• 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.
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