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

[Promit]

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.

While I don't agree with your characterization of Explorer, I do understand what you're saying and don't have a problem with your thoughts here. I'm just asking you to put your degree back in your pants, if you catch my oh-so-subtle meaning.

 

[celticelk]

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.

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile this statement of position with the fact that you keep posting in this thread and others in this subforum, knowing what sort of response you're likely to get.

 

[Necris]

I would think having people act as fact checkers would actually be a useful thing in a discussion which revolves around facts and not opinions.

 

[Explorer]

Fun fact: Long ago, when I switched majors from Russian (with minors in Spanish and French) to computers, Comp Sci and IT hadn't yet been adopted as names for that field. It was instead all called MIS.

So, when I switched majors in my third year, I couldn't get into a logic class in the MIS department, but managed to find a class filling the requirement in the Philosophy department. It wasn't just about logic, but about identifying faulty premises, even one's own. It was about developing critical thinking, leading to better reasoning and conclusions.

That handy tool of finding ways to falsify one's own conclusions as well as the conclusions of others, in order to test if one is basing those conclusions on reason and evidence, is something I still use to test claims.

----

GoldDragon, I'm going to point out that you have made many claims which were severe overreach, and not supported by facts. I already mentioned your previous claim, from another topic, that the reason the US and other countries have low crime rates is because of Christian morality.

When I asked you why secular countries like those in Scandanavia, and even countires which were never Christian like Japan, had lower crime rates than the currently majority-Christian US, you said that those lower rates were due to the morality Christianity left behind.

When I asked you to include Japan in your argument, you dropped out of the conversation.

You might see that as intimidation.

I see it as making claims which evidence don't support, and then falling silent when one recognizes that lack of support. I also see it as choosing silence instead of admitting that one cannot support a claim.

If you want to say that finding that one cannot prove one's case can be intimidating to someone who is wrong, I won't argue with that... but that intimidation comes from an internal source, the need to support an unsupportable argument when the facts in evidence are against that argument.

If I've misunderstood your silence on the whole "low crime in Japan due to Christian values" thing, I'll soon see that topic bumped with your evidence supporting that claim. Until then, I'll assume you have no good argument on that overreach.

 

[Danukenator]

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)

EDIT: NVM not worth it.

 

[asher]

Yeah dude, our new warm permadrought in California is going to be amazing for the avocados.

And "wetter" does jack all when it's from strong tropical storms, because they're actually quite bad for fertile topsoil.

 

[Explorer]

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile this statement of position with the fact that you keep posting in this thread and others in this subforum, knowing what sort of response which shaky unsupported claims about facts are likely to get.

Fixed.

 

[ElRay]

Another data point for those that beLIEve the myth that there's no consensus. From Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society which basically shows how ill-informed and arrogant about their ignorance most folks are:

 

[bhakan]

Another data point for those that beLIEve the myth that there's no consensus. From Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society which basically shows how ill-informed and arrogant about their ignorance most folks are:

I think this is really all that needs to be said on the topic. I haven't personally confirmed that this is a reliable survey, but assuming it is, this is the current truth. Could 87% of scientists be wrong? Absolutely, we've been wrong about things before. Will somebody on the internet with a comp sci degree (or whatever, nothing personal, just one I remember seeing) change this? No.

If you have a degree in climatology, please continue to question the majority, doing so has been a large part of how we've gotten where we are no technologically. If you do not have a degree in climatology though, what makes your ideas better than the scientific consensus? I'm all for pointless debates on the internet. I enjoy debating even if I know I will never change the other person's mind, but if these articles haven't changed more than a handful of the scientific communities minds' (who know way more than we ever will on the subject) they are probably based off of bad science that we just aren't seeing due to ignorance on the subject.

 

[ToS]

About that supposedly non-existent consensus:

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

Well, this thread should have already stopped after this post. The link reports on three peer-reviewed publications in renowned journals that provide irrefutable support for the scientific consensus (among experts in the field) on anthropogenic global warming.

Ignoring such consensus is like asking 100 physicians about the best treatment for a deadly disease and going with the advice that 3 of them give (with 97 arguing for the same alternative treatment). Frankly, such behaviour is simply irrational.

 

[Explorer]

That's the thing, Bhakan. It doesn't matter how much actual evidence there is which actually disproves ThatCanadianGuy's claim. TCG/DvEric/Dicky just isn't capable of hearing it. He has a belief which isn't based on reason, and he refused to even consider any possible way that evidence could disprove his belief.

That observable and demonstrable fact that both TCG and GoldDragon just aren't even capable of seeing where they're going wrong when they make claims about facts. In order to protect the belief-based claims, they flail around about how logic is intimidating to them, or they toss around mistaken claims about logic and constructing a decent argument. The fact that they both have made false claims about what certain arguments actually are is just sad.

It's interesting when I interact with people who rarely have contact outside their bubble of confirmation. I know lots of people who only watch Fox News, for example, and they often completely shut down when a widely reported fact contradicts that source and/or the talking points presented on it.

It took me a while to really believe that they weren't doing it in a malicious way, but that it was just some kind of psychologically blind pathology.

I thought for sure that TCG was going to be able to break out of his pathology at the point where I used his Santa Claus example to show how one could convince rational adults that something supernatural had happened. It was easy to follow, and a great example of how something as unlikely as Santa being real could have enough evidence around it to overcome pretty hardcore skepticism around the globe.

For TCG, it is apparently easier to argue that one could might find evidence for Santa Claus than that TCG might be mistaken.

It's more likely to prove that Santa exists than that he made a mistake.

That's pretty hardcore.

After that pretty miserable showing, I'm pretty sure there's at least one person who is grateful that rep is gone.

At least TCG is smarter than Eric. Eric kept starting topics arguing the same stuff, arguing that there was no evidence which would change his beliefs, and he's gone. TCG just abandoned ship before the hammer came down.

 

[Danukenator]

Another data point for those that beLIEve the myth that there's no consensus. From Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society which basically shows how ill-informed and arrogant about their ignorance most folks are:

To add to this most scientists are not divided into just one camp.

I only mention this because many people believe scientists are ignoring natural feedbacks that are contributing to global climate change (forest secession in Canada has change the regions albedo, increasing the amount of absorbed isolation). These are well documented so scientists are usually of the opinion that the change in cause primarily by anthropogenic sources but then amplified by natural forcing and feedbacks.

People were talking about clouds earlier. Their net effect is still debated but clearly it's not to make-or-break what is known about current trends in global climate change.

 

[TRENCHLORD]

Yeah dude, our new warm permadrought in California is going to be amazing for the avocados.

And "wetter" does jack all when it's from strong tropical storms, because they're actually quite bad for fertile topsoil.

Yeah man, the "great breadbasket of world" the southern Canadian Plains and the Dakotas .

Learn to love climate change, because it's unstoppable, regardless of it's causes or extent. I promise it will never change in a way to make everyone happy at all locations.

Man must continue to develop new technologies in order to leave less of an environmental footprint, that much is true, but unfortunately there are much differing opinions as to how this is best accomplished while still allowing everyone a "fair" opportunity to make a living and compete in our new global economy. (oh yeah!!! Obama would like this "fairness talk")

 

[Animus]

I understand that you deny there is a consensus.

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?

For me it would be simply their "climate models" actually reflecting what actually happened in temperature. Their whole theory is based on computer models and it has become increasingly obvious they are vastly overestimating CO2 forcings. There has been no statistically significant warming since around 1998, despite exponential increases in CO2 emmissions. Even Hansen has admitted as such, and now they are frantically scurrying around trying to explain it and moving goalposts. What do you think they changed it to "climate change" from "global warming"?

The whole "consensus" thing is a joke. Of course, no scientist would deny climate change. It has always happened and will happen in the future. The issue is if "man" has an impact on the warming and how significant it may or may not be, there is no consensus on that. Science is by nature skeptical. Anyone telling you there's a consensus on something you should instantly be skeptical. And there are lot's of things to be skeptical about in "AGW". And let's not even talk about Climategate.

Me personally, I think mankind does have some affect on warming but it's far less significant than a lot of other climate forcings. And ultimately, there's not much we can do about it practically. Carbon taxing ain't going to do anything to change it and you are just going to make the non-rich more poor through higher energy costs, food prices, basically everything.

 

[PlumbTheDerps]

lol nvm I probably would have gotten banned for this post

 

[Promit]

For me it would be simply their "climate models" actually reflecting what actually happened in temperature. Their whole theory is based on computer models and it has become increasingly obvious they are vastly overestimating CO2 forcings. There has been no statistically significant warming since around 1998, despite exponential increases in CO2 emmissions. Even Hansen has admitted as such, and now they are frantically scurrying around trying to explain it and moving goalposts. What do you think they changed it to "climate change" from "global warming"?

The whole "consensus" thing is a joke. Of course, no scientist would deny climate change. It has always happened and will happen in the future. The issue is if "man" has an impact on the warming and how significant it may or may not be, there is no consensus on that. Science is by nature skeptical. Anyone telling you there's a consensus on something you should instantly be skeptical. And there are lot's of things to be skeptical about in "AGW". And let's not even talk about Climategate.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is what it looks like when a liar shows their hand.

 

[Grindspine]

I am just going to throw some food for thought into the fray.

Ice is a buffer.

When one tries to heat a glass of water with ice in it, the temperature (on average) does not raise that quickly. The ice has to absorb energy and melt before the temperature of those molecules is free to increase.

Those looking for evidence might want to turn their attention to the glaciers of the world. An eye-opening experience for me was seeing photographs of several glaciers taken during the 1970s and 1980s compared to the same glaciers photographed between 2000 and 2010. The exhibit at the Columbus (Ohio) Zoo and Aquarium features these photographs on the walkway to the penguin exhibit.

My point is that those who believe temperature is not increasing appreciably are not foreseeing what will happen as the glaciers thaw; they are not considering the interaction between liquid water, ice, and overall temperatures.

 

[estabon37]

Those looking for evidence might want to turn their attention to the glaciers of the world. An eye-opening experience for me was seeing photographs of several glaciers taken during the 1970s and 1980s compared to the same glaciers photographed between 2000 and 2010. The exhibit at the Columbus (Ohio) Zoo and Aquarium features these photographs on the walkway to the penguin exhibit.

My point is that those who believe temperature is not increasing appreciably are not foreseeing what will happen as the glaciers thaw; they are not considering the interaction between liquid water, ice, and overall temperatures.

From Chasing Ice:



Edit: That's the first time I've embedded a YouTube video here. Took me four attempts, but I think I got it

 

[pushpull7]

Guys, as bad as my area (central cali) is (and it's BAD) I don't think anything will ever equal 1998. I spent the summer in Seattle. And though it was fun, it was MISERABLE temp wise. Almost nothing was a/c'ed and it was BLISTERING.

I went there to get away from the summer heat of Nashville

When I got back, Nashville was DEAD. Everything was brown an dying. That was not normal.

But I digress, it's so bad here, it feels like the world is baking.

 

[ElRay]

This thread got bumped, and I just realized how moronic this statement:

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

is, and how much it proves that you don't understand logical fallacies at all.

First, a Comp Sci degree has nothing to do with logical fallacies in an argument. Comp Sci deals with AND, OR, XOR, NOT, IF/THEN/ELSE that's it. Also, there's nothing preventing total nonsense like:

   IF (STUDENT.ID IS EVENLY DIVISIBLE BY 13) AND (TODAY'S DATE IS ODD) THEN
      STUDENT.GPA = 4.0
   END

Second, your posts have clearly illustrated that you do not understand even the basic logical fallacies. As an example, your statement suffers from the fallacy of "Argument from Authority".