Citing "Australia right now" in support of "Global Warming" (also known as "Climate Change") is ridiculous
Maybe, unless you have insight into the trends and Australia Now is consistent with those trends. Extremes that would have happened about 2% of the time in the 30 years prior to the 80's were happening about 6% of the time in the 30 years prior to 2010. In the last 15 years they have occurred about 10% of the time: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of... . This trend of increasing extremes is what we would expect in a warming country: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of...
The picture becomes even more cohesive if you look at the temperature trend in the context of radiative physics and what we know about the atmospheric CO2 trend.
Arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism. - http://www.princeton.edu/~acha...
Saying that an authority is probably correct is not a logical fallacy. In fact, it is probably correct.
a "well respected" scientist's opinion is no more valid than a "charlatan's.
Surely we would prefer the opinion of a scientist on the subject of what science can tell us? Unless you're a child of postmodernism where there are no wrong answers and everyone's opinion is equally valuable because we're all special little snowflakes?
US Climate Reference Network data only covers the U.S.A. The data is a great way to validate whether suspect data is any good, but obviously cannot be used to determine the global average temperature. Fortunately the USCRN data shows the same trend for the continental USA as the adjusted data. This gives us confidence in the results of the various global reconstructions (which show significant warming over the last 18 years).
Woodfortrees.org is a great resource for fact checking BS. according to NASA temperatures have risen 0.14C over the since 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
The source you provide said he would accept the results of the Berkley BEST temperature reconstruction regardless of what they found. Unfortunately for him, BEST finds even greater warming with 0.39C over the period (although this is a land only index): http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... . He disavowed any preference for the BEST reconstruction once the results were published.
Christians may have been flirting with the idea even earlier than that: "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32–35 ESV).
I'm dismayed that you think science is a strictly liberal pursuit. Most conservatives are just as interested in science as your average liberal. You're perpetuating a meme that the republican party is the anti-science party. It isn't: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Good point - except that the oceans are currently accumulating energy. If your theory were true then the oceans would currently be releasing their energy to the atmosphere. In fact the oceans have never (in the record) been hotter: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Why would we need anecdotal evidence? We have records from the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United Kingdom's Met Office and the World Meteorological Association all reporting that this is in fact the hottest year on their respective records. Do you think anecdotal evidence trumps hard data?
Own goal? 1934 was (at one time) hottest in the continental USA. Disinformer above is trying to conflate that with the global temperature record and hopes no one will notice.
The bleeding of credibility from each [exaggeration, lie, bald untruth (pick one)]...
The hiatus has always existed and always will. As you can see from this chart there was a hiatus in the '80s and a hiatus in the '90s. You just have to pick the right start date. That date used to be 1998, but it is somewhat closer nowadays: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
If this were true, should we pick just one of your concerns to address and ignore all others? What if there is a low impact solution to one of the others that even the most skeptical economist believes we should adopt?
Even contrarian economists such as Richard Tol agree that we should be implementing a revenue neutral carbon tax to mitigate the worst effects of rising carbon. Since this action is the least common denominator between the "sky is falling" and the "nothing to see here" crowd I suggest we all get behind it. A modest revenue neutral carbon tax would have minimal impact on the economy, would drive investments towards low carbon solutions, would do so in a market driven rather than government mandated way, and would decrease taxes on activities that we should be encouraging such as income and spending. It's kind of a no brainer.
Paleoclimate data shows that the climate is much more sensitive to relatively small forcings than we expect it to be to CO2 forcing today. Largely because the ice albedo feedback is much stronger between glacial/interglacial periods. If you favour the paleoclimate data then you should be quite concerned. Luckily the scientists do not disregard the current trend in favour of paleoclimate data as you suggest they should.
Curious that you start with the seeming non sequitur: "what does sarcasm have to do with the conversation?" and then follow immediately with sarcasm. This is about the level of debate that I have come to expect from the contrarians.
My company has stock price records back 1 year when it first went public. To determine the impact last week's announcement I'm looking at the entire record. Would it really benefit me to try to infer the stock price from back 10 years ago when the product was still under development? Should I be happy that the stock price now is still higher than what I infer the company would have traded for 10 years ago? Would my company last long if I only considered action after stock prices had dropped below what I infer the company would have been worth the day we first discussed the idea for the product?
Do you really think that climate change poses an existential threat? Even if so, why should we not care about maximizing profits and minimizing costs rather than simply survival?
If you're tracking a stock and want to see it's history would you use it's price ticks over the last 135 seconds and think that is the representative of the whole
If I had announced a large third quarter loss last week and wanted to know the impact of that announcement I would probably look at the last year of data, not the last 55 million years.
Some regions will surely become less hospitable, and some will become more hospitable.
That is undoubtedly true. Part of the problem is that change in general is costly as it requires adaptation. Many died and billions were lost during the Russian heat wave of 2010 although the temperature was not likely much higher than the average summer day in Texas. You'd think they'd welcome a bit of heat in that frozen wasteland but there ya go.
Regarding adaptation vs. mitigation - the best approach will minimize costs and probably be a combination of the two.
My sight is set a little higher than to "survive as a species". Also the trend since then has little to do with anthropogenic global warming which is largely why we care about global average temperature records now.
Slashdot Mirror
Citing "Australia right now" in support of "Global Warming" (also known as "Climate Change") is ridiculous
Maybe, unless you have insight into the trends and Australia Now is consistent with those trends. Extremes that would have happened about 2% of the time in the 30 years prior to the 80's were happening about 6% of the time in the 30 years prior to 2010. In the last 15 years they have occurred about 10% of the time: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of... . This trend of increasing extremes is what we would expect in a warming country: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of...
The picture becomes even more cohesive if you look at the temperature trend in the context of radiative physics and what we know about the atmospheric CO2 trend.
Arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism. - http://www.princeton.edu/~acha...
Saying that an authority is probably correct is not a logical fallacy. In fact, it is probably correct.
a "well respected" scientist's opinion is no more valid than a "charlatan's.
Surely we would prefer the opinion of a scientist on the subject of what science can tell us? Unless you're a child of postmodernism where there are no wrong answers and everyone's opinion is equally valuable because we're all special little snowflakes?
US Climate Reference Network data only covers the U.S.A. The data is a great way to validate whether suspect data is any good, but obviously cannot be used to determine the global average temperature. Fortunately the USCRN data shows the same trend for the continental USA as the adjusted data. This gives us confidence in the results of the various global reconstructions (which show significant warming over the last 18 years).
Woodfortrees.org is a great resource for fact checking BS. according to NASA temperatures have risen 0.14C over the since 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
The source you provide said he would accept the results of the Berkley BEST temperature reconstruction regardless of what they found. Unfortunately for him, BEST finds even greater warming with 0.39C over the period (although this is a land only index): http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... . He disavowed any preference for the BEST reconstruction once the results were published.
Satellite data shows 0.14C over the period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/da...
Any way you slice it - there is no evidence that we have had no warming since 1997.
Christians may have been flirting with the idea even earlier than that: "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:32–35 ESV).
I'm dismayed that you think science is a strictly liberal pursuit. Most conservatives are just as interested in science as your average liberal. You're perpetuating a meme that the republican party is the anti-science party. It isn't: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Here is a more up to date graph of ocean heat content. The recent data shows increased warming: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3...
Good point - except that the oceans are currently accumulating energy. If your theory were true then the oceans would currently be releasing their energy to the atmosphere. In fact the oceans have never (in the record) been hotter: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Why would we need anecdotal evidence? We have records from the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United Kingdom's Met Office and the World Meteorological Association all reporting that this is in fact the hottest year on their respective records. Do you think anecdotal evidence trumps hard data?
Seriously? You can't fathom a world that is warming globally even while some places at certain times are quite cold?
The bleeding of credibility from each [exaggeration, lie, bald untruth (pick one)]...
Yes? go on...
The hiatus has always existed and always will. As you can see from this chart there was a hiatus in the '80s and a hiatus in the '90s. You just have to pick the right start date. That date used to be 1998, but it is somewhat closer nowadays: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
If this were true, should we pick just one of your concerns to address and ignore all others? What if there is a low impact solution to one of the others that even the most skeptical economist believes we should adopt?
Even contrarian economists such as Richard Tol agree that we should be implementing a revenue neutral carbon tax to mitigate the worst effects of rising carbon. Since this action is the least common denominator between the "sky is falling" and the "nothing to see here" crowd I suggest we all get behind it. A modest revenue neutral carbon tax would have minimal impact on the economy, would drive investments towards low carbon solutions, would do so in a market driven rather than government mandated way, and would decrease taxes on activities that we should be encouraging such as income and spending. It's kind of a no brainer.
Paleoclimate data shows that the climate is much more sensitive to relatively small forcings than we expect it to be to CO2 forcing today. Largely because the ice albedo feedback is much stronger between glacial/interglacial periods. If you favour the paleoclimate data then you should be quite concerned. Luckily the scientists do not disregard the current trend in favour of paleoclimate data as you suggest they should.
I was not being sarcastic in the least. We should be focusing on giving to our children the least debt and the most wealth - not merely survival.
Curious that you start with the seeming non sequitur: "what does sarcasm have to do with the conversation?" and then follow immediately with sarcasm. This is about the level of debate that I have come to expect from the contrarians.
I happen to think that 135 years is ridiculous
Needless to say, scientists disagree. Largely because they have looked at the paleoclimate data and understand the recent trends in that context.
My company has stock price records back 1 year when it first went public. To determine the impact last week's announcement I'm looking at the entire record. Would it really benefit me to try to infer the stock price from back 10 years ago when the product was still under development? Should I be happy that the stock price now is still higher than what I infer the company would have traded for 10 years ago? Would my company last long if I only considered action after stock prices had dropped below what I infer the company would have been worth the day we first discussed the idea for the product?
We care about survival
Do you really think that climate change poses an existential threat? Even if so, why should we not care about maximizing profits and minimizing costs rather than simply survival?
If you're tracking a stock and want to see it's history would you use it's price ticks over the last 135 seconds and think that is the representative of the whole
If I had announced a large third quarter loss last week and wanted to know the impact of that announcement I would probably look at the last year of data, not the last 55 million years.
That should read: Billions of dollars were lost- did not mean to imply that billions of people somehow lost their way because of the heat wave.
Some regions will surely become less hospitable, and some will become more hospitable.
That is undoubtedly true. Part of the problem is that change in general is costly as it requires adaptation. Many died and billions were lost during the Russian heat wave of 2010 although the temperature was not likely much higher than the average summer day in Texas. You'd think they'd welcome a bit of heat in that frozen wasteland but there ya go.
Regarding adaptation vs. mitigation - the best approach will minimize costs and probably be a combination of the two.
My sight is set a little higher than to "survive as a species". Also the trend since then has little to do with anthropogenic global warming which is largely why we care about global average temperature records now.