• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stormlover said:
Great writeup by Dr. Roy Spencer of Huntsville about how official temps are artificially inflated by where the censors are and how this needs to be addressed
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/trumps-noaa-administrator-must-address-the-temperature-record-controversy/
Click to expand...
I just came across this article right before you started this thread. Interesting read for sure

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
so does this mean that some of NOAA's stations are affected by the urban heat island effect? but what about the sensors that are outside of cities, wouldn't their lower temp readings average the whole thing out?
 
new administration, I wonder how the climate change agenda will change

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
They already removed all mention of climate change from the whitehouse website.
 
GaWx said:
I think Eric is super-intelligent and this BB is very fortunate to have him as a posting member. However, sometimes a super-intelligent person's writings are not easy to follow. One needs ample time to digest these. I had to read through it slowly, myself. In doing so, these are the main two things I got out of it (not my own thoughts):

1) Not all major adjustments of historic temperatures have been downward. The person to whom he was responding was generalizing by saying that they have pretty much all been downward adjustments with the intent of making global warming seem more extreme than reality. In response, Eric showed that a major SST dataset was actually warmed for the period late 19th century up to WWII because there was a change in methodology of measuring SST's around WWII that tended to yield warmer temperatures, which had caused a false sudden rise in reported SST's then. To negate this, the SST's prior to WWII needed to be cooled.

2) We're about to get the incorporation of more extensive SST data going further back in time, which will allow for more reliable and further back in time ENSO phase retrospective determination for relevant years.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't said or asked. Sorry. I enjoy Weber and follow him elsewhere. This one was beyond me. Read it over several times, then posted. My bad for asking what it all meant. Meant nothing negative - if it came off that way - my fault. Phil
 
GaWx said:
I think Eric is super-intelligent and this BB is very fortunate to have him as a posting member. However, sometimes a super-intelligent person's writings are not easy to follow. One needs ample time to digest these. I had to read through it slowly, myself. In doing so, these are the main two things I got out of it (not my own thoughts):

1) Not all major adjustments of historic temperatures have been downward. The person to whom he was responding was generalizing by saying that they have pretty much all been downward adjustments with the intent of making global warming seem more extreme than reality. In response, Eric showed that a major SST dataset was actually warmed for the period late 19th century up to WWII because there was a change in methodology of measuring SST's around WWII that tended to yield warmer temperatures, which had caused a false sudden rise in reported SST's then. To negate this, the SST's prior to WWII needed to be cooled.

2) We're about to get the incorporation of more extensive SST data going further back in time, which will allow for more reliable and further back in time ENSO phase retrospective determination for relevant years.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the kind words guys... Exactly you pretty much nailed it on the head Larry and pardon me if I went over some heads here. Essentially, the claim that the SST data adjustments are a) bad and b) only in the direction that favors more global warming, are simply not true at all. As I explained in some detail, the main take aways are that...
1) They're too many inconsistencies/inhomogeneities in the record (even now) to not necessitate significant adjustments to the data
2) You actually get a larger long-term warming trend without adjustments.
3) The very recent update to the surface historical marine record (ICOADS) should give us a better estimate of the climate and phenomena such as ENSO thru the mid 19th century.
In fact I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we saw SST reconstructions start to extend back before 1850 within the next several years. The amount of data that's been added is very impressive. The number of sea surface temperature observations in the new ICOADS Release 3.0 before 1950 is now comparable to Release 2.5 in the late 1960s-early 1970s in the tropical Pacific! I've reanalyzed the netcdf files for this new dataset several times because I actually couldn't believe how many more observations there are in ICOADSv3... We used to have only a few observations per month in the equatorial Pacific between 1950-1979, now there's 5-10 for the same time frame! Lol.
 
Webberweather53 said:
I appreciate the kind words guys... Exactly you pretty much nailed it on the head Larry and pardon me if I went over some heads here. Essentially, the claim that the SST data adjustments are a) bad and b) only in the direction that favors more global warming, are simply not true at all. As I explained in some detail, the main take aways are that...
1) They're too many inconsistencies/inhomogeneities in the record (even now) to not necessitate significant adjustments to the data
2) You actually get a larger long-term warming trend without adjustments.
3) The very recent update to the surface historical marine record (ICOADS) should give us a better estimate of the climate and phenomena such as ENSO thru the mid 19th century.
In fact I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we saw SST reconstructions start to extend back before 1850 within the next several years. The amount of data that's been added is very impressive. The number of sea surface temperature observations in the new ICOADS Release 3.0 before 1950 is now comparable to Release 2.5 in the late 1960s-early 1970s in the tropical Pacific! I've reanalyzed the netcdf files for this new dataset several times because I actually couldn't believe how many more observations there are in ICOADSv3... We used to have only a few observations per month in the equatorial Pacific between 1950-1979, now there's 5-10 for the same time frame! Lol.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Man!
 
Thanks, Eric. I just realized that I had a typo in my interpretation of what you said: I meant to say "To negate this, the SST's prior to WWII needed to be warmed." after pretty much already having said this earlier in the post. For some reason, I had the word "cooled" in that sentence lol. I just corrected it in the post.
 
You are putting a lot of faith on OBSERVATIONAL data which is not scientific at all. When comparing observational data to actual (not computer models) data it is like comparing apples to oranges as one uses a scientific know quantity against an opinion or snapshot by an individual (in a lot of cases) which is colored by many(human) factors. Let's say we accept the premise the Earth has indeed warmed by 2C in the past 100 years, what percentage of that is caused by natural causes, or difference in measurement tools, time of day reporting, quality of observations, consistency of observations at differing points of the world, addition of sites not previously used or elimination of some sites, accounting for differing datasets parameters, sun cylcle amplitude, the fact we were coming out of a mini ice age in large portions of the world after 1825 (give or take), and finally the UHI adjustments effect from massive changes in land usage and changes? The alarmist theory on AGW is largely based on unquantifiable and unproven "feedback loops" or heat multipliers based on model projections or else just tossed out because we "don't know any other cause". It would be well to remember the saying that correlation is not causation and that theories are just opinions yet to be proven by facts. To completely try to revamp our economic system to achieve an end which may not even be desirable, is foolhardy IMO. Remember the Arctic Icecap was supposed to be completely gone ( by many of the most prominent AGW proponents) in summer by 2013-15 and there is still many millions of square miles of ice there every September (albeit it less than the period before 2000) before the ice starts growing again. Once the AMO turns into it's cold phase, we will see the increase again of the Arctic Ice back to 1970's levels. I respect your belief in the science as you see it, but I just happen to disagree with your conclusions and would hope the attempted silencing of skeptical scientists by some prominent people does not continue as we have seen recently. Best way to go is keep studying, watch unbiased data like satellite measurements and see where it takes us in the next 10-20 years, I hardly think the doom and gloom preached by some will happen in that short time period. I do apologize to the mods and others here that could care less about this topic in a winter weather thread and will not post on it here anymore, thanks for your patience
 
Let the Climate Change war rage on!
 
MichaelJ said:
You are putting a lot of faith on OBSERVATIONAL data which is not scientific at all. When comparing observational data to actual (not computer models) data it is like comparing apples to oranges as one uses a scientific know quantity against an opinion or snapshot by an individual (in a lot of cases) which is colored by many(human) factors. Let's say we accept the premise the Earth has indeed warmed by 2C in the past 100 years, what percentage of that is caused by natural causes, or difference in measurement tools, time of day reporting, quality of observations, consistency of observations at differing points of the world, addition of sites not previously used or elimination of some sites, accounting for differing datasets parameters, sun cylcle amplitude, the fact we were coming out of a mini ice age in large portions of the world after 1825 (give or take), and finally the UHI adjustments effect from massive changes in land usage and changes? The alarmist theory on AGW is largely based on unquantifiable and unproven "feedback loops" or heat multipliers based on model projections or else just tossed out because we "don't know any other cause". It would be well to remember the saying that correlation is not causation and that theories are just opinions yet to be proven by facts. To completely try to revamp our economic system to achieve an end which may not even be desirable, is foolhardy IMO. Remember the Arctic Icecap was supposed to be completely gone ( by many of the most prominent AGW proponents) in summer by 2013-15 and there is still many millions of square miles of ice there every September (albeit it less than the period before 2000) before the ice starts growing again. Once the AMO turns into it's cold phase, we will see the increase again of the Arctic Ice back to 1970's levels. I respect your belief in the science as you see it, but I just happen to disagree with your conclusions and would hope the attempted silencing of skeptical scientists by some prominent people does not continue as we have seen recently. Best way to go is keep studying, watch unbiased data like satellite measurements and see where it takes us in the next 10-20 years, I hardly think the doom and gloom preached by some will happen in that short time period. I do apologize to the mods and others here that could care less about this topic in a winter weather thread and will not post on it here anymore, thanks for your patience
Click to expand...

I've heard all of this rhetoric before...

"You are putting a lot of faith on OBSERVATIONAL data which is not scientific at all. When comparing observational data to actual"
"...watch unbiased data like satellite measurements..."

You do in fact realize that observational data is practically all we have in the last 150 years or so, the resolution of proxies for ex is not adequate enough to describe intraseasonal-subannual variability and is fraught with far more uncertainty and is entirely state-dependent, the climate system's response to an El Nino millennia (& even centuries) from now will be completely different than what it is at the present (precession (or the change in earth's position relative to a "fixed" object such as our star) and obliquity (refers to the change in earth's axial tilt over time (which varies between about 22 and 24.5 degrees) play a key role in modulating the system's internannual, phase locked ENSO expression. ENSO hasn't always been a key feature of earth's climate system, it's merely an expression forced in large part by the external forcings and resonances that drive/excite it, once these forcings and resonances change (along w/ the background climate itself) so will ENSO's character, and it's very likely that we will some day lose the ENSO phenomena altogether (although it's debatable when exactly this would occur)).

Wait, what is the "actual data" you're referring to? Am I missing something?
My guess is if you're referring to the theoretical true values and/or satellite data, good luck with that, and if you think surface data contains a myriad of adjustments just wait until you see or work with satellite data, lol it's a mess. Aside from all the other aforementioned adjustments that occur w/ surface data & are often applied to the satellites, for example, although they offer coverage particularly in observationally sparse areas of the globe (such as the arctic and antarctic), unlike surface stations, satellites do not measure the same place on the earth at the exact same time of the day and many are incapable of penetrating through clouds/convection. Hence, all satellite data has to be fitted to a computer model to account for the diurnal cycle since they can't make measurements at the same time of the day at the same place on the earth and their observations have to be fit in order to derive data for a desired pressure level. Additionally, satellites do not take direct measurements in the sense that they are not embedded in the medium of interest, thus yet another suite assumptions and bias corrections has to be made before their data can be properly assimilated. Even after this juncture, more adjustments are made to homogenize the satellite data with the surface record, which is far more reliable, stable, and has a length of record that dwarfs the satellites. It's pretty evident even from an operational standpoint, while useful as a first-guess approximation, filling gaps in coverage, and field testing adjustments, the satellite data isn't all the great as it seems. For example, am I the only one here that finds it at least a little peculiar that in the medium range preceding most significant weather events where we are watching a shortwave disturbance, ULL, or what have you over a data sparse region dominated by satellite observations only, such as the arctic or North Pacific, that we often see massive shifts in the models once such system is aptly "sampled" by the upper air &/or surface network over North America? Why do you suppose that is? Hmmm...if the satellite data actually was that good then why are there such wild swings in guidance once surface data is input into the models? If anything else, that alone should tell you something about the relative reliability of these data sources, but I digress...
 
Last edited:

MichaelJ said:
You are putting a lot of faith on OBSERVATIONAL data which is not scientific at all. When comparing observational data to actual (not computer models) data it is like comparing apples to oranges as one uses a scientific know quantity against an opinion or snapshot by an individual (in a lot of cases) which is colored by many(human) factors. Let's say we accept the premise the Earth has indeed warmed by 2C in the past 100 years, what percentage of that is caused by natural causes, or difference in measurement tools, time of day reporting, quality of observations, consistency of observations at differing points of the world, addition of sites not previously used or elimination of some sites, accounting for differing datasets parameters, sun cylcle amplitude, the fact we were coming out of a mini ice age in large portions of the world after 1825 (give or take), and finally the UHI adjustments effect from massive changes in land usage and changes? The alarmist theory on AGW is largely based on unquantifiable and unproven "feedback loops" or heat multipliers based on model projections or else just tossed out because we "don't know any other cause". It would be well to remember the saying that correlation is not causation and that theories are just opinions yet to be proven by facts. To completely try to revamp our economic system to achieve an end which may not even be desirable, is foolhardy IMO. Remember the Arctic Icecap was supposed to be completely gone ( by many of the most prominent AGW proponents) in summer by 2013-15 and there is still many millions of square miles of ice there every September (albeit it less than the period before 2000) before the ice starts growing again. Once the AMO turns into it's cold phase, we will see the increase again of the Arctic Ice back to 1970's levels. I respect your belief in the science as you see it, but I just happen to disagree with your conclusions and would hope the attempted silencing of skeptical scientists by some prominent people does not continue as we have seen recently. Best way to go is keep studying, watch unbiased data like satellite measurements and see where it takes us in the next 10-20 years, I hardly think the doom and gloom preached by some will happen in that short time period. I do apologize to the mods and others here that could care less about this topic in a winter weather thread and will not post on it here anymore, thanks for your patience
Click to expand...


"what percentage of that is caused by natural causes, or difference in measurement tools, time of day reporting, quality of observations, consistency of observations at differing points of the world, addition of sites not previously used or elimination of some sites, accounting for differing datasets parameters"

I literally just said that in my previous post...


"The alarmist theory on AGW is largely based on unquantifiable and unproven "feedback loops" or heat multipliers based on model projections or else just tossed out because we "don't know any other cause". It would be well to remember the saying that correlation is not causation and that theories are just opinions yet to be proven by facts. To completely try to revamp our economic system to achieve an end which may not even be desirable, is foolhardy IMO."


It's not a fringe, left-wing theory, you'd actually be surprised how well it's generally premises are adopted in the meteorological and climate communities, and tens of thousands have published on the subject, if you find any actual evidence to the contrary that AGW is not a primary cause (I'm certainly not claiming it's the primary cause but certainly noting that it's influence is increasing w/ time) of the warming observed in the past few centuries then feel free to publish a paper yourself... There's no denying that a) carbon dioxide (like most tri-atomic molecules (water vapor is another)) is a greenhouse gas that selectively absorbs outgoing longwave infrared radiation emitted by earth's surface b) man has contributed to this observed warming c) while the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere seems small superficially, is somewhat beneficial for subsets of the biosphere (specifically plants), CO2 levels are not entirely unprecedented (yet) and the greenhouse effect (GHE) per capita increase in CO2 is logarithmic (meaning that each equivalent subsequent addition of CO2 has less effect than it's predecessor), these aforementioned parameters are primarily offset by the unprecedented and exceptionally rapid rise in carbon dioxide levels which hasn't largely been observed at any point in earth's (known) history. The smorgasbord of non-linear feedbacks, their relative uncertainties, and physical mechanisms are discussed at length in various pieces of literature, media, reports, etc. and I really don't feel like regurgitating those to you, that would be a complete waste of my time.

"Once the AMO turns into it's cold phase, we will see the increase again of the Arctic Ice back to 1970's levels."

The AMO has already begun to turn colder, as recently as the summer of 2013, yet arctic sea ice has plummeted to all-time record lows in every month over the past year (for every day) minus the actual minimum itself. It's a common misconception, especially by those on the "skeptical" "denier" side of the AGW issue (or whatever term you'd like to use) that natural variability such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) will change the total amount of energy within the climate system and hence resulting in a net cooling &/or warming depending on their phase. While earth's temperature may warm or cool to an extent in conjunction with specific phases of these phenomena, it's only a casual concidence (akin the various teleconnection indices often promulgated by the met community) and those who claim the PDO and AMO have a "large" effect on the temperature by simply observing their combined/weighted correlation to surface temperatures aren't actually trying to get at the root of the physics, dynamics, and feedbacks involved. These aforementioned natural oscillations are merely detrended, first-order, integrated, stochastic (random) expressions of natural variability in their respective domains (the North Pacific (PDO) and North Atlantic (AMO)), nothing more or less. Like ENSO they are also state-dependent, but they don't actually change the total amount of heat within the climate system. The AMO and PDO only alter how the heat is sequestered, redistributed, and recirculated throughout the non-linear coupled climate system, not it's total amount. Therefore, it's normal to observe cooling or a temporary "pause" in the upward trend of global temperatures given these phenomena are in a particular phase. A similar concept can be applied to ENSO at the interannual temporal scale. In general, over the last century and a half the total number of El Ninos and La Ninas is relatively the same. So, if indeed the current climate was dictated more so by natural variability only as you have implored, and ignoring the long-term behavioral changes in ENSO, how do you explain the observed asymmetry in global temperature following El Ninos vs La Ninas, i.e. why are the upward interannual step changes in global temperature following El Ninos larger than the downward changes that follow during La Ninas? Essentially, over the past several decades each upward step change following El Nino events has been semi permanent and the cooling that's followed during the subsequent La Ninas has failed to come close to matching the warming that preceded them. If natural variability was to blame, why does this asymmetry exist? Obviously the climate system is failing to efficiently mix out and dissipate the heat released by these El Ninos and is thus storing it in excess, this is where the positive water vapor- CO2 GHE feedback comes into play...
 
I am not going to take your comments point by point as that would be a waste of time because you would not acknowledge them anyway, so I will just say if you have a "religious like faith" in AGW science as it is perceived today and it's possible catastrophic effects, nothing I say will change your mind. Hopefully people much smarter that I, and time itself, will convince you otherwise. We can remain civil even if we disagree and eventually one of us will be proven correct. Across academia however, people are not allowed, or discouraged or even threatened by people to change their way of thinking or they will lose their positions or even their credentials. My older brother was a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University in this country and was pretty much forced out because he disputed some of the "science" being promulgated today. So yes, there is some left wing agenda associated with this, especially in the NE USA and all people of science should roundly condemn these type of narrow minded attempts to force others to join the "concensus" of the AGW theory or else. You talk like "skeptics" are bad for sciences but without them some of the accepted scientific concensus' over years past which have since been disproven would not have been.
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
I am not going to take your comments point by point as that would be a waste of time because you would not acknowledge them anyway, so I will just say if you have a "religious like faith" in AGW science as it is perceived today and it's possible catastrophic effects, nothing I say will change your mind. Hopefully people much smarter that I, and time itself, will convince you otherwise. We can remain civil even if we disagree and eventually one of us will be proven correct. Across academia however, people are not allowed, or discouraged or even threatened by people to change their way of thinking or they will lose their positions or even their credentials. My older brother was a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University in this country and was pretty much forced out because he disputed some of the "science" being promulgated today. So yes, there is some left wing agenda associated with this, especially in the NE USA and all people of science should roundly condemn these type of narrow minded attempts to force others to join the "concensus" of the AGW theory or else. You talk like "skeptics" are bad for sciences but without them some of the accepted scientific concensus' over years past which have since been disproven would not have been.
Click to expand...

I actually did acknowledge your points, in fact I spent a few hours writing a book on each one and I'm sure you didn't read them or they went over your head anyway so why bother. It's certainly not a waste of time discussing the meteorological and scientific aspects of AGW, especially considering this is an atmospheric sciences/learning blog, it's obvious however that you're not interested in any of that. If you want to convince me and the thousands of meteorologists/climate scientists otherwise, stick to the science of AGW, publish a series peer-reviewed papers in a reputable journal presenting actual physical evidence that dismantles the theory and contrive a new one to take it's place. We're not interested in political drivel and emotionally motivated commentary as you've continued to promulgate here.

A few key points from my previous post that you need to discuss and are very worthy of your time...
1) Elaborate on why relying on observational data isn't "scientific at all"
2) Explain why the feedback loops are unreliable, and propose new, more improved feedbacks that are able to explain the observed asymmetry in global temperature wrt ENSO and other quasi-cyclical natural forcings.
3) Satellite data is fraught with more uncertainties and adjustments than surface data and at face value is actually less reliable. Explain why surface data would be less reliable, keep in mind most of the adjustments I mentioned earlier also apply to satellites.
4) Natural Oscillations such as the AMO and PDO are merely an expression of integrated forcings over a period of time and a response to, not a forcing of global temperatures. Explain why you propose that this isn't true and provide physical mechanisms linking these sources of extratropical variability to significantly forcing global temperatures.
 
MichaelJ said:
I am not going to take your comments point by point as that would be a waste of time because you would not acknowledge them anyway, so I will just say if you have a "religious like faith" in AGW science as it is perceived today and it's possible catastrophic effects, nothing I say will change your mind. Hopefully people much smarter that I, and time itself, will convince you otherwise. We can remain civil even if we disagree and eventually one of us will be proven correct. Across academia however, people are not allowed, or discouraged or even threatened by people to change their way of thinking or they will lose their positions or even their credentials. My older brother was a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at a major University in this country and was pretty much forced out because he disputed some of the "science" being promulgated today. So yes, there is some left wing agenda associated with this, especially in the NE USA and all people of science should roundly condemn these type of narrow minded attempts to force others to join the "concensus" of the AGW theory or else. You talk like "skeptics" are bad for sciences but without them some of the accepted scientific concensus' over years past which have since been disproven would not have been.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
mydoortotheworld said:
so does this mean that some of NOAA's stations are affected by the urban heat island effect? but what about the sensors that are outside of cities, wouldn't their lower temp readings average the whole thing out?
Click to expand...
NO, taking a BAD reading in a city is NOT offset in any way by an accurate reading outside the city.....
 
Webberweather53 said:
I actually did acknowledge your points, in fact I spent a few hours writing a book on each one and I'm sure you didn't read them or they went over your head anyway so why bother. It's certainly not a waste of time discussing the meteorological and scientific aspects of AGW, especially considering this is an atmospheric sciences/learning blog, it's obvious however that you're not interested in any of that. If you want to convince me and the thousands of meteorologists/climate scientists otherwise, stick to the science of AGW, publish a series peer-reviewed papers in a reputable journal presenting actual physical evidence that dismantles the theory and contrive a new one to take it's place. We're not interested in political drivel and emotionally motivated commentary as you've continued to promulgate here.

A few key points from my previous post that you need to discuss and are very worthy of your time...
1) Elaborate on why relying on observational data isn't "scientific at all"
2) Explain why the feedback loops are unreliable, and propose new, more improved feedbacks that are able to explain the observed asymmetry in global temperature wrt ENSO and other quasi-cyclical natural forcings.
3) Satellite data is fraught with more uncertainties and adjustments than surface data and at face value is actually less reliable. Explain why surface data would be less reliable, keep in mind most of the adjustments I mentioned earlier also apply to satellites.
4) Natural Oscillations such as the AMO and PDO are merely an expression of integrated forcings over a period of time and a response to, not a forcing of global temperatures. Explain why you propose that this isn't true and provide physical mechanisms linking these sources of extratropical variability to significantly forcing global temperatures.
Click to expand...
 
1. There is no control mechanism, as in a double blind study in medicine, to verify the accuracy or consistency of observational data, much like antecdotal evidence in other areas of science. They are rife with interpretation of the observer which varies from place, time and other factors inherent in them
2. The science of feedback loops are merely conjecture and model analysis at this point as we don't know which parameters nor the likely intensities of the ones we do actually know about. and likely many more we haven't even discovered yet, hopefully you would agree the science is still in infancy as regards our understanding of this stochastic system
3. Satellite data largely take human and measuring instrument errors out and are very much harder to structure to reach a desired result because a known mathematical adjustment can be evenly applied without tampering or changing to suit a particular deired outcome. It is certainly not perfect but is the most consistent measuring method currently at our disposal
4. Totall disagree. Oscillations have occurred at regular intervals (albeit at differing intensities) throughtout out known history with pretty predictable results.
Also if you look at a much longer period of history as I mentioned in my original post, you will see vast changes occurring regularly for millions of years and which mankind had absolutely no effect on. The PPM concentration of CO2 has reached levels over 1000 without drastically warming the planet and are actually in response after the temperatures have warmed, not before as a catalyst. As I also said, I think the UHI effect is real and has contributed (and will continue to) more to the rise in temeratures than any addition of CO2 to the system. Some very recent studies (like the Brown University study on orbital variations relationship to ice ages) show just how little we understand the mechanisms that control our climate process and how many variables can be involved
 
TY for taking the time you did Webberweather........to me what i take away from your effort is there are MANY problems with the actual collection of data(HUGE ERRORS and differing errors) which confirms something i have long said we do NOT have the ability to state a single temperature is the "global temperature".....that in turn means the claims of hottest years ever are NOT backed by science at all.......the margin of error is HUGE and the number given are precise down to hundredths of a degree and we CANT be that precise.......statistical NOISE is being using to make very precise claims.
 
MichaelJ said:
1. There is no control mechanism, as in a double blind study in medicine, to verify the accuracy or consistency of observational data, much like antecdotal evidence in other areas of science. They are rife with interpretation of the observer which varies from place, time and other factors inherent in them
2. The science of feedback loops are merely conjecture and model analysis at this point as we don't know which parameters nor the likely intensities of the ones we do actually know about. and likely many more we haven't even discovered yet, hopefully you would agree the science is still in infancy as regards our understanding of this stochastic system
3. Satellite data largely take human and measuring instrument errors out and are very much harder to structure to reach a desired result because a known mathematical adjustment can be evenly applied without tampering or changing to suit a particular deired outcome. It is certainly not perfect but is the most consistent measuring method currently at our disposal
4. Totall disagree. Oscillations have occurred at regular intervals (albeit at differing intensities) throughtout out known history with pretty predictable results.
Also if you look at a much longer period of history as I mentioned in my original post, you will see vast changes occurring regularly for millions of years and which mankind had absolutely no effect on. The PPM concentration of CO2 has reached levels over 1000 without drastically warming the planet and are actually in response after the temperatures have warmed, not before as a catalyst. As I also said, I think the UHI effect is real and has contributed (and will continue to) more to the rise in temeratures than any addition of CO2 to the system.
Click to expand...

I agree that the science is in its infancy relatively speaking but instead of putting forth little effort to construct broad-brush statements wrt the science, actually go in depth into why the feedback loops are wrong. If you've actually taken the time to read the published literature, you would immediately notice there are still large residual errors in the satellite data even after all the tampering and adjustments, this is evident by the fact that ERSST still doesn't use satellite data in its analysis, and even the RSS adjustments which were (not surprisingly) adjusted towards the surface data in its latest release. The satellite measurements are far from objective and/or "consistent" again aside from the surface adjustments, satellites have a relatively shorter lifetime than surface instruments lasting several years to a decade at most, while surface stations have lasted in some cases decades and centuries or more, satellites actually don't take direct measurements of the medium of interest since they aren't located in earth's atmosphere, and all satellite data is adjusted to a computer model to account for the diurnal cycle since they are largely incapable of making the same measurement at the same point on the earth at the same time of the day. Yes, oscillations are quasi-cyclical (as I mentioned in my post) but you still havent explained how they force global temperatures. I hope you actually understand that the AMO and PDO are derived as the the first empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of North Atlantic and North Pacific SSTs, that alone doesn't imply that these phenomena physically force anything, but rather they are representative of integrated forcing. Yes, I clearly said in a previous post that the planet has observed significantly higher CO2 levels in the past, it's beneficial for some components of the biosphere, and CO2's relationship to global temperature is logarithmic, but the rate at which CO2 has been added due to fossil fuel combustion is unprecedented in earth's history complicates matters and is the cause for concern. The UHIE is indeed real, but it's worth mentioning the largest rise in global temperatures has occurred in parts of north-central Russia, northern North America and areas in/around Greenland, far removed from human civilization. Not to mention a multitude of studies note the temperature increase due to UHI is at least an order of magnitude (~10x) lower than the observed global temperature trend.
jones_china.gif


temperature-anomoly-2006.jpg
 
My last post will be to agree with some of what you said as real possibilities and that you have put a lot of effort into study but conclude by saying the unknowns of Climate Science, (forcings, and yes the Decadal oscillations plus other factors as sun output, orbit track, position in the Galaxy, tectonic changes, UHI, Soot accretion, underwater vocanic eruptions etc...) far outweigh the known and measurable IMO. It (Climate Science) has come a long way obviously in the past 25 years but has an even longer way to go, I just don't think we know enough yet to be making potentially civilization changing decisions without absolute proof or nearly so. Sure I could list studies where many of these unknowns have had peer reviewed papers (another subject in and of itself) written about but you know them as well so it would be redundant and take a lot of time and occupy even more space than I have already..
 
Webberweather53 said:
I agree that the science is in its infancy relatively speaking but instead of putting forth little effort to construct broad-brush statements wrt the science, actually go in depth into why the feedback loops are wrong. If you've actually taken the time to read the published literature, you would immediately notice there are still large residual errors in the satellite data even after all the tampering and adjustments, this is evident by the fact that ERSST still doesn't use satellite data in its analysis, and even the RSS adjustments which were (not surprisingly) adjusted towards the surface data in its latest release. The satellite measurements are far from objective and/or "consistent" again aside from the surface adjustments, satellites have a relatively shorter lifetime than surface instruments lasting several years to a decade at most, while surface stations have lasted in some cases decades and centuries or more, satellites actually don't take direct measurements of the medium of interest since they aren't located in earth's atmosphere, and all satellite data is adjusted to a computer model to account for the diurnal cycle since they are largely incapable of making the same measurement at the same point on the earth at the same time of the day. Yes, oscillations are quasi-cyclical (as I mentioned in my post) but you still havent explained how they force global temperatures. I hope you actually understand that the AMO and PDO are derived as the the first empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of North Atlantic and North Pacific SSTs, that alone doesn't imply that these phenomena physically force anything, but rather they are representative of integrated forcing. Yes, I clearly said in a previous post that the planet has observed significantly higher CO2 levels in the past, it's beneficial for some components of the biosphere, and CO2's relationship to global temperature is logarithmic, but the rate at which CO2 has been added due to fossil fuel combustion is unprecedented in earth's history complicates matters and is the cause for concern. The UHIE is indeed real, but it's worth mentioning the largest rise in global temperatures has occurred in parts of north-central Russia, northern North America and areas in/around Greenland, far removed from human civilization. Not to mention a multitude of studies note the temperature increase due to UHI is at least an order of magnitude (~10x) lower than the observed global temperature trend.
jones_china.gif


temperature-anomoly-2006.jpg
Click to expand...
Once again, Thanks, Man! Good read.
 
BillT said:
TY for taking the time you did Webberweather........to me what i take away from your effort is there are MANY problems with the actual collection of data(HUGE ERRORS and differing errors) which confirms something i have long said we do NOT have the ability to state a single temperature is the "global temperature".....that in turn means the claims of hottest years ever are NOT backed by science at all.......the margin of error is HUGE and the number given are precise down to hundredths of a degree and we CANT be that precise.......statistical NOISE is being using to make very precise claims.
Click to expand...

Thanks I appreciate it. This is why most datasets (HADSST3, ERA-20CM, CERA-20C, etc) are released as a set of realizations to derive first-guess uncertainty estimates of the actual state of the ocean-atmosphere system at a particular point in time and is exactly why I have chosen to utilize an ensemble of statistically independent datasets to reconstruct the MEI. The data is presented in hundredths of a degree to allow for more precise rankings based on the most likely (although it may not be terribly "accurate" in some sense and depending on your perception of what's quantifiably "accurate"), average temperature, but the observed global temperature trends in the past 150 years and especially since the beginning of the satellite era are beyond the confines of statistical noise.
 
SoutheastRidge said:
The adminstrators on this forum or the president and his crew ?
Click to expand...

I do not think we admins even agree on climate change topic for the most part. But what you're going to see soon is a neutral approach to it in our coming interviews and stuff.
 
Sea level has risen almost 1"/decade Massachusetts coast since 1930's per article below. Apparently there have been similar rises GA coast as exhibited by what appears to have been a rather steep increase in the frequency of spring tide flooding events in recent years vs when I was a kid on highway 80 to Tybee Island. I still haven't forgotten the major highway 80 flooding event of Oct. 2015 that occurred with only moderate onshore winds! Something has changed there. Is this all directly tied to GW? Could some be due to land sinking? How much of GW has been due to AGW vs natural cycles? More questions than answers. I still am somewhat openminded about whether or not variations of solar output have been a significant factor but am growing more and more skeptical that it has. I still do want to see how the projected coming 200 year minimum in sunspots plays out in all of this:
**Edited**

http://news.wgbh.org/2016/12/02/sci...-rise-northeast-presents-scientific-challenge
 
Last edited:
Stormlover said:
Thank goodness they don't buy the lies that have been spewed. It's nothing but a massive transfer of wealth and those behind it will do anything to push their agenda
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XmExcAi9

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
Click to expand...

The daily mail and "realclimatescience" are not legitimate sources of information regarding climate science. Stick to published literature and actual climate scientists...
 
Webberweather53 said:
The daily mail and "realclimatescience" are not legitimate sources of information regarding climate science. Stick to published literature and actual climate scientists...
Click to expand...
I'll stick to whatever I want, thanks. If you want to dispute the facts presented, have at it. I have no time for info from the in crowd that has been proven to manipulate data to suit their agenda. You may want to forget climategate, but I'm not. No wonder they want "peer reviewed" stuff out, the "peer's are all in on the political scaremongering hysteria.
 
Stormlover said:
I'll stick to whatever I want, thanks. If you want to dispute the facts presented, have at it. I have no time for info from the in crowd that has been proven to manipulate data to suit their agenda. You may want to forget climategate, but I'm not.
Click to expand...

For starters, the daily mail authors primary graph supposedly depicting the NOAA manipulation of temperature data against HADCRUT is complete nonsense, they forgot to normalize the base periods, HADCRUT uses 1961-1990, while NOAA uses an older, cooler base period. There's a reason crap like this doesn't get published...
 
Webberweather53 said:
For starters, the daily mail authors primary graph supposedly depicting the NOAA manipulation of temperature data against HADCRUT is complete nonsense, they forgot to normalize the base periods, HADCRUT uses 1961-1990, while NOAA uses an older, cooler base period. There's a reason crap like this doesn't get published...
Click to expand...
Even IF, and that's a big IF, some of these suspicious numbers put out by the in crowd are right, there is no amount of money we can punish ourselves with and transfer wealth to make a real difference. Thus, it's all political. And yes, it was published, you just read it, and Dr. Roy Spencer here is one of the world experts on the satellite data and he would disagree with you very much..but for starters, stop the money drain and transfer of wealth and start using our own resources again(pipelines, coal, etc)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01...en-100-of-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top