the measurement of Daniel P. Bohen, the Commissioner of General Services in Buffalo, who is responsible for buying the city's road salt. Yes, he said, Buffalo used less salt last winter than usual. But more noticeable to Mr. Bohen is that Lake Erie, outside his window, had open water when it should have been frozen, and at Christmas, when the back door to his house should have been blocked with snow, he was using the backyard barbecue grill.

At W. L. Gore and Associates, the Newark, Del., firm that makes Gore-tex fabrics, Stephen E. Shuster, an executive involved in planning, said that after a string of warm winters, "there's more risk these days in putting out an insulated piece of clothing."

"Three and a half years ago," he said, "we started to see a change away from insulated apparel, to zip-in, zip-out interchangeable systems. "

Although warmer weather encourages people to spend more time outdoors, they almost certainly do not need long underwear, as William E. Ferry, the president of Eastern Mountain Sports of Peterborough, N.H., has discovered. Less Long Underwear for Sale

At the company's 47 stores, mostly in New England but also in Colorado, and Minnesota and New York, sales of cold-weather gear like long underwear are down 20 percent, he said. "We simply are now taking a tack where we're looking to optimize the business, instead of maximize it," he said. In other words, E.M.S. will stock less long underwear and similar goods and accept the higher risk of running out in winter.

Meteorologists say that although a series of many warm winters is consistent with global warming, it is far from being conclusive evidence. Mr. Knight, the meteorologist, said it was possible that North America goes through cycles of 100 or 150 years, with warm temperatures now approaching a peak, and then a shift back to colder temperatures. If that happens, he said, "in 15 years we could think that in the 1990's we were stupid, thinking it would be hot all the time." But accurate records do not extend far enough to tell if we are in such a cycle, he said.

If the world is really warming, natural gas producers are determined to be ready. This summer the American Gas Association is testing its greenhouse weapon, a gas-powered air conditioner.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/30/us/cold-season-loses-its-chill-giving-a-new-view-of-winter.html

xkcd.com is pretty cool. But you should have posted the associated text as well (what shows up when you leave the mouse over the pic):


And another cool site from the same guy is http://what-if.xkcd.com/. 

The strawman is your entire argument and your manipulative use of the phrase AGW.  A strawman is when you conjure up an exaggerated, ridiculous extreme of your opponent's argument, attribute it to him, then knock it down saying it's ridiculous.

NOBODY HAS THE POSITION YOU WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE AGAINST! 

(why haven't you noticed that?)

By the way, skepticalscience.com is a propaganda site, using the classical definitions of the word.  It's a "pretty good site" if you want to go out and propagate the faith.  It was never intended to be scientifically oriented.  The only question is whether it is "propaganda for a good cause" or for a bad cause.

I am of the opinion any and all propaganda intended to subvert public opinion is bad.

No, I still don't see the alleged fallacy. But feel free to make your case, so I can clarify my position.

Now, where is your strawman?

Look closely at the syntax and grammar of these two sentences.

(A) 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

(B)...of the papers reviewed that expressed a position in relation to AGW, they were found to be almost unanimously endorsing it (>97%)...

Nope, still don't see any strawman. Care to be more specific? 



Yes, and as before, such a paper would still be considered as taking no stance on AGW; it would take more than just being implicitly endorsing global warming for it to be included. You can look up the categories used in Cook's site.



Don't worry, I don't believe any "religious comments" or "creeds of belief" were included in the study, only proper scientific papers.

Which reminds me: you never got around to explaining how Shollenberger supposedly "discredited his method and his conclusions", given that, as far as I see it, he pretty much ignored the study's methods and made up his own conclusions.



If you are so fond of Cook's "ready-made-answers", as you put it, then you should know the answer to that, though it's pretty obvious in the face of it: no one is saying they've looked at every single scientific paper on the subject; the scale of the project would be difficult to tackle. What is being said is that of the papers reviewed that expressed a position in relation to AGW, they were found to be almost unanimously endorsing it (>97%); however, there is no reason to believe that even if you could review all of the scientific literature on the subject, the percentage of papers endorsing AGW would change. But as they put it, you're welcome to try.

and where's your strawman?  Right in front of you staring at you.

Actually, the distribution of whale bones on ocean floors is linked to the then-existent temperatures in the Arctic, and as we know the temperatures preferred by those whales, it is a proxy for past temperatures.  Clearly, a conclusion could then be drawn relative to the existence of current warming, whether it was historically unique, or singular; whether it was likely caused by humans.  Further conclusions could be made as to such warmings' effects on the planet, at least for that particular regional eco system.

But such speculative inferences would be inappropriate in a scientific paper, and fall more into the position of religious comments or creeds of belief than science.  In actual fact, few scientists even use phraseology such as "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming (AGW)" and for good reasons.


PS:  Yes, I am using examples for which you will not find a ready-made-answer in John Cook's cooking of the books.  I know his production of a website with ready answers for arguing with deniers is tempting.

And since we're having fun here, you'll just love this.

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

For the third time, no, I haven't read the survey mentioned by Bojanowski where supposedly “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated” and would like to know more about it. Do I need to say it a fourth time? 



And here I mostly agree with you; insofar as the paper has no bearing on whether or not human activity is responsible for global warming, it should be irrelevant to the study. The same for say, research into metrics of climate change that doesn't discuss the causes, and so on... none of these enter into the study. That's why I previously said such a paper would be considered as taking no stance on AGW.

Now, the point of Cook's study was specifically "Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature"; so, papers that offered other explanations for climate change as being dominant, minimized human contribution to climate change, denied it altogether, or endorsed it were considered. In this sense, it seems to me that the methodology of the study was appropriate and the results valid.

So you haven't READ THE SURVEY?



Also from your prior comment...there's something here I am actually trying to get you to comprehend so let me repeat it:

he counted those that explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence

Earlier I mentioned in passing a paleo study of whale bone distribution.  This is an actual paper on historical climate change.

But there is zero meaning or importance to the researchers' making ANY COMMENT along the lines of...

explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence

That may be an objective you have.  For some social or political purposes.  But it has nothing to do with the conclusion/hypothesis of this or 99% of research papers and frankly, if some such comment was included it should have been cut out by the editors. 

This really, really should be obvious.  But apparently it isn't.

I'd like to comment because I'm interested in the subject, thus why I asked for further information in relation to this study; no need to get offended. Unfortunately I'll need more than "Just note what he's talking about.  It's quite accurate".

Why should you feel obliged to "comment"?

Just note what he's talking about.  It's quite accurate.  

Or are you saying that John Cook didn't provide a scripted answer for this one?

Trenberth IIRC is the guy that is on record as advocating fabricating "scary stories" to influence public opinion on climate change.  He's also had some comments in private to other climate scientists about issues of models not forecasting right and the planet just not following the directions of the alarmists.

Oh wait....those comments were in Climategate emails that we all know about now...

I see you didn't understand how these studies were conducted. Such a paper would be considered not to take a position on AGW, unless explicitly or implicitly supporting it; for example, by depending on AGW for what is being proposed. And this isn't gathered by just looking at the titles and abstracts, but also stated directly by the authors of the papers themselves; they know whether or not AGW is required for the paper to be relevant.



You should brush up on your logical fallacies; that isn't argumentum ad populum, it's called scientific consensus.
Here is a quick overview of some of the differences, as seen in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Scientific_Consensus:


I fail to see how Shollenberger discredited the study, considering he completely ignored the other categories which explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW. So for example, he counted those that explicitly endorsed AGW and quantified human influence, but not those that explicitly endorsed AGW that did not quantify human influence; which is sloppy work at best. Further, he also conveniently ignored the second part of the study that had the authors of the papers themselves rate their own papers, based on the same categories, and which lead to the same results: that is, over 97% of the papers endorsed AGW.



It's hard for me to comment on the study he's referring to as I found almost nothing about it, but feel free to share more details if you have them. That said, the models are constantly being updated to include new processes and rely on less approximations, but that is not to say they can't accurately predict long-term trends; they have been able to do so reasonably well for a long time (see the models proposed by James Hansen). In fact, current models are increasingly able to accurately predict not only long-term trends but also more short-term variations.

More information about current models:
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

We all remember “Snowmageddon” in February of 2010. Even as Washington, D.C., saw 32 inches of snowfall for the month of February—more than it has seen in any February since 1899—conservatives decided to use the weather to mock global warming. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and his family even built an igloo on Capitol Hill and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.” Har har.

Yet at the same time, scientific voices were pointing out something seemingly counterintuitive, but in fact fairly simple to understand: Even as it raises temperatures on average, global warming may also lead to more intense individual snow events. It’s a lesson to keep in mind as the northeast braces for winter storm Janus—which is expected to deliver as much as a foot of snow in some regions—and we can expect conservatives to once again mock climate change.

To understand the relationship between climate change and intense snowfall, you first need to understand that global warming certainly doesn’t do away with winter or the seasons. So it’ll still be plenty cold enough for snow much of the time. Meanwhile, global warming loads the dice in favor of more intense precipitation through changes in atmospheric moisture content. “Warming things up means the atmosphere can and does hold more moisture,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “So in winter, when there is still plenty of cold air there’s a risk of bigger snows. With east coast storms, where the moisture comes from the ocean which is now warmer, this also applies.”


http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-janus-snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVERYTHING is global warming.