Is confusing short term weather with long term climate a simple mistake or dishonesty?

Question

This is just one below average winter, which doesn't mean a thing. It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000. EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever. Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run. It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Answer 1

Probably neither Bob.  Both would require some degree of cognition.  The intellectual white noise you're speaking of most likely results from the random firing of neurons.

Answer 2

That just depends on the person and their scientific background.

With a person like Bob Carter, who has been a scientist (marine geologist) for a long time, I have a hard time believing he doesn't know the difference, yet he makes arguments that confuse the two concepts.  The same holds true for scientists like Fred Singer and others who work for right-wing think tanks - I think they know better and are being dishonest.

Many people honestly don't know the difference.  They assume that global warming means it will be warmer everywhere all the time, which is why we get so many 'if global warming is real why is it snowing?' questions.

Some of the 'top contributor' 'skeptics' should certainly know the difference by now, and I think they're also being dishonest.  Probably with both themselves and everyone else.  That's how denial works.

Answer 3

I think that the 'deniers' are suffering from a serious personality disorder. Some people feel the need to insult and badger anyone that is smarter than them.  You see it in school ,when the bully teases and harasses the students that do well.  It's from a sense of insecurity,due to a lack of intelligence.  If they attack the 'smart' ones, then their own academic shortcomings can remain in the background.  Does anyone really think that any of the 'deniers' have a scientific degree or any real understanding of natural science?  Some claim to have PHD's,but their spelling and grammar mistakes give them away as frauds!  Some just say nasty things about washed up politicians in an attempt to 'prove' a point. There is also a strong element of religious dogma in their denials as well.  When the 'claim' that global warming is just a 'natural cycle', that's code for "God did it." I'm sure when the next weather disaster hits, they will just claim it's just an "act of God"!  That's why there is so much discussion about the "belief" in AGW. It's as if the knowledge of AGW is a form of blasphemy,and a threat to religious beliefs. The fact that we mere humans can affect the Earth shows that God is not controlling the Earth, man does! That flies in the face of their simple beliefs.  Just like when Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth was NOT at the center of the Universe!  Now the proof is that we have the power to destroy, or save the Earth,and God doesn't!  I can have some sympathy for them. It must be frightening to realize that everything you've learned is wrong! That's where they get all their anger and contempt  for science.  But this site is NOT  a place for them to argue religious dogma concerning science. We should be on here trying to come up with constructive ways of dealing with the coming climate changes,not calling each other names or pushing false claims in an effort to confuse or deliberately mis-inform anybody that really wants to know about climate changes. The effects of global climate change will not go away if everyone is fooled into 'believing' that it's not real.  Yet they still try!  Anybody from Atlanta want some more severe weather?

Answer 4

i think its a bit of both allot of the arguments against agw are from blogs and option pieces and facts dont realy matter much to them. don't get me wrong both "sides" do it. every hot summer is turned into more proof of global warming by the press.

Cindy W. dont you mean the greenhouse effect, not just CO2. and why then is it not -50 to -100 at night like it is in space if the atmosphere can not hold heat?

Answer 5

I think it is because people don't want to admit there is a problem, and because of Al Gore, i think right wingers just want to take the opposing view.

Answer 6

Let's look at what they have in common.  They are both complex multi-parameter systems.

As such, they are impossible to model with any certainty.

With weather this is demonstrated with the failure of forecasts to be accurate.

Answer 7

I don't know Bob...both sides do it and it drives me nuts. A harsh winter or a warm summer mean nothing to prove or disprove AGW.  I guess we will all see where it leads over the next decade or so....

Answer 8

No Bob, it's just guessing.  You have no idea that it will be warmer in the future.

Just because it was warm after the last drop, this has no relation to future climate temperatures.

If this was physics, we would know what the results would be.

"Global Warming" is still just old fashioned SWAG.

Answer 9

As "bad" as mt_zion claims the weather reports are, a whole lot of people still pay attention to them.  My weather forecast may not tell me the exact temperature (to a degree) or be 100% accurate on rainfall, but I can definitely trust the temperature within a few degrees and when they say there's a 80% chance of rain I take my umbrella.

Not only is short-term weather confused with climate (i.e. the average of weather over a 30 year period), but weather forecasting models are confused with climate prediction models.  I guess when you don't understand either, you may as well criticize both.

Newer weather forecasting models are demonstrating as much accuracy 3 days in advance as they used to achieve just 1 day in advance.  The rate of improvement is truly remarkable.

The same can be said about the climate models.  They've come a long way from 20 years ago.  With fully coupled models (including atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land) and as grid-sizes have decreased (with increased computing power) their predictive capabilities are consistent and trustworthy enough that we'd be foolish to (using the weather prediction terminology) not carry an umbrella when they say it will rain today.  

What doubters seem to misunderstand is that climate models were never intended to predict the weather.  They are intended to predict the climate (long-term changes over large areas) not individual years or seasons.

Edit:

I guess jello didn't like the discussion here, where everyone is allowed to answer.  So he posted his own identical question where many of us with a scientific background are blocked.  Pitiful, simply pitiful.

Edit 2:

jim z - "leftist buddies"?  There have been numerous questions and answers around here listing many conservatives that acknowledge the reality of AGW.  You seem to be using the ol' Rush Limbaugh trick of calling anyone you don't agree with a "liberal" and assume that somehow wins the debate.  Sorry, but that doesn't hold water.  Most of my associates are clearly on the moderate to conservative part of the political spectrum and they've been convinced by the science.

Answer 10

Your division of long term weather and short term weather is a very intelligent way of deferring attention from the fact that you are wrong.  Carbon Dioxide can't even hold enough heat to last through one night, yet it is culpable of altering the Earth's climate for short terms and even long terms?

Think you had better get back to the books.

Answer 11

I read these sorts of things on both sides of the issue though it is more relevant to those who are skeptical since we are led to believe that CO2 is supposed to soon burst the world into flames.  When it cools a little, you can't help but ask, WHY?  

You would think these left wingers would finally realize that GW is a poitical phenomena created by them resulting from a very minor climate phenomena.  You would think that they would realize that it is political when they look around and all they see are their leftist buddies supporting them but no, all they do is assume they are correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

Answer 12

So........ What's your question??

Scientists really don't know whether or not the Earth is warming......or cooling.  Until the serious deficiencies of our weather monitoring stations are corrected, scientists will continue to use BAD DATA to create BAD SCIENCE.

The AGW zealots...... including our biased/liberal media..... stick their heads in the sand every time they hear of this most serious data issue, as it threatens the credibility of the multi-trillion $$$$ AGW industry.

Remember..... good science requires thorough testing.  Such testing should not be seen as a threat....as so many of the so-called 'experts' on this board do.  Suggesting that anyone  disagreeing with the alleged AGW cause..... is a liar.....is a pathetic/sophomoric attempt to sell a weak cause!