Snow in Cairo. First Time in 100 Years!!!

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by madgator, Dec 13, 2013.

  1. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,202
    I appreciate the response, I would still say the Cairo data set is way too small - the statisticians here could give a better idea on that (and it could turn out with a larger set that it is even more rare than we thought).

    But is the argument then that there are natural fluctuations within a known cycle? I am still trying to understand the motivation of the OP.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  2. madgator
    Offline

    madgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,799
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +888
    Forwarding debate
  3. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    It's a good thing to be skeptical, another to make categorical claims about "not knowing" suggesting that because you might not personally know it, no one else can. Even if there were larger deviations in the past, it is not evidence of current trends not being the result of human activity. Though I do find it odd that you turn to the same data to argue that there were large variations in the past. But really we need to ask ourselves...

    Who exactly collected the data and developed the methods to even make such a discovery in the first place? And why, if scientists could do that cannot other scientists or those same scientists not be able to determine whether man has caused the current trend? I mean, how do we even know there was a little ice age or a Medieval warm period or that climate varied in the past, without these same scientists making such discoveries? And why would you accept those discoveries but not those about human contributions to climate change?

    I don't know, but maybe it's the way you and a few others here express your skepticism and what it actually means--I'll hold out that is what it is--but it seems to me that when you state it with such certainty, you expose some real blind spots in your understanding of science.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  4. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    As JDR said, showing that A can cause C really isn't evidence that B cannot cause C. Forest fires occurred before humans as well. And so did creation of rivers. Does that mean that humans cannot also do these things? Of course not. This is a logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent.

    Sure. Anything is possible. The decline in commercial fish populations could have nothing to do with human fishing. The down economy could have nothing to do with Obama. The awful Gator football team could have nothing to do with Muschamp. Maybe we don't anything. Ever.

    But you should recognize that the idea of climate change is based on much more than just correlations. There are mechanistic theories that play a strong role as well.

    Agreed. I would guess that we would disagree on which claims are which. I know climate scientists, not government officials, who are honestly very worried about climate change for reasons totally unrelated to taxes or whatever you think the government is trying to get out of this.
  5. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Of course I have questions. You are making claims, and I am asking you to defend them. Is that strange?

    When the article came out about decreasing our predicted CO2 sensitivity, those on the right here went into a frenzy explaining that this further proves that climate change is BS. While I am glad that they used a real peer-reviewed paper to help form their judgments rather the standard blogs that are cited, they ignored roughly half the paper: the part that said that global heat budget models are performing very well. Added CO2 seems to be having a predictable influence on global heat. This is fact that is repeatedly ignored on here, when discussing the "models".

    So if you if you believe that experts cannot be trusted, how do you know that you can trust those that you are reading who tell you that the models are resoundingly innaccurate?

    If this is your view of human beliefs, I don't see how you can have so much confidence in your own beliefs. I am all for being skeptical, but being a true skeptic means that we must be skeptical of ourselves, no? You and I must realize that we have our own worldviews and our own biases.

    I agree, but I am pretty sure that short term climate models do not use thousands of variables. I still haven't been able to find these "models" workings (or even know which ones we are talking about always), but I'm guessing that the number of factors in the model is closer to five. Maybe someone else knows the answer to this?

    Is this bias only present for one side? Do the people that have an interest in no climate regulations, like those associated with carbon energy, get votes from carbon energy, or want to avoid carbon energy taxes, not try to discredit climate scientists?

    How is it that you know that one side of people that you've never met is totally bankrupt and the other side is extremely truthful?
  6. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    I don't recall anybody saying that we should ignore the past. In fact, how could we possibly build models of observations without those observations? We don't know too much about 3 billion years ago, but we certainly use data from thousands of years ago.

    However, you should understand that the relative age of the Earth has little impact on our ability to understand short term phenomena. That would be like saying that we can understand food poisoning better in a baby than an old man because the week of sickness is half the baby's life. If the Earth was 10 billion years old, we wouldn't understand the climate any less.
  7. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,864
    this is an example of the "experts" in charge of this debacle

    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...ive-proportion-say-feds?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=6

    this went on for years and nobody noticed. and nobody is being held accountable for not noticing.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    The company you work for must be corrupt too since someone in ND committed fraud.

    See how easy it is to cherry pick a case and smear everyone of a 'similar' feather at the same time?
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,877
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,915

    That's not the same thing as claiming to be someone else... Mistakes in business happen to good intentioned people/businesses all the time, but the fraud the head of the EPA committed is egregious.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Not comparing egregiousness. What he did was wrong and deserving of prison time.

    I agree though, there's a lot of good people in the private sector who are good people that work hard. I count many, many among my friends and family. No doubt there are good people working in the government too, and good people working in academia doing research, both of which I have a lot of first hand, in-depth experience. But like any organization--public or private--there are jerks and fraudsters and nutjobs and deadwood--so using one case of a government expert who committed fraud to smear all experts is not just wrong, it actually undermines gt8rgr8t's argument.
  11. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,877
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,915
    I believe the EPA is just one government agency... But, you're right about the other folks that work there... some are probably good hard working men/women. However, I don't believe he was impugning all the people in the EPA.
  12. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,118
    Several questions were posed to me and I'll be getting back to answer those. In the meantime, to respond to the question asked earlier about how inaccurate do climate models have to be before they are considered "wrong", I offer this brief commentary and graph from Bjorn Lomborg:

    "To its credit, the IPCC admits that “models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in the surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.” This matters, because if the models overshoot for recent decades, the century-long forecasts are open to doubt.

    "Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159% (see graph). A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the last 15 years by more than 300%."

    [​IMG]



    Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...e-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg#1lTKo1pEPQU7UEBY.99
  13. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,877
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,915

    If they keep publishing their "model" temperatures then they are propagating outright lies.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  14. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    See his comments in #78. It's a continuation of this sweeping generalization about all experts--well those working in government or academia.
  15. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,877
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,915

    There are too many bad characters in this administration to name... So I can see how this would seem to encompass all of them, not that it's right either. But, I also don't think any rationally thinking person could say that everyone in government is bad.

    ... I still think we can consolidate several agencies into far less people and agencies and still keep up with the work at hand.

    As far as the sweeping condemnation of all "experts"... you have to see the endgame of this administration to understand that many of these lies, said by those same experts, are coordinated for a specific reason that only Obama really knows. Because there are many untruths being told by several people/experts in Obama's gang.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  16. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,864
    It was not just somebody at EPA. It was their head guy in charge of climate science, not a random employee. And nobody else is being held accountable for the egregious failure to monitor. The lack of accountability is the real disease that has infected the system; the lead guy committing fraud on a massive scale is just a symptom of a much larger systemic problem.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,205
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,864
    thanks for posting that. where else besides gubmnt could you be off by 71 - 300% and still get paid?
  18. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    This was a case of one or possibly two employees basically just collecting money--and at least one is being held to account criminally, as he should be. So how does this implicate all researchers?

    The more you post, the more it's clear that your hatred of people who work in government blinds you to understanding science.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  19. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Good post, wygator. Better than just putting up a slice of the HADCRUT data. I think the pause certainly will or should force researchers to redouble their efforts at understanding what is happening, but this is the scientific enterprise. What is unknown or uncertain are avenues for further research. Changing conditions also bring about increased need for further study and continued fine-tuning of measurement instruments and methodologies. That being said, I'd offer up a few points--since I think it strikes to the heart of some of the disagreements here (some of which is that folks are tending to talk past each other).

    One, how do we know that Lomborg's analysis or that of the climate study that he cites is valid (I am not saying it's not)? I ask because one of the key issues that has already been raised by gatorade is 'how do we know'? If we just accept these new studies as fact because they confirm our beliefs (i.e. biases), then that is not a very good or valid standard in which to judge things.

    Second, any of these studies, including the BEST studies from the past year and these ones finding model errors need time for others to critically review. As good (but human) as the peer-review process is, those studies that withstand the test of time are more likely to be the ones that--on scientific terms--are the strongest. Yet, I think we should be just as curious about the limitations of these news studies are are about how 'wrong' we might think the earlier studies are--and there are always limitations(!) since that can help inform what we know or don't know about the previous research which it challenges.

    And last, look more closely at Lomborg's post. Even he acknowledges warming is occurring. So if you take this as evidence to suggest it's not, I'd think again.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  20. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +232

    What I find interesting is the steady decline of the temps. By the way not shocked at all they over shot.

Share This Page