Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by StuM

The blatant cherry pick is the 1950 start point, not the location.

where was Calgary again, and why is that location not cherry picked?

[Captjohn1974]

CALGARY of all places! A city with a climate 100% driven by the Rocky Mountains, probably the most sucseptible to swings due to jetstream shifts on the entire planet.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Captjohn1974

CALGARY of all places! A city with a climate 100% driven by the Rocky Mountains, probably the most sucseptible to swings due to jetstream shifts on the entire planet.

Pick any city stu also did the numbers for Ottawa
BTW he did pick Calgary for a reason but not its specific geographical location but instead because jack calls it homeport.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM

Or come up with the national means for those preceding 10 decadal years if it proves my random sample is totally non representative.

I did

Quote:
Over the last six decades, Canada has become warmer, with average temperatures over land increasing by 1.5°C between 1950 and 2010

__________________

Yet another failure to comprehend plain English?

I suggest that you come up with "those preceding 10 decadal years"
i.e. the Canadian mean annual temperatures for 1900,1910,1920,1930 and 1940.

You respond with repeating the claimed amount of warming between 1950 and 2010.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you really not understand what "those preceding 10 decadal years" means when you have just been shown the data from 1900,1910,1920,1930 and 1940 in comparison to the cherry picked 1950?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

where was Calgary again, and why is that location not cherry picked?

Nope, you really don't know what cherry picking is, do you?
It is not cherry picking a location if you don't know what the data says at the time you pick it. I picked alocation because you come from there - not because it supported my contention. I was not aware of what the data said until I looked at it. Same with the second place I picked at random.

That is random selection - the very antithesis of cherry picking.

What is cherry picking is someone knowing that most of the period from 1900 to 1950 was warmer than 1950 but then knowingly selecting 1950 to give the largest warming period possible.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Captjohn1974

CALGARY of all places! A city with a climate 100% driven by the Rocky Mountains, probably the most sucseptible to swings due to jetstream shifts on the entire planet.

And that invalidates randomly selecting it as an example of multidecadal trends how?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by StuM

Nope, you really don't know what cherry picking is, do you?
It is not cherry picking a location if you don't know what the data says at the time you pick it. I picked alocation because you come from there - not because it supported my contention. I was not aware of what the data said until I looked at it. Same with the second place I picked at random.

That is random selection - the very antithesis of cherry picking.

What is cherry picking is someone knowing that most of the period from 1900 to 1950 was warmer than 1950 but then knowingly selecting 1950 to give the largest warming period possible.

cheery picking is also picking 2 locations from a known anomaly, even if you pick those 2 locations at random.
but you already know that.
or you have no idea what the image i posted means or don't care and than this discussion is pointless.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

cheery picking is also picking 2 locations from a known anomaly, even if you pick those 2 locations at random.
but you already know that.

"Errrrr....khakis..."

Stu didn't pick the locations...jack chose the locations when he cited Canada as his example.

"Well, she sounds hideous."

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

cheery picking is also picking 2 locations from a known anomaly, even if you pick those 2 locations at random.
but you already know that.
or you have no idea what the image i posted means or don't care and than this discussion is pointless.

What is this "known anomaly" you refer to?

The image shows that most of Canada was warmer in December, January and February on average in the period 1951 to 1980 than it was during the period Dec,Jan Feb 2014.

That tells us absolutely nothing about the annual mean temperatures in the years in question.

Please do explain how that is relevant to my original point.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by StuM

What is this "known anomaly" you refer to?

The image shows that most of Canada was warmer in December, January and February on average in the period 1951 to 1980 than it was during the period Dec,Jan Feb 2014.

That tells us absolutely nothing about the annual mean temperatures in the years in question.

Please do explain how that is relevant to my original point.

But it does raise the question of where and when Jacks quoted Canadian warming between 1950 and 2012 actually occurred.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

jack, that makes no sense to me.

A system with positive feedback is certainly not a "stable system in equilibrium."

Your post seems to say that stable CO2 levels is the objective. Why isn't a climate that exhibits natural variability the objective, independent of CO2 levels, since higher CO2 concentrations have positive effects as well as negative?

You are correct.

CO2 is infinite; it cannot continue to be a positive loop. At a certain point the combination of Milankovitch cycles, and finite CO2 results in cooling. Cooler oceans can hold hold more CO2.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

CO2 is infinite...

You standing both the port and starboard watches again?

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Vostok ice cores never exceeded 300 ppm CO2 for the past 800,000 years.

You do realize that the Pleistocene period started 2.5 millions years ago and we have been in and out of Ice Ages since then.

Therefore no one would expect the Vostok ice cores to show anything else.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

You standing both the port and starboard watches again?

Thanks for the catch.

CO2 is finite.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

You do realize that the Pleistocene period started 2.5 millions years ago and we have been in and out of Ice Ages since then.

Therefore no one would expect the Vostok ice cores to show anything else.

You do realize my comment was in response to Stu's assertion.

Seems they may have been a bit higher that thought 12-15000 years ago

That is well within the time frame of the Vostok ice cores.

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago.