Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25081 - 25100 of total 28524 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 03:55pm PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Sep 21, 2014 - 03:13pm PT
hey The Chief, you're the one ranting about "accuracy"

and you tend to get louder when you get called out on it (and almost anything else you get called out on)...

so since it's your rant, you get to tell us what accuracy is, and how it is calculated, specifically for determining the surface temperatures...

But I don't think you will... you'll change the subject and go off on some other rant. That's a lot easier.

For the moment, we can conclude that The Chief really has nothing more than a rather loud and boring opinion, and nothing substantial to add to the conversation. My bet is that he can't come up with anything on the "accuracy" of the surface temperatures.

For all of those out there who need it, a hot wind is about to spew forth from The Chief..

Soooooooooooooo Typical from all you AGW freaks.


Instantly resort to the personal attacking when you can't produce anything to "accurately" validate your bullshet AGW propaganda.

Right on cue EDH!
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 21, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
The best currently available longterm sea surface temperature record is probably HadSST3, which is incorporated into the HadCRUT4 global land and sea temperature index. Unfortunately the land component of HadCRUT4 is less excellent, missing the Arctic and some other areas. When a large area like the Arctic is left out of a nominally "global" index, that is equivalent to assuming that anomalies in the left-out area are the same as average anomalies in the kept-in areas, which we know is false -- giving HadCRUT4 a cool bias, in this case.

NASA's index GISTEMP does a better job with the Arctic but uses older sea surface data, so neither of those two is ideal -- each has strength & weakness. The Cowtan & Way index aims to capture the best of both worlds, using HadSST3 for sea surface and an extended Arctic coverage derived from surface together with satellite records. The Cowtan and Way index is not updated as frequently, however. Improvements in GISTEMP are expected, and C&W say they are working on better validation against GISTEMP which should be interesting to see.

In case anyone is curious, below are monthly HadSST3 values from 1850 through this July. The smooth curve is a lowess regression, showing the familiar pause-step-pause-step pattern that is the signature of modern global warming.

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
So LARRY HAMILTON, up until 1951, how were the HADSSt's data collected?

Be specific now.....


How bout I start you off with "WOODEN and CANVAS BUCKETS" dipped into the ocean at very isolate, sporadic and undetermined locations for over 90 plus years.


Now that is some spot on accuracy.


Pretty amazing how some sense of consistency begins after the deployment of them buoy's around 1950 as shown in your nice graph Larry.


But what is even more confusing is the spike in SST's from 1865ish-1880 and then again from 1910 through 1940. They are both actually larger than the one from 1979 to the current date and occurred in a shorter period of time. Yet Atmospheric C02 and TEMPS were far less than the current rise.

What was the forcing mechanism that caused those previous larger spikes Larry?



Pretty much coincides with the TEMP SPIKES of the same periods that EDH attributes to "Natural Variability" because they surely can not be attributed to anything us humans did. Could they now.

Bet them WOODEN BUCKETS had something to do with em.....

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 21, 2014 - 05:02pm PT
I think you might want to look up "precision" vs. "accuracy" The Chief

there is an important distinction. We did cover a little of it upthread...

your crayon isn't getting any sharper, either...
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 05:38pm PT
"precision" vs. "accuracy"

WTF is the difference in the point I am making regarding the manner in which the data was collected prior to 1951... ie some periodic WOODEN BUCKETS dipped into the ocean here and there compared to HUNDREDS OF FLOATING SAT LINKED BUOY's and 24/7 IR SAT's.



Sharper

Hmmm.... please do tell, regardless the sharpness of the "crayon", what in gods name was behind the two spikes in SST's (1876-1878 & 1910-1940) that were obviously both larger than the current day spike which I have indicated in Larry's professional propaganda drawing EDH?



The first two of course were not of any HUMAN doing back then according to your theory, UP THREAD!

Even MORE amazing is the first one which only encompasses less than an 18 month period.



The 18 month SST temp spike above is more than the current day 35 year spike below...



Got any answers as to what caused that 18 month spike Larry?

I got a feeling it may be due to them WOODEN BUCKETS....
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 05:46pm PT
I wish to add to that question Sketch...

What was the FORCING MECHANISM/s in the first 90 years of your graph, Larry?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 21, 2014 - 06:33pm PT
just imagining if you will,
If indeed Man in the last hundred plus years of burning fossil fuels, and other scientific changing of an elements status has been able to effect the "climate" and/or "atmosphere" to the point of catastrophic-al destruction, where the atmosphere to no longer conducive to any type of life on the planets surface. Gives one the feeling how precise the environment's climate needs to be for life to Evolve over 4 bil. yrs.

For ALL life that ever breathed air, it seems unreasonable to believe our planet has had a life-giving oxygen rich atmosphere for even 400 mil. yrs., let alone 4 bil.. Seriously! This ecosystem is very vulnerable.

My questioning of Evolution dues with the massive amount of time being prothyisized about.

Are you 100% certain the earth was "Dead" then "Came To Life" only once?

4 billion years is a long time. Why not, 2 bil yrs ago there was MAN!, and his Zphone 220, When Walakazam! a Comet hits and the planet is destroyed!!!!

And after 2 billion years the Monkeys are almost right back where they were...

Jus Zon'in
BB
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 06:35pm PT
Damn!! Rising Temps and C02 Levels are killing them crops... aren't they??


US corn and soybean crops could break records this year!

The US Department of Agriculture is forecasting record crops this year for corn and soybeans, the two largest US crops in terms of production. Unless there is a devastating freeze or torrential rains before the harvest ends, corn production is projected at 366 million tonnes and soybeans at 106.5 million tonnes.
Handling all this production will be complicated. According to Arthur Neal, a USDA transportation and marketing official, about 3.5 percent of the crops, equivalent to 762,600 truck loads, cannot be kept in permanent storage structures like silos -- the highest share since 2010.

That does not bother Reifsteck, who says he will rely largely on field storage. "Hopefully most of it will get picked up and shipped during the fall or winter. With rains there will be some spoilage but if you lose a few bushels now, it is OK," he said.

What bothers him more is transportation.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-huge-grain-crops-spell-headache-farmers-055229168.html


There is going to be sooooooooo much more product this season that the farmers haven't the room to store it all in lieu of getting it transported as that is going to be the big problem. There's going to be too much product.

Damn Climate Change is such a mtherfker...
raw

Mountain climber
Malibu
Sep 21, 2014 - 06:51pm PT
"Settled science"!?
That's a legal term, no? "Settled law."
"Settled science" is oxymoronic....
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=trending_now_1

Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 21, 2014 - 07:26pm PT
Speaking Truth to Power – and to Friends
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2014/09/20/speaking-truth-to-power-and-to-friends/

Rockefellers, Heirs to an Oil Fortune, Will Divest Charity From Fossil Fuels
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/heirs-to-an-oil-fortune-join-the-divestment-drive.html?_r=0

Global Rise Reported in 2013 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/science/earth/scientists-report-global-rise-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Taking a Call for Climate Change to the Streets
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/nyregion/new-york-city-climate-change-march.html

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 08:01pm PT
Hey MALNUTS....

Maybe you can answer what caused this spike in SST's that was greater than the current spike. Yet it only took a year and a half to occur. Not the 35 or so years of the current spike. And it did happen within the supposed "RECORD" period you all keep using as your ref point of time.

THEN....




NOW....
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 21, 2014 - 08:10pm PT
Maybe you can answer what caused this spike in SST's that was greater than the current spike. Yet it only took a year and a half to occur. Not the 35 or so years of the current spike. And it did happen within the supposed "RECORD" period you all keep using as your ref point of time.

maybe you could explain what a linear trend line means, and what the variability of the data has to do with the uncertainty in that line?

how did you get the trend line in the first place? perhaps you could explain that as a first step...

Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Sep 21, 2014 - 08:26pm PT
AGW bullshet ideology propaganda Locomotives

pure poetry,

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
OK EDH...

Forget the frkn Trend line.

How about the spike in SST temps during the period posted. What caused the spike (which is greater than the current day temp rise of 35 or so years) that occurred during this short (1.2 years) period of time during the "RECORD" period you all use as ref?

Then:



The current spike...



Neither you nor Larry Hamilton nor any other of the AGW freaks here have an answer for that event.

It will most assuredly be dismissed as some kind of "Wooden Bucket" anomaly that of course does not go along with your AGW agenda.
raw

Mountain climber
Malibu
Sep 21, 2014 - 08:42pm PT
It don't matter, if the major players ain't playing.
(I.e., don't get yer tit in a wringer....)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/peoples-climate-demarche-1411339021
nah000

climber
canuckistan
Sep 21, 2014 - 08:58pm PT
love how the wsj article above reports "tens of thousands" of environmental protestors, whereas reuters, the bbc, etc are reporting 300 000+.

i guess 300 000 is technically tens of thousands. haha.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 21, 2014 - 09:03pm PT

That Koonin article/editorial in the WSJ has a good point that Climate science is not settled. However it goes way overboard in its claims of uncertainty. Koonin buys into so much of the denier propaganda that his conclusion is warped into a position that little action is needed.


“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”

The entire premise here is WRONG. We wouldn't be having this discussion and the issue would not exist if the predictions were for a SMALL change. Greenhouse effect is measured in additional net Watts/sq meter. Writing it as a percent of some unknown is a way to make it sound easier to write off. Also the effects are not just going to end in 2050. "Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/


“A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.”

This paragraph is quite misleading on how much it underplays what we do know: that the ocean temps are going up by a lot, as is dissolved CO2 & acidity level.


“• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

That is only 1/3 true: Natural variability is TEMPORARILY enough to counteract surface temps, but ocean warming and ice melting continue to RISE due to the heat imbalance.


“Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.”

WRONG. Models are now able to capture that slowing, and the whole episode shows that modeling is more and more accurate.


•” The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.”

Here he is guilty of focusing on a gap, an exception to the general trend, ignoring the forest for a few of the trees. Arctic sea ice has shrunk by much more than Antarctic sea ice has risen. Scientists have only recently focused on this particular issue, and are already in the process of figuring it out.


“ The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.”

Actually vapor has been directly measured, bypassing his misleading and incorrect conclusion.
As Ed posted, studies of water vapor so far have confirmed predictions that it will increase and amplify the CO2 greenhouse effect. More reading:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5875/518.short
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/025210
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html
a study that focuses on local exceptions to the general pattern:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012442/full
but more papers say those local exceptions do not change the global trend: “Clausius–Clapeyron scaling is directly evaluated using an invariant distribution of monthly-mean relative humidity, giving a rate of 7.4% K − 1 for global-mean water vapor. There are deviations from Clausius–Clapeyron scaling of zonal-mean column water vapor in the tropics and mid-latitudes, but they largely cancel in the global mean. A purely thermodynamic scaling based on a saturated troposphere gives a higher global rate of 7.9% K − 1. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/025207

“Robust and physically understandable responses of the global atmospheric water cycle to a warming climate are presented. By considering interannual responses to changes in surface temperature (T), observations and AMIP5 simulations agree on an increase in column integrated water vapor at the rate 7 %/K (in line with the Clausius–Clapeyron equation) and of precipitation at the rate 2–3 %/K (in line with energetic constraints).”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-012-9213-z


“ Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.”

As with most data, there is not one measurement that is good for representing the past and one measurement that is good for the present and future.
The rate has gone up in recent decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#seaLevel
The general rate from 1870 to 1930 was 9mm / decade.
From 1930 to 1995 it was 24mm / decade.
Since then the rate has been 32 mm /decade.


“• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.”

That is incorrect. Climate predictions now have less uncertainty/sensitivity than previously.

"..open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.
Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies...”

Politicians overall are incapable of understanding all the nuances, and will always rely on a summary, whether it is an accurate one from the IPCC, or a biased one from former fossil fuel executives.
Koonin is clearly trying to create more doubt than actually exists in order to get policy leaders to ignore the consensus.


“While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem. We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. “

Obviously climatology will continue to advance. He is again way over the top with opinionated pronouncements like “decidedly unsettled.”. If it's so unsettled, why are IPCC summaries more certain than ever, after 25 years. (again his unbacked conclusion about climate uncertainty is incorrect.)


“A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.”

Basically what he wants is a George Bush type committee to rewrite all science reports so they conform to Wall St Journal opinions. Red Team reviews – Ridiculous. What would be useful is for Congress to start to read anything at all about science, instead of listening and taking payoffs from ALEC lobbyists.
The main misinformation source going on for the last 20 years is the campaign conducted by deniers.


“Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.”

He seems to be quite unaware of the extent of possible positive “no regrets” policies, in order to hint at his goal to delay any policy decisions for decades until it's too late. He should read the article Ed posted and learn something about how much we are subsidizing fossil fuel external costs, and how initial carbon taxes could simply make up for those subsidies, not even counting the external costs of global warming. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14174.pdf


“Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future.”

Any serious discussion is already doing that, so his advice is unneeded. Also unneeded is an exaggeration of uncertainty with the goal of delaying sound policy. Just like tobacco “scientists” who for decades claimed uncertainty in order to deny their knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking.

Koonin has connections to those who deny the consensus, and suggest that we just adapt to any climate change. The quick internet reposts & links to Koonin don't actually examine it, since that takes more time, and tends to happen after the media moment is past. But one obvious question is why he is posting this article at the WSJ, which has a long definitive history as a biased denier outlet? Couldn't he even get the APS to publish it?
Most likely he was just in a hurry to stop progress at this week's UN climate talks.


Or maybe even his buddies at the APS like Lindzen disagreed?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/02/like-lambs-to-slaughter.html
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 21, 2014 - 09:04pm PT
Hey Splater...

What caused that huge spike in Global SST's back in 1876-1877???

Got an answer for that one? Did this event really happen???

It had to of... it is all part of the current "RECORD" that NOAA and NASA keep referencing in their monthly/annual reports.

Then:



The current spike...


Here is the "RECORD" which includes the huge spike in question to the left...












Oh boy!! 300 000 that drove or flew FF fueled vehicles to NYC in order to attend!

What a grand example of the AGW agenda....
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 21, 2014 - 09:18pm PT
I only respond to rational people with meaningful posts.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 21, 2014 - 09:19pm PT
"what caused the event"?

presuming there was a cause...

first, define your use of the word "event"
from the above I presume it is the increase of the SST by some value and over some time period. Once you've defined that, you might want to give an indication of how probably that "event" would occur "randomly," that estimate might be found in the expected "variability" of the data set at that particular time (or if you are considering two different time periods, the variability of those two different times).

Once you have an idea of how probably such an "event" is, we might be interested in pursuing the question "what caused it?"


You might also look at the documentation of the dataset...HADSST3GL

Messages 25081 - 25100 of total 28524 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews