Do you understand long-term trends and how they're important to science?

Consider the issue of when the next geomagnetic reversal will occur. Earth's magnetic field strengthened between 1800-1900 and weakened between 1900-1995.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_ge...

Does this mean that Earth is due for a polarity reversal? The answer to that question depends on whether the past behavior of Earth's magnetic field. If such single century decline of the strength of Earth's magnetic field strength has been common tens of thousands of years prior to such polarity reversals, the answer is probably no. If such single century decline of the strength of Earth's magnetic field strength almost always continues until a polarity reversal happens, then the answer is probably yes.

Regarding global warming; yes, it is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-glob...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2011.

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

Maxxbush

<<A lot of denialists seem to be unclear about certain basic things about how science works. >

<I disagree. We true scientists do know about science.>

LOL! When you answer a question, you almost always post quotations from politicians, such as Michail Gorbachev, and almost never link to peer reviewed research or tabular or graphical data. Such answers are what we call "ad hominem arguments."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

Yes, I understand long-term trends and how they are important to science-to a certain extent.

First, let me outline my limitations-I'm very good at analysis and logic; I can look at a business and indentify potential and problems with pinpoint accuracy based on the numbers, but climate science is outside of my field and statistics is not my strong point. So when I look at long term trends and the statistical probabilities that they indicate it is difficult for me to interpret how the conclusions got from point A to point B. It would be helpful for me-and I know I am not alone-to know more about the computer modeling used and the specific variables that were included. I also have some limitations when it comes to reading peer-reviewed publications, primarily in terms of vocabulary, although also some issues with knowledge of processes; for example, when I first ran across the term 'albedo' it took a while to figure out what they were talking about; I also struggle with understanding the effects of thermohaline circulation. So I often have to rely on interpretations by others, and since those reports are so frequently shaded by political or other agendas it can be hard to go back to the actual research and sort out. Finally, there is a lot of mis or disinformation that is repeated so often it can be confusing, I often gloss over the errors and outright lies initially and then go 'wait a minute...' later. Which is what I suspect the disseminators of disinformation have in mind when they publish it to begin with, except they hope people won't have the 'wait a minute' moment. For a simple and non-scientific example, in 'the Great Global Warming Swindle' there is a segment about a medical clinic that is inadequately powered by solar and how this alternative source of energy is a boondoggle because conventional power would supply plenty of electricity to operate the facility at lower cost. At first blush, this makes sense; but when you think about the time and expense to build a power grid to supply places like this clinic, the obvious solution is to add more solar panels. The 'disinformation' is obviously the clear omission of how difficult, costly and time consuming it would be to get the grid built to deliver power to remote areas like this...and how it would be funded. So you can see that the 'business' side of the equation comes easily to me in terms of the cost and benefit analysis. The clinic needs more power now, so dismissing solar when it will take years of work and billions of dollars to construct a grid when another solar panel can be installed and delivering the additional electricity in a matter of days is just stupid. Find the funding for it, buy the necessary panels, and get them installed.

Second, what really constitutes a long-term trend, and is it weather or climate? For example, we see a historic period of cooling over several decades and it is ascribed to particulate emissions, or a shorter term trend that is impacted by El Nino and La Nina events. I'm uneasy with some of the conclusions reached based on time periods that are affected by variables such as these, and at this juncture don't see 30-40 years periods as long term enough to be conclusive. I understand the limitations of research and availability of data, but I am not well enough attuned to what constitutes long-term trends in terms of scientific conclusions.

So my answers to your followup questions in the context I have just provided:

1. I do not have any disagreements with the general concept of how long-term trends work.

2. I understand long-term trends at least in broad terms, but am uncertain insofar as what really constitutes a 'long term' trend from which conclusions can be reached about climate.

3. I accept the consensus of science because I do not have the necessary information or expertise to reject it, with the following notations:

a) I accept that global average temperatures are rising.

b) I accept that human emissions of greenhouse gasses influence climate, but need more information to understand how much.

c) I accept that climate change is likely to cause problems but am uncertain about the nature, extent and timing of the problems.

I believe the key to the overall conclusions that may be drawn from my answer is in the three notations (a, b & c) above; these factors prevent me from supporting policies that may have geopolitical and economic impacts based solely on the conclusions and consensus to date about human emissions of greenhouse gasses.

1. The Earth has existed for billions of years. We have temperature records for about 100 years. We can look back farther and guess what the climate was like.

2. Yes.

3. In the past, there was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. It was partially driven by religious leaders, similar to how Al Gore has lead the consensus about AWG. We all see how the flat Earth consensus turned out.

Long term trends certainly are important to CLIMATE CHANGE science.

Long term trends are less important, but still important, in politics. Hard to say if anti-science denial of climate science is a long term trend (like denial of evolution) with political staying power or a short term delusion (like believing that neo-cons were consistent, convincing, informed, competent, and to be cringed down to).

Edit: I have posted a link to "the owner is climate, the dog is the weather" video here a few times. First learned of it on realclimate.org. Here's the direct link to u-toob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw&feature...

Someone recently posted this animation which I think brilliantly illustrates trends vs year-to-year variations. Thank you to whoever it was, sorry I forgot who it was, and I only saw it because you linked it.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/science-made-e...

What you fail to understand is that we don't have a complete cycle's worth of data, we are only collecting data from some point near the bottom of the curve and heading towards the peak of the curve. This cycle tends to take a thousand years or so yet we only have really detailed data for 40 years and decent data for 100 years.

I reject the "scientific" consensus on AGW based on the fact that they ignore written history.

I do believe that man is adding to climate change, not driving it. That is what makes me a denier. I deny what the main stream politicians and their paid lackeys want me to believe.

Yes to everything.

Would you like a comment from everyone? Or, are you only looking for the usual alarmist agreement?

I consider my time important.

<A lot of denialists seem to be unclear about certain basic things about how science works. >

I disagree. We true scientists do know about science.

<they seem to misunderstand uncertainty>

No in fact we understood the uncertainty of the hockey stick before the other side did.

<long-term trends>

You have to be ignorant of the facts there. When James Hansen and Paul Ehrlich were touting the Ice Age it was people from our side who took them aside and showed them we were in a warming trend and had been since before the 1800s. It wasn't much but it still was a warming trend.

<statistical significance>

We are the ones who know the importance of this, more so than any greenie. In Al Gore's movie, it is now well documented that he cherry picked his data. The true scientists immediately recognized this because it didn't fit the known statistics. However, the greenies apparently didn't know enough about 'statistical significance' or at least understand it enough to call out Al Gore. They had their chance and kept quiet due to their agenda or ignorance. If us 'deniers' were so unclear on the basics how come we had to be the ones who blew the whistle?

<and the peer review process>

The peer review process is not part of true science. The scientific community is full of dunderheads who are better at hype than at science. Did Edison sit down and peer review all his achievements? Did Ben Franklin peer review his idea before he flew the kite? How many times did those peers scoff at an idea which later became true? Peer review is just an excuse to be wrong. At least you can say when being caught with your pants down, "I wasn't alone in my wrong thinking. So and so thought so too." Real scientists do not need to run in gangs.

1. In general you assumption is correct.

2. This has been discussed above.

3. Reject.

1. The only thing that I would add would be the importance of credible data. This is most important, as corrupted (whether intentional or accidental) data renders useless any sort of reliable findings/forecasts.

2. Yes

3. Reservations.

EDIT:

Wow!.....10 thumbs-down already. I didn't realize that there were so many paranoid warmers on this board! You Warmies need to open your minds and resist the brainwashing that you have been subject to in your grade schools.

I understand that in 1988, based on a theory and ten years worth of data, that was long enough for political activist scientists to declare climate science settled and the debate "over". I also understand that after 15 years of statistically insignificant warming these "scientist" (I put quotation marks, because they are not real scientists) still declared that the debate "over", and 15 years worth of data not enough to determine long term trends. What hypocrisy.