| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
"There is no Zoom out that I know of" You're looking at a short period of time. Granted, the data you're looking at only goes back so far, so there isn't anything else to look at. That should tell you that it is unreliable as an indicator of a trend. You're taking this narrow window and claiming it proves AGW. It does not. Take the blinders off and look at a larger timeframe. You're effectively looking at yesterday and last night. Sure looks like a cooling trend...unless you zoom out and take a larger timeframe into account. Look at the warming that occurred BEFORE the industrial revolution. What caused that? We don't know. So why are we so damn sure that we know what's causing .3 degrees of warming over the last three decades? | ||
| Sifo |
Clarity! that is hardest really. Looking at 48 months is interesting but it is hard to find a justification for that analysis other than it varies (for now) from the longer view. The justification is that it allows you to see other trends than just the entire data set. It also helps to remove bias from things like that data set happening to start during a known cold period, just for example. Or for another example, would it make much sense to view the trend for this entire data set?  Well, it might. Depending on what you were looking at. More likely than not though, you are looking for more of a current trend. Unless you are trying to compare the severity of ice ages over time. Then the overall trend line might be what you want to look at. There is no "right" way. Back to my 48 month trend line, it helps you easily see trends within the larger trend. That can be important, but it's not the only way it should be looked at either. It's best to look at the data many different ways. That's part of why science is usually big on verifying results. I have focused on looking at the satellite data precisely because of clarity. We need some points of agreement because there are surely more difficult and murky questions. While I generally agree that the satellite data tends to be less problematic, it has one huge shortcoming. It lacks a long observation period. Particularly, it lacks any observation period to use as a control. With no control to measure against, how do you know what the slope of the trend "should" be if we hadn't had decades of adding CO2? You could calculate it based on the assumptions that we use in the computer models, but then we enter a mode of circular logic. It's done often, but it usually yields poor results. So if we are to look at CO2 then the first thing I would be looking at is the data sets and I suspect they will be murky pretty quickly due to the numerous sources of carbon manipulators including geology, biology and man for a start Well the gold standard for atmospheric CO2 levels has become the Mauna Loa observations. It's a pretty good source because it is about as far removed from major human sources of CO2. It only goes back to 1958 though. It does cover most of the industrial CO2 period however.  To go back further, you wind up splicing dissimilar data sets. That can get very problematic, but it's the best you are going to get. It's going to look roughly like this though...  It's seldom ever a good thing to see a sharp change in the data right where you have the splice of data sets, but in this case it's probably pretty representative of reality. In short, there has been no slow down of man contributing CO2. Now let me ask you a question about that last chart. If you were interested in plotting the current trend, would you do a straight line trend for the entire data set?  | ||
| Alchemy |
Hootowl says, "You're looking at a short period of time. Granted, the data you're looking at only goes back so far, so there isn't anything else to look at." We agree. Hootowl says, "Take the blinders off and look at a larger timeframe." No blinders here. This satellite data is some of the most conservative data available. There is a LOT of data available but this is a reliable place to start. Hootowl says, "You're taking this narrow window and claiming it proves AGW" Not really. This trend shows warming. That's all. There is lots we don't know. No arguments there. | ||
| Alchemy |
Sifo says, "Now let me ask you a question about that last chart. If you were interested in plotting the current trend, would you do a straight line trend for the entire data set? I think you are only asking half the question. Like the satellite data, the Mauna Loa data probably is the better quality but the ice core data is from the poles and not the same latitude and not the same prevailing winds etc. Even this simple question tends to demonstrate the quality of the satellite data where the whole globe is sampled. You said, " It's best to look at the data many different ways. That's part of why science is usually big on verifying results." I agree with this sentiment. So I would probably look at the data more than one way. For short term Mauna Loa and for long term the cores and then look for correlations and patterns. In particular I would look for rate of change points in the core samples that approximate what we see today from the Mauna Loa data. I would look for a secondary confirmation for Mauna Loa data just to confirm the trend is not being unduly influenced by development in China for instance This is already slipping toward the murky area  But interesting stuff. | ||
| Sifo |
I agree with this sentiment. So I would probably look at the data more than one way. For short term Mauna Loa and for long term the cores and then look for correlations and patterns. And that is what Hootowl (and my self have inferred) has been saying about the temperature data. You can't just look at the satellite data. It simply doesn't give you a big enough picture to see what's going on. There's not too much debate about the CO2 data though. CO2 is rising with industrial emissions. The temperature trend made a break in an unpredicted direction, independent from the suspected cause of the warming. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12 /james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud There is a positive note to end on, however. Global emissions have somewhat stalled and Hansen believes China, the world’s largest emitter, will now step up to provide the leadership lacking from the US. A submerged Fifth Avenue and deadly heatwaves aren’t an inevitability. “I think we will get there because China is rational,” Hansen says. “Their leaders are mostly trained in engineering and such things, they don’t deny climate change and they have a huge incentive, which is air pollution. It’s so bad in their cities they need to move to clean energies. They realise it’s not a hoax. But they will need co-operation.” OTOH, Putin has declared it all a hoax. Putin also is the leader of an oil exporting country, KGB, an accomplished liar, a murderous thug, and has better abs than Obama. So take his claims with the same skepticism you'd apply to Hansen, Obama, or the guy selling you that used car who swears the factory used yellow primer. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13 /world-leaders-hail-paris-climate-deal As the final text of the agreement was released, the French president, François Hollande, said: “This is a major leap for mankind. The agreement will not be perfect for everyone, if everyone reads it with only their own interests in mind. We will not be judged on a clause in a sentence, but on the text as a whole. We will not be judged on a word, but on an act.” Economist Lord Stern added: “This is a historic moment, not just for us but for our children, our grandchildren and future generations. The Paris agreement is a turning point in the world’s fight against unmanaged climate change which threatens prosperity. It creates enormous opportunities as countries begin to accelerate along the path towards low-carbon economic growth.” The British prime minister, David Cameron, also welcomed the deal, praising those involved for showing what ambition and perseverance could do. “We’ve secured our planet for many, many generations to come – and there is nothing more important than that,” he said. Naturally the Evil Skeptics differ. ( there are calls to have them put in prison for their Heresy. Support your Climate Jihad today by writing your Congressman and demanding all who differ from the Herd be Eliminated! ) Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Now that the United Nations has officially 'solved' man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about 'global warming' fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding 'climate change' studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about 'global warming's' ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase prostitution, bar room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth's temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved 'climate change' even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has 'solved' global warming, can we all just move on to something else?' Related: Morano on UN’s 2C Limit: "We had one UK scientist, Philip Stott, who has said there are quite literally hundreds of factors governing global climate. For the UN to pick one politically-selected factor -- CO2 -- and then try to tweak it at the margins and then come up with some temperature goal 50 -100 years in the future, is akin to scientific nonsense. You could call it modern day witchcraft." Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/12/climate-ske ptics-on-historic-un-treaty-does-this-mean-we-neve r-have-to-hear-about-solving-global-warming-again/ #ixzz3uDcgIaxF As a Heretic and Doubter, I suspect that Lord Stern's joy at mankind at last "managing" climate change will fade as that management results in ecological disaster of Biblical Proportions. I hope I'm wrong. I used to think I was cynical. Now I see I was optimistic. | ||
| Sifo |
Yeah, no doubt China is on board. Looks like they will be the biggest beneficiary. On top of that, they have a huge real pollution problem. In many cities in China people can barely breath, and that has nothing to do with CO2.  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/paris-junk -science-pact-calls-for-us-to-redistribute-wealth- to-banana-republics-and-3rd-world-hell-holes/ | ||
| Sifo |
Like the satellite data, the Mauna Loa data probably is the better quality but the ice core data is from the poles and not the same latitude and not the same prevailing winds etc. Actually both are probably quite accurate with atmospheric CO2 levels. Both Mauna Loa and Antarctica are far from CO2 sources. The ice cores have trapped gas, so it's still a direct measurement of CO2 content. What you lack in the ice core data is the resolution, but that isn't much of an issue. There are also some other CO2 data sets from other locations around the world, but they are known to be influenced by local conditions of local CO2 emissions where the CO2 hasn't been well mixed with the overall atmosphere. Again, the big problem with the satellite temperature data is that it simply doesn't cover the range of data necessary. You are starting to get a bit tiring, having to point this out every post. Let me put it to you this way. Based on that data, what do you think the trend line should be if we hadn't been adding all that CO2 into the atmosphere? | ||
| Reepicheep |
So the way to fight global warming is to give China half a trillion dollars. Whoulda thunk? | ||
| Aesquire |
Four years ago, McKibben made it clear that he prefers political power over truth. Seems to me that that’s the very essence of being anti-science. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428358/globa l-warming-nuclear-power | ||
| Sifo |
So not splitting the "movement" is more important that saving the world. What's that tell you? Most likely that they don't really believe the world is in danger of being destroyed. There are many examples of this in the Climate con. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-r elies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s -warming-trend/ Well known for years. http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm The Rochester New York Airport weather station, when I moved here decades ago, was at the edge of a parking lot next to an open field. Now, it's in an industrial park. Surrounded by asphalt and factories. The same is true of many airport stations. Airports were built on cheap farm land, ( often swampy, crappy farm land ) and over the years suburbs and industrial parks have followed the cheaper property costs and in many cases surround the airports. ( Rochester has a swamp at one end of the main runways, so it's still open at one end.... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-w hittle-56/where-is-everybody-why-havent-we-found-e xtra-terrestrials-11588/ | ||
| Hootowl |
Founder of green peace speaks about global warming. http://youtu.be/dIvLEwGS-70 | ||
| Ducbsa |
“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” From http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/watts-et-al-temp erature-station-siting-matters/ | ||
| Sifo |
About the 97% (or whatever number it is this week) of scientists that believe global warming is mostly caused by humans burning fossil fuels... I wonder what percent of that 97% have really taken a look at the data? When I was writing computer code, I never really questioned if other programmers were being honest about the code they wrote. Of course, why would I? For the most part, had I been asked, I would most likely have said that I'm sure the code pretty much does what the author of the code claims. Why would it not? I'm sure most scientists have the same sort of reaction when asked about their peers. This should especially be true in a career that is normally driven by the truth. After all, if you were to ask a chemist, "are biologists generally honest?", are they likely to believe that biologists are less honest than the chemists, who are driven by truth, and facts. Would they ever bother to take a real look at what the biologists are doing before giving an answer? I'm sure most are far to busy to ever bother to look at what scientists in another field are doing, unless it's likely to benefit their own work. What's more, to claim that scientists might be dishonest, calls all scientists into question, unless it's been carefully qualified. Every once in a while though, you find a niche that can attract dishonesty. Climate may just be one of those niches. That's far from claiming all climate scientists are dishonest in their work. Far from it. I'm sure most struggle to get along following where the facts lead them. There are a select few though, who have noticed that predicting the doom of our planet can be quite lucrative. Nothing as provided government funding for research like exploring the demise of civilization, except perhaps the study of actually ending civilizations through the art of war. It's become almost comical how a wide variety of science has been conducted with very tenuous ties to "climate change". It's kind of a shame that environmental sciences pay so poorly that there can be this temptation. My niece graduated about a year ago with a degree in microbiology. She had a job right away at a place she had interned at the previous summer. This fall she had to quite that job and go back to waiting tables. The reason? Waiting tables pays the bills. Testing water, and finding out that generally things are OK doesn't. No doubt, testing water and finding out that it's going to kill off civilization is likely to pay better, but that simply isn't the case for the most part. I have little doubt though, if I were to ask my niece if other scientists are honest in their work, she would almost certainly not even question their honesty. Why would she? I doubt she has done something as simple as this though.  | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-ch ange-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says- NASA Funny enough, the Climate article I read back in the 1970's was concerned with aerosols, and primarily coal soot. In the late 1970's, after England had spent decades changing over from burning coal in each house to electric heat, the famous London Fogs ( Smog to folk from LA, but cold, and ground level ) had all but vanished, and people had frozen to death on the Riviera for the first time in centuries. The lack of soot was cooling the region. Now, on the NASA article above, I can't tell if the conclusion is sane or budget driven. Simply. (paraphrasing) the models are wrong. We now that now. They under estimate long term doom, and over estimate short term. Which is why there has been no heating in 18 odd years, but it will be even worse than the models say, later. Sifo, nice charts. Bad data, ( if you are using Hadley CRU numbers ) so they are wrong, but nice work any way. 50 F today in Rochester. -51 in Colorado. What's that mean? Weather. not a darn thing to do with Climate. Let me know when it's as warm as it was 1000 years ago. We have a ways to go. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, nice charts. Bad data, ( if you are using Hadley CRU numbers ) so they are wrong, but nice work any way. Is there any "good" data? I simply used what was easily available. I really don't know how "right" it is. It sure doesn't look like a crisis to me though. | ||
| Aesquire |
My problem is when a certain politician, or salesman, lies to me, repeatedly, I no longer believe him. He could be telling the exact truth on Tuesday, for a whole hour, but I'd ignore that just like I will the other 167 hours of the week. But, as has been pointed out, even Bill Clinton can't lie 100% of the time. He'd be unable to function. The trouble is you can't trust him 100% of the time. Since you can never tell the rare moments when telling the truth is advantageous to him. Honestly, there are multiple certain, sure thing, going to happen, major disasters, possibly civilization destroying, even major extinction level events that deserve more attention and budget than climate change. We know the oceans are rising, ( until the current long term trend reverses, and it will ) so who is giving any actual thought to the millions of super-poor living at sea level in places like India and the Philippines? ( I could care less if Al Gore's Malibu beach home is flooded ) Seems like everyone is just waiting, since they figure they can't move all those people forcibly, and to where? I don't have answers. http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/news/global-map ping-choices The assumption in the above article ignores the fact that the anticipated sea level change is probably much less, ( working from bad models ) but while they are wrong in detail, over all it is a concern. Carbon emissions causing 4°C of warming — what business-as-usual points toward today —- could lock in enough sea level rise to submerge land currently home to 470 to 760 million people, with unstoppable rise unfolding over centuries. What's true is the probable unstoppable rise over centuries. Going to happen, even if CO2 has nothing to do with it, and there is no man made climate change at all. ( and I think there is ) At the same time, aggressive carbon cuts limiting warming to 2°C could bring the number as low as 130 million people. These are the stakes for global climate talks December in Paris. Actually the staked are for Power for rich people, but the aggressive Carbon cuts "anticipated" by the authors would probably result/cause at least as many as 760 million to die. From starvation. End result, no real long term plan. I'm not sure one is possible. Hey, I used to think I was cynical. Now I see I was optimistic. Yellowstone Supervolcano. Don't know any way to stop that, and I don't see how to get the bulk of the East of the Rockies population to move ( and where? ) before it happens. When it does, there will be panic, the roads clogged, and death will ride. We could do logical food and fuel storage programs to save a large percentage of the people, ( a good idea for Climate Con imagined disasters too ) but I see no sign of that. Comet/Asteroid strike. !00% certainty, ranges from city killer to Species killer. City killers are a possible War trigger. If London vanished in a meteorite strike, how soon could you tell it wasn't Iran and a nuke? The U.S. would send a plane through the plume to test for the origin of the fissile material ( they have "fingerprints" in the isotopic and contaminate percentages. We can tell which Soviet or American reactor complex made the materials. ( mostly Hanford & Chernobyl )) and would find no plutonium.... and thus be able to tell it wasn't a Bomb. But there may be a counter strike against the perceived enemy first. It's a problem we've always had. China, for example could nuke NYC, and con us into striking Moscow, aka the "you and him fight" strategy. Rock from space is one of the few scenarios that actually has possible effective counter measures. ( unlike stopping a volcano ) You need good orbital infrastructure, and some pre made bits just sitting around in storage. Like an Orion Drive ship. But 4 deg c. isn't a civilization ending threat. Greenies may be. | ||
| Hootowl |
Remember the great garbage collapse? Life imitates art. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/asia/china-landslide /index.html Sad. In more ways than one. | ||
| Macbuell |
It looks like the new Climate agreement just bribes the biggest polluters so they pollute less. Sounds like a good plan. | ||
| Aesquire |
.....just bribes the biggest polluters so they pollute less. Sounds like a good plan. except China is not run by honest politicians. They don't stay bought. They know it's a scam, so they are not going to do anything except ask for more money. Suckers. The Deal is voluntary. It's a big promise to save the planet, steal money, and get back together to party. Where they will do the same thing. Make speeches about the Doom, use more resources than most countries possess to eat in the best restaurants, stay in the best Hotels, and then Fly their massive entourage back home, using more fossil fuel than every airplane in WW1. ( bet ya ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-rele ases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-fr om-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ | ||
| Aesquire |
http://acidsquirrel.com/post/88384 | ||
| Sifo |
Interesting video by John Coleman discussing the origins of the global warming movement. I first saw Coleman speak on the subject of Meteorology. I was in about 4th grade or so. This was around 1969-70. We had a field trip to the local community center where kids from multiple local schools go to see him speak, in an effort to promote interest in science. I'm glad to see he is still doing that good work. Perhaps Tod could tell us how he's paid for by big oil. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier. http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/huh-co uld-cleaner-air-be-worsening-global-warming/ar-BBn ZbnD G | ||
| Sifo |
Just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier. Not too much new there, except for some assertions about history that I can't quite get my head around. Specifically...
I'm curious what data they are looking at. Certainly the whole global warming crisis was being pushed before 1985. We've already covered that temps have been virtually flat since 1987. I guess it was only a couple of year crisis?  I'm not sure how much is poor science vs. poor science reporting. They also ignore the warming we had prior to the '50s. It's a critical "control" period to look at right before the industrial revolution really took off. In all seriousness though, it's funny seeing cloud cover being discussed. It's one of the biggest problems with the computer models. The computer models tend to treat cloud cover as a constant. The huge problem with that is when you warm the atmosphere, it can hold more moisture, and you get more clouds. Those new clouds reflect sunlight causing a cooling effect. That describes a self stabilizing climate, much like we have experienced through history. It doesn't make for much of a crisis though. Does soot actually make a cloud brighter than water alone? I really don't know. Did I miss how they confirmed this? Did they confirm this? Of course it it true that simply having particulates in the atmosphere tends to reflect light away from the earth. Like I said earlier though, nothing new here. Well known observation from large volcanoes. | ||
| Fast1075 |
We were in the mid 80's until Saturday. Saturday it was 72. Rained yesterday, and we have Winter today! It was 47 this morning. | ||
| Aesquire |
13. F. This morning. Cosmic rays form high altitude clouds. High levels of solar activity block cosmic rays. Cleaning up the coal burning in every English house cooled off England and Europe. In the 1970's. It's a complicated system. More when I get home & can provide references. I got better grades in weather than Al Gore. | ||
| Gregtonn |
In all seriousness though, it's funny seeing cloud cover being discussed. It's one of the biggest problems with the computer models. The computer models tend to treat cloud cover as a constant. The huge problem with that is when you warm the atmosphere, it can hold more moisture, and you get more clouds. Those new clouds reflect sunlight causing a cooling effect. But clouds can also trap warm air at the surface during the night hours. So how do you add that into your computer model. Their computer modeling may or may not be more accurate than the weather predictions in any issue of Farmers Almanac. G |
