Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 12:43pm PT
|
So now the PDO is based on C02. We must be approaching the 200th post in which Chief has shared his ideas about C-zero-two.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 12:49pm PT
|
me:
If I'm mistaken on the above, I'm sure Chiloe can enlighten us!
Chiloe:
I don't laugh with Rush Limbaugh, either, though sometimes I laugh at him.
Chiloe's 0 for 1.
For context for everyone else, Chiloe got all butthurt when I repeated a joke about his new-fave "scientist"-anti-global-warming activist getting his ship stuck in ice on his family vacation / scientific expedition that was designed to document the effects of global warming (among other things, and when they weren't drinking and vacationing, presumably).
At least from what I can tell, the general narrative of the jokes is in fact correct. If Chiloe or anyone else doesn't think so, let's hear it.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
|
Give Chiloe a break Blahblah. The admission that he sometimes laugh, regardless of cause/effect, is proof that he's working on a sense of humor.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
|
The "ship of fools" meme has become so pervasive among right-wingers that resistance is futile, you can't swim against that meme any more than Al Gore can protest he never said he invented the Internet. I don't know anything about Turney except fragments learned the last few weeks, and haven't read any of his papers, but I hate to see a scientist getting smeared. One last try.
blahblah wrote about Chris Turney,
an anti-global-warming crusader getting iced in as he attempts to document the decline in sea ice This short declaration has three falsehoods
(1) Turney is a scientist, not an "anti-global-warming crusader," although like most scientists he knows ACC is real.
(2) Antarctic sea ice is not declining, it has lately been increasing in area.
(3) The expedition's goal was not to "document the decline in sea ice" but to make a wide range of comparisons between Mawson's data from a hundred years back, and new observations today.
Here's a real description of their science objectives. Note that the second one actually mentions the growth of fast ice.
We are going south to:
 gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle
explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past
investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands
discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay
understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay
produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay
determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica
provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future |
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 01:42pm PT
|
Interesting plot that the chief has found. The PDO index between 1900 and 2035.
So it is a prediction based on something. The chief usually despise all kind of models and prediction but not in this case it seems.
The really interesting thing though it that the prediction seems to be done by using the data from 45-78 as the prediction of the future. Looks like a kind a novel prediction technique.
This is of course just the usual, the scientist that agree with AGW is always incorrect, there data analysis ("smoothing" etc) always suspect, their models are incorrect if they are not making predictions that are 100% true. The "realist", those that say the things that the chief et all. wants to hear can do whatever they want with the data. Their methods are always correct, interesting etc and their are of course no reason to even try to understand them.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 01:56pm PT
|
Phule, the AGW crowd goes a long way towards invalidating themselves in the eyes of anyone paying attention. Take for example USHCN's v1 which adjusted modern temps up a half a degree c, or v2 which dropped the past temps by a full degree c. It seems the adjustments always go the same way-to make it look as the modern era is unprecedented and almost all the graphs you guys are posting are based on these maladjustments.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
|
The facts are irrelevant. So Chiloe admits he knows basically nothing about Turney other than that he's decided that he's a "scientist," and so is incapable of being accurately described as an anti-GW "crusader."
Anyone who cares about the "facts" can look at the guy's own website and draw his or her own conclusions.
http://www.christurney.com/
The funny thing is (if there's anything funny after Chiloe relentlessly grinds the humor out), I doubt Turney would object to being described as an anti-GW crusader--he's apparently made it his life's work to both document GW changes and has started a company to do some geoengineering and engage in other for-profit work related to climate change (I can't get the company link to work, so maybe his company is doing as well as the expedition).
Chiloe may well be correct about it being wrong to say that Turney was there to document the decline in sea ice and was there to document the increase or change or something else. Joke still works fine.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 02:15pm PT
|
Phule, the AGW crowd goes a long way towards invalidating themselves in the eyes of anyone paying attention.
How would you know? You obviously cant pay attention because you can't read and understand any of the science involved and thus have no idea who to trust. The only thing you do over and over again is to believe the people that say things that is in agreement with your politics.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 02:32pm PT
|
Phule, it was always political at the top levels, just a means towards an end. I'm sorry you are fixated on projecting the minutia of the micro physical properties of CO2 from the lab into the tremendously complicated dynamics of a real world atmosphere. Compare these numbers Phule, atmospheric percentage of CO2=.ooo4, percentage of variation of TSI over a standard Schwabe cycle= .01, global deviation from mean temperature for Younger Dryas -6c, global mean deviation from mean temp for holocene climate optimum +2-3c, variation of global temps from end of Little ice age to present +.8c. Kind of indicates that natural variation far exceeds the modest temp increase that can be attributed to a trace gas that is 400ppm.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 02:44pm PT
|
Kind of indicates that natural variation far exceeds the modest temp increase that can be attributed to a trace gas that is 400ppm.
Not really.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
|
The dueling graphics do nothing for either side of this 'discussion.' I get what you mean, might be true within this frequently train-wrecked ST thread.
But there are a couple of other dimensions. IFO learn things by drawing the graphs, as I do from reading new papers. It's partly curiosity (and skepticism) driven, and at the end of the day at least I know more than I did before. Ed has expressed similar motives for the informal research he does here too; probably others share that view.
Also, the graphics don't necessarily stop here. Some that I've drawn originally for ST later end up posted widely on blogs, or in research papers (in several cases after constructive feedback here). Others journeyed the other way round. I've tried out some things on ST before they were published, as well. The longest journey might be one of my graphs that unexpectedly got Borg-assimilated into testimony for Britain's Parliament.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
|
Interesting plot that the chief has found.
yeah, kinda the problem with a fair number of folks posting here, they find what they believe and are looking for. They don't create and divulge the metadata and methods of the resulting plot, they 'find'/regurgitate stuff in agreement and cannot reproduce these found images they post. Quite hilarious in a not so funny way.
To make a valid argument, y'all gotta create your argument, not find it, unless you can replicate and understand it.
^^just trying to say differently what has been said and subsequently ignored up thread +/- 100's of times.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
|
Every "Graph" I posted today and yesterday are all collected and recorded DATA/OBSERVATIONS that have actually occurred!
No model or prediction.
LOL, Chief. Look at the dates in the graph you posted.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:43pm PT
|
Let's look at them dates....
You missed to look at the dates for one of your figures...
edit:
Corresponds just perfect with the one above.
Yes, but it still show a prediction into the future.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
|
They will never win such a debate because there is no debate.
Truth.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
|
I'm not saying the skeptic camp is any better. I'm just pointing out some climate scientists toss neutrality when it's beneficial.
Sketch, can you post some names of the climate scientists you say toss neutrality?
I am asking because what I read mostly is the hammering any scientist gets within their own scientific community when either their data collection or conclusions are not supported by peer review
names, thanks?
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
Take for example USHCN's v1 which adjusted modern temps up a half a degree c, or v2 which dropped the past temps by a full degree c. It seems the adjustments always go the same way-to make it look as the modern era is unprecedented and almost all the graphs you guys are posting are based on these maladjustments.
Rick, you seem to see monsters and a conspiratorial plot under every bed. You should look at the explanation of exactly what the data adjustments are that you are worried about (for V.2, that's Menne, Williams, and Vose, 2009; available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf).
For example, here are some of the quality checks applied to daily data: days on which both maximum and minimum temperatures are 0 F; duplication of data for an entire year or month; impossible value (temperature exceeds known world records); various kinds of inconsistency such as whether a temperature exceeds that on the preceding and following days by more than 25 C (45 F); and so on. Similarly for monthly data: temperatures that exceed the climatological means for the same station and month by at least five standard deviations; and others.
These are really standard types of data quality checks that are used in all kinds of research where field data is going to be summarized or subjected to statistical tests or modeling.
Others are unique to climate monitoring: the time of day that observations are made has changed over the years, and that affects the data because temperature changes all day long. It seems entirely reasonable to correct for this kind of thing, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with cherry-picking data to find a particular result. You need to read the description of the methodology and explain what specific things you take exception to; or if not, then accept that it's a valid and unbiased methodology and the corrected data is the best set to use for analysis.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!