Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 16, 2013 - 11:54am PT
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds?lite
crunch

Social climber
CO
Dec 16, 2013 - 12:26pm PT
Hey igster, that is a very well written article. Thanks.

Quote:

"And once you concede the existence of the greenhouse effect, it’s tough to dispute the role of greenhouse gas emissions in warming the planet....

So here’s what’s clear: Over the longer term, temperatures will increase."

Discussed climate change yesterday with someone from one of the local gov't labs. He commented that the whole debate is shifting away from Al-Gore-style (or WattsUpWithThat-style) sweeping grand statements to to one of pragmatic planning for the next few years.

As an example, the Western Governors Association, faced with urgent questions over recent droughts and obviously changing snowpack levels and times, are asking scientists for help with forecasting just a year or two or three ahead. Better forecasts are worth a lot of money for ranchers and farmers who can see changes happening and want some idea of where things are going.

So, some funding for climate change research is now starting to come from individual states in the Western US.

http://www.westgov.org/initiatives/climate
Reeotch

climber
4 Corners Area
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Thanks for that Ed, I'm going to incorporate that into my biology classes . . .


P.S. Statistics, not calculus, should be taught in high school.
crunch

Social climber
CO
Dec 16, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
Ed H: "The limit to this agreement has to do with the "uncertainties" we assign to the measurements and propagates through these analyses to provide a measure of the "goodness" of the comparison of the data to our theory. In Chiloe's up thread case, he arrives at a set of parameters which have an uncertainty range determined by the combined uncertainties of the data he is combining, and the ability of his model to fit that data. It also provides an overall metric of how good his hypothesis does in fitting the data."



HUH??

It is longwinded. Also unclear.

How about this:

The word "uncertainty" can have a specific meaning in the context of scientific research. It means that the result (of a model or experiment) cannot be given an exact, precise value. However, the result lies within a small, known range of values.

Sorta like when weather forecasts predicts a "high" temperature of 56 degrees for tomorrow and everyone knows that this forecast high is not going to be exactly 56 degrees but close to 56 degrees, within a range from say 50-60 degrees. It won't be 32 degrees. It won't be 98 degrees. That is an informal example of a range of uncertainty.

But the word uncertainty also can mean, simply, unknown.

As in, when asked what will you wear tomorrow, and the answer is, "I'm uncertain." In this case "uncertain" gives no indication of any range of possibilities.

Ed's complaint is that, either deliberately or through misunderstanding, some writers and bloggers will see the word "uncertainty" in its scientific context "we're sure of what is happening but uncertain of the exact details" and (as sketch does, just upthread) try to present the word as being used in the sense of "we have no idea what is happening."

Does that sound clearer?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 16, 2013 - 06:43pm PT
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/california-record-driest-year-20131115

Uncertainty ?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 16, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
wilbeer, don't be a fool. The Chief stuck his finger in a lake and declared there was no drought.

Hey The Chief--come back here and tell us again how there's plenty of water in the lakes you visit!
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 16, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
Water availability ranking for 225 urban areas in the United States

http://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/hydrology/cities/
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 16, 2013 - 08:58pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/12/16/if-all-you-see-982/
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 16, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
It was good that Ed and Chiloe could "collude" over a few beers the other day then formulate posts that seem to include a middle ground in the climate wars, specifically acknowledgement of what they refer to as the "pause" and theorizing over its cause. This is a good start, though the values of TSI over the satellite period may not be indicative of the true range of variation of the variable star we orbit about. The reliance on just the Enso in Chiloes graphs is simplistic since the PDO, NAO, and AMO likewise have profound effects on climate, and the value ascribed to volcanic aerosols seems suspect since we've been absent any large eruptions in two decades. So, let's see what Mr. Svalgaard has to say about long term variation of solar activity in the review paper linked below. Here is an interesting quote in the abstract-" we simply do not know with any degree of confidence how the variable star, our Sun, has varied over the past 400 years, not to say over much longer time scales before that".

http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf


If you made it through this paper you are now informed to the extent of the unknowns involving our suns variations and its effect on our climate. The value or "uncertainty" as to the long term range of variation in TSI is unknown. The .01 value advanced by the IPCC is a guesstimate based on non calibrated and discontinuous data from a series of satellites over the last thirty years, data that has a much higher range of variability that the TSI value.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 17, 2013 - 01:20am PT
Now why would would a variation of TSI that has never been measured, or been witnessed in the modern instrument age, show up in their statistical analysis Ed? Furthermore their is dispute of the "certainty" of the values entered into the analyses. I intentionally didn't mention the evil word CO2, thinking you guys might be coming out of your caves and beginning to "see the light" of the real world beyond. No cigar, it's CO2 all the way to the bottom of your abyss. Oh well, i hope you guys don't mistake the weather in the coming decade and freeze to death.

EDIT: Just for the satellite age, a period of unusually high activity, and even that is controversial. A grand minimum has never been measured by modern instruments, nor have the other associated activity levels during such a period (solar magnetism, solar wind speed and pressure, values of other spectrum of radiation). Don't throw out your winter clothes just yet.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:28am PT
It was good that Ed and Chiloe could "collude" over a few beers the other day then formulate posts that seem to include a middle ground in the climate wars, specifically acknowledgement of what they refer to as the "pause" and theorizing over its cause.

Hah, the few beers were real but after that Rick's lost in his fantasyland of conspiracies and pseudoscience. Ed and I are not colluding types, whatever posts we make are our own thoughts. Mine was inspired by Rick asking me about Svalgaard; I answered with an analysis that, as noted above above, I had originally done two years ago for a book.

Acknowledging the rise in surface temperature indexes has paused is not "a middle ground in the climate wars" either, except in Rick's imagination. Scientists have been writing about that for several years; I don't know a single one who denies that in the last decade or so, SAT indexes have slowed their rise -- it's right there in the data. What to make of that is a different question.

A few pages back I posted this compact summary of recent research on this topic, all of which Rick apparently forgot to read. Don't think he can or will this time either, but the post reflects some work by me because I actually did read and think about these references. So I'll post it again.

The Cato graph showed trends instead of temperatures because they want to emphasize that trends in the surface air indexes have been relatively flat in recent years. This is true as far as it goes, but leaves out a whole lot of recent research showing that:

1. The "pause" in surface temperature rise largely vanishes if we control for ENSO, volcanic and solar variations (Foster & Rahmstorf 2011) -- which as Ed has pointed out, the models never claimed to predict.

2. ENSO effects in particular suggest that more heat is being cycled into the oceans. And sure enough, ocean heat content and sea level have continued to rise (Balmaseda et al. 2013).

3. The seasonal and geographic pattern of surface temperatures is consistent with this ENSO effect (Kosaka & Xie 2013
[or see this summary in Science]).

4. The surface temperature indexes not only overlook the deep ocean, they also tend to over-represent ENSO-affected regions, and under-represent regions with less ENSO impact -- most notably the Arctic, where surface temperatures have risen most steeply. Add the Arctic back in, and surface temperatures are still rising (Cowtan & Way 2013).

Points 1-4 above are drawn from peer-reviewed papers within the past two years, all previously cited on this thread.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:46am PT
The reliance on just the Enso in Chiloes graphs is simplistic since the PDO, NAO, and AMO likewise have profound effects on climate,

If Rick read real science instead of pseudoscience bloggers he would know that many people have tested for PDO, NAO and AMO effects (including Foster & Rahmstorf). Even I tested for AMO effects in my simple model, and found that including the AMO index actually strengthens the estimated effect of CO2.


and the value ascribed to volcanic aerosols seems suspect since we've been absent any large eruptions in two decades.

Not just tens of thousands of scientists but satellites and volcano-observers worldwide are part of Rick's vast conspiracy.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:50am PT
Chiloe I am following the money, per the Ricks sage advice.

Do you get paid by the post or by the word, for spreading the conspiracy here on the Taco? Just curious I guess! If its by the word I bet Ed's gonna pay for his new Sprinter by Spring :) Yay!

DMT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 11:47am PT
Do you get paid by the post or by the word, for spreading the conspiracy here on the Taco?

I'm still waiting for my check from Al Gore, dammit! If he doesn't answer all my letters soon I'm gonna accept that great business offer from the widow of General Osfinko.

Ah well. There's a good new post on this topic at Realclimate today,

The global temperature jigsaw

Since 1998 the global temperature has risen more slowly than before. Given the many explanations for colder temperatures discussed in the media and scientific literature (La Niña, heat uptake of the oceans, arctic data gap, etc.) one could jokingly ask why no new ice age is here yet. This fails to recognize, however, that the various ingredients are small and not simply additive. Here is a small overview and attempt to explain how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
Well Chiloe, and all other weather wackos claiming that the 2013 sea ice recovery was just thin first year ice with no increase in volume, suck on these ice cubes. If enough of you hotheads immediately start sucking perhaps you can turn this increase around before it becomes a trend. Read em weep crybabies.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Cryostat/Arctic_sea_ice_up_from_record_low

Or alternately: Go to the link below and click on Europes Cryosat Spacecraft

http://notrickszone.com



Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
Well Chiloe, and all other weather wackos claiming that the 2013 sea ice recovery was just thin first year ice with no increase in volume

Rick's lost in his fantasyland. More reality-based folks may recall how Chief got so flummoxed because I posted this graphic back in early September, showing the clear 1-year increase in volume (in context with its nonlinear decadal decline).

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
Then, more than a month ago (Nov 10), I updated my volume graphic using the final September data.



Why sea ice volume is back in the news now: The Cryosat research team has independently confirmed the earlier conclusions (not the numerical estimates themselves -- those aren't comparable) of the PIOMAS research team.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
If the effects are at best minor players Ed, then how do you explain the collapse of the thermosphere during the minimum of cycle 23/24. There is no way the climatology community has identified, explained, and assigned the effect and values of all solar processes responsible for climate change on Earth. Svalgaard, who Chiloe claims to have no problems with his research, clearly states that in his upcoming 2014 paper i linked on the last page.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
There is no way the climatology community has identified, explained, and assigned the effect and values of all solar processes responsible for climate change on Earth. Svalgaard, who Chiloe claims to have no problems with his research, clearly states that in his upcoming 2014 paper i linked on the last page.

Svalgaard argues persuasively that there is much solar scientists don't know about historical solar activity. At the same time he has clearly stated, at least in what I've seen, that changes in solar activity cannot explain the recent climate warming (as other scientists have also concluded). I've seen a few of Svalgaard's interventions on denialist blogs that were devoted to whacking down unfounded claims of this sort; he takes a lot of flak for that from the faithful.

Svalgaard also states that (contrary to the "modern maximum" belief) solar activity today is about what it was a century ago.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Incidentally, the statistical modeling approach that worked so well for NOAA surface temperatures, as described above, seems to work (with substantially similar conclusions) for other global temperature indexes too. Below is a version modeling the UAH lower-troposphere (satellite-based) series.

Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews