Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Bruce, everybody has an axe to grind, if they are honest enough to admit it.
If you want to get tenure at yer White Tower of Marxist Nihilism you would
be well advised to temper yer objectivity. Besides, we're not talking about
physics here, we're talking about juggling jello.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
December 8, 2014 - Current Ocean Surface Temperatures Around
World Reached Highest Temperature Ever Recorded.
North Pacific Is 3 to 4 Degrees Higher.
“We've never seen this before. It's beyond anyone's
experience and this is why it's puzzling.”
Bill Peterson, NOAA Oceanographer
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Everybody who does a 'study' has an axe to grind for whoever is paying for their 'study'.
Can you give some examples where you believe it has worked this way in climate science? I can't. Scientists I know seem the opposite of sheeplike or dishonest. Also I can't guess who you picture as evil puppeteers at the top.
I've been part of several studies this year where the findings turned out differently than I expected and others might have hoped. But that's what the data show and that's what we published.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
|
Did someone say "Global Warming"?
Yes, the climate scientists did and they said it as loudly as they could manage.
The trouble is, the MSM has not relayed the message. Hence the noted concern of the public.
Now the question: Why has the MSM not relayed the message of the climate scientists, and why do they continue to propagate the message that the debate on AWG has yet to be settled.
If you've been paying attention, you'll notice the last question doesn't contain a question mark because the question is rhetorical.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
RealClimate today has an entertaining post by Stefan Rahmstorf on "The most popular deceptive climate graph." The explanation and discussion are worth reading because we've seen these talking points repeated often here.
It's not near so polished but here's a less deceptive image of this information:
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
So, now you're posting flamage from alarmist blogs.
Nope, I posted a note by physical oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf, pointing out a particularly deceptive graphic.
Thanks for sharing that "most popular" graph. I don't recall it previously being posted here.
The deceptions Rahmstorf notes have been parroted here many, many times. What are those deceptions? Well you'd have to read his note. Where have they been parroted? Well quite recently, five days ago, by you.
Actually your example is worse.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Chiloe bemoans , along with Rahmdorf, public exposure of "deceptive" skeptics graph (s). Then he immediately posts an alarmist graph just below that is infinitely more deceptive.
How convenient that the scale of CO2 increase and the manipulated temp rise scale would match so perfectly. No accident of nature or proof of theory there that passes professional or even general populace muster, just bald face manipulation. You are a hard core denialist and a first rate propagandist Chiloe.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
L....T..F...O..L...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
|
I posted a temperature (and CO2) graph covering 350 years. Which part of that "most popular deceptive climate graph" did I parrot?
The graph is a cut-&-paste job, so the whole thing is a parrot.
It's quite telling that you don't understand that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Chiloe bemoans , along with Rahmdorf, public exposure of "deceptive" skeptics graph (s). Then he immediately posts an alarmist graph just below that is infinitely more deceptive.
How convenient that the scale of CO2 increase and the manipulated temp rise scale would match so perfectly. No accident of nature or proof of theory there that passes professional or even general populace muster, just bald face manipulation. You are a hard core denialist and a first rate propagandist Chiloe.
actually, you could make Chiloe's graph yourself, and if you thought Chiloe was guilty of being deceptive, you could show how he was...
and we've been all around making the other graphs, too, and discussing how they are made to look the ways they do, and what the implications are for understanding what is going on.
Chiloe has redone many analyses, as have I, and posted the results, which show that the increaing CO2 concentration is a part of the current climate trends, and that part is increasing with the CO2 concentration. Quite a nice, simple analysis actually, I suspect it could be given in an undergraduate statistics course as a homework problem...
Well, it is true that rick hasn't made any graphs... so perhaps rick doesn't understand what is going on. rick why don't you make a graph and demonstrate your point?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Still no temps factored in there Chief.
Keep swinging.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Recent peer-reviewed studies strongly support the view that California’s epic drought was made considerably worse by human-caused global warming. A new report from NOAA seeking to cast doubt on that assertion omits some of the latest science and is deeply flawed, as three leading climatologists told me.
Let us know when that NOAA report gets peer-reviewed, Chief.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Quite a few scientists, disagree, Chief.
That's the way science works, Chief. They disagree and more studies and discussion are done till a consensus is reached.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Not at all, Chief.
Disagreements do happen between between respected scientists.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Hey Chief. Merry Christmas.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
precipitation is only part of the hydrological cycle
one of the consequences of increasing surface temperature is the increased drying of the soils, and the increase in plant transpiration, which also uses the ground water
so while the drought, as defined by the amount of precipitation over some period of time, could be caused by natural cycles, the effects of the drought are expected to be more pronounced because of the climate change.
not sure why there is such a loud conversation about this...
as for how anyone determines what is attributed to natural cycles and what is attributed to climate change, it's all done by the same research community using the same methodologies, observations and models...
...so, of course, if you "believe" that one NOAA paper, you must also "believe" the others, they are tied together.
Somehow I suspect we'll be treated to some shuck and jive over this...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 07:12am PT
|
Here's the report that The Chief is crowing about:
Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought
It begins like this:
The causes and predictability of the California drought during the three consecutive rainy seasons (November-April) 2011/12 to 2013/14 are analyzed using observations and ensembles of simulations conducted with seven atmosphere models forced by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs).
The report states that it is warming oceans that caused the drought. It is the newspaper headlines that say the drought was not caused by "global warming."
What is interesting is that The Chief touts this report, which is based on models, but poo-poos the other models used by the climatologist community.
Make up your mind, The Chief, are you going to throw out the models or use them? Or, as usual, are you going to just cherry pick the things that suit your per-ordained beliefs?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 07:45am PT
|
Now for the REST OF THE STORY from the report....
The Chief, your quote is not from the report or the link you give. In fact, the link you provide says this:
Is the California Drought a symptom of long term climate change?
The current drought is not part of a long-term change in California precipitation, which exhibits no appreciable trend since 1895. Key oceanic features that caused precipitation inhibiting atmospheric ridging off the West Coast during 2011-14 were symptomatic of natural internal atmosphere-ocean variability.
Model simulations indicate that human-induced climate change increases California precipitation in mid-winter, with a low-pressure circulation anomaly over the North Pacific, opposite to conditions of the last 3 winters. The same model simulations indicate a decrease in spring precipitation over California. However, precipitation deficits observed during the past three years are an order of magnitude greater than the model simulated changes related to human-induced forcing. Nonetheless, record setting high temperature that accompanied this recent drought was likely made more extreme due to human-induced global warming.
Beginning on page 25, the CA drought report itself talks about the possibility of the drought being human induced. Here's an excerpt:
For both the current decade and the next two-decade period, there is a widespread area of subtropical drying as measured by a reduction of P and stronger reduction of P − E which dries Mexico and parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. This pattern is consistent with expectations of hydroclimate change due to rising GHGs (Seager et al. 2014b).
OK, pretty interesting. Then it says this:
For the current decade this drying area includes California but is very weak. In contrast, for the future period, California north of San Diego and Los Angeles is projected to have an increase in winter half-year P and a slightly smaller increase in P − E (presumably because warming temperatures cause an increase in winter E). The change in California is made up of an increase in mid-winter P but a decrease in spring that connects with the interior southwest drying (Neelin et al. 2013; Pierce et al. 2013, Gao et al. 2014). The slight drying in the current decade arises because the spring drying proceeds faster than the mid-winter wetting. Hence, for California, the models project an emerging shorter, sharper wet season.
The Chief, I can't find in the report where it says the drought was not caused by global warming, can you?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 9, 2014 - 08:05am PT
|
There you go cherry picking again The Chief.
The very next bullet in the link you provide (which is not the report, BTW), says this:
-- West Coast high pressure was rendered more likely during 2011-14 by effects of sea surface temperature patterns over the world oceans.
Hmmm, high ocean temperatures. Where have I heard about this before?
Again, I don't see where the NOAA site says the drought was not caused by human-induced warming.
Of course, nor does it say say it was influenced by human activity--NOAA seems to be very cautious about identifying the cause of the warmer ocean, which it does say is largely responsible for the drought.
So The Chief, you're now admitting that CA has been in a drought. Change of face for you, no?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|