whitebark pine going down

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by iceaura, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's not the same claim, and you are not that illiterate.

    Hence, deliberately deceptive - lying.
    I quoted it, above: "Your conclusion ("in other words") does not follow". Your rewording was an invalid conclusion from the data, not a restatement of a valid assertion. You cannot conclude, from an absence of individual year record breaking average temps, that the average global yearly temperature is not increasing. (The assertion was also false, but that was not my point). Take a stats class.

    Then you won't post shit like this:
    Carefully choosing the timescale of trendlines, especially in essentially irrelevant but plausibly presentable data sets, is one of the more insidious ways to lie with statistics - the only question is whether you believe that what you posted there deals with the issue of increasing - and seemingly accelerating - climate change. I think you do, hence the incompetence estimation.
    Yep. Sorry. It isn't rocket science, this basic reasoning stuff.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    In your assertions, you appear to have failed to consider a crucial point, and in doing so failed to ask three crucial questions.

    Given that Mountain Pine Beetle is a native of North America, it's bordering on tautology that up until this point the White Bark Pine and the Mountain Pine Beetle have achieved a dynamic equiblibrium, indeed, evidence suggests that there have always been outbreaks of Mountain Pine Beetle, but none have threatened the White Bark Pine in the way we see today.

    The questions that you appear to have failed to ask are:
    1. Is this outbreak worse than previous outbreaks?
    2. What caused this outbreak?

    The answer to the first question is yes, according to this letter published in Nature in 2008, this outbreak is an order of magnitude worse than any previously recorded outbreak. Which leads us to the third question, why is this one worse?

    The second question, what caused this outbreak, according to that letter, and according to other sources, Pine Bark Beetle outbreaks are caused by Hot summers and mild winters, which BC seems to have had a few of, of late, which, I imagine, you will probably want to attribute to El-nino, which, to some extent may be valid, but it doesn't address the issue, it merely sidesteps it.

    The third question has an obvious answer, and that answer is directly attributed as a cause in the nature letter. Climate change.

    Climate change is causing record breaking outbreaks of mountain pine beetle, which in turn (in combination with the rust blister) is leading to the deaths of the white bark pines, which is expected to release as much CO[sub]2[/sub] by 2020 as Canada was hoping to shave off its emissions.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Only it's been shown, more than once, on this forum that ten years of data is insufficient to draw a meaningful conclusion.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Sure it is when the data was only used to support the two points I was making:

    That we haven't seen a rise in average global temperature in the last decade and there is no evidence that warming is accelerating.

    Based on the published data, the combined global land/sea surface temps have had a flat trend line for the last 15 years and since the most recent decade has a significantly lower trendline than the entire period or any of the previous decades going back half a century, the data does not indicate that the rate of warming is accelerating.

    (To say there is evidence that warming is accelerating we would expect to see an average increase in global temps, over at least a decade, that exceeds ~0.016 C per year. To say there is evidence that the last decade has warmed requires a trendline greater than 0.001 C per year)

    I agree with you, that what you can't do, is as you stated, is draw conclusions about what the future climate will be like from just a decade of data.

    Like, because the temps have been flat for the last decade, they will remain flat for this one.

    And I didn't.

    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Because that's the normal way that insect infestations go, in cycles.

    Not at all. The fire supression problem is one of the primary factors that helps the Pine Bark Beetle to expand its destructive habits. The tiny amount of Warming so far experienced only slightly increases its range.

    It' a Letter to Nature Trippy, and it includes an unbacked assertion. I know that everything that goes wrong is blamed on Climate Change, but where's the actual evidence that Climate Change is causing record breaking outbreaks of MPB and that trees are suffering significantly because of the 1/2 degree of warming so far this century?

    Indeed, the scientists in the journal article I quoted were quite clear, that there were three issues causing damage to the trees and since in the same article they later mention climate change as a possible FUTURE issue they specifically left it off of the significant issues that are causing the decline of the trees.

    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    I didn't lie. In the context of these discussions, about warming causing problems for these trees, it indeed is the same claim and so to claim that when you use the term "Climate Change is accelerating" you aren't implying that the Warming which is the cause of the Climate Change you are discussing isn't accelerating as well, is the LIE.

    But that's not the only thing that I based my conclusion on. I published the data and the trendline for the last 12 years and that trendline is FLAT, 0.0 C per year. Thus no indication that over the last decade that the average yearly global temperature has increased (indeed the trendline for the last 10 years is negative).

    How the hell is HadCRUT3 an irrelevant data set when discussing trends in the temperature of the globe????

    And since we were discussing warming over the last decade clearly use of a trendline for that period of time is relevant.
    Indeed, I used a trendline LONGER than the last decade, because as pointed out, the trendline for 2001-2010 is actually negative.

    You said that warming was increasing over the last decade and that it was seeming to be accelerating, but while YOU who just made assertions, I provided the data tha shows that going back even further than this decade the trendline for global temp has been flat (if you include the average for this year, the trendline has actually been flat for 15 years) and that there is no current indication that the rate of warming is accelerating (as it was for much of the last half of the last century).

    Personally I think it's good news that the year on year warming trend has taken a short pause and as I said in that original post, I don't think the pause will last, but your SPECIFIC assertions, that it warmed over the last decade and that there is evidence that the rate of warming is accelerating are not to be found in the data.

    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    It's pretty trivially demonstrable that saying that climate change is accelerating is not the same thing as saying that the warming is given that average global temperatures show strong signals from things like ENSO and the PDO and such - El nino/La nina has a global footprint, indeed this is precisely one of the arguments forwarded as opposition to AGW.

    For example, La nina conditions (IIRC anyway) result in the pacific thermocline being closer to the surface, lowering the average temperature of the equatorial pacific. Indeed, examination of the Southern Oscillation Index suggests that there is a trend for it having beoming increasingly positive over the last 10-15 years. Which suggests that one might expect any warming trends to flat line over this time period, depending on the degree of cooling experienced.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The first image needs to be flipped and scaled to match the second, however...

    Anyway, the point being that it is unreasonable to infer that because warming has not occured at an accelerated rate, that climate change has not occured at an accelerated rate. In deed, one might be tempted to argue that if climate change is increasing the frequency and the severity of ENSO, then one might expect to not see a linear or exponential trend in the sense that we're traditionally used to, but a more step like curve consisting of periods of exaggerated warming interspersed with periods virtual flat lining.

    I've always found it interesting that the little ice age in Europe coincided with a period of massive el-ninos affecting South America, and I've always wondered if there was a link.
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member


    Are not El Nino and La Nina part of what makes up our Climate? If the ENSO is indeed trending towards more cool periods it indeed would be expected to be SLOWING the rate of Climate Change, just like when in the 80s and 90s it's warming influence ACCELERATED the rate of climate change. (remember my point about not expecting the pause in the rise of temperatures to last?)

    Oh and here's a more up to date chart of the index:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I certainly don't think so and indeed, if the temperature trend of the last decade continued for the next decade you wouldn't find anyone claiming that Climate Change was occuring, let alone accelerating.

    Indeed the original article that this discussion was started on used the Global temperature as it's yardstick for Climate Change.

    It's yardstick for presuming future problems for the Trees was based on a 3 C increase over the rest of this century. Yet if you project that actual rate of increase for the last 20 years, you would get less than half that increase or ~1.1 d C., so indeed, the article assumes that the rate of temperature rise WILL substantially accelerate over this century compared to the last 50 years.

    The good news is for the last decade we haven't been seeing it.

    If you don't think rate of temperature change is a good yardstick for measuring the RATE of climate change, then what would your yardstick be then?

    Indeed what reliable long term measurement do we have that indicates rate of Climate Change EXCEPT temperature (or proxies for temperature with varying amounts of noise and/or lag)?

    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I don't recall suggesting or implying otherwise, in fact I seem to recall part of one of my assertions implicitly rests on the assumption that ENSO is part of what makes up our climate.

    I disagree. I think there would be a flurry of papers published trying to find the factor that is continuing to change, that is absorbing heat energy from the atmosphere, and what the implications for long term predictions are.

    That's nice - although having said that, consider what you've just said in conjunction with what I said about the conditions required for a pine bark beetle outbreak.

    You mean they're assuming that it's going to behave the way I suggested it might, and the way that this graph:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Posted by you here: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2787376&postcount=16
    Periods of warming (or exaggerated warming) interspersed by periods of relative flat lining.

    In such a scenario, a symptom of accelerated climate change might be a shortened period of flat-lining.

    Not what I was suggesting, nor was it implied by anything I said.

    The most that could be infered from what I said was that I believe it has the potential to be misleading when considered in vacuo.
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    And apparently you edited your post while I was replying. Oh well.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I think you did. I doubt you can be honestly misunderstanding all this stuff in exactly the same, simple, obvious, way time after time.
    You reworded - "in other words", you said - one thing, and the rewording was an invalid conclusion from that thing. It was not a rewording, but a drawn conclusion. Incompetently, and invalidly.
    So come back years from now when you have that data, and make your otherwise bogus claims when they have something besides speculation to rest on.

    Besides: Yes, we might. They would base the claim on the glacial and ice pack melting world wide, water vapor pressure boosting and drought intensifying, large storm intensity or size or location changes, ocean current temps and behavior, night and winter and high latitude temps, and other weather-changing effects of the CO2 heat trap, if they had continued according to current trends - even with level overall temps.

    Air temperature is just one sink, for the trapped energy. The Arctic ice pack shrinkage would be an example of another - take a look at it, for the last ten years and this summer in particular.
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Okay, so this appears to be the bit that you edited:
    Most of which I addressed, and you've included the graph which in my haste to leave for work, I could not find - thankyou.

    But what I can't quite follow is that you seem to be disagreeing with me, even though you've just restated what I said, to some extent:

    That Enso has the potential to both mask and exaggerate the temperature signal cause by climate change, however the difference appears to be in our interpretation of that.

    You seem to be inferring because the warming trend is negated, that climate change is negated, where as I am asserting that this isn't neccessarily the case, which I believe probably stems from a difference of opinion or understanding. You seem to be infering that rising temperatures are a cause of climate change, where as I infer them as being one of many symptoms.

    I think this may be one of the reasons for the change in language from global warming to climate change, because temperature is just one facet of climate.

    I should also emphasize that I am not blaiming the apparnet lack of temperature rise exclusively on ENSO, there are other heat sinks as well - evaporation, and ice pack/ice cap melting are other heat sinks, and I'm sure there are a number of others I haven't covered.
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Consider this, for some perspective, with regards to trends over the last decade:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now keep in mind, that this is just me eye balling it, and I have it in my head that Arthur objected when Hansen did something similar, however, it is valid, and it is both illustrative, and informative.

    What it clearly shows is that even if current trends continue, we have a long way to go before any cooling or lack of warming might become problematic or contradictory.

    If I have time, and if anyone is interested, I could prepare something a little more robust but I have an absurd amount of information to digest at the moment with regards to pollution prevention guidelines and stormwater discharges.
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Except I didn't misunderstand this.
    You did.
    As usual.

    BS, I proved my point with data.
    You just handwave as usual.

    Nope, I said IF the trend continues that's the conclusion everyone would make.
    As I posted before, I don't expect the trend to continue.

    I have

    2007 was the peak loss.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No indication that the rate of loss is accelerating.
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    I'm using the HadCRUT3 data.

    These are the Anomalies for the last decade

    2001 0.324
    2002 0.598
    2003 0.525
    2004 0.504
    2005 0.461
    2006 0.319
    2007 0.61
    2008 0.053
    2009 0.387
    2010 0.489

    The trend is -.013X and projected forward at the same slope, we would get to Zero anomaly in 2038.

    If the trend continued we'd get to the average of the coldest days in the last 120 years, -0.4C by 2070

    We'd be freezing our butts off by the end of the century with temps a frigid -0.8 C.

    And you know what?
    It would be FAR worse for humans than if the trend reversed and we had the same amount of warming (which by the way is almost identical to the magnitude of the warming trend over the last 50 years), which would result in an anomaly of ~1.6C by the end of the Century, about half the warming that the first article was basing it's claims on.

    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    What you said was that your posted ten year trendline contradicted my assertion that climate change seemed to be accelerating.

    You then elaborated on that error, by speculating about future reactions to its continuance for another decade or more. That was your idea of argument in support.
    What point? Do you remember?
    So far. And the graph there is useless. I appreciate that you might want to avoid statistical arguments for a while, but you can find other people's in this case.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2011
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Not only have you missed the point that I was making, but you've done precisely what you stated here:
    "remember my point about not expecting the pause in the rise of temperatures to last?"
    And here:
    "I agree with you, that what you can't do, is as you stated, is draw conclusions about what the future climate will be like from just a decade of data."
    Is wrong, or misleading.

    The point that you've missed, it seems, is that even if we assume that the real warming trend is represented by the warming that occured between 1910/1911 and 1975/1976 - which assumes that 2005 had a 0.4 - 0.5k anomaly attibutable solely to ENSO, then the cooling would need to continue on for another 2 or 3 decades before it became problematic, in otherowrs, it would require a repeat of what happened between 1947 and 1976. Even if you assume that the temperatures in 1975/1976 were understated by the maximum error, and the tempereatures in 1910/1911 overstated by the maximum error, the trend you're referring to doesn't become significant unless it continues for at least another 10 to 15 years.

    The only way that the trend over the last decade becomes problematic for predictions is if you do something patently absurd, like disregard almost entirely the influence of ENSO on global average temps, assume that almost all of the warming that occurred between 1975/1976 and 1984/1985 was representative, and project that trend forwards. However, doing that makes some patently absurd predictions about the climate of the 19th century (little ice age was nothing) and predicts warming at a rate of a little under 1.6k/century.

    So the long and the short of it is that any cooling that might have occured over the last decade, and any cooling trend that might exist falls a long way short of reaching any threshold of significance (statisticaly speaking at any rate) and the scenarios that are required to be assumed that might possibly be assumed to be contradictory, or significant make predictions that are patently absurd (and so the scenarios are obviously wrong), so it is erroneous to argue that this trend somehow contradicts predictions, or disproves the assertion that the warming trend appears to be accelerating. There simply is not enough information yet to prove that assertion reasonably (sufficient information would be when we come out of the otherside of this phase, and the warming resumes, the ideal scenario would be when the next phase of lagging begins).

    There is an irony in amongst all of this, though - that the scenario which I have referred to as being patently absurd is one that is often attributed to people that accept AGW as occuring.
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Trippy I wasn't making any predictions I was only using the last decade's data to answer the speculative question you asked:

    As shown, if you extend the trend of the last decade that is clearly not the case.

  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Not at all
    I related it to other previous trend lines.
    The fact is there is no evidence that the trendlines are increasing since the 70s and the most recent trend has turned negative, which is very contradictory to your claim of acceleration.

    I did not do any such speculation about what the future decades might do except to state that I think the current pause will not last.

    Apparently any actual data is wasted on you. You obviously prefer pompous handwaving.

  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Okay, point taken, but it wasn't really a question, more of a statement. Any vagueness that could be attributed to it is simply a result of the fact that I'm at work, and was working purely off the modified version of the NOAA graph that I posted earlier. I might have a play with the HadCRUT3 data when I get home (I've been meaning to instal R on my new put-put anyway).

    Allow me to illustrate what I was refering to:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Which illustrates my point - it would require the current trend to continuethrough until 2070 - 2090, depending on which projection you use, before it became problematic for any predictions which is unprecedented (with the possible exception of the Little Ice Age). It would require 70-90 years of cooling (or not warming) to reach any reasonable lower limit on a linear trend. The closest thing to it is the cooling that occured between 1940 and 1976, but what we're talking about here has twice the duration (Addendum: a similar exercise performed using the error bars pushes it out beyond 2100, however, if we assume that 2010 was anomalously warm, and do the projection using 2009, then by 2031 the trend becomes problematic WRT predictions, and by 2080 we're down to zero anomaly, however, I don't consider this scenario reasonable).

    But as I have said, I'll have a look at the HadCRUT3 data when I get home.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2011

Share This Page