|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"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? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 10 03:27 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | March 9th 06 03:10 PM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |