Major analysis confirms global warming is real

"Mike Collins" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote:

I don't. Here is my question again:

"All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming"
was
occurring at that time."

No mention of day, year, or any other time period.


so can we ignore your question
For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?
?

We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850.

So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a
temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at
any particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming
was occurring in 1961.

As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked
example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have
requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in
myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at
any time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year
1961 and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example.

Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1
time:

All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that
given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was
occurring at any particular time within that temperature record."

Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide
definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration,
chromosome, light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of
science (or, more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of
crank scientific theories).

If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the
statement "major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or
not. At the moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global
warming", the statement in the subject of this post is meaningless.

So, how about it?

Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance
some more?

You are comparing oranges to apples.
You can define pH and you can also define temperature.
How would you define the change in pH in the oceans.

Probably better ask the person who talks about "pH change in the ocean".

Add it to the list of undefined terms.

You would look at the change in pH over time in a large number of sites
around the world.
You could then look at the pH measurements over any period to determine
whether acidification was raking place.
That's exactly what is being done with global temperature.

I didn't ask about the rate of acidification of the oceans.

I asked about the "warming rate".

Why are you answrring a question I didn't ask, and not answering a question
I did ask?


You define a period and then you can decide whether global warming or
ocean
acidification took place.

So, is global warming happening now?

At what rate?


But don't obscure things by asking silly questions like "Was global
warming
occurring in 1961? The time scale is too short.

Is global warming happening now?

If so, at what rate?

How did you work that out?

On Nov 21, 6:22*pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:

I just want to know how climatologists define the earth's "warming rate". As
in statements like "the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate" or
"global warming will intensify".

Well, I know that people have talked about how we might avoid
catastrophe if we could keep the Earth's average temperature from
rising more than two degrees Celsius.

They're also giving up hope of doing that, as of late.

The "rate" of warming is how fast the world gets warmer.

So the *units* of global warming would be degrees Celsius per year.

Of course, in the spring or the fall, you will have a cold day
followed by a warm day. The world isn't warming nearly as fast as that
change in temperature. So by "unprecedented", read "unprecedented in
recorded history" to leave out the ends of Ice Ages...

and, most importantly, what you *really* need a definition for is the
"Earth's average temperature". That's the tricky part of the
definition, not the units of degrees per year.

But obviously what you want is an average that averages out things
like the differences between the tropics and the poles, the
differences between the seasons, and such things as the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

So, after all that is averaged away, the Earth's temperature is still
rising - faster than we've ever noticed it doing since, say, 1961 -
and faster than we think it rose in the last 3,000 years or so, as far
as we can tell.

John Savard

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:59:43 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

and, most importantly, what you *really* need a definition for is the
"Earth's average temperature".

Which of course, is given in every paper published on the subject
(which Webb would know if he had actually read any original research).
The most common definition is the decadal average: at any point in
time, this is the average over the previous five years, and the
subsequent five years. Also seen commonly is the 30-year average, and
increasingly with improved modeling, the 5-year average.

These are normally compared with some sort of reference temperature,
such at a very long average about a particular year.

Rates are normally reported in degrees per year, with that rate
calculated over a five, ten, or thirty year interval.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:59:43 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
| wrote:
|
| and, most importantly, what you *really* need a definition for is the
| "Earth's average temperature".
|
| Which of course, is given in every paper published on the subject
| (which Webb would know if he had actually read any original research).
| The most common definition is the decadal average: at any point in
| time, this is the average over the previous five years, and the
| subsequent five years. Also seen commonly is the 30-year average, and
| increasingly with improved modeling, the 5-year average.
|
| These are normally compared with some sort of reference temperature,
| such at a very long average about a particular year.
|
| Rates are normally reported in degrees per year, with that rate
| calculated over a five, ten, or thirty year interval.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. What you have failed to
show is the correlation between the position of Barnard's Star and
the quantity of atmospheric CO2; the fate of man has always resided
in the heavens (which Savard would know if he had actually read
any original bullsh...err... research). This is sci.astrology.amateur,
right?

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 6:22 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:

I just want to know how climatologists define the earth's "warming rate".
As
in statements like "the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate" or
"global warming will intensify".

Well, I know that people have talked about how we might avoid
catastrophe if we could keep the Earth's average temperature from
rising more than two degrees Celsius.

They're also giving up hope of doing that, as of late.

The "rate" of warming is how fast the world gets warmer.

So the *units* of global warming would be degrees Celsius per year.

Of course, in the spring or the fall, you will have a cold day
followed by a warm day. The world isn't warming nearly as fast as that
change in temperature. So by "unprecedented", read "unprecedented in
recorded history" to leave out the ends of Ice Ages...

_____________________________
How do you know it is unprecedented even in the last 200 years? What is the
current warming rate, and what was the second fastest warming rate in the
last 200 years, and when was it? Or, if you provided the definition of
"warming rate", then O could work this out for myself and we would be able
to if te current warming is "unpredented in recorded history" - at the
moment, that is an assertion with zero supporting evidence.


and, most importantly, what you *really* need a definition for is the
"Earth's average temperature". That's the tricky part of the
definition, not the units of degrees per year.

But obviously what you want is an average that averages out things
like the differences between the tropics and the poles, the
differences between the seasons, and such things as the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

So, after all that is averaged away, the Earth's temperature is still
rising - faster than we've ever noticed it doing since, say, 1961 -

_________________________________________
You first said that the earth is warming faster than at any time in recorded
history. Now you say since 1961. But still no evidence at all. How fast is
the earth warming now (what is the "warming rate")? What was it in 1961?
Which one is larger?


and faster than we think it rose in the last 3,000 years or so, as far
as we can tell.


__________________________________________________

Terrific. Now lets move this from a claim made with no evidence to a claim
that is supported by evidence. How do you calculate the warming rate? What
is it now? What was the previous fastest recoded warming rate, and what was
the rate? Then we see which number is larger, and can thus determine if it
is warming faster now than at any time in the last 3,000 years (or 200 years
ago, or faster than in 1961, or any other similar claim about the warming
rate).



John Savard

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:59:43 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

and, most importantly, what you *really* need a definition for is the
"Earth's average temperature".

Which of course, is given in every paper published on the subject
(which Webb would know if he had actually read any original research).

I did know, and didn't ask that question. There is a long tradition of
Believers not answering questions about there beliefs (eg the belief that
the earth is warming at an "unprecedented rate"), but instead answering a
question I didn't ask and usually already know the answer to.

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

Until you answer that question, there is no way of knowing if the earth
actually is warming at an unprecedented rate; surely somebody worked out
what the rate is now, and it its rate at various times over the last (say)
200 years, and made sure the earth really is warming at an unprecedented
rate before announcing this as fact?

I just want to see how the warming rates were calculated, so I know exactly
what the claim is. Without a definition of "warming rate", any statement
about whether it is higher or lower than at any other time is meaningless,
because we don't the meaning of the term 'warming rate".


The most common definition is the decadal average: at any point in
time, this is the average over the previous five years, and the
subsequent five years. Also seen commonly is the 30-year average, and
increasingly with improved modeling, the 5-year average.

These are normally compared with some sort of reference temperature,
such at a very long average about a particular year.

Rates are normally reported in degrees per year, with that rate
calculated over a five, ten, or thirty year interval.


So when the claim is made that the earth is now warming at a faster rate
than ever recorded, which definition is used?

Is the claim that the earth has warmed more over the last five years than
during any five year period in recorded history?

Or is the claim that the earth has warmed more over the last ten years than
during any ten year period in recorded history?

Or is the claim that the earth has warmed more over the last thirty years
than during any thirty year period in recorded history?

Because I doubt any of these is true.

Or is the claim that the earth is warming faster than at any any previous
time based upon some different way again of calculating the warming rate?

Why don't you tell us what the current warming rate is, and how you
calculated it? Otherwise there is no way of determining whether the the
earth is actually warming faster than at any previous time, because you
haven't said how it is calculated or what it is supposed to mean.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

As usual, the science denier simply ignores that which opposes his
dogmatic views.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.


No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

If you did answer it, what value did you provide as being the current
warming rate?

As usual, the science denier simply ignores that which opposes his
dogmatic views.

Are you talking about yourself?

I have heard climate science believers say that the earth is warming at an
unprecedented rate. Sounds like bull****, but without some way of working
out the warming rate, cannot be proved or disproved. Without a definition of
"warming rate" this statement cannot be falsified - it is not a scientific
statement. Which makes it of use only to people who don't believe in the
scientific method.

So, at what rate is the earth currently warming?

What was the second fastest rate at which the earth warmed?

You *haven't* defined or shown how to calculate the "warming rate". You
*haven't* told us the current value; you *haven't* told us the second
fastest rate; you *haven't* produced even a single value for the warming
rate at any point in time at all; and you certainly haven't shown that it is
any higher now than it was in (say) 1890.

Like science deniers everywhere, you make claims that cannot be
substantiated by evidence.

And you are too chicken**** to even try and invent a definition for "warming
rate". The reason for this is that according to almost any scientific
definition of the "warming rate" the statement that we are warming faster
now than at any other time in recorded history is bull****.

If you felt comfortable that the earth really was warming faster now than at
any previous time, then you wouldn't worry about providing an exact
definition, the truth of the statement would not turn on the detail of the
definition. But you suspect that as soon as your claim is made testable (by
defining "warming rate"), it will be shown to be bull****.

So you don't want to define "warming rate" simply so your belief that it is
now larger than at any time in recorded history can't be tested. You are
deliberately constructing scientific sounding statements which cannot be
tested (falsified), the exact opposite of what happens in real sciences.

And you talk about "science denier"? The irony of it all.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

Then you need to learn to read! I could find it easily.

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:53:59 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

How is the earth's "warming rate" calculated or defined?

I just answered that, in the post you are responding to.

No you didn't.

Or at least, I can't find it.

Then you need to learn to read! I could find it easily.

My news reader must have dropped it.

How is the warming rate calculated/defined?

What is the current warming rate?

What was the second fastest rate of warming in the last 200 years, when was
it, and what was the warming rate at this time?

I just want to see exactly how "unprecedented" the current "warming rate"
is.