Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,660
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Yes I always took 'a centred average' to mean that. The mid-point of the data being averaged, so for a 13 month period it will give an average of all the data from the 6.5 months previous and the 6.5 months afterwards.
Hence why the 'rolling 7days average' that gets reported on the 'rona figures always seems to show a number that appears higher when the daily rates are dropping - this is because it averages only the previous 7 days and none of the following days as they haven't yet occurred.
 

hunck

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,482
Location
Hobbs End
A "centered moving average' means you take the average for an entire timespan (presumably spanning multiple data points) and chart it at the center of the timespan depiction. In this case, the red centered peaks within each of the years' spans represent overall averages for the spanned data points for the entire given year. There isn't (and can't be) any centered moving average for 2021 because the year's not completed and all the data necessary to calculate the average hasn't been collected yet.
Thanks Enola, do you know all this stuff or do you look it up? :)

That answers question one, still curious about the other one.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
27,735
Location
Out of Bounds
For the first time since records were being kept it rained, rather than snowed, at Greenland's highest point.
Rain fell at the normally snowy summit of Greenland for the first time on record

For the first time on record, precipitation on Saturday at the summit of Greenland — roughly two miles above sea level — fell as rain and not snow.

Temperatures at the Greenland summit over the weekend rose above freezing for the third time in less than a decade. The warm air fueled an extreme rain event that dumped 7 billion tons of water on the ice sheet, enough to fill the Reflecting Pool at the National Mall in Washington, DC, nearly 250,000 times.

It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and the amount of ice mass lost on Sunday was seven times higher than the daily average for this time of year.

Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, said this is evidence Greenland is warming rapidly.

"What is going on is not simply a warm decade or two in a wandering climate pattern," Scambos told CNN. "This is unprecedented." ...
FULL STORY: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/weather/greenland-summit-rain-climate-change/index.html
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,660
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
I wonder if there is any anecdotal evidence (or other unofficial record) of it having rained there prior to 1950.
Whenever something is quoted as 'since records began' (or similar) my first thought is always "When did records begins?"
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,556
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
I wonder if there is any anecdotal evidence (or other unofficial record) of it having rained there prior to 1950.
Whenever something is quoted as 'since records began' (or similar) my first thought is always "When did records begins?"
Records began at an arbitrary date strategically selected by the people who wish to have a certain outcome from the statistics.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,660
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Records began at an arbitrary date strategically selected by the people who wish to have a certain outcome from the statistics.
Not always strictly the case but I know what you're getting at - there are occasions when a set of records beginning from a certain date are more convenient for supporting the case of those putting forward their theories.
Also a written record is less reliable* than more 'analogue' forms of records eg. Tree Rings, geological layers, ice cores, etc etc.
* = 'less reliable' depending on how accurate the person is that writes the record.
 

hunck

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,482
Location
Hobbs End
Records began at an arbitrary date strategically selected by the people who wish to have a certain outcome from the statistics.
In this case you would appear to be talking nonsense - 1950 isn’t an ‘arbitrary date’ chosen to fit a particular view - according to the report it’s when records began. Unless of course you know better.

Are you saying there's records prior to this that they're ignoring because it doesn't fit their agenda?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,556
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
In this case you would appear to be talking nonsense - 1950 isn’t an ‘arbitrary date’ chosen to fit a particular view - according to the report it’s when records began. Unless of course you know better.

Are you saying there's records prior to this that they're ignoring because it doesn't fit their agenda?
'Records'. Well, there's also the fossil record.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,556
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Er…what help are fossil records with respect to rainfall/melting ice on Greenland?
Periods of warming can be found in alluvial deposits, rock and vegetation. There is also the carbon record in the debris left behind.
Greenland does have some vegetation, in spite of the massive ice coverage. We also know that the Vikings had a settlement there until the ice encroached, forcing them to the coast.
 

hunck

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,482
Location
Hobbs End
Periods of warming can be found in alluvial deposits, rock and vegetation. There is also the carbon record in the debris left behind.
Greenland does have some vegetation, in spite of the massive ice coverage. We also know that the Vikings had a settlement there until the ice encroached, forcing them to the coast.
The article is about rainfall at the highest point on Greenland, some 2 miles above sea level. I’m not sure any rock or vegetation is to be found there. The ice may well be several kilometres thick.

I’m not sure what Vikings once having a settlement can tell us either - I doubt they lived at the highest point.
 

Sid

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
1,434
The article is about rainfall at the highest point on Greenland, some 2 miles above sea level. I’m not sure any rock or vegetation is to be found there. The ice may well be several kilometres thick.

I’m not sure what Vikings once having a settlement can tell us either - I doubt they lived at the highest point.
Found this online 'hunck.'
Screenshot 2021-08-20 120935.jpg

extract from: https://www.mvorganizing.org/why-wa...ago/#When_did_Greenland_become_covered_in_ice

Also as an extra bit of info - Iceland is the greener of the two, and Greenland is the Iciest of the two. The reason as I understand it, is that the people of the day decided to name iceland as Iceland to try and encourage people away from living there, and Greenland to make it sound as if it was a better place to live! Fascinating Stuff!
1629458710116.png
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
27,735
Location
Out of Bounds

RaM

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
2,804
Location
NW UK
No records before 1950, give over I don't believe records were not kept during
WW11, after all they spent a lot of time and it cost a lot of lives to get the met
forecast right surly they would not just chuck the data away.
and there was a weather station on Ben Nevis in the 1800's
From the met office site,
"Weather reports for the UK, every day from 3 September 1860 to the present. "
  • Though they claim to have reports form 1770



:omr:
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
27,735
Location
Out of Bounds
No records before 1950, give over I don't believe records were not kept during WW11, after all they spent a lot of time and it cost a lot of lives to get the met forecast right surly they would not just chuck the data away. ...
The story concerns rain at a specific site - the Greenland summit (highest point). AFAIK there was no persistent presence at the Greenland summit until Summit Camp was built.
 

Sid

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
1,434
No records before 1950, give over I don't believe records were not kept during
WW11, after all they spent a lot of time and it cost a lot of lives to get the met
forecast right surly they would not just chuck the data away.
and there was a weather station on Ben Nevis in the 1800's
From the met office site,
"Weather reports for the UK, every day from 3 September 1860 to the present. "
  • Though they claim to have reports form 1770



:omr:
That was the mountain that I very nearly came a cropper on when I reached the top. There is a plaque I remember, which mentioned that the gentleman who gathered the see-able weather forecast at that time, used to climb up and down Nevis every single day to get those readings! He must have been as tough as old boots to do that.
 

flannel

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
120
Location
East Midlands, UK
I've heard* that a climate scientist called Koonin has a book called Unsettled that is good for this sort of stuff but haven't read it. Here's a WSJ article from him on the latest IPCC report (the text is behind a pay-wall but I think the whole thing can be listened to).

* In Dr Mike Eades "The Arrow" weekly email newsletter that can be quite interesting.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,556
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
The man they're interviewing here was a co-founder and ex-president of Greenpeace. What he's saying... well, it's like he's speaking my thoughts out aloud! Just watch this video, please:
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,900
The man they're interviewing here was a co-founder and ex-president of Greenpeace. What he's saying... well, it's like he's speaking my thoughts out aloud! Just watch this video, please:

Erm, no thanks.


https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic/

"Moore’s book, which was just released in audiobook and hardcover formats, has so far been promoted by Canada’s largest newspaper chain, Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News in Australia, a TV talk show supported by a prominent Canadian university and a PBS talk show, as well as a constellation of conservative or climate science doubting groups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Thinker, Rebel News, Watts Up With That? and Friends of Science.

And, even though the book was published five months ago, its support from the American right only seems to be increasing. The Washington Times and the Epoch Times both promoted it within the last several weeks. Around the same time, Moore also said Prager University, an influential non-profit that popularizes conservative ideas to teenagers and post-secondary students, will be producing a video special on Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom that will “give it a lot of exposure.”

The book, which also specifically targets parents “who do not approve of the ‘progressive’ school curriculum and its alarmism about the future of civilization and the natural world,” identifies 11 supposed fake catastrophes, with eight connected to climate change. They range from climate change itself to species extinction and ocean acidification.

When I reached out to mainstream scientists and organizations that Moore criticizes or cites to support his arguments, those who replied described how he misinterpreted their findings or conclusions. A few worried about how they could prevent something similar from happening in the future. For his own part, with one other exception, Moore stood by his arguments.

Moore, who doubts the fact human activity and carbon dioxide emissions are the main causes of global warming, said the scientists’ responses were just a “CYA” or cover-your-ass exercise. “The last thing they want is to be associated with climate skepticism. If you’re associated with climate skepticism, you’re all of a sudden a denier. And you’re all of a sudden out of research money.”



Interestingly his work is being pushed quite aggressively by the Murdoch Group. I wonder what that's all about?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,556
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Erm, no thanks.


https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic/

"Moore’s book, which was just released in audiobook and hardcover formats, has so far been promoted by Canada’s largest newspaper chain, Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News in Australia, a TV talk show supported by a prominent Canadian university and a PBS talk show, as well as a constellation of conservative or climate science doubting groups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Thinker, Rebel News, Watts Up With That? and Friends of Science.

And, even though the book was published five months ago, its support from the American right only seems to be increasing. The Washington Times and the Epoch Times both promoted it within the last several weeks. Around the same time, Moore also said Prager University, an influential non-profit that popularizes conservative ideas to teenagers and post-secondary students, will be producing a video special on Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom that will “give it a lot of exposure.”

The book, which also specifically targets parents “who do not approve of the ‘progressive’ school curriculum and its alarmism about the future of civilization and the natural world,” identifies 11 supposed fake catastrophes, with eight connected to climate change. They range from climate change itself to species extinction and ocean acidification.

When I reached out to mainstream scientists and organizations that Moore criticizes or cites to support his arguments, those who replied described how he misinterpreted their findings or conclusions. A few worried about how they could prevent something similar from happening in the future. For his own part, with one other exception, Moore stood by his arguments.

Moore, who doubts the fact human activity and carbon dioxide emissions are the main causes of global warming, said the scientists’ responses were just a “CYA” or cover-your-ass exercise. “The last thing they want is to be associated with climate skepticism. If you’re associated with climate skepticism, you’re all of a sudden a denier. And you’re all of a sudden out of research money.”



Interestingly his work is being pushed quite aggressively by the Murdoch Group. I wonder what that's all about?
Can I just say that what he's saying has nothing to do with politics?
You've just introduced that dimension.
Scientific facts and truth have no political alignment!
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,900
Can I just say that what he's saying has nothing to do with politics?
You've just introduced that dimension.
Scientific facts and truth have no political alignment!
And yet the truth remains his views are being pushed by a huge organization that has a political agenda. I didn't "introduce" it - it's just reality.

Therefore I am right to be incredibly sceptical about his "scientific facts" and that's even before the fact that he's misinterpreted scientists findings for his own agenda and he's used it to prop up his financially successful book deal.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,556
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
And yet the truth remains his views are being pushed by a huge organization that has a political agenda.
I don't know why the Murdoch empire is promoting the truth. I don't care.
Maybe it's because they happen to agree... with the truth?
I just want to hear the unvarnished truth, thank you - devoid of the taint of politics! :chuckle:

This man has excellent credentials and is an old-school greenie. He has a PhD and everything.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,900
I don't know why the Murdoch empire is promoting the truth. I don't care.
Maybe it's because they happen to agree... with the truth?
I just want to hear the unvarnished truth, thank you - devoid of the taint of politics! :chuckle:

This man has excellent credentials and is an old-school greenie. He has a PhD and everything.

It's in the article.

He wouldn't be the first to have his head turned by a lucrative book deal so sorry if I remain skeptical.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,544
The Murdoch Empire are well known for pushing "conservative" causes, and for some reason climate change denial has become a right wing obsession. I don't know how much Murdoch has invested in, for example, the oil industry, but he does seem to be a cheerleader for them. The whole Murdoch thing (The Sun, The Times, Sky News, etc) is seriously dodgy, but we knew that from the Levinson inquiry - and look how much that did to curb their misinformation campaigns.
 
Top