Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 13821 - 13840 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 8, 2014 - 08:53pm PT

what does "slope =3.4 (+/- 2.6 )% /decade" mean?

you are claiming an increasing coverage, and stating an uncertainty... care to take a crack at it?
and how do they even assess the uncertainty?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2014 - 09:04pm PT

Here's the relevant source.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

It's fairly well documented.

Yeah I see what you mean. Even though the first reference on this page is a blog that was retired in 2005, this stuff really hits home. Even though all of the blog authors have been shown to work in well-funded "think-tanks," this data is really gonna put a hole in that crazy climate change stuff.

Now, can we just get some rain here in the West? Like, LA is going to be in the 100's this weekend, and I hate to think of Texas.

Say Sketch, it's going to be a mini ice age. Invest is some ski companies, they're gonna Kill it.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2014 - 09:19pm PT

That's a cool link Malemute.

Climate change is coming. If you want to know what it looks like, just look at the Midwest right now. It’s drought; it’s heat. Warmer temperatures don’t mean barbecues and tank tops. It means drought; it means fire; it means suffering.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 8, 2014 - 09:27pm PT

The question is whether urban environments were over-represented in the sample, and I might point out you guys have not provided an argument for this.

another important consideration is whether or not the thermometers measure a long term trend... this particular hypothesis being that as weather stations become incorporated into urban settings, they tend to read high...

urbanization corresponds with time, so the temperature trends would show an apparent time dependence... the correlation of time and temperature rise, since the beginning of the 20th century.

There are obvious ways to check if this hypothesis is correct or not. And hypothesis checking is statistical when it comes to looking at large quantities of data. Establishing these systematic effects of the ground based "thermometer" network is essential to calculating the global mean surface temperature (which includes a similar set of studies for the sea surface).

There are a number of papers describing this process and the corrections that need to be performed on the temperature data to reduce and/or eliminate such biases... some of those papers had even been posted on this thread on the last cycle of this "ground hog day" deja vu surfacing...

...and even soot was considered before... though it is possible that not everyone posting now would know that, and if those posts were still accessible, the standard operating procedure for the "ground hog day" posters would be not to have looked to find them.

It doesn't take an internet genius to find the references to the treatment of the temperature measurements. And certainly, the criticisms of the methods, e.g. what has been posted above from the WUWT blog have been met with serious scientific study and addressed in a manner that demonstrates that those particular issues are not relevant.

If you have an issue with the BEST paper above, in particular, if you don't understand the analysis, that would be an interesting discussion.

More interesting: if you think it is wrong and can make an argument or show a flaw in their analysis.

Not at all interesting is to dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion because of the presumed political motives of the authors of the report (though even that is problematic... Judith Curry being a co-author)...

The interesting lesson is that the blog criticisms are not getting stronger, they are getting irrelevant as they are considered.

There are scientific criticisms that are relevant, but not criticisms questioning the current foundations of our understanding.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 8, 2014 - 09:54pm PT

The Chief
Be patient and very careful what you ask for, KMAN. Hope you do not live on any hillside there in Santa Cruz. Cus this Winter is going to be doozey along the coast.

you made a similar type of forecast last year, in particular, about the snow pack, and it didn't work out the way you thought...

jus sayin...

The Chief:
When it is said and done the middle of April, I am willing to bet you $10 we will have a total of over 200+ inches. The MJO has shifted to Sector 7 and on the move to 6. That means shifting the regular Asian Tropical Jetstream south with wet and copious storms for Central California.

Spring of 90' saw less snow through February here in the Sierra than we have had this season. Then the exact same thing occurred with the MJO. The MJO shifted west to Sector 6, it let loose and we received over 260" of snowfall @ Mammoth and Bishop Passes in two and half months from the last week of Feb through the end of April.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2351537#msg2351537

(the vertical black line marks Feb. 25)
the snow depth at Bishop Pass didn't get above 200" did it?

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Sep 8, 2014 - 11:37pm PT

Ed, you know Judith Curry had problems with the BEST team and announcements made in her name. Here is a quote from her, " the scientific analyses that the BEST team has done with the new data set are controversial, including the impact of station quality on interpreting the temperature trends and urban heat island effect".

Put down the bottle Bruce and kindly crash your sorry drunken ass. Nobody here sympathizes with your projections by self psycho analysis nor your shear quantity of endlessly repetitive bloviating .

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 8, 2014 - 11:42pm PT

Her name is on the paper, rick, you do not understand just what that means. She could have asked to have her name taken off the paper... that is not an uncommon request when there is a significant disagreement among co-authors which cannot be settled.

If it was put on against her wishes, she could have written the editors of the publishing journal and had it changed...

When you put your name on a paper, you are vetting that paper, and its conclusions, in a very public manner.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 9, 2014 - 12:37am PT

you were comparing two winters... and your comparison wasn't very good...

but by your latest silly dodge, I suppose you'll get a lot of rain your way this winter, but I suspect that k-man doesn't have to take you seriously... you have no idea what will happen this winter.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Sep 9, 2014 - 06:33am PT

The surfacestations project started out with an hypothesis, verging on political certainty among believers, that badly sited weather stations were responsible for the global warming trend. There are many obvious ways you can test that hypothesis and scientists soon tried these out, finding no support for the original hypothesis. For example, rural stations actually showed a steeper warming trend than urban ones. Similar warming trends were observed from land stations, over the sea, and from satellites estimating lower troposphere temperatures. It goes on and on. The surfacestation faith lives on among ideologically committed blog followers, but not among scientists who have tested it in many different ways.

This is not to say that urban heat islands, or microsite effects, are unreal. They are real, and well known, but they are not responsible for climate trends. For one thing, the micro and macro siting of instruments has often improved over the past decades instead of getting worse, as potential problems were recognized and many stations moved.

Another key idea, which I mentioned last page, is that climatologists work primarily with temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperature. Since these involve subtraction they cause much confusion on denialist websites, and I'm not sure whether any of our denialists here comprehend them. Expressed as anomalies, we can see that temperatures at the summit of Mt. Washington and the seacoast a hundred miles away move together, even though Mt. Washington is always much cooler.

And then there's the issue of how anomalies are related to trends. Folks who don't get anomalies become hopeless on this topic, though again the arithmetic is straightforward. If I have time later today or tomorrow I'll post a few examples.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 07:50am PT

GENEVA, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Atmospheric volumes of greenhouse gas hit a record in 2013 as carbon dioxide concentrations grew at the fastest rate since reliable global records began, the World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday.

"We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud in a statement accompanying the WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.

The WMO, what a bunch of hogwash.

We know, from luminaries here, rick, The Chief, and Sketch himself, that the world is not getting hotter and that it also not caused by human consumption of fossil fuels.

Who does the WMO think they are, some world-wide organization of top-rate scientists or something?? The duped climate scientists, over 97% of them have been fooled into believing this crap.

Why, oh why won't they listen to the people who really know how to run a lab? Like The Chief, who just recently learned that a trend line is more than just connecting the low points on a graph, or Sketch, who continually forgets what he posted a day before. As for rick, he's in his own world, hovering above all the frayed morass, seeing all.

How do these jerk-pot "scientists" even get in the news, it's beyond me.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 08:00am PT

Monday was the rainiest single day in the history of Phoenix, where weather records go back to 1895.

Extreme weather?

Hmmm, who has predicted heavier rains (which lead to flooding), coupled with severe droughts (that lead to larger wild fires)?

Certainly not the Resident Taco Luminaries.

And that's right The Chief, it's a record that was broken.

Shine on!

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Sep 9, 2014 - 08:16am PT

As I understand the study, it rated sites according to the specifications for siting, set by the NOAA's new Climate Reference Network.

So the hypothesis is, poorly rated sites will show more warming than well rated sites. That's so easy to test! If you handed me the dataset I could do it in about 30 seconds, and so could any competent scientist. Given an hour one could run dozens of different tests checking for outlier problems, nonlinearity, nonnormality, autocorrelation, nonconstant variance, geographical patterns and other possible pitfalls, to get a clear view of what conclusions are robust.

Those surfacestations data were collected years ago. AW is no scientist, but why do you suppose he did not find someone else who could run such tests right away, and headline the results? The answer seems to be that AW's own data do not support AW's own hypothesis. Scientists know this (because some of them have indeed run the tests, and many others), but the failed hypothesis lives on as fact in the hearts of believers.

The most detailed published look at these data seems to be a 2011 paper in which John Nielsen-Gammon, a respected climatologist, ran the key analysis. That paper found *no effect* of station quality on the mean temperature trend, another refutation of AW's founding hypothesis. The paper did find an effect on diurnal temperature range; I don't know whether that has been replicated or explained.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Sep 9, 2014 - 08:56am PT

Ah, Roger Pielke SR is more of a actual working Climate Scientist than you ever will be

I don't claim to be a climate scientist, although I work with climatologists and publish in climatology journals. I do claim to know my way around statistics, which are heavily used in that work.

But back to RP Sr, who IIRC originated the whole surfacestations idea. Where then are his analyses of these data?

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Sep 9, 2014 - 09:03am PT

Aside from Curry's name being on the BEST study , she did have serious reservations about the way it was rolled out and the overreach of the other lead author in ascribing interpretations. Cut and run? No she did not, criticise its hijack for propaganda purposes she did. At least you are not denying this Ed.

GFYS Bruce. Pose all you want as as a psychoanalyst witch doctor. People are awakening to the scam behind this AGW movement and besides it being disengenuous attacking the messenger, it is also too late. I'm sorry you pinned so many hopes on this vehicle as a transport to your little socialist utopian promised land , but its a losing issue that doesn't play well outside the disaffected loser community. Now turn back to finding that worm at the bottom of your bottle, moron.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 09:03am PT

Ah, Roger Pielke SR is more of a actual working Climate Scientist than you ever will be ...

Didn't we fully discredit Pielke earlier in this thread.
But because he has the message that The Chief wants to hear, The Chief holds him up as all-knowing.

That's OK, The Chief, we know your beliefs won't be shaken by pesky facts.

Does anybody find it odd that "Global surface temps have stopped warming", when 9 out of 10 of the hottest years on record all occurred in the past 10 years?

Where do you think 2014 will fall on this graph?

Facts? Why bother.
Shine On you guys!!

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Sep 9, 2014 - 09:40am PT

http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/extreme-precipitation

Figure 32. Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, with especially large increases in the Midwest and Northeast.99 Despite considerable decadal-scale natural variability, indices such as this one based on 2-day precipitation totals exceeding a threshold for a 1-in-5-year occurrence exhibit a greater than normal occurrence of extreme events since 1991 in all U.S. regions except Alaska and Hawai‘i. Each bar represents that decade’s average, while the far right bar in each graph represents the average for the 12-year period of 2001-2012. Analysis is based on 726 long-term, quality-controlled station records. This figure is a regional expansion of the national index in Figure 2.16 of Chapter 2. (Figure source: updated from Kunkel et al. 201399).