Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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...
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
latest threat? TREES!!!
"In order to grow food, humans have changed about 50 percent of the earth’s surface area from native forests and grasslands to crops, pasture and wood harvest. Unfortunately, there is no scientific consensus on whether this land use has caused overall global warming or cooling. Since we don’t know that, we can’t reliably predict whether large-scale forestation would help to control the earth’s rising temperatures.
Worse, trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health. These emissions are crucial to trees — to protect themselves from environmental stresses like sweltering heat and bug infestations. In summer, the eastern United States is the world’s major hot spot for volatile organic compounds (V.O.C.s) from trees."
here's the rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0
oh, the irony...
btw, all those carbon-conscious climate change faithful in ny hired about 500 gas-guzzling buses...just sayin'
|
|
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.
|
|
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...
|
|
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
|
|
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,
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2014 - 09:31pm PT
|
your question is based on the understanding of the dataset,
you didn't read the description of how the dataset is produced, and what its variability (etc) is...
it is possible that you would find that your question is answered in the papers that describe the dataset, especially since it appears you're bothered by a change in a short period of time...
should you be?
you could read the papers and find out.
until then, you don't have a question.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2014 - 11:00pm PT
|
K-man - This is the same old dance. You make bullshit accusations. I call you on them. You play stupid.
Who's stupid? I asked you what is the cause of the sea ice, you said you didn't know. I said you post graphs without knowing their meaning.
If you suddenly do know what the meaning is of the sea ice, tell us. Otherwise you're posting a graph without knowing what it means.
Or you can play dumb, and call others names when they point it out.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 12:40am PT
|
No one owes you any answers, esp considering your past history of ignoring numerous long and patient explanations, such as how to tell the difference between a spike and a trend.
Have you ever thanked anyone who took the time to answer you?
But just because I'm feeling merciful on all the others who have to see your repeated demands for attention:
Big El Nino event in 1877-8.
Not hard to look up. Why don't you try it yourself sometime?
For some strange reason it doesn't disprove AGW.
Short lived. Has nothing to do with long term changes.
http://www.met.igp.gob.pe/publicaciones/2009/aceituno_et_al_2009.pdf
The last time we had a big “spike” was the 1998 event.
Today's climate is not a spike; it's a long term trend.
Maybe try reading some of the meaningful information posted to this thread?
Or is it time for another troll?
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:42am PT
|
New York Times, in last couple days:
"Global emissions of greenhouse gases jumped 2.3 percent in 2013 to record levels, scientists reported Sunday..."
"the level of carbon dioxide in the air in 2013 was 42 percent above the level that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution. Other important greenhouse gases have gone up as well, with methane increasing 153 percent from the preindustrial level and nitrous oxide by 21 percent."
"The increase of these and other gases from human activity has caused the planet to warm by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the preindustrial era, which is causing land ice to melt all over the world..."
"Last week, meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that this summer — the months of June, July and August — was the hottest on record for the globe, and that 2014 was on track to break the record for the hottest year, set in 2010."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:46am PT
|
Yet the temps have remained steady for the past 15 or so years.
Yet the "Climate" has changed completely due do mankind's unconscious behavior towards Nature ........
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!