G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board » Science, Climate, and Winter is Coming » Archive 2012 - 2018 » Archive through June 05, 2015 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 12:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Historically, a warmer climate has been good for humans.

Warmer has been good for overall biodiversity, including humans. I much prefer the current alarmism over the alramism of when I was a kid. An ice age is really going to SUCK! Funny though, the cause and solution is always the same!

I love it im arguing with a bunch of guys that know more on the subject then most of academia

Academia understands who butters their bread. They want their bread buttered. Of course if you are willing to ignore scientific facts (such as the current lack of warming), you are sure to ignore the political facts too. BTW, simply cherry picking quotes that don't address any specifics isn't much of an argument. How exactly is it that they can KNOW what has caused any change in the past 50 years? Why didn't we see this effect of rising CO2 levels earlier in the industrial revolution? CO2 levels were raising long before 50 years ago. Why virtually not change for the past 20 years? CO2 levels have continued to rise. Feel free to ignore those questions and respond with another useless quote.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 01:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"The earth is flat man HOLY COW!"


The consensus among scientists a few centuries ago was that the Earth was flat. So much for the power of consensus to shape reality.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 01:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

No one here denies that man affects weather.

If I didn't think it would bore you I'd give a list of proven ,observed cases. Like the Sahara desert. Partly man made.

Btw Larry Niven has a new novel out, mad scientist does a number of things, 1 is unleash a plague to wipe out sheep. Why? Sheep are horrible for the ecology, & a main cause of Africa & the Middle east going desert.

I didn't say he was an evil mad scientist.

Tod has not answered one question.

How many people agree with something has nothing to do with the facts. Lots to do with funding.

I'm no smarter than NASA. I am more honest than most politicians. Especially the former director.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 01:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

What Tod has done is demonstrate that he will willingly be lead by "academia" or very likely any other figure of authority, even in the face of evidence that the authority is flat out lying to him. I guess that's easier than thinking for yourself. Kind of reminds me of the union meeting I attended last Wednesday. Voted in a new contract that we weren't given a chance to read based solely on the "guidance" of the union President. That wouldn't be so bad if he didn't already have a track record of completely ignoring issues, including written grievances.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

S2t_bama
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 02:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Todd:
I am a scientist, and not surprisingly, I know a lot of other scientists. That is to establish what I'm about to write has some basis in fact.
A scientist can have an agenda. If his agenda is aligned with the agenda of the agency that funds research in his field of study, he is far more likely to get funded*. If his agenda is the opposite, he is far less likely to get funded. If a scientist does not get funding for his research, he will soon lose his job. If he has no job, he publishes no papers with an opposing view. That is how you get a huge majority of opinion when the data is, at best, barely statistically significant. Further, that is why a consensus of scientists does not impress me. DATA might impress me, but the climate data I've seen does not. The computer models developed from those data impress me even less.



*That is because the scientists who review his grant applications have been selected through the same process.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 02:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Tod. The issue is simple.

Predictions were made. They did not happen.
More predictions, more fails. Since the 1960's.

That is not to say anyone wants dirty air and water.
The eco movement has accomplished a lot of good, but also some pretty nutty taboos. And some stark evil. Political movements have always been manipulated by ambitious men.

Save the planet by taxing your motorcycle is a bit crazy when China is building a new coal power plant every week, don't you think?

Hoot, glad you liked it. Gave me a giggle.
Cthulu for President! Why settle for a lesser evil?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 02:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Why? Because I don't want to be forced to eat my own entrails by a bunch of devotees dressed up as clowns, that's why!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 02:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"I love it im arguing with a bunch of guys that know more on the subject then most of academia"

I love it. I'm arguing with a guy who still doesn't know what 'then' means.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 02:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Ok you have a point on the entrails bit.

Smod at least is quick.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tankhead
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 03:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Boy, I learn something new everyday. I never heard of this deity named Cthulu. Interesting. How is the name pronounced? Is the C silent? Thanks
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 03:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

K-thoo-loo.

H.p.Lovecraft. the second most ripped off author after Shakespeare.

Check the debate at National Review. Link on the Republican candidate thread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tod662
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 04:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
But you the badweb brain trust know more about the reality then all of these nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations. The white night in this dark gloomy time is the glorious republican party backed by the world’s largest corporations that have the most too loose if environmental issues are brought to light.
Im now really done wasting my time. I mean come on you are saying basically ALL teachers in the world have it wrong... there's this grand conspiracy going on at the expense of the worlds largest corporations and the whole world has been manipulated... except for people that listen to Fox news, what a joke.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 04:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"the most too loose"

You diminish the effectiveness of your argument when you can't spell simple words. It makes you look like an ignorant fool. Any position you may hold is suspect.

Teachers, by and large, are lefties. The left seems to have bought the AGW scare hook, line, and sinker (as they did the ice age scare in the 70s). They're simply agreeing with their political leaders, as they are wont to do.

To be a scientist is to be a skeptic. Many 'scientists' have forgotten that. Similarly, consensus is not science. One contradictory fact destroys a theory. There are many facts that contradict the end of the world fantasies being portrayed as indisputable 'settled' science by the Church of AGW.


(Message edited by hootowl on June 05, 2015)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tod662
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 04:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I'm not even trying, all I did is went down the line and cut and pasted from the that website from that little podunk organization called NASA.
But you of the BWBT (badweather brain trust) have more and better information then all these scientists from all around the world, because all of them have it wrong. The thought that all around the world scientific groups are beholding to the Democratic Party is just not feasible. FOLLOW the money, who has more to loose Shell oil or Al Gore?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 04:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action"

No one disputes that humans are affecting the climate. What is in question is the severity of the warming, and what, if anything, we can, or should, do about it.

Estimates (by people proven to be wrong by their past failures) are that the world will warm by several degrees in the next century, and that if we stop emitting CO2 RIGHT NOW, the world will warm a fraction of a degree less.

How does that help? It doesn't. What will happen is that billions of people will die of starvation, and civilization will revert to the stone age. (Well, except China...they're not going to stop burning coal until they run out of coal.) Keep in mind that the goal of many of the greens is to depopulate the Earth, and you can begin to see why no matter what the problem is, their solution is to destroy the world economy, thus killing off most of its people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 04:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"I'm not even trying"

"loose Shell"

Obviously not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 05:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Even the quotes you are quoting are stuffed full of wiggle words and meaningless generalizations so that they can get enough agreement to claim consensus.

Heck, even I agree that some global warming is caused by humans (I don't think much) and that it could potentially be a really bad thing (a very low chance).

Todd, God help you if you ever get into some kind of legal agreement with any lawyer with two brain cells to rub together. They will have you for lunch if you can't read statement critically and skeptically. Do yourself a favor and don't ever buy a used car from a dealer...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 06:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Even the quotes you are quoting are stuffed full of wiggle words and meaningless generalizations so that they can get enough agreement to claim consensus.

Heck, even I agree that some global warming is caused by humans (I don't think much) and that it could potentially be a really bad thing (a very low chance).


The funny thing is that Tod's quotes don't limit themselves to global warming. It's always "climate change" that you get a big consensus on. There are many examples of humans affecting climate. Usually local climate. The snow on Kilimanjaro is a great example. Of course that had nothing at all to do with global warming as ManBearPig claims. It was local farming practices that eliminated moisture that fed the snow fall. The solution to this problem then becomes control of CO2. That's not science, it's religion.

Tod would have been a lot of fun when science was proving that the world really wasn't flat as had been the consensus.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reindog
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 06:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Tod's predicatable trajectory:

* Assert an opinion that is not universally shared.

* Insult the Badweb community because they are "ignorant" when they don't 100% agree.

* Continue calling names.

* Present "evidence" which is not necessarily proof of the original opinion.

*Continue insults rather than effectively arguing.

* Make grammatical errors.

* Refuse to respond to counter arguments.

* Make disparaging statements about people who are Republicans and watch Fox News.

* Make innocuous statements that they have no time for this and threaten to leave.

* Don't leave.

* Disappear for a while until the process is repeated on a different topic.

This is right out of the Liberal/Progressive playbook. It has happened many times on Badweb. Conservatives embrace the debate because we win with logic and facts every time. I have an open mind and can be swayed with effective arguments except they are rarely forthcoming by Liberals.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 06:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

And I'm not just trying to pick on Todd. Most of us have been there at some point, and when we finally opened our eyes to recognize that "school", "science", and "common sense" can be a steaming pile of agenda driven horse &*&^ it was quite the shock.

Remember being told to eat margarine instead of butter, because it was healthier? Many people are likely dead as a result of that lie.

How about DDT killing birds? That story is still killing many people every day.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 06:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

So... On a serious note, is there any global temperature data set that you can go to that hasn't been completely corrupted with these adjustments to make the past colder and the present warmer? It really is a shame that they are doing this with valuable scientific data. Wasn't it Hadley/CRU that actually destroyed all to their unadjusted data? These people safeguard valuable data like H> safeguards email.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 07:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/noaa-adju sts-the-data/

From September 2013.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-sn-global-wa rming-hiatus-20150603-story.html#page=1

June 2015.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-s n-no-global-warming-hiatus-noaa-20150603-story.htm l

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-wit h-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming -hiatus/

Researchers representing the scientific mainstream also rejected the idea that global surface temperatures never stopped rising.

“It’s always good to go back and look at the data as carefully as possible and make sure it’s calibrated correctly,” said William Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cańada Flintridge. “But the hiatus is history and it was real.”

“I don’t find this analysis at all convincing,” said Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech who argues that natural variability in climate cycles dominates the impact of industrial emissions and other human actions. “While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”



This, combined with the fact that ships now sample a smaller area of the world’s oceans, have skewed the data toward cooler temperatures, they say.

Also, though it had long been assumed that ships measured seawater temperature with engine intake thermometers — an innovation that began after World War II — that is not the case, Karl said. Instead, some ships still scoop up seawater in canvas or metal buckets.

“The buckets, when you pull them up, tend to evaporate their water, and if they’re canvas there’s even more evaporation,” Karl said. “By the time people stick a thermistor in the bucket to measure temperature, it’s already slightly cool.”

To correct for the discrepancy between bucket and engine measurements, Karl and his colleagues used nighttime air temperature readings taken from the deck of the ship to calibrate the readings.


From Mr. Pournelle.
This is worth reflecting on. Bring up a bucket and stick in a thermistor – assuming you have one. Instruments which even read to hundredths of a degree cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and require calibration. I doubt that many commercial ships employ them now, and I am certain they did not in 1970, when they would have cost even more. I am fairly certain Naval warships don’t have them, either in intake valves or portable for sticking in buckets.

We used Yellow Springs Instrument Company (of Yellow Springs, Ohio) thermistor probes to take the internal temperature – anal probe – of the astronauts as we tested equipment – and astronaut – heat tolerance of up to 400 degrees F. The probes were accurate to .0.05 degrees C, and were the best we could obtain at the time. They were also expensive and I doubt any were used for sea temperatures; they were expensive. I see they make thermistors accurate to 0.05 degrees C to this day. Accuracies to several thousandths of a degree are now available but at a considerable price, and I am sure few if any are carried on commercial or navy ships; and I am damned sure they were not aboard any ships including NOAA research vessels prior to 1990.

We calibrated our instruments by measuring the temperature of melting ice – ice made with distilled water. I don’t know how to use night air on the deck to calibrate to any tenth of a degree or for that matter to nearest degree.

http://www.advindsys.com/Manuals/YSIManuals/YSICat alog-1998.pdf

The point being that we don’t know to any three tenths of a degree what the Earth’s temperature was in 1950, and we don’t know it now; but if you draw a straight line between what we think the temperature was in 1890 to what we think it is today – using their data – you get a rising trend line as everyone knows you will, but there was a period when it went down a lot following World War II, then began slowly climbing again; and the only explanation the experts have is to manipulate the data until the trends change.

And they want to bet $billions on this “science”?


Bit of a rebuttal from a "left?" paper.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con sensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/03/research-downplayin g-impending-global-warming-is-overturned

But, I notice the numbers used in the paper are from the Hadley CRU, which is known to spend a lot of time bashing "deniers" and collaborating with the U.S. fraud, Michael Mann. ( who, btw was cleared of all fraud by the same University President who went to jail for covering up another scandal in a big money maker for her college... an assistant coach's long term child rape habit )

True, there's an element of guilt by association there. Like having a Divorce court judge find for your ex, then it turns out he was sleeping with her.

Maybe that's not the best example.

No, I think it is.

Another article.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/04/new-r esearch-on-global-warming-hiatus/

It looks to an old metrology lab tech like they are using uncertain data, based on uncalibrated instruments, and decided that the data did not come from one kind of machine, but actually from a different one, because that more closely matched the theory.... without actually checking to see if that's true.

More from Jerry.

Which demonstrate you can prove anything if you can manipulate your data. But then we have always known that. When it was shown that many of the land temperature stations were almost certainly giving incorrect data – they were originally in open areas, and are now in highly urban areas – it was decided that adjustments were not necessary. But of course that can’t be as important as the possibility – not demonstrated, but possible – of canvas buckets. But it’s all right, those deniers had their minds made up already, unlike the Believers. This is science, after all, and all those AAAS sessions about the coming Ice Age and the Genesis Strategy didn’t really happen.

Of course none address the fact that there is no new data, merely manipulation of the older observations, and none of them are accurate to tenths of a degree – which is what they adjusted the data to find.

We know that in 1776 cannon were dragged across the Hudson River on the ice. We know that the Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland and called Nova Scotia Vineland where they grew grapes. Greenland has never been as warm, and the Hudson doesn’t freeze hard enough to hold up cannon. I can guess temperatures from those facts, but I wouldn’t expect them to be accurate to a degree, much less tenths of a degree.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 08:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Sifo, yes, the Hadley CRU "lost" all the unadjusted data in a move.

Seriously, the dog ate their homework.

But no, you can get straight data, but you may have to FOIA it. I've posted several links to people who compare the raw data to the adjusted.

Easiest for a laymen to look at is past claims of "warmest year on record". After all, we've had that every year since 1998. ( apparently the second warmest year on record after 1934... at least that was the data in 1998 )

What you want to look at is what temperature is claimed for 1934, or 1938, or any year before 1950. If the guestimated average planetary temperature in 1938 is the same in each year, then they may not be full of crud.

However, every year I've looked at the charts the Cultists put out, the Past gets colder, and the Present is warmer. That means in real science terms the charts cannot be used to compare from year to year.

It's just like a stockbroker telling you a stock has gone up 110% and is an awesome buy, but when you look at the actual records, it has not, and the broker is flat out lying to you about it.

Since THAT is the kind of data any investor can look at in seconds, no stock broker pulls that fraud. He'd never get away with it.

Also keep in mind that we have only had satellite readings for a short time. It's nigh impossible to get an exact figure for the "average temperature" of a whole planet. There just are not that many calibrated thermometers out there, so you HAVE NO CHOICE but to make assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, if your smoothing is not right, you get a number that is not real.

But that's the best you can do. So you refine your fudge factors, but you can't compare numbers created with different fudge factors. That's just not good math. Period.

So it's possible, that the change in past numbers is just an artifact of better and better refinement of technique. In an ideal world, it is. In politicized Science it's not the case.

Confused? Sorry.

Try measuring something with a foot long ruler marked in 1/16". What's the best you can do? ( answer, within 1/32". ) But it's all useless unless you calibrate the ruler first, meaning, match it against multiple known lengths.

We have claims to 0.01 with thermometers that are only good to +/- 1.00

of course they are averages....

ever hear of stacked tolerances?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 08:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Tankhead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu

Of course, Cthulu is as far from Science as you can get.

It has no sane worshipers. ( there's a reason ) completely fictional. The mythos is that just being exposed to the presence of an Old One, or their artifacts can bring insanity.



Remember the big evil thing in a different dimension from the movie "Hellboy"? Cthulu has also been on South Park. ( as has Satan )

There's also a popular RPG & LARP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Cthulhu_%28ro le-playing_game%29

The players have even chartered cruise ships so they can play in the bowels of the ship. Abandoned industrial parks are popular. When you run into an Old One, you have to roll a "sanity check" to see if you are sane enough to continue play. ( the rpg players sometime wipe out entire parties, repeatedly, in a nights play )

I've never LARP'ed the game, but I did play a NPC ( non playing character ) in a LARP in Buffalo New York one night. My then Girl Friend wanted to play, so I volunteered to play a role. ( actually they kinda made me, since I'd joked about seeing an HBO movie, "Cast A Deadly Spell" where the world was saved because the Virgin sacrifice had been seduced ( off camera ) by a cop that was supposed to be guarding her...... They didn't want me replicating that... ) so I got a role as a guy that would be found by the party, give some hints and then run away, was dragged away by a tentacle, fell off a cliff ( onto some boxes ) and finally killed right near the end by the madman trying to summon the Old One to conquer the Earth. ( bad idea. Seen that in a movie? ) There were about 6 "actors/NPC's" and 4 "dungeon masters" running the game in an abandoned factory complex. A hoot.

See the NRO "fight" for why Hoot was laughing... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/419100/re-fin al-chapter-jonah-goldberg?target=author&tid=897
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 08:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Last one for a while...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the ory-is-not-settled-science/

It's a long read, and if you have any questions, I'll try to answer.

Tod wonders what could possibly qualify ME to have an opinion on a subject 97% of scientists had an opinion on. ( but not the opinion the article assumes, exactly )

Not much. I did take Meteorology, Micrometeorology, & Aviation Weather in college. I spent several years with a near constant weather feed, trying to guess where the best soaring weather was, and I get this cartoon.

https://xkcd.com/1324/

That plus years doing actual paying jobs where numbers might mean life or death... Also I didn't drop out of Divinity School, have rich parents and a Dad who was a Senator. So I'm not Al Gore.

Good enough for me.

I bet Tod never answers any of my questions.

I wonder if that's because he can't?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 08:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

On a different subject...

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/06/05/those-st ealth-fighter-blues/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 09:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Also keep in mind that we have only had satellite readings for a short time. It's nigh impossible to get an exact figure for the "average temperature" of a whole planet. There just are not that many calibrated thermometers out there, so you HAVE NO CHOICE but to make assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, if your smoothing is not right, you get a number that is not real.

But that's the best you can do. So you refine your fudge factors, but you can't compare numbers created with different fudge factors. That's just not good math. Period.

So it's possible, that the change in past numbers is just an artifact of better and better refinement of technique. In an ideal world, it is. In politicized Science it's not the case.

Confused? Sorry.


This whole conversation reminds of something I read about quite a few years ago. You get pretty close to it with what I copied above. Yes, especially when you are using individual thermometers that are not evenly spaced around the world, you have to weight various stations differently than others. The problem is that stations come and go. Equipment gets replaced. Methodology changes. It does make for a data set that really isn't very clean comparing one year to another. So what I'm reminded of is how Russia used to do very good climate science. Russia has a huge chunk of land in the Arctic circle that used to be covered by a good number of stations, considering the remote area. During their post-cold war collapse they shut down hundreds of stations across Russia, many of which were in the Arctic circle. Eventually they had only a single station for the entire Arctic area. This remain station happened to be a station that was always providing data that was warmer than surrounding stations. This happens, but with more stations it gets averaged out to a great extent. When you lose that averaging and are left with nothing but the station that always reads high, your average of one station is higher than what you used to measure. Now realize that Russia represents a large portion of the Arctic circle. That area gets averaged into the rest of the Arctic circle stations, but the average will trend higher with what happened with the collapse of the Russian stations. This obviously leads to a rising trend line for that area, even with stable temperatures. Now we have no way of knowing if the actual temperatures were stable during these years, but we do know that the trend line was skewed higher than it would have been if these stations weren't lost. Now consider that the collapse of Russia and the hype about rising temperatures in the Arctic coincide quite well. Coincidence? Yeah, it may be a bit more than just coincidence.

Speaking of individual stations, that data can be obtained in it's raw format. You can also get that information in it's adjusted format. Because the aggregate data is created from the adjusted data, there is no "raw" global data available to compare to. The best you can hope to do is compare data for individual stations. The people who have done this see a clear trend of lowering data prior to a certain point, and raising it after that point. This can be seen in the global data sets when they quietly roll out the adjusted data simply because it is archived for many studies that have used that data. It's a clear trend to adjust data to create a warming trend, and it is being compounded with additional adjustments. There is no peer review for any of this adjustment BTW. Isn't that supposed to be one of the hallmarks of good science these days?

Have a good weekend all! Hope my rambling didn't confuse too many.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 09:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I spent several years with a near constant weather feed, trying to guess where the best soaring weather was, and I get this cartoon.

I spent may years of informal learning for the purpose of finding the best winds for windsurfing in the Midwest. Windsurfing was a really stupid sport to get hooked on in the Midwest. You really have to hunt for good conditions. I got better at prediction winds than any of our local meteorologists except for Tom Skilling. Skilling BTW would fall into the "denier" camp as defined by Tod. He does know his meteorology though.

BTW, what percentage of the 97% of scientists are climate scientists? I don't know the exact number, but I could spitball it pretty well. It's low.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 09:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Thank you, Good info on the Russian change in weather stations...

Back in 1977-78 IIRC, the temperature in the U.S. jumped 1+ degree F. But not really. There was a big bitch about it at the time, since we were clearly in a cooling trend, and no one doubted it. But here we had stations suddenly showing statistically significant warming? WTF?

Turns out, it was because Whitewash was no longer popular, and became more expensive than regular paint, simple law of supply & demand. So they, over the course of a year, repainted all the wooden boxes at all the airports and weather stations with Latex paint instead of whitewash. There was a memo to that effect, ( rising costs were the reason ) and the reflectivity of white latex paint isn't as high as fresh whitewash in the IR frequencies that heat the wood box, so it was a calibration issue, and they dealt with it, by doing a lot of tests on a latex painted box next to a whitewashed box, and stuck a bunch of thermometers around them and worked out the math.... In other words they did an actual experiment, looked at actual results, and figured it out. Took about 2 years to get all the data the same calibration again.

Just a anecdote.

And here's some pictures of weather stations.

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

One problem weather guys have is that there is the Urban Heat Island Effect. A very real, and someday a real scary, phenomena where putting a bunch of humans together makes for a hot spot. At 100 watts heat output each and their houses, and cars, and shops, etc. all of which leak heat in the Winter, and shed heat in the summer with air conditioners.

In theory, at a certain point you need to actively cool a city to keep it from being too hot to live in. But that's a huge number of folk, and assumes lots of skyscrapers, or a giant arcology ( city in one building ) or way more folk than Hong Kong.

In any event it's warmer near a city than in the suburbs and they are warmer than the country. Heck, you can see it if you drive towards a city at night, just realize that every light gives off heat, and the brightest parts are the hottest. ( a close enough approximation )

Airports are built on farmland, since it's cheapest, and you want room around a noisy place with airplanes taking off and landing. Much safer that way.

Now the suburbs have reached out and encircled the airports, the industrial land is cheaper by the airport, since the noise bothers suburbanites. ( that moved next to an airport, for gosh sakes... people are idiots!@%$^& )

So the environment of airport weather stations has changed. Its warmer near the airport.

One hopes you have the proper adjustments for that, eh?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 09:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

You really have to hunt for good conditions.

Yes sir. Know exactly what you mean.

I fell in lust with these idiot things...

http://www.int-moth.us/

Then after much research, and finding some for sale, realized I could only sail the stupid thing occasionally. I think.

But they sure look fun.
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration