|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 1, 2016 1:59:02 GMT
I have moles in my yard. Call Bill Murray. Mole Busters?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 1, 2016 2:59:36 GMT
Gopher Busters. Dynamite works wonders.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 1, 2016 6:15:43 GMT
Gopher Busters. Dynamite works wonders. Tough on landscaping though.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 1, 2016 10:30:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 1, 2016 15:16:40 GMT
They have a problem. IF the 'transient climate response' can be overwhelmed by 'strong multidecadal internal variability' - then that same variability could have been the reason for the 'warming'. This all begs the question - is there really any such thing as a transient climate response? This looks suspiciously like a wedge of cardboard under the short leg if their carefully calculated maths makes it 5K and suddenly using the same 'carefully calculated maths' they make it 2K - they deserve to be treated like double glazing salesmen being edged toward the door rather than scientists. The standard atmosphere used by aviation was calculated using the gas laws and this accurately produced the temperature lapse rates with no need to resort to 'forcings'. Balloon ascent 'sondes' have shown no evidence of these forcings and 'effective radiation levels' etc. In fact there is zero observational empirical evidence to support the global warming hypothesis. The one thing that can be pointed to is that the 'temperature has increased' but that, by their admission, could be caused by a 'strong multidecadal internal variability'. I have a feeling that the house of cards may be a little shaky. Note too that the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 causes the atmosphere to be warmer causing more evaporation of water, the resulting water vapor increases the warming by trapping even more 'heat' and the system runs away catastrophically. So one easy observation to check would be humidity increase, yet relative humidity if anything is dropping so the claimed chain of events is not happening. The entire hypothesis is falsified. Why go any further?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 1, 2016 18:05:26 GMT
They have a problem. IF the 'transient climate response' can be overwhelmed by 'strong multidecadal internal variability' - then that same variability could have been the reason for the 'warming'. This all begs the question - is there really any such thing as a transient climate response? This looks suspiciously like a wedge of cardboard under the short leg if their carefully calculated maths makes it 5K and suddenly using the same 'carefully calculated maths' they make it 2K - they deserve to be treated like double glazing salesmen being edged toward the door rather than scientists. The standard atmosphere used by aviation was calculated using the gas laws and this accurately produced the temperature lapse rates with no need to resort to 'forcings'. Balloon ascent 'sondes' have shown no evidence of these forcings and 'effective radiation levels' etc. In fact there is zero observational empirical evidence to support the global warming hypothesis. The one thing that can be pointed to is that the 'temperature has increased' but that, by their admission, could be caused by a 'strong multidecadal internal variability'. I have a feeling that the house of cards may be a little shaky. Note too that the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 causes the atmosphere to be warmer causing more evaporation of water, the resulting water vapor increases the warming by trapping even more 'heat' and the system runs away catastrophically. So one easy observation to check would be humidity increase, yet relative humidity if anything is dropping so the claimed chain of events is not happening. The entire hypothesis is falsified. Why go any further? Yep! What you have to give credit for is Nic Lewis and Judith Curry did their own TCR estimates that came out half that as presented by the modelers featured in the IPCC. Curry is a big advocate for CO2 warming but she did the honorable thing and recognized that the observation record was not supporting the continued alarmism of the more strident warmists. As a result she says she was kicked out of the club. But what confidence should you have in validating this sort of thing from a short term observation record? Its kind of like watching the World Trade Center collapse and when it dropped to half its height expecting it to stop there. The key issue is the assumption that there was no natural variation that could explain the observed variations has been falsified. The fact that we still do not know what that is we can no longer deny its existence. And the fact we know nothing about it simply means there is no such thing as climate science yet.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 1, 2016 18:42:55 GMT
I have moles in my yard. Are these undocumented? It's possible. They speak Russian and carry little backpacks.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 1, 2016 23:00:46 GMT
It's possible. They speak Russian and carry little backpacks. Ah, they're fruit pickers.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 1, 2016 23:14:29 GMT
It's possible. They speak Russian and carry little backpacks. Ah, they're fruit pickers. They seemed interested in intelligence, so I pointed them in the direction of Washington (DC) ... but they just laughed at me.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 1, 2016 23:39:59 GMT
Ah, they're fruit pickers. They seemed interested in intelligence, so I pointed them in the direction of Washington (DC) ... but they just laughed at me. Tell 'em to wait till January.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 2, 2016 18:44:18 GMT
They seemed interested in intelligence, so I pointed them in the direction of Washington (DC) ... but they just laughed at me. Tell 'em to wait till January. They said that Vladamir was interested in this 'Bully Pulpit' thingy. I suggested a TR biography an a subscription to Fox News.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 13, 2016 19:59:38 GMT
One change I hope the Trump administration will bring to the climate change discussions is more focus on the satellite global temperature trends. The IPCC and the current US-based scientists and therefore the media have hidden the fact that satellite temperatures have been essentially flat for nearly 20 years.
One of the oft-used arguments against satellite temperatures is that they measure the lower atmosphere rather than the surface. An obvious counterargument is that modelers claim the atmosphere will warm at about 1.2 times the surface. Therefor, satellite temperatures will overstate the warming somewhat but are still useful to check the accuracy of the surface anomalies.
Another argument is that satellites have orbit drift which requires adjustments which may not be accurate. If that ever was a problem it's my understanding that the current satellite which has been in use for most of this century has the capability to adjust its orbit so adjustment isn't required.
Another argument is that the satellites have limited coverage. RSS claims the satellite covers from 82.5 degrees north to 70 degrees south. (If the earth were perfectly flat the coverage would be greater.) My calculations (which I would appreciate if someone could check) show that the coverage is 96.6% of the earth's surface. Meanwhile the surface gauges measure only a very small area. If there were 1000 stations and each station provided good temperatures representative of a 1 mile radius, then, according to my calculations, coverage would be only 0.002% of the earth's surface.
Another argument is that the area missed by the satellite is very important because the arctic temperatures are increasing more rapidly than the rest of the globe which eads to an underestimation of the warming. If the arctic temperatures or more correctly the area missed by the satellite have warmed by 1.5C more than the rest of the world, than my calculation says that the global temperatures anomalies are underestimated by 0.006C. An error of less than one one-hundreth of a degree wouldn't seem to rule out their use.
I'd appreciate if someone would check my calculations.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 13, 2016 21:03:04 GMT
i take it you are talking of equatorial orbiting Sats so where do you get your high 90's coverage when the amount of atmosphere passed through, north and south, ends up so fat? it is alright looking straight down through a couple of miles of atmosphere but looking through many miles as you try to penetrate north and south???
we have reasons for the 'cut off' or did you not know? if you know a way around it ( as your post alludes to?) hadn't you better let the Scientists working on such projects know of your breakthrough?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 13, 2016 23:54:24 GMT
i take it you are talking of equatorial orbiting Sats so where do you get your high 90's coverage when the amount of atmosphere passed through, north and south, ends up so fat? it is alright looking straight down through a couple of miles of atmosphere but looking through many miles as you try to penetrate north and south??? we have reasons for the 'cut off' or did you not know? if you know a way around it ( as your post alludes to?) hadn't you better let the Scientists working on such projects know of your breakthrough? Graywolf, first of all who is "we"? You and who else? Secondly, are you and someone else disagreeing with RSS when they say their satellite coverage is from 82.5 degrees in 1 hemisphere to 70 degrees in the other? (That's a yes or no question)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 14, 2016 1:52:00 GMT
Your calculations are correct Duwayne.
|
|