2012 was warmest year in U.S. history

[gatorboy27]

As a scientist, it's sad when politics drives the theory. Both sides of the argument believe nothing if the other.

I am in the biology field, so by no means a climate expert. But I feel that we as humans think we are a lot more important than we are. Temperatures during the Middle Ages were going through a rising period as well. This is before humans had any impact in greenhouse gas increase. This is before we knew about industrial output.

Our planet and atmosphere go through cycles. And global warming is regional. As the northern hemisphere has seen an increase in temperature over the last decade and more, the Southern Hemisphere has seen decreases.

Our temperatures change. Our planet and solar system are much strong than 10billion silly humans.

[gatorboy27]

And really, no amount of data or studies will convince either side I the argument to hange their position.

[Burke]

RealClimate was created by Michael Mann of the hockey stick and Climategate fame, is nothing but a pro-AGW propaganda site, and has been the subject of interest of Congressional investigators at least once because of it.

I spent some time reading it several years ago and concluded it was just more leftie- enviro kool aid.

And the things this "random skeptic" is saying are pretty much the same things most scientists were saying until they learned where their bread was buttered.

Leftists love to say that all skeptics are funded by "big oil," etc., but its the AGW crowd that has their hands in my pocket and are fundamentally anti-capitalistic.

With the collapse of the former USSR, with China moving toward a market economy, and with communism generally collapsing, environmentalism has become the new home of the life hating left. It's their new way of blaming the ills of the world on free nations and their people.

[Burke]

27,

In socialist countries, politics always drives science. The "scientists" are largely just high IQ parasites running back and forth to get govt funds because they can't sell their ideas to investors.

So, they just have the govt seize money from all of us . . . .

While telling us its for our own good.

To "save the planet" or some other BS.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

RealClimate was created by Michael Mann of the hockey stick and Climategate fame, is nothing but a pro-AGW propaganda site, and has been the subject of interest of Congressional investigators at least once because of it.

I spent some time reading it several years ago and concluded it was just more leftie- enviro kool aid.

And the things this "random skeptic" is saying are pretty much the same things most scientists were saying until they learned where their bread was buttered.

Not just a random skeptic, Burke, a random libertarian skeptic. You know how you constantly call everyone who believes in science a "leftist"? You should note that most of your sources come from free market purists. Yet you believe them without the blink of an eye. And in this case, how can you verify this is what "scientists" were saying if we have no evidence? Shouldn't we always be looking for evidence?

Originally Posted by Burke

Leftists love to say that all skeptics are funded by "big oil," etc., but its the AGW crowd that has their hands in my pocket and are fundamentally anti-capitalistic.

With the collapse of the former USSR, with China moving toward a market economy, and with communism generally collapsing, environmentalism has become the new home of the life hating left. It's their new way of blaming the ills of the world on free nations and their people.

No doubt that there are countless crunchy "leftist" hippies who don't understand scientific theory that have joined the environmental movement, but to make a blanket statement that this is the environmental movement is as blind as you are accusing them of being. You are under the impression that science has a persistent left bias and libertarians are bias free. A much safer assumption would be that "leftists" have a left bias and "rightists" have a right bias.

So then we can't use realclimate (taking your accusation that they are some leftist organization) or the other 'leftist' sites. But we also can't use wattsupwiththat (which is most certainly not scientific) or climate-skeptic or conservative climate change or heritage or any free market site. So what are we left with? Data. Yet, we mostly talk about how scientists are 'leftists' or the UN is socialist or environmentalism is Mao's garden fountain or whatever. But I don't give a hell about any of that name calling mumbo jumbo. What we need is to look at the data honestly, and I am not sure that's a possibility here, which is why I advocate a severe decrease in your confidence.

[Burke]

Rade,

Why don't you answer the question he (and many others) have asked.

Why was it warming for so long before there was any appreciable AGW?

Natural variation?

How do you know that the warming we have seen since (until recently) hasn't been caused by natural variation?

"Scientists" living a parasitical existence off of us say so?

"Scientists" who are able to live this way mostly BECAUSE they say so.

As an aside, how do you explain the 100+ peer reviewed papers holding that there was a MWP 700 years ago during which it was just about as warm as it is today?

Without AGW.

Take a bunch of lefties, train them as "climate scientists," and what would you expect them to come up with?

Exactly the kind of BS we are getting from them today.

[The_Graygator]

^^^ What Burke said.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

How do you know that the warming we have seen since (until recently) hasn't been caused by natural variation?

They don't. They absolutely don't know and don't have any conclusive evidence one way or the other. It all comes down to "belief". They "believe" it's due to the activities of mankind. If you back some of these people into a corner, they'll even admit it.

Now, the real question is, do they truly "believe" it, or do they merely say they "believe" it because their paychecks depend on it and they are in pursuit of a globalist political agenda?

Religion (belief) or politics (agenda), pick your poison.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

Rade,

Why don't you answer the question he (and many others) have asked.

Why was it warming for so long before there was any appreciable AGW?

Natural variation?

How do you know that the warming we have seen since (until recently) hasn't been caused by natural variation?

I get it. Don't worry about all my biases; let's keep talking about your biases. I'll make you a deal, Burke. I have been honest this whole time, and I will keep being honest. I will as honestly as I can explain to you how scientists use modeling to tease apart causation from correlation (which seems to be your main question), but I have two requests before I do so.

1) That you honestly focus on my explanation. This means: no bringing up "socialism", the "hockey stick", "leftists", or any other silly boogeyman phrases you've learned. You are welcome to challenge my theory/logic in any analytic way you like, and every time you do, I will again use my energy to answer honestly. But if you bring up any silliness, I will end the conversation.

2) Once you are satiated, either because you understand my points or much more likely because you simply don't believe in scientific modeling and think I'm an idiot, you must turn your penetrating powers of critical analysis on your own beliefs, like I keep asking you to. You promise to actually defend your own "skeptic" logic for once, rather than just keeping the spotlight on the "Marxist, socialist, maniacal, parasitic, puppy murdering" scientists.

Deal?

Originally Posted by Burke

"Scientists" living a parasitical existence off of us say so?

"Scientists" who are able to live this way mostly BECAUSE they say so.

As an aside, how do you explain the 100+ peer reviewed papers holding that there was a MWP 700 years ago during which it was just about as warm as it is today?

Without AGW.

Take a bunch of lefties, train them as "climate scientists," and what would you expect them to come up with?

Exactly the kind of BS we are getting from them today.

PS. This is the kind of tautological ad hominem silliness that I am talking about. Completely non-scientific, non-falsifiable name calling, wherein you make perhaps the most grave error in all of science: evaluating one's methods based solely upon one's results. No more of this ok? Data and theory. That's where our conversation will live.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

They don't. They absolutely don't know and don't have any conclusive evidence one way or the other. It all comes down to "belief". They "believe" it's due to the activities of mankind. If you back some of these people into a corner, they'll even admit it.

Now, the real question is, do they truly "believe" it, or do they merely say they "believe" it because their paychecks depend on it and they are in pursuit of a globalist political agenda?

Religion (belief) or politics (agenda), pick your poison.

Conclusive evidence? Do you really believe in conclusive evidence? Find me some conclusive evidence that lower tax rates increase economic well being. That loosening gun laws will decrease violence. That punting on 4th down is the best way to win a football game.

I'll save you the trouble...conclusive evidence doesn't exist for these questions. Complex scientific theory doesn't give us "truth". That is for grade schoolers that don't yet have a relativistic mind.

We are simply on this Earth to find the most parsimonious explanations that we can before we die and others upend our silly theories. Have you ever heard of Newton? Lamarck? Becher? They were all the greatest thinking scientific minds of their time. And yet none of them found anything we today would call "truth". Were they dishonest leftists? No, Charts; they were honest scientists who advanced knowledge farther that you or I ever will. Of course they were wrong, but we still know their names for good reason. You know whose names we don't know? Those that quickly denied these soon to be debunked theories based on simple unsophisticated non-scientific reasons - even though these people were "right".

Isaac Asimov had a statement for this type of relativistic quandary: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

As a result, your best bet is simply to keep the conversation on how climate science is "religion", as you call it, and keep the focus off your reason. You don't want to start to evaluate the rationale of your theory against that of Keeling, because even though you'll both be "wrong" eventually, the world will still know Keeling's name.

[Burke]

Did you know this? (I didn't)

"Postscript.

"I thought I would offer one small example of how poor your understanding of global warming probably likely is if you rely on the media for all your information. When people think of the Earth’s temperatures rising one degree, they usually think of daily high temperatures that are one degree hotter. That is why everyone believes (without actual evidence) that rising world temperatures are leading to more record hot summer days.

"But in fact we have not seen any particular increase in record high temperatures, at least not in the US where we have the longest and most detailed temperature history. One reason is that most of the warming we have seen has been in nightly low temperatures. In other words, we are seeing higher lows rather than higher highs, if that makes sense. As you can see below, in the US during summer we are not setting an unusual number of daily high records (Tmax, the black line) but are seeing more records for high nightly low (Tmin, the grey line). Via Roy Spencer:"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenme...limate-debate/

[Burke]

This self-contradiction deserves a thread of its own:

"I'll save you the trouble...conclusive evidence doesn't exist for these questions. Complex scientific theory doesn't give us "truth". That is for grade schoolers that don't yet have a relativistic mind."

"Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification."

Ayn Rand

You could never prove something "wrong" without first knowing what is right.

Without identifying the truth.

I would go even further than Ayn Rand perhaps would go. The purpose of concept formation and the creation of principles is to reduce a large amount of perceptual observations to something we can grasp perceptually. As long as a theory accomplishes this, it serves its purpose fine. When the range of our perceptual observations increases and a theory no longer serves that purpose, we develop new theories that do.

And, contrary to popular belief, that which we perceive is absolute knowledge.

But looking at the growth of knowledge as a succession of setbacks, as proof that there is no "truth," is a contradiction.

A refuge for scoundrels.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

Did you know this? (I didn't)

"Postscript.

"I thought I would offer one small example of how poor your understanding of global warming probably likely is if you rely on the media for all your information. When people think of the Earth’s temperatures rising one degree, they usually think of daily high temperatures that are one degree hotter. That is why everyone believes (without actual evidence) that rising world temperatures are leading to more record hot summer days.

"But in fact we have not seen any particular increase in record high temperatures, at least not in the US where we have the longest and most detailed temperature history. One reason is that most of the warming we have seen has been in nightly low temperatures. In other words, we are seeing higher lows rather than higher highs, if that makes sense. As you can see below, in the US during summer we are not setting an unusual number of daily high records (Tmax, the black line) but are seeing more records for high nightly low (Tmin, the grey line). Via Roy Spencer:"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenme...limate-debate/

I knew this is what central America was experiencing, but I didn't know specifically what the US has seen. THanks.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

This self-contradiction deserves a thread of its own:

"I'll save you the trouble...conclusive evidence doesn't exist for these questions. Complex scientific theory doesn't give us "truth". That is for grade schoolers that don't yet have a relativistic mind."

"Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification."

Ayn Rand

You could never prove something "wrong" without first knowing what is right.

Without identifying the truth.

I would go even further than Ayn Rand perhaps would go. The purpose of concept formation and the creation of principles is to reduce a large amount of perceptual observations to something we can grasp perceptually. As long as a theory accomplishes this, it serves its purpose fine. When the range of our perceptual observations increases and a theory no longer serves that purpose, we develop new theories that do.

And, contrary to popular belief, that which we perceive is absolute knowledge.

But looking at the growth of knowledge as a succession of setbacks, as proof that there is no "truth," is a contradiction.

A refuge for scoundrels.

I find what you are saying to be simply semantics. But I, like Karl Popper and most every philosophy of science scholar of today, do not view science as a way of proving some true. We can falsify. You can falsify that all swans are white, but you cannot prove this.

The reason I wrote anything about truth is because charts needed the words that you wrote above. Because climate models had to be revised in the past, he seems to think (and you do too) that this means that there is no truth and thus no value in them. And while I agree that truth is elusive, I believe most certainly there is value. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. And I certainly wouldn't be arguing that Jean Baptiste Lamarck is worthy of study.

So again, I have no doubt that the climate models of today will one day be proved "wrong", but I contend that they are better than your climate model.

[The_Graygator]

Hmmm, just a week ago last Sunday San Diego had 28 degrees just outside the city with frost on the ground, 19 up in the mountains. Must be all that "global warming".

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by Burke

This self-contradiction deserves a thread of its own:

"I'll save you the trouble...conclusive evidence doesn't exist for these questions. Complex scientific theory doesn't give us "truth". That is for grade schoolers that don't yet have a relativistic mind."

"Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification."

Ayn Rand

You could never prove something "wrong" without first knowing what is right.

Without identifying the truth.

I would go even further than Ayn Rand perhaps would go. The purpose of concept formation and the creation of principles is to reduce a large amount of perceptual observations to something we can grasp perceptually. As long as a theory accomplishes this, it serves its purpose fine. When the range of our perceptual observations increases and a theory no longer serves that purpose, we develop new theories that do.

And, contrary to popular belief, that which we perceive is absolute knowledge.

But looking at the growth of knowledge as a succession of setbacks, as proof that there is no "truth," is a contradiction.

A refuge for scoundrels.

The bolded statement is absolutely false, and easily falsifiable. A deaf man's lack of hearing doesn't mean sound does not exist - it simply demonstrates a perceptive limitation, much as optical amplification enables us to view objects we otherwise could not view.

Our perceptual limitations distort and limit knowledge. Our cognitive limitations further so.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

Hmmm, just a week ago last Sunday San Diego had 28 degrees just outside the city with frost on the ground, 19 up in the mountains. Must be all that "global warming".

And here we have the first attempt at falsifying the implicit conclusion of this thread with the exact same logic.

So here's a quiz: The eastern United States is experiencing unseasonably warm temperatures at the same exact time that the western United States is experiencing anomalous cool temperatures. Does this period represent a relatively warm or cool period for the contiguous US as a whole?

[neisgator]

Man, it is hot in here.

Signed,

The Southern Hemisphere Sarcasm Society (SHSS)

[FoxGator]

Climate is global folks! The OP is citing an NCDC article regarding temperatures for the Continental US.

In 2012, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average annual temperature of 55.3°F was 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and was the warmest year in the 1895-2012 period of record for the nation. The 2012 annual temperature was 1.0°F warmer than the previous record warm year of 1998.

The OP conveniently ignores the NCDC article regarding Alaska temperatures.

Alaska temperatures in 2012 were below the 1971-2000 average. The annual temperature for Alaska was 2.3°F below average, which ranked as the 11th coolest year on record for the state. Alaska had its coldest January on record with a statewide temperature 14.0°F below average and statewide temperatures remained cooler than average for much of the rest of 2012. Winter temperatures (December 2011-February 2012) were 1.4°F below the 1971-2000 average, spring temperatures were 2.7°F below average, summer temperatures were 0.7°F below average, and autumn temperatures were 1.1°F below average.

Alaska has the geographical area of about 1/5 of the Continental US. If you include Alaska temps with the Continental temps, you end up with nothing out of the ordinary.

State of the Climate National Overview Annual 2012

[Burke]

Rade,

Popper's approach is sometimes said to be the "guess then test" approach.

Essentially, if you want to know what the moon is composed of, you hypothesize that it is made of, say, blue cheese. You then (somehow) "falsify" that, hypothesize that it is made of something else, (somehow) "falsify" that, and continue the process until you (somehow) get it right

So, how do you ever "falsify" anything without knowing the truth somewhere?

And how did you know the truth when you discovered it?

And why don't you just use whatever means you had to determine those truths all the time?