This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
It was way colder than normal today in Wagga Wagga, this is proof that there is no Global Warming.
Answer:
Does this even deserve an answer? If we must...
The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less again global climate change.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"Its cold today in Wagga Wagga" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
In other words, Global Warming proponents citing places on Earth experiencing historical high temperatures should not be doing it to support their Global Warming case?
Side note: I noticed that almost everything in the skeptic guide can be used against Global Warming believers as well as skeptics.
Posted by: Sarah | September 8, 2008 12:38 PM
I dont think "examples" are used to "support their GW case". Perhaps in low-level, popular science shows. But in general the CW case is made with global temperature means.
Posted by: Sophismata | September 8, 2008 4:10 PM
The first comment by Sarah is so absurd. When people talk about record temperatures, they are averaging at least a whole year, not a single day. I think Sarah should have payed more attention in school, if she went to any.
Posted by: Zig | December 28, 2008 8:10 PM
Excuse me Zig, what kind of a comment is that? Flat-out insulting people like that is not really the way, on this site or anywhere. Especially not so carelessly that in a phrase in which you suggest, without any evidence at all, that Sarah might not have gone to school, you write payed instead of paid.
Maybe we can stick to the point. The comment is not absurd. If the evil, grandchild-hating deniers can't quote record or unusual lows, then surely it stands to reason that AGW proponents can't quote statistically similar record highs either. Do you disagree with this?
Further, Sarah didn't say daily temperatures, she said historical high temperatures - you just assumed she was referring to a period shorter than a day. Rather than ask to clarify, you just went ahead and insulted her.
You say: "When people talk about record temperatures, they are averaging at least a whole year, not a single day."
What exactly do you even mean? When "people" talk about record temperatures, all you can say about such people is that they are, erm, talking about record temperatures. It is up to them whether they discuss periods of one day, one month or a thousand years. If you meant a specific subset of these discussions that would make sense of your comment as a whole, maybe you should have been more precise and pointed this out, rather than spend your time levelling baseless insults.
And anyway, choosing the correct period of time over which to average is a non-trivial question.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/signal_vs_noise.php
You may have information which which I don't in order to understand this process so much more than I do. Please enlighten me, I'm all ears.
But it's not that simple though is it. For example, record temperatures for a day are not just obviously irrelevant. Whilst one isolated incident is likely insignificant, a large cluster of independent daily records (high or low) can most certainly be significant. So you cannot just rule out all daily temperatures in one wave of the hand. Is that what you meant, or did I misunderstand?
Posted by: paul | December 29, 2008 2:37 PM
I think what is missing in this article is that the issue isn't about local historical highs or lows but that the issue is the difference between climate and weather.
Being cold in Wagga Wagga (or historically hot) is an example of localized weather and is not an indicator or predictor of global climate.
To be honest, the entire "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" could be simplified to two words, "You Don't". I've found that single and narrow minded individuals, who purposely choose to make up their minds without looking at any of the evidence or data, are impossible to be convince from their own delusions.
60% of Americans believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. If we cannot even convince them of the age of the planet then how will we get them to believe that the climate is changing.
Posted by: rich | January 1, 2009 10:06 AM
Rich, I find your second paragraph absolutely remarkable. You state directly that discussion on this topic is beneath you and then accuse those who disagree with you as being "narrow minded individuals".
I don't disagree with this in principle. I'm not one of those who thinks the earth is 6000 years old - but, in that domain, you may be aware that Dawkins and Gould agreed, despite their differences, that they would never debate the creationists. This is something I agree with - there are debates to be had within the field of evolutionary biology, but not between this field and creationists.
Are you suggesting that the climate change issue is as settled as that? Without even getting into specific climate issues, there two meta-reasons why it is not. Consensus and falsifiability.
Climate change is an untested theory - I've been into this on this site, and there is no way of avoiding it, it does not make (and has not made) any falsifiable predictions.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/arctic-sea-ice-recovered-in-2008.php#comment-1205648
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-before.php#comment-1271134
And the notion of consensus is, to put it mildly, simply not true. Have you seen this?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php#comment-1256141
We can argue exactly how many scientists are involved, and what their qualifications are of course. And you can disagree with these people sure. But you are not saying this at all. You are saying that this untested theory is beyond discussion with these often distinguished scientists who disagree with your view.
If you can outline why you think your view is valid, I'm all ears. You have obviously made a thorough review of the science to come to your firm conclusion, so what is the evidence that made you think this issue is in fact beyond debate?
And you say that "the issue is the difference between climate and weather". I've heard this imprecise kind of reasoning on this site a number of times. We can begin to evaluate whether this is a sensible point of view if you provide a definition for these two. Would you mind providing one please so I can try to independently arrive at the same conclusion as you?
Or maybe you think I'm just pushing my "own delusions", in which case you'll ignore me. I'll let those reading decide who in fact then is being "narrow minded" and "ignoring evidence".
Posted by: paul | January 1, 2009 3:17 PM
Pardon me for committing a fallacy of overgeneralization, but I observed this and wondered. My husband mentioned, when everyone was discussing the unusual amount of snow in the area and it's impact on the theory of global warming, that ocean currents have a lot to do with local weather patterns. I decided to look at a ocean current map to see what I could learn. http://www.coconutstudio.com/Coconut%20Origins_files/curentts_winds_marine_bio.jpg
We live in Seattle, and you can see what kinds of currents come to our area. Cool currents, bringing increased precipitation from the melting Arctic polar caps. That would explain our unusual amounts of snow. Now, look at the US east coast, which has been complaining of record breaking heat waves. Their oceans are fed by a warmer current coming from the equator.
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the climate change theory, of if this is simply a yearly instance. Just thought it was an interesting observation.
Posted by: Mrs. W | January 3, 2009 11:36 AM
Paul, climate is weather averaged over time. 30 seconds with Google confirms this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate (See first sentence)
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/glossary.shtml#C
http://www.weatherwizkids.com/climate.htm
Posted by: Richard | March 2, 2009 11:14 PM
Talk about a double standard! When the North Pole loses some ice, you don't declare it is only a single data point, but rather you blame global warming. This is just one more reason to be skeptical. If you want to convince me "it is global warming" that causes the polar bears to flee, then you better be consistent and blame global cooling for the unusually cold weather in Wagga Wagga. Or admit they are both single data points.
Posted by: William Pinn | April 15, 2009 2:09 PM
William, if you can not see the distinction between a single cold snap in one region and a dramatic and pervasive 30 trend over the entire north of 60o region then you are uneducatable on this subject.
Posted by: coby | April 16, 2009 11:01 AM
I believe the word is "ineducable"
Posted by: Betula | April 16, 2009 12:36 PM
Thanks, that's the word I wanted!
Posted by: coby | April 16, 2009 5:36 PM