• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
But we know that 2015 and 2016 are very significantly hotter than the last major El Nino. So it's still a record hot year. I guess what you're saying is that post El Nino, we might drop below 2014, but that's understood. Still doesn't detract from the warming trend or that 2015/2016 are the hottest ever, since we've had many El Nino years in the past. There is nothing remotely "dishonest" in those claims.
Click to expand...
The complaints of people talking about the pause being based on the peak of the 1998 El Nino, were accurate,
because weather is not climate.
Since it will take another 20 months for us to know the real effects of the El Nino spike,
speculation of what 2016 was or was not, is simply that, speculation.
How hot an El Nino gets is not relevant, because it is a weather event, not climate!
Here is Berkeley Earth's picture of how extreme the El Nino event was.
berkeley.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
The complaints of people talking about the pause being based on the peak of the 1998 El Nino, were accurate,
because weather is not climate.
Since it will take another 20 months for us to know the real effects of the El Nino spike,
speculation of what 2016 was or was not, is simply that, speculation.
How hot an El Nino gets is not relevant, because it is a weather event, not climate!
Click to expand...

But it's a "weather" event imposed on the underlying climate, so the measured temp is actually relevant.

I think we're talking in circles. I understand your point but just believe you're way overstating it.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
But it's a "weather" event imposed on the underlying climate, so the measured temp is actually relevant.

I think we're talking in circles. I understand your point but just believe you're way overstating it.
Click to expand...
Actually I am not overstating it, The El Nino is a weather event, and over time, it's effects will be a net zero.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
Actually I am not overstating it, The El Nino is a weather event, and over time, it's effects will be a net zero.
Click to expand...

Then we're talking past each other and evaluating different claims.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
Then we're talking past each other and evaluating different claims.
Click to expand...
No, it is not correct to say the 2015 of 2016 were the hottest years on record, when we do not actually know
what the non El Nino temperatures were, and will not know for another 18 months.
There hes been some warming, but the warming could well be within the error range.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
No, it is not correct to say the 2015 of 2016 were the hottest years on record, when we do not actually know
what the non El Nino temperatures were, and will not know for another 18 months.
There hes been some warming, but the warming could well be within the error range.
Click to expand...

Sure it is correct. The fact that 2015/2016 were influenced by El Nino doesn't mean they are not record hot years - they just ARE. If you want to say we don't know yet if using some unknown but estimable baseline free of El Nino/La nina cycles that 2016 was hottest, that's fine, but that's a different claim and requires each year in the record to be adjusted up or down for the cyclical effects, and then we can compare each year as adjusted, but we have to adjust all years, not just the hot ones.

And warming since when? The last major El Nino was 1998/99 and we're 0.33c higher - is that within some 'error range'? If so which one?
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
Thanks for pointing out my error then producing nothing of evidence of your own. Here's the graph for global temps:
Click to expand...

So my point was you show land data... and you correct it with ... land data?

OK, so you can't cite any authority for your fake science claims. As I suspected.
Click to expand...

More laughs. Thank you.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
Sure it is correct. The fact that 2015/2016 were influenced by El Nino doesn't mean they are not record hot years - they just ARE. If you want to say we don't know yet if using some unknown but estimable baseline free of El Nino/La nina cycles that 2016 was hottest, that's fine, but that's a different claim and requires each year in the record to be adjusted up or down for the cyclical effects, and then we can compare each year as adjusted, but we have to adjust all years, not just the hot ones.

And warming since when? The last major El Nino was 1998/99 and we're 0.33c higher - is that within some 'error range'? If so which one?
Click to expand...
We have natural warming, that has nothing to do with Human added CO2, the question is, and has been what portion is from
Human added CO2.
I am not sure which data set says the temperature is .33 C higher than 1998/99, but that would still be well below
the predicted .21 C per decade the models were expecting.
In reality the last year we have a real bases for is 2014 at .74 C which is .11 above the .63 of 1998, or only .068C per decade.
You can now see why it is not useful to count from El Nino peaks,
If you count it as part of the warming, you must also have to count it as a reference for future warming.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

code1211 said:
Short term data seems more like weather than climate.

In the last 2000 or so years, our world has warmed by about 0.7 degrees.

Over the last 8000 or so years our world has cooled by about a half a degree.

Far from being a cause for panic, this strikes me as being astonishingly consistent.

Our recent warming trend is a rise from the coolest point of this interglacial in the last 10,000 years or so.

What the shrieking zealots are citing as a cause for panic seems to be more like a return to normal.
Click to expand...

relativity: In the last 200 years the World has warmed by 0.7 degrees.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

jmotivator said:
So my point was you show land data... and you correct it with ... land data?
Click to expand...

I made a mistake and couldn't correct, but it doesn't matter - the uncertainty bands from the earlier years of the last century are not large enough to obscure the warming we're seeing.

More laughs. Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're making baseless claims and cannot back them up. If you'd like to present...anything other than opinion, that would be great but you're effectively claiming you know more about statistical analysis than the PhDs who study climate and write peer reviewed papers for a career, and back it up with nothing.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
The El Nino's, are weather events, over a several year average their effects disappear.
To count the peaks from an El Nino year without waiting for it to average out, is dishonest, as it only counts the high portion of the event.
Consider that the 1998 El Nino, caused 1998 to spike to .63 C, .15 C above the 1997 level of .48 C,
yet the average for 1996 to 2000, two years straddling 1998 is only .46 C.
When the El Nino was averaged out, 1998 appeared slightly cooler than 1997.
Since we do not yet know what 2017 and 2018 will be, we cannot know if 2015 and 2016 will be anything special!
Click to expand...

An interesting paper on the changes in el Nino behavior over the last 6000 years. It appears that moderate level el Ninos are happening less frequently and strong el Ninos are cyclical on hundreds of year intervals and are on the increase for 6000 years.

We are currently, according to this study, in one of the strong el Nino cycles over the last 200 years. Imagine that.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
I made a mistake and couldn't correct, but it doesn't matter - the uncertainty bands from the earlier years of the last century are not large enough to obscure the warming we're seeing.
Click to expand...

You can always correct it by presenting the global climate record rather than the land-only record.

You're making baseless claims and cannot back them up. If you'd like to present...anything other than opinion, that would be great but you're effectively claiming you know more about statistical analysis than the PhDs who study climate and write peer reviewed papers for a career, and back it up with nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm questioning their unsupported claims based on the statistics they provide. Claiming yearly records that fall within the standard deviation is a Statistics 101 level gaffe. I assume they know better given their training, which is why I assume they are specifically aiming at misinforming those who don't understand even the most basic statistics. I think they know that the less someone knows about statistics the more likely they are to engage in appeal-to-authority fallacies trying to defend it.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

jmotivator said:
An interesting paper on the changes in el Nino behavior over the last 6000 years. It appears that moderate level el Ninos are happening less frequently and strong el Ninos are cyclical on hundreds of year intervals and are on the increase for 6000 years.

We are currently, according to this study, in one of the strong el Nino cycles over the last 200 years. Imagine that.
Click to expand...
I have often thought that the El Nino events are part of constructive interference pattern, involving several input frequencies.
The peaks only occur, when the several input peaks all line up, lesser peaks occur when only some of the input frequencies line up.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
We have natural warming, that has nothing to do with Human added CO2, the question is, and has been what portion is from
Human added CO2.
I am not sure which data set says the temperature is .33 C higher than 1998/99, but that would still be well below
the predicted .21 C per decade the models were expecting.
In reality the last year we have a real bases for is 2014 at .74 C which is .11 above the .63 of 1998, or only .068C per decade.
You can now see why it is not useful to count from El Nino peaks,
If you count it as part of the warming, you must also have to count it as a reference for future warming.
Click to expand...

Again, we're talking about different claims and you just moved the claim from one post to the next. It can be both true that 1) 2015/2016 was the hottest year(s) on record, AND 2) once the El Nino/La Nina effects are removed, it's unknown if future years will continue the warming trend.

At some points you're addressing claim 2) and but appearing to address claim 1). They are different. I understand we don't know what we can't know, which is global temps for years in the future.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
Again, we're talking about different claims and you just moved the claim from one post to the next. It can be both true that 1) 2015/2016 was the hottest year(s) on record, AND 2) once the El Nino/La Nina effects are removed, it's unknown if future years will continue the warming trend.

At some points you're addressing claim 2) and but appearing to address claim 1). They are different. I understand we don't know what we can't know, which is global temps for years in the future.
Click to expand...
Again, you are missing the point, it is not that we do not know about future warming, we do not know weather 2016 was the warmest year,
because of the know contamination of the record by the El Nino. It will take an additional 20 months of averaging before we have any real
indication of what 2016 was or was not.
It may well be that it still will be a record year, but we know the average level will be much lower than the record including the El Nino data.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
I have often thought that the El Nino events are part of constructive interference pattern, involving several input frequencies.
The peaks only occur, when the several input peaks all line up, lesser peaks occur when only some of the input frequencies line up.
Click to expand...

Yep. That is the expectation for multiple cycles of differing frequency. That study indicates that there is a change in frequency (decreasing) and intensity (increasing) over the last 6000 years. Given that they have found we are currently in one of the infrequent, intense periods of el Nino activity it would make sense that we would see warming.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

jmotivator said:
You can always correct it by presenting the global climate record rather than the land-only record.
Click to expand...

I can but there is no point because it shows the same general information. It's just another big graph to clutter up the thread.

I'm questioning their unsupported claims based on the statistics they provide. Claiming yearly records that fall within the standard deviation is a Statistics 101 level gaffe.
Click to expand...

But if you combine 2015/2016, the difference between those years and 2014 is outside the "standard deviation" (which isn't actually the correct term). And the calculated means are what they are, and 2016 is the hottest on record. If you want to say that 2016 may not be statistically different than 2015, that is true.

I assume they know better given their training which is why I assume they are specifically aiming at misinforming those who don't understand even the most basic statistics. I think they know that the less someone knows about statistics the more likely they are to engage in appeal-to-authority fallacies trying to defend it.
Click to expand...

But they aren't 'misinforming' anyone. The point estimates are what they are. Again, you can correctly point out that e.g. 2015 might have in fact been hotter than 2016 because of the confidence interval, or say that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest on record, but that's just splitting hairs, and instead of the #1 being on 2016 it's got "statistical tie" and both are #1. How is the public deceived by that?
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

longview said:
Again, you are missing the point, it is not that we do not know about future warming, we do not know weather 2016 was the warmest year,
because of the know contamination of the record by the El Nino. It will take an additional 20 months of averaging before we have any real
indication of what 2016 was or was not.
It may well be that it still will be a record year, but we know the average level will be much lower than the record including the El Nino data.
Click to expand...

The "contamination" by El Nino is beside the point for the simple claim - "Hottest Year on Record."

We can change the goal post to "Hottest Non-El Nino Year on Record" and then your point makes sense, but that's a different claim. And your 20 months stuff is a question about the trend, not point estimates by year, which is the claim we're evaluating.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
I can but there is no point because it shows the same general information. It's just another big graph to clutter up the thread.
Click to expand...

You've attempted to make a point twice and made the same mistake both times. Now you don't want to post the evidence because you claim your evidence would "clutter up the thread"? :lamo


But if you combine 2015/2016, the difference between those years and 2014 is outside the "standard deviation" (which isn't actually the correct term). And the calculated means are what they are, and 2016 is the hottest on record. If you want to say that 2016 may not be statistically different than 2015, that is true.
Click to expand...

Warming of the last 100 years has a deviation of around +/- 0.14C. Unless the difference exceeds 0.28C then there is no statistically significant "record". You can certainly claim a record for the last 30 years where the deviation is smaller... but big whoop.


But they aren't 'misinforming' anyone. The point estimates are what they are. Again, you can correctly point out that e.g. 2015 might have in fact been hotter than 2016 because of the confidence interval, or say that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest on record, but that's just splitting hairs, and instead of the #1 being on 2016 it's got "statistical tie" and both are #1. How is the public deceived by that?
Click to expand...

They have obviously misinformed anyone who thinks the records they report are significant.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

JasperL said:
The "contamination" by El Nino is beside the point for the simple claim - "Hottest Year on Record."

We can change the goal post to "Hottest Non-El Nino Year on Record" and then your point makes sense, but that's a different claim. And your 20 months stuff is a question about the trend, not point estimates by year, which is the claim we're evaluating.
Click to expand...
You can say it is a record, but it will need an asterisk by it, because all the experts agree that El Nino cause quite a bit of inaccuracies in the data.
If we stick with the GISS, 2014 was .74 C 2015 was .86 C,
Gavin Schmidt the director of the GISS said the El Nino contributed .07 C (Others claim it is as high as .1 C),
but .86 -.07 = .79 C, warmer, but by .05 C.
2015 only had 3 El Nino months, 2016 had 4 months with a questionable fifth month involved.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

DaveFagan said:
relativity: In the last 200 years the World has warmed by 0.7 degrees.
Click to expand...

Also in the last 2000 years.

Prior to the last 200 years, there was a dramatic cooling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom