Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2014 - 10:38am PT
|
Awe... come on Ed. Don't be like that. We both know what's going on.
Sketch tries, once again, to claim he knows what's going on. Looks like the only person he's fooled here is himself.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Does he have a picture of a fish?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Looks like Chiloe's going into filibuster mode again Figment of your imagination, I don't have a filibuster mode. All I had there was ideas for a hypothesis and a test using just-published data, which fit better into two posts than one.
But you imagined I did that in order to interrupt the flow of blahblah? Wotta doof.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
One thing I mentioned w/o detail in my earlier post is that the RSS lower-troposphere record increasingly appears to be the odd man out in comparison with the other 5 main temperature records. RSS is now the only one that does not show statistically significant warming since 1998, for instance. The discrepancies between RSS and the others, in the absence of any good explanation and while others are making steady improvements (e.g., the all-new C&W; HadCRUT4's improved SST component), make RSS suspect in my view so I wrote that it "might be wrong."
For an insider's thoughts on the discrepancies between the two lower-troposphere records, RSS and UAH, here is Roy Spencer:
Over the last ten years or so there has been a growing inconsistency between the UAH and Remote Sensing Systems versions of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies. Since I sometimes get the question why there is this discrepancy, I decided it was time to address it.
....
As can be seen, in the last 10 years or so the RSS temperatures have been cooling relative to the UAH temperatures (or UAH warming relative to RSS…same thing). The discrepancy is pretty substantial…since 1998, the divergence is over 50% of the long-term temperature trends seen in both datasets.
....
Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.
But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Well there you have it folks. Read Chiloe's post above and see the admission that these relatively new plots purpotedly showing the models are in agreement with observations are based on newly revised hadcrut data and cowtan any ways massive infills. I rest my case. Thanks Chiloe for clarity and honesty.
Chief, glad to hear your out enjoying life away from these miserable loons. As Dennis Miller says "the country has flipped 180 degrees from reality" the best one can do is pick your battles then try to enjoy the small pleasures of life on a daily basis. A week or so back you had their asses convincingly kicked.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Chief, glad to hear your out enjoying life away from these miserable loons.
me too.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Well there you have it folks. Read Chiloe's post above and see the admission that these relatively new plots purpotedly showing the models are in agreement with observations are based on newly revised hadcrut data and cowtan any ways massive infills. I rest my case. Thanks Chiloe for clarity and honesty. Rick burbles from deep in his fantasyland. It's funnier than average this time because what I actually said is right there, where more reality-based folks can read for themselves and compare with Rick's version.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2014 - 03:23pm PT
|
Most people understand that we're in a serious fix. Eighty percent of American counties have had some kind of climate disaster in the last two or three years.
Two years ago, the New York City subway system filled with salt system, you know? Sandy was the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras. How many warnings do we want?
The world is changing. Things are possible now that weren't before because we're changing the climate.
I mean, it feels like God's doing his level best to tell us the fix that we're in, one crazy episode of weather after another. These are the alarms from a system that's beginning to swing out of control. We're supposed to be Homo sapiens. Intelligence is supposed to be our mark. We've been given the warning by our scientists who have done a terrific job at reaching consensus on a different problem in physics and chemistry. They've told us that we're in deep trouble. They've told us what we need to do, get off fossil fuel. The question now is whether we're actually going to respond to that.
And it's like a sort of, well, it's like a kind of final exam for the question, was the big brain a good adaptation or not, you know? We're going find out in short order. And each of these things that comes up like the Keystone pipeline is a kind of pop quiz along the way. And so far we're failing more of them than we're passing.
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
OK! Rick has unambiguously demonstrated that his reading comprehension level is zero! No wonder he is so confused.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
I rest my case.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
For those that can't read I guess I have to give Chiloes exact quote that I thanked him for as the basis for recent plots by CAGW proponents where the newly contorted data shows agreement with models-("e.g., the all new C&W; HadCrut4 improved SST component"). Now, are we clear Mr. Bolte? EDIT: Wilbeer at this point the contortions run so far and wide that total defunding is the only logical course, followed by circular filing of the whole stinking mess.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Sketch,what did you prove?
Rick ,Is all the data contorted?
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
It is tiresome to constantly see these posts that are desperate to grasp at any miniscule straw to make some weak argument that the climate is not warming, but that in reality provide yet more data against the 'denialist' case. For example, Sketch recently posted a bar graph showing ice coverage in the Great Lakes region. I can only imagine that the point is that there is more ice this winter than there has been in previous recent years (?), but if you create a mathematical trend line from the actual numbers (there-is-no-warming posters being inordinately fond of trend lines), this is what you get:
That is, over the years for which this data was provided, the amount of ice coverage in early February is less and less all the time, right straight through the beloved "hiatus" in warming - even a claimed period of cooling! - up until this year. In fact, if you look at the data for this period (starting February 1998), 11 of the years are below the median line vs. only 6 above it. Thus, there is less ice coverage (weather/climate of that particular region is warmer) during the hiatus period than there was previous to it.
When I first started reading this thread, I had some significant skepticism about certain specific aspects of the current climate understanding and modeling, having once done a good bit of study of paleoecology and thereby being very familiar with the wild past climate fluctuations. Every time I investigate anything substantive that is posted in criticism of the warming-climate data and modeling, I get less skeptical. The deniers are doing a good job of convincing me that they are wrong.
Edited to add: I wouldn't go searching for this kind of thing as support for the current climate understanding, but if someone else is going to throw this kind of thing out there as an argument against, it's fair game. Once again the counter arguments prove to have no merit.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Sketch - your graphs are getting larger. but your use of bold and caps is way below chef sigma standard.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Congratulations TLP for coming out of the closet, glad we could be of assistance in prying your hands free from the door jamb.
Now you have to decide the degree to which you want to display your climate "gayness". On the extreme end of the spectrum are the activists screaming imminent doom from hellfire and extinguishment by the tsunami of the rising seas. These folks commonly belong to several environmental organizations pushing an agenda of immediate decarbonization on our return road to the stoneage with it's accompanying depopulation caused by the unsustainability of the present populace with the resulting collapse of our present energy rich power mix. On the other end of the spectrum are those that acknowledge that, yes the earth has been warming, particularly from the mid 70's to the turn of the millenium. These people acknowledge a component of anthropogenic cause to the warming, although a minority component, and believe Earth's climate is controlled largely by cyclical processes. These people also don't object to switching the energy mix, as long as the replacement technology doesn't break the bank and can produce quantities of power to sustain ourselves in this modern age.
You seem too reasonable to fit into the first group.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Does anyone have a clue what Fooking Idiot #2 is babbling about?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Hunting season is OVER Ed. I've switched to indentifying the pleistocene/holocene boundary shorelines of the various levels of the great basin lake stands. The temporally stable shorelines are rich in evidence of occupation by the first americans. Climate change during this period was a "real thing", often quite sudden, and severe.
http://csfu.tamu.edu/mammoth/issues/Volume-17/vol17_num1.pdf
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Given some of the posts just above, including the abstract of the letter to Nature entitled "Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming," it's timely to reiterate one of the key issues: that there is so much short-term variability in the interaction of the various climatically important oscillations that it is nearly impossible to provide any short-term prediction that would validate or falsify the essence of current climate monitoring and modeling. Anything posted about local or regional warmer or cooler conditions is entirely irrelevant either in support or criticism of the science. The modeled increase in extreme El Nino events, explained in the Nature letter, is not verifiable on a time scale of 10 or 20 years; my guess, you'd need 50 or more years to how likely it is that this hypothesis is correct.
So, the determination of whether the current crop of models, or any one of them, are/is reasonably accurate has to be based upon A) whether the long term trends are in accordance with a range of variation around the modeled future temperature curve (they are, as explained clearly in Ed H's posts) and B) whether the interaction of the variations in the factors that are currently believed to be the major ones (sun, volcanic dust, oceans, GHGs) gives you a temperature curve that matches the observed one reasonably closely (which it does, as shown by Chiloe's posts including these graphics). Since B is not far off from an accurate representation, this is pretty strong evidence that the hypotheses about clouds or vegetation making a big difference to bail us out are already adequately incorporated into the models. Like it or not, the science is correct. What can and should be done about it is fair game for debate, but not the validity of the science.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!