General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well, no actually. There were ground frost early in August of summer 1976 (what, a few percent of the nights of the whole summer) and the US is, what, a few percent of the whole globe (and not all the US was cold). The US is not the globe, or even a substantial part of it.

In LG's defence, I think there is a world of difference between a percentage of time and a percentage of space. I'm not sure how you can justify that comparison.

CB

[jethro]

To be fair though, a lot is made of the CET record and record breaking summer of 2006 in this country; it could be argued that those are both irrelevant but they're taken as indicative of a warming world.

Agree a single continent isn't a global measurement but there are papers (can't remember where I posted them) which show fairly conclusively that the first impact of a cooling world (due to the extended Solar minimum), will be felt in North America - one to watch perhaps.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think the argument has moved onto how much warming.

The average temperature of the Earth (withouth an atmopshere) would be -18C (the surface of the moon average is -23C because it's smaller)

So, quick question - what is going on where the nominal temperature of certain places on Earth are less than -18C?

(See what fun we can have with temperature averages?)

In response to Stephen it's worth pointing out, first of all, that even by the IPCC's reckoning CO2 is not responsible for all 32C of the difference between the Earth with an atmosphere and the Earth without an atmosphere!

But you've raised an interesting subject which has been touched on before without really being investigated. For a start, how meaningful is a global average temperature, and how is that average determined?

If the extremes of Earth temperature with an atmosphere are -40C and +40C then the average of those two extremes is 0C.

If the extremes of Earth temperature without an atmosphere are -200C and +200C then the average of those two extremes is still 0C.

(Note that these numbers are just for illustrative purposes!)

But this then raises another point that might be worth making explicitly - the atmosphere doesn't just moderate the low temperatures by trapping outgoing energy; it also moderates the high temperatures by blocking a lot of incoming energy.

Is anyone interested in discussing global average temperatures? If so then should we start a separate thread for it?

CB

[Devonian]

In LG's defence, I think there is a world of difference between a percentage of time and a percentage of space. I'm not sure how you can justify that comparison.

CB

I think the US is about 2% of the surface area of the globe? That's not going to have much effect on a global average - just like a few ground frost wont much effect a summer average.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think the US is about 2% of the surface area of the globe? That's not going to have much effect on a global average - just like a few ground frost wont much effect a summer average.

That's the problem though - the August ground frosts would be limited in spatial extent and in temporal extent.

LG's point was that the cold in North America, which you argue is limited in spatial extent (which is perhaps debatable), is far more protracted in temporal extent.

Persistent cold over half a continent is rather a different thing than brief cold snaps in sheltered areas, no?

CB

[Methuselah]

As far as 'global cooling' is concerned, one question always arises: where is it?

The Solar Minimum points towards it; the current state of Milankovitch Cycles points towards it, blah blah blah... But, as yet, there isn't any. Why?

Or, must we just wait for all those hypothetical time-lags to materialize?

[Admiral_Bobski]

As far as 'global cooling' is concerned, one question always arises: where is it?

The Solar Minimum points towards it; the current state of Milankovitch Cycles points towards it, blah blah blah... But, as yet, there isn't any. Why?

Or, must we just wait for all those hypothetical time-lags to materialize?

If I might remind you, Anthropogenic Global Warming is also a hypothesis!

As always, in situations like these, the only way to gain empirical evidence for or against these hypotheses is to wait.

I hate waiting!

CB

[VillagePlank]

Or, must we just wait for all those hypothetical time-lags to materialize?

Well you know what I am going to say .... current temperature is simply a measure of temperature already in the system, as it leaks out (and it will start to leak out slower) then the temperature will fall.

Re: spatial averages - a difficult and error-prone subject that needs to be treated with kid-gloves, methinks - especially as there is probably no currently known other better way of answering the question. Perhaps the question needs to be changed?

Do you want to take the blue pill or the red pill - lets see how far the rabbit hole goes ...

Edited November 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

That's the problem though - the August ground frosts would be limited in spatial extent and in temporal extent.

LG's point was that the cold in North America, which you argue is limited in spatial extent (which is perhaps debatable), is far more protracted in temporal extent.

Persistent cold over half a continent is rather a different thing than brief cold snaps in sheltered areas, no?

CB

CB, I sense you're reluctant to admit the US is in fact only ~2% of the global surface?

Anyway, as to my parallel, I meant that a few cold nights didn't much effect (affect?, always have trouble with that one ) the 1976 summer average temp, just like a few percent of the earth being cold doesn't, much, effect the global monthly average. Just how I see it, that's all.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

If I might remind you, Anthropogenic Global Warming is also a hypothesis!

As always, in situations like these, the only way to gain empirical evidence for or against these hypotheses is to wait.

I hate waiting!

CB

Indeed, both the 'cooling' and 'AGW' theories/hypotheses appear to be on hold...

Well you know what I am going to say .... current temperature is simply a measure of temperature already in the system, as it leaks out (and it will start to leak out slower) then the temperature will fall.

Re: spatial averages - a difficult and error-prone subject that needs to be treated with kid-gloves, methinks - especially as there is probably no currently known other better way of answering the question. Perhaps the question needs to be changed?

Do you want to take the blue pill or the red pill - lets see how far the rabbit hole goes ...

It's good to have you there, to keep us on our toes, VP.

[VillagePlank]

Just how I see it, that's all.

Seems to me that you see it right, too.

That's why there is no other proxy for climate change apart from the figures themselves; that includes Arctic ice, glaciation, solar insolation, and all of the other clues. For sure, they are clues, but in and off themselves they are self-referential and, effectively, meaningless.

Kinda reminds me of asking people to describe what the words 'left' and 'right' mean. You can only describe them with reference to each other or to themselves - next time a 'pro' or 'sceptic' points to this new (local) finding or that (local) finding - the best thing, IMHO, is to wait for the (global)temperature record, and ignore the new research unless you are interested in interpolating the record. It's certainly not valid for extrapolating the temperature record into the future.

In essence it only offers an explanation for temperature series already measured, not those yet to come.

Edited November 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[osmposm]

.....I meant that a few cold nights didn't much effect (affect?, always have trouble with that one ) the 1976 summer average temp, just like a few percent of the earth being cold doesn't, much, effect the global monthly average....

Yes, Affect...both times. Affect is the action, Effect is the result. Think of the alphabetical order - 'A' comes before 'E'.

[Which would make it very easy, were it not for the existence of a verb which is spelled 'Effect': "to bring about" (especially change) - as against "to alter or influence" (for 'Affect'). If you effect a change, you cause it to happen. If you affect a change, you cause it to be different to what it would otherwise have been.]

While we're at it: Sometimes misused on here,'Imply' and 'Infer' are not the same thing. If I suggest something or hint at something when making a statement I imply it. If you read what I've written, and (rightly or wrongly) deduce something else from it, you infer that. 'Imply' is the more active speaking/writing one (think of 'impel'); 'Infer' is the more passive listening/reading one (think of 'inferior').

Whoops, back in the pedant's box I go.

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, I sense you're reluctant to admit the US is in fact only ~2% of the global surface?

Anyway, as to my parallel, I meant that a few cold nights didn't much effect (affect?, always have trouble with that one ) the 1976 summer average temp, just like a few percent of the earth being cold doesn't, much, effect the global monthly average. Just how I see it, that's all.

No - no reluctance from me at all. It's all a matter of scale as I see it. 2% of a brick is a lot less than 2% of a house, if you see what I mean. Averages are a funny thing which don't necessarily reflect the bigger picture. I've even started a new topic a few minutes ago to talk about global averages, if you're interested.

CB

Yes, Affect...both times. Affect is the action, Effect is the result. Think of the alphabetical order - 'A' comes before 'E'.

[Which would make it very easy, were it not for the existence of a verb which is spelled 'Effect': "to bring about" (especially change) - as against "to alter or influence" (for 'Affect'). If you effect a change, you cause it to happen. If you affect a change, you cause it to be different to what it would otherwise have been.]

While we're at it: Sometimes misused on here,'Imply' and 'Infer' are not the same thing. If I suggest something or hint at something when making a statement I imply it. If you read what I've written, and (rightly or wrongly) deduce something else from it, you infer that. 'Imply' is the more active speaking/writing one (think of 'impel'); 'Infer' is the more passive listening/reading one (think of 'inferior').

Whoops, back in the pedant's box I go.

I score this post a 10 out of 10 - I applaud those who correct and protect our language. In all sincerity, this is one of the best posts I've read in weeks!

CB

[osmposm]

CB, I'm so embarrassed (and flattered) I don't know what to say.

But please note - and it's very significant - that the post was only possible because Dev admitted his confusion, and thus effectively gave me permission to pontificate on something I happen to be good at. There is a lesson there for all of us in all areas - I am ignorant of and/or confused about many things you talk about on here, but very seldom admit it. If I did I might learn something.

PS Although I happen to agree with you about the English language, I know (and reluctantly accept) that many people do not agree. And, on balance, I would prefer people to be encouraged to express their views, rather than being deterred from doing so because they feel their writing skills are judged to be 'not good enough'. It's just that I have a sneaking suspicion that those who write with a bit more care are often the people who also think with a bit more care....(places tin hat on and retires to concrete bunker ).

[Devonian]

Yes, Affect...both times. Affect is the action, Effect is the result. Think of the alphabetical order - 'A' comes before 'E'.

[Which would make it very easy, were it not for the existence of a verb which is spelled 'Effect': "to bring about" (especially change) - as against "to alter or influence" (for 'Affect'). If you effect a change, you cause it to happen. If you affect a change, you cause it to be different to what it would otherwise have been.]

While we're at it: Sometimes misused on here,'Imply' and 'Infer' are not the same thing. If I suggest something or hint at something when making a statement I imply it. If you read what I've written, and (rightly or wrongly) deduce something else from it, you infer that. 'Imply' is the more active speaking/writing one (think of 'impel'); 'Infer' is the more passive listening/reading one (think of 'inferior').

Whoops, back in the pedant's box I go. :lol:

Thanks, but, somehow, (and I keep looking both words up)I don't think I'll get it because it does 'bring about' a change to the global average so it effects it - but apparently it doesn't it affects it :lol:

I think it's a 'choice of two' problem, bit like the difficulty some of us have remembering being sure which is left or right....

Edited November 13, 2009 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, I'm so embarrassed (and flattered) I don't know what to say.

But please note - and it's very significant - that the post was only possible because Dev admitted his confusion, and thus effectively gave me permission to pontificate on something I happen to be good at. There is a lesson there for all of us in all areas - I am ignorant of and/or confused about many things you talk about on here, but very seldom admit it. If I did I might learn something.

PS Although I happen to agree with you about the English language, I know (and reluctantly accept) that many people do not agree. And, on balance, I would prefer people to be encouraged to express their views, rather than being deterred from doing so because they feel their writing skills are judged to be 'not good enough'. It's just that I have a sneaking suspicion that those who write with a bit more care are often the people who also think with a bit more care....(places tin hat on and retires to concrete bunker ).

Absolutely right, os, and I couldn't agree with you more. I just felt I had to say something because I correct people's grammar all the time and I'm sure most people loathe me for it! There is nothing wrong with a bit of pedantry now and again, and all due credit to Dev for raising a good grammar-related point.

I also agree that people whose grammar is not so good should not be deterred - I'd say that, on average, the grammar level on these pages is somewhat higher than the grammar level of modern journalism! Okay, that might be a slight exaggeration, but it is certainly a dying art.

Having said that, dismissing a person's views on the grounds that their grammatical expertise is somewhat lacking is often a case of preferring style over substance!

:lol:

CB

[VillagePlank]

English is a fluid language, and it changes from generation to generation - and so does the written form. Did anyone see the Horizon's programme on TV the other night? We are hard-wired to communicate through language.

[osmposm]

Thanks, but, somehow, (and I keep looking both words up)I don't think I'll get it because it does 'bring about' a change to the global average so it effects it - but apparently it doesn't it affects it ....

Probaby simpler is that when it's the verb, at least nine times out of ten it should be 'Affect'. So on a probabilty-of-being-right basis, that's the one to go for.

In fact I suspect that for most people, 'effecting a change' (as in "the committee effected a change in the government's approach to childcare") is a pretty archaic and alien turn of phrase, and for all practical purposes it's always going to be 'Affect'. The only thing then is to remember which is the verb (A) and which is the noun (E)!

[Devonian]

Probaby simpler is that when it's the verb, at least nine times out of ten it should be 'Affect'. So on a probabilty-of-being-right basis, that's the one to go for.

In fact I suspect that for most people, 'effecting a change' (as in "the committee effected a change in the government's approach to childcare") is a pretty archaic and alien turn of phrase, and for all practical purposes it's always going to be 'Affect'. The only thing then is to remember which is the verb (A) and which is the noun (E)!

Right, it's affect from now on

[Methuselah]

Right, it's affect from now on

Hopefully - to good effect???

[VillagePlank]

Hopefully - to good effect??? :winky:

Groan ....

[osmposm]

English is a fluid language, and it changes from generation to generation - and so does the written form. Did anyone see the Horizon's programme on TV the other night? We are hard-wired to communicate through language.

Indeed it is, VP, and indeed it does. If you haven't already, try Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue, which informatively (and entertainingly) blows a lot of holes in a lot of pompous absolutes on the subject.

The problem (for me) arises when there are similar words with distinct and extremely useful meanings, and one of them begins to be lost through misuse - imply/infer, affect/effect, and perhaps the most famous, uninterested/disinterested. Yes, of course, to avoid confusion I could say 'deduce' instead of 'infer', 'bring about' instead of 'effect', 'impartial' instead of 'disinterested'....but one of English's great glories being its huge vocabulary (far bigger than French), I regret the loss of choice - and the subtle variations in meaning that can be, um, effected by that choice.

I saw the Horizon programme, yes - facinating...but as usual I wanted to know more!

Sorry, this has gone shamefully (embarrassingly? disgracefully?? unforgivably???) off-topic, and I am entirely to blame. I really will shut up now until I have something useful (pertinent? relevant?? apposite???) to say about Climate Change (as opposed to Language Change).

[Admiral_Bobski]

Indeed it is, VP, and indeed it does. If you haven't already, try Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue, which informatively (and entertainingly) blows a lot of holes in a lot of pompous absolutes on the subject.

The problem (for me) arises when there are similar words with distinct and extremely useful meanings, and one of them begins to be lost through misuse - imply/infer, affect/effect, and perhaps the most famous, uninterested/disinterested. Yes, of course, to avoid confusion I could say 'deduce' instead of 'infer', 'bring about' instead of 'effect', 'impartial' instead of 'disinterested'....but one of English's great glories being its huge vocabulary (far bigger than French), I regret the loss of choice - and the subtle variations in meaning that can be, um, effected by that choice.

I saw the Horizon programme, yes - facinating...but as usual I wanted to know more!

Sorry, this has gone shamefully (embarrassingly? disgracefully?? unforgivably???) off-topic, and I am entirely to blame. I really will shut up now until I have something useful (pertinent? relevant?? apposite???) to say about Climate Change (as opposed to Language Change).

Well, not entirely to blame - you shouldn't be so self-deprecating (or, as it should be, self-depreciating!). Fowler's The King's English is an absolute must for grammarians.

:winky:

CB

[osmposm]

Oh, no, no, no, no, no (though I haven't checked Fowler, so I may be taking b**llocks): the deprecat- root is from (de)precare, to pray or plead or argue (against); the depreciat- root derives from (de)pretiare, to (lower in) price or value. Though I think it's one of those not uncommon ones where two words with quite different origins, but similar meanings, have drifted towards each other over time. Which is probably exactly what Fowler says, and that it used always to be "self-depreciatory", and...and...and, CB - we need to stop this NOW!

Edited November 13, 2009 by osmposm

[Admiral_Bobski]

Oh, no, no, no, no, no (though I haven't checked Fowler, so I may be taking b**llocks): the deprecat- root is from (de)precare, to pray or plead or argue (against); the depreciat- root derives from (de)pretiare, to (lower in) price or value. Though I think it's one of those not uncommon ones where two words with quite different origins, but similar meanings, have drifted towards each other over time. Which is probably exactly what Fowler says, and that it used always to be "self-depreciatory", and...and...and, CB - we need to stop this NOW!

Well, precisely - but when you are being self-deprecating you are (deliberately) selling yourself short, or undervaluing yourself, not arguing against yourself. (You could, I suppose, say that you are putting forward an argument against yourself, but you are not actively engaging in an argument against yourself.) Fowler discusses this particular term and, rather scathingly, decries it as a word that has been mutilated by ignorance. Here and now, of course, "self-deprecating" has been used for decades in the wrong way and has become the accepted word for self-undervaluation.

But you're right - we must stop. Here is me stopping.

CB

(Maybe we could start a Grammar thread in the lounge, where sad people like ourselves could discuss the misuse of apostrophes, semi-colons, Oxford Commas and other syntactical monstrosities...!)