Why 2014 Wasn't the Hottest Year on Record, and How we Knew Before 2015

[celticelk]

This is a liberal agenda at cross purposes. The increased CO2 emissions are a function of increasing world population.

God forbid anyone suggest we limit childbirth (like China) in order to control the damage to our environment! Liberals would just love that.

Reducing the population would certainly be one way to reduce CO2 emissions, at least in the short term. It'd be difficult to make it stick, partly because you'd have to enforce the limit pretty harshly, which is just not a good solution from anybody's perspective, and partly because fewer people means less demand means lower prices for fossil fuels, which is going to tend to *increase* per-capita usage. There are other reasons apart from climate change to support a reduced human population en route to a more sustainable humanity, though I certainly wouldn't advocate a child cap, for reasons of both liberty and efficiency. Given the strong correlation between advanced industrial economies and lower birth rates, improved education and sustainable economic development seem like a much better strategy.

 

[Explorer]

You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.

I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.

So... you're backing off of the unsupportable "liberals are against birth control" assertion, right?

Or is that claim off limits to logic and proofs... and disproofs?

I wasn't out to prove my intelligence on that point. I was pointing out that you were attempting to make a dismissive argument about liberals, and had to rely on a fabrication to do so.

If making an argument based on a fabrication says something about the claimant, I'd be more worried about what that says about you.

Hey, wait a moment... didn't you make arguments which support the claim that Japan has a lower crime rate than the US because Japan has Christian values behind its laws? You never came back to that one.

Since you wanted us to now about your knowledge of logic and proofs, I am eager to see that knowledge demonstrated, instead of it being a claim which your arguments seem to undermine.

 

[flint757]

Actually they dropped that rule, its an interesting read and I would assume Forbes isn't part of the New World Order misinformation machine (lol): Why China Is Finally Abandoning Its One Child Policy - Forbes

Reducing the population would certainly be one way to reduce CO2 emissions, at least in the short term. It'd be difficult to make it stick, partly because you'd have to enforce the limit pretty harshly, which is just not a good solution from anybody's perspective, and partly because fewer people means less demand means lower prices for fossil fuels, which is going to tend to *increase* per-capita usage. There are other reasons apart from climate change to support a reduced human population en route to a more sustainable humanity, though I certainly wouldn't advocate a child cap, for reasons of both liberty and efficiency. Given the strong correlation between advanced industrial economies and lower birth rates, improved education and sustainable economic development seem like a much better strategy.

It is indeed amazing how little people know about the world around them. Most civilians still think the existence of a first and third world still exists (as far as what people consider first and third world based on poverty, fertility and health) when in reality the distinction doesn't actually exist anymore. The world has changed into essentially a bell curve as far as health and wealth goes. That's one place where history actually creates misinformation because people don't bother looking at the current state of affairs, instead relying on outdated information that no longer applies.

This website actually does a wonderful breakdown of the world today and even lets you view the world as it progressed using a number of parameter options.

Gapminder World

I found out about this through one of my classes. The guy who made it does TED talks on statistics each year. He's actually very good at making boring data interesting to sit through.

What's really interesting is that, based on the trends, all that is needed to reduce the overall population is to make the world at large a healthier/wealthier place.

 

[pwsusi]

I'm not an expert on this subject (actually I'm a computer scientist and don't have time or interest in researching this climate change stuff to the extent that others here have), but all the charts graphs i see showing increase in rising temperatures all seem to start around 1850 (there are a couple earlier in this thread). I take it that's as far back as we have been recording. Interestingly enough didn't the last mini ice age/cooling period end around the same time?
From wikipedia..

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[

Wouldn't it make sense that if we were coming out out of a cooling period that lasted several hundreds of years that we'd naturally see a warming trend?


Regardless, arguing over whether or not there is a problem doesn't solve anything. Suppose we are destroying the planet, so what's the proposed solution? There isn't one that wouldn't cripple our economy and that's the real problem. When the technology is there and it's cost effective people will happily move to clean renewable energy; right and left, believers and non-believers of man made climate change. The problem is the technology is not there. So what do we do in the meantime? Force everyone to drive electric cars when we're still burning coal to produce the electricity? Are we really fixing anything or just pushing an agenda on people, doing what feels good and telling ourselves we are fixing the problem when we have no data to show that we are having any impact.

There is all this data analysis flying around here to prove a point about climate change yet i see no one talking about data analysis to quantify what it will take to resolve the problem. How many cars need to come off the roads, how many incandescent light bulbs need to be converted to LED, why isn't all energy being generated from windmills, etc, etc. We are so focused on data to prove climate change yet none of this data is ever mentioned.

So what's the recommended action plan and how are we measuring success? How come politicians on the left are still flying around in private jets if they're so concerned about CO2? Want to convert the nay sayers...stop the intellectual crap and start by practicing what you preach. We are being sold a story about climate change, and whether you think it's true or not, of course we are the ones left holding the bag. We are the ones who have to make the sacrifices, deal with higher energy costs etc...while our hypocritical politicians do nothing to help or lead our way out of the so called problem, make no sacrifices, and pretend to care. In the meantime we get the shaft.

Just as big oil has a lot to gain by keeping the status quo there are others on the other side that will profit from all the green initiatives. And does one really think oil companies aren't keeping up with the times and investing time and money in alternative energy? If i were a betting man i would bet they are positioning themselves to smoothly transition over to whatever will make them profitable in the future.

 

[celticelk]

About the Little Ice Age: What ended the Little Ice Age?

 

[flint757]

Call me crazy, but I'm sure that discussion is in fact being had by people who actually matter on the subject. This entire conversation is quite superficial at the level we are discussing. The only benefit it serves is to inform others about the world around them so they can be better informed voters.

And the oil companies have tried 'green initiatives' like trying to keep oil/gas in the loop with higher ethanol level gasoline. It just sort of fizzled out of existence (I rarely see it as an option at gas stations where I live) and that was probably for the better. It would have had horrible affects on food prices if it was successful. Currently, oil companies are simply delaying so that they can find a way to profit on the future. They wouldn't want the companies that actually invested the time and energy on alternative energy to make most of the profit. They'll just do what all other mega-corp industries do, buy out or re-brand other peoples ideas.

 

[Promit]

You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.

I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.

I have two Comp Sci degrees. Don't attempt to associate my profession with what you're peddling.

 

[Explorer]

I'm not an expert on this subject (actually I'm a computer scientist and don't have time or interest in researching this climate change stuff to the extent that others here have), but all the charts graphs i see showing increase in rising temperatures all seem to start around 1850 (there are a couple earlier in this thread). I take it that's as far back as we have been recording. Interestingly enough didn't the last mini ice age/cooling period end around the same time?

Wouldn't it make sense that if we were coming out out of a cooling period that lasted several hundreds of years that we'd naturally see a warming trend?

Actually, you have an excellent question there buried in that: How can the temperature prior to 1850 be determined? Since there was no directly recorded data by human agency, is there any sort of proxy to provide that data? What physical processes would have retained traces of temperatures prior to that time?

Would there be any sort of record left in ice at the poles?

Any pattern of wood grain growth which has proven consistent with higher and lower temperatures?

What about the growth patterns of coral reefs, or ocean sediments?

Could cave stalagmites provide such data?

If there are multiple claimed sources of such proxy data, do they correlate with each other?

If there are such sources of proxy data, and that the data produced by the disparate methods, conducted by independent researchers across many disciplines, have been found to interlock and support the same conclusions, would that just be a wild coincidence?

If someone studying coral reef growth and coral fossils said that this pattern of growth would work out to be this many thousands or millions of years, and someone studying ocean sediments said that these patterns indicate this many thousands or millions of years, and the two different methods produced the same high and low temperature data, that would be good evidence that something was driving that convergence.

If you add data from stalagmites to that, and such data also had the same highs and lows, that convergence is made even less likely to be by chance.

And, if there were such huge convergences across many bodies of scientific research, denialists would have their hands full to come up with a workable theory which better explained that convergence.

I think it would be more likely that they would take the path of the creationists/intelligent design advocates, and try to pick at small parts of the evidence where they could.

And since they are often working from the same dogmatic, authoritarian knowledge theory as the creationists, they think that disproving one small point would make the whole thing fall down. They don't really understand the scientific method or the process.

And, like the creationists, they have many different hypotheses which contradict each other, only united in that they are opposed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

And the less intelligent would just repeat what they think will work, even if it's easily disproven, and they don't mind. That core assertion from the OP, that there is no scientific consensus, led to the OP apparently abandoning the topic because he refused to consider a way that he could be convinced his claim is wrong. It's like someone wanting to you read the Bible to prove that it's true, and ignore any facts from outside the Bible which contradict it... or even the parts of the Bible which contradict each other.

There is all this data analysis flying around here to prove a point about climate change yet i see no one talking about data analysis to quantify what it will take to resolve the problem. ...We are so focused on data to prove climate change yet none of this data is ever mentioned.

That's because the topic, on a forum dedicated to ERGs of all kinds, was started purely to deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. People like that aren't invited to sit at the adult table when serious discussions are held, because they haven't proven themselves mature enough to leave the kids' table.

But such serious discussion do happen, and occasionally the grownups have to put the kids in their place.

'I'm not a scientist, either,' president says | TheHill

Obama Strikes First in War of Words with Congress over Global Warming - Scientific American

All this is besides the point of this topic, though. I'm still hoping the OP will come through.

ThatCanadianGuy/Dicky/Devric, I'm still pulling for you answering this question:

What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?

Come on, man. If I can come up with a scenario, based on your suggestion, to convince a lot of people that Santa actually exists, you mean you're not smart enough to come up with a scenario which would convince you that there is a scientific consensus of more than 90% of climate scientists about the truth of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?

I'm starting to suspect you don't actually base your conclusions and claims on reason and evidence, brother.

 

[TRENCHLORD]

A warmer wetter earth?
Well if we're not going to install population management programs the world over (real ones that not many will like) then maybe a warmer wetter earth will open up new lands for farming and also help restore many of the world's depleting freshwater stores. ("always look on the bright side of life")

Maybe the whole industrial age is just a product of an alien intervention designed to prolong earth's temporarily habitable surface environment . (for their grand human experiment)

 

[flint757]

There's no need. As nations become more industrialized the fewer kids they have. Here in the US the average is 1-2. That's actually the case in most of the healthy, industrialized nations. There has been a steady trend in most countries towards the same without any measures at all.

 

[TRENCHLORD]

There's no need. As nations become more industrialized the fewer kids they have. Here in the US the average is 1-2. That's actually the case in most of the healthy, industrialized nations. There has been a steady trend in most countries towards the same without any measures at all.

Good , but are nations becoming more industrialized faster than the population is growing? Seems like it's still growing fast.
When I was a kid 30yrs ago they said that China was 1/3 of the pop. and had just reached 1billion. So that's global 3billion.
Now what is it? 6 or 7 billion?
Houston, me still thinks we have a problem.


edit;
Found this.

 

[pwsusi]

Actually, you have an excellent question there buried in that: How can the temperature prior to 1850 be determined? Since there was no directly recorded data by human agency, is there any sort of proxy to provide that data? What physical processes would have retained traces of temperatures prior to that time?

Would there be any sort of record left in ice at the poles?

Any pattern of wood grain growth which has proven consistent with higher and lower temperatures?

What about the growth patterns of coral reefs, or ocean sediments?

Could cave stalagmites provide such data?

If there are multiple claimed sources of such proxy data, do they correlate with each other?

If there are such sources of proxy data, and that the data produced by the disparate methods, conducted by independent researchers across many disciplines, have been found to interlock and support the same conclusions, would that just be a wild coincidence?

If someone studying coral reef growth and coral fossils said that this pattern of growth would work out to be this many thousands or millions of years, and someone studying ocean sediments said that these patterns indicate this many thousands or millions of years, and the two different methods produced the same high and low temperature data, that would be good evidence that something was driving that convergence.

If you add data from stalagmites to that, and such data also had the same highs and lows, that convergence is made even less likely to be by chance.

And, if there were such huge convergences across many bodies of scientific research, denialists would have their hands full to come up with a workable theory which better explained that convergence.

I think it would be more likely that they would take the path of the creationists/intelligent design advocates, and try to pick at small parts of the evidence where they could.

And since they are often working from the same dogmatic, authoritarian knowledge theory as the creationists, they think that disproving one small point would make the whole thing fall down. They don't really understand the scientific method or the process.

Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.

But such serious discussion do happen, and occasionally the grownups have to put the kids in their place.

'I'm not a scientist, either,' president says | TheHill

Obama Strikes First in War of Words with Congress over Global Warming - Scientific American

Why in every response do you have to make a statement about how you or those who share your position are are smarter than everyone else? Okay, so the president wants a clean power bill..

-What is the cost associated with reducing carbon pollution per mega-watt hour?
- What are specific reduction in sea levels, temperature, etc, etc, that will result from this? Has a cost/benefit analysis been done?
– Will the utility rates increase as a result be passed on to the consumers?
- What if the States refuse to buy into the plan?
- What economic impact will there be to states whose economy depends upon the coal and the mining industry? How is EPA going to assure the States it would not affect the economy of the respective States?
- Is the federal government providing any funds or subsidy to the States to off-set the cost that the state may incur as result of implementing the plan?
- If it becomes more costly to do business in the U.S. isn't a logical reaction for companies to continue to move overseas? Then we act surprised when US jobs are lost and blame everyone else but not look in the mirror as one of the sources of the problem?

Wouldn't a grown up think through consequences before taking action? We have data to support climate change where's all the data to support this? Seems like we're hearing the whole "it's better than nothing" answer. A grown up does not provide those kinds of answers.

I hope you are equally as interested in finding a solution as you are proving your intelligence to the OP and others who does not believe in man-made climate change.

 

[Konfyouzd]

You're trying to prove your intelligence and the internet is not the place to do that. I think its a good place to banter, to poke and prod. If you want real debate, join a debate club or get a law degree.

I have a Comp Sci degree, with minors in Math and Philosophy. I understand logic and proofs.

You debate hard in every thread I see you in. If you wish to concede, do so w grace, friend.

 

[celticelk]

Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. We may not have thousands or millions of years' worth of records taken by scientists with precision thermometers, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a reasonable idea of what the conditions on Earth have been in the past. Explorer listed a number of ways in which those conditions can be documented using natural proxies; calibrating them against the instrumental record in the years where they overlap enables us to have some confidence in them as primary readouts for earlier periods.

To answer your health analogy: if I've been drinking heavily for a week and my symptoms are consistent with alcohol poisoning, no competent physician is going to demand a comprehensive review of my medical history in order to diagnose the problem and recommend treatment.

 

[piggins411]

Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.



Why in every response do you have to make a statement about how you or those who share your position are are smarter than everyone else? Okay, so the president wants a clean power bill..

-What is the cost associated with reducing carbon pollution per mega-watt hour?
- What are specific reduction in sea levels, temperature, etc, etc, that will result from this? Has a cost/benefit analysis been done?
– Will the utility rates increase as a result be passed on to the consumers?
- What if the States refuse to buy into the plan?
- What economic impact will there be to states whose economy depends upon the coal and the mining industry? How is EPA going to assure the States it would not affect the economy of the respective States?
- Is the federal government providing any funds or subsidy to the States to off-set the cost that the state may incur as result of implementing the plan?
- If it becomes more costly to do business in the U.S. isn't a logical reaction for companies to continue to move overseas? Then we act surprised when US jobs are lost and blame everyone else but not look in the mirror as one of the sources of the problem?

Wouldn't a grown up think through consequences before taking action? We have data to support climate change where's all the data to support this? Seems like we're hearing the whole "it's better than nothing" answer. A grown up does not provide those kinds of answers.

I hope you are equally as interested in finding a solution as you are proving your intelligence to the OP and others who does not believe in man-made climate change.

The reason we haven't been discussing this is because it was beyond the scope of what we're talking about. What to actually do about climate change is an important (and difficult to answer) question, but people need to actually believe in it before they want to change it.

 

[Explorer]

Right...so in other words there is no data to support it and research has not been done yet we have come to a conclusion. So there is no convergences across many bodies of scientific research because they figure why bother, denialists will find a way to refute their studies; got it. Looking at the last the last 150 years when the earth is billions of years old is like basing my overall health on how i felt yesterday.

No.

There's an expression which I don't often hear anymore: A word to the wise is sufficient. In other words, you only need to hint at something for someone ahead of the curve to understand it.

I was thinking that you would take all those suggestions I was making, and think, wow, those are some really specific examples? Are there known processes which proceed in known manners, and which can be used to determine both duration and temperature? Could Explorer actually be listing those examples? Do those examples, from all those different fields, actually converge in the timing of the different hot and cold periods over the past millenia, or even epochs, so that one could know about the Earth's temperature beyond the minimal period of modern history for which people have recorded temperatures?

And the answer would be, yes, there exist all those regular, predictable processes from many independent fields which allow one to measure time and temperature, and yes, they do converge in temperatures in different periods.

Just because denialists are currently attempting to deny AGW, evolution, and other fields of science, the grown-ups continue to move forward.

Why in every response do you have to make a statement about how you or those who share your position are are smarter than everyone else?

My responses are about how feeling and dogmatism are not reliable methods for making decisions, and fall far short of using evidence and reason. That's been a pretty big theme in this topic, trying to get someone to show that they are making a claim about facts based on reason and evidence.

Do you come to your conclusions through reason and evidence?

If so, would you think that you were using a superior process to just following dogma and talking points?

I'm just curious as to why you think that dismissing dogma in favor of reason and evidence is a bad thing.

Wouldn't a grown up think through consequences before taking action? We have data to support climate change where's all the data to support this?

It appears that you're conferring the status of grown-up upon those who haven't mastered the adult ability/skill of using reason and evidence. Would someone who used reason and evidence in a grown-up way be capable of arguing, say, that Obama didn't think that the prevalence of "I'm not a scientist" line is misguided?

Would someone who used reason and evidence in a grown-up way be capable of saying that climate scientists have not reached a scientific consensus, based on all the evidence out there, in word and deed (including published, peer-reviewed data) from those climate scientists?

I don't think that someone who can either ignore all that evidence, or someone who knows the evidence but denies it anyway, is mature enough to be part of the discussion of what to do about the issue. It would be like getting creationists to serve on a board to determine the best scientific consensus on biology and geology, in order to determine how best to teach science to kids.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're upset that I'm asking the OP questions about his claim about facts, instead of starting a different topic to talk about solutions. If the latter... what are *you* waiting for?

Me? I think the biggest impediment to focusing energy and resources on solutions and mitigation is idiots who are deliberately obstructing the conversation. Since this board doesn't really wield any power, and is just a discussion board, I think that my energy is actually being well used in both trying to get a rational answer from ThatCanadianGuy, and in pointing out ThatCanadianGuy's reasons for his conclusions to others. That kind of discussion can help others do the same, getting more cranks the level of respect for their claims about facts which those claims deserve.

 

[GoldDragon]

Explorer,
I think you are ready to take it to the "next level".

Why waste precious time with words when you can decompose sentences into logical expressions?

These techniques were covered in Comp Sci classes, advanced math, and also in philosophy/law. These take most people at least a semester to master but you seem to be chomping at the bit and seem hungry to learn how its really done.

Rules of Inference

Rules of Inference and Logic Proofs

I don't want to hear back from you before you have studied and learned how to apply these techniques to your arguments.

 

[Promit]

I think GoldDragon must be the only person in his family who went to college or something. "I went to college and successfully attended Formal Logic 1! Bow before my ability to link the web pages that taught me to pass the final! I spent an entire semester becoming a master of logic!"

News flash: the rest of us sat through those lectures too. Nobody fking cares about your math minor (which is essentially free with a CS degree) or your ability to regurgitate freshman prerequisite material. Maybe those work as intimidation techniques in whatever backwater you came out of, but here it's just pathetic watching you try to show off.

So I repeat: stop trying to associate computer science with the garbage you're peddling. Bring it up the next time we want to talk about Turing completeness, complexity classes, or security proofs. Or maybe the debate club will let you hang out post-graduation and you can impress all the students there.

 

[pink freud]

Guys, quit throwing Ad Homs around.

 

[GoldDragon]

Maybe those work as intimidation techniques in whatever backwater you came out of, but here it's just pathetic watching you try to show off.

I think Explorer has a track record of trying to be the person you describe. I mentioned my credientials because he accused me and some others of faulty logic. I thought he should know theres a larger world out there; it didn't seem like he knows that and is trying to be a big fish in a tiny pond. (Like a factory worker who just discovered logic and can't get enough.) I don't have the time or inclination to get into a detailed debate, especially not with someone I do not respect. I can't think of anything less enjoyable to do in my free time.

There are a TON of better sites to engage in debate than SSrg. It is better to have collaborative conversations with musicians where they bounce ideas off each other than to have people acting as dictators and fact checkers. Its one thing to disagree, but to be demonized because your opinion is different is where things get out of hand.