|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 31, 2010 0:30:44 GMT
No one argues the rate of warmth in the early 20th century. That result uses the same data as the present result.
The main arguement has been and is still, the cause of the warming.
There are those who have married their camp to the AGW theory, ignoring past warmups.
There are those who have divorced themselves from that camp. I am one of those.
I have no doubt that co2 may cause .3C of retained warmth if it ever does double from 300 to 600 ppmv. That doubling is very much in doubt unless something catasrophic happens.
Climate changes, it has always changed. That we can depend on. The question is, will man adapt to said change or keep thinking that he can somehow wave a majic wand and freeze the climate at a certain point.
That is the reality of it. There are those of us who live conservatively, use energy wisely, and are always looking for ways to improve said use. I believe that I am in the majority.
The governments of the world have climbed aboard a bandwagon to find new sources of taxation. The carbon tax is one of those sources.
The whole debate has become political rather than scientific. The funding is tilted towards cementing the governments position so that taxes can be accumulated.
The Copenhagen accords etc would result in what.....a .1C reduction in projected temp increase? And the costs of that reduction would be what?
The whole concept is insanity at its best.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 31, 2010 0:36:35 GMT
There are plenty of people arguing the rate of warmth in the early 20th century and indeed in the late 20th century too. It's not possible to talk about causes when some people are questioning the warming in the last 30 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 31, 2010 1:02:17 GMT
There are plenty of people arguing the rate of warmth in the early 20th century and indeed in the late 20th century too. It's not possible to talk about causes when some people are questioning the warming in the last 30 years. Well five years ago I wasn't questioning warming as it was warmer than it is today. That might not be true everywhere but it is in my neighborhood where it has been feeling like the late 1960's and not the 1980's. The result of all that is if it was generally getting alarmingly warmer I would have noticed it having been diligently sampling it in essentially the same location for 5 decades plus. . . .and if somebody has to measure that for me because I am too insensitive to notice it, logic tells me I shouldn't be concerned either unless somebody can clearly demonstrate harm. |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on May 31, 2010 10:51:54 GMT
Yep +10.94 for May 2010 (above 8 is la nina territory). Second month in a row - lots of other factors lining up www.twawki.com/?p=6345 |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 1, 2010 0:13:40 GMT
There are plenty of people arguing the rate of warmth in the early 20th century and indeed in the late 20th century too. It's not possible to talk about causes when some people are questioning the warming in the last 30 years. yes socold, particularly when some people continue defending the surface station records without question. Tamino, Zeke and co. only replicate GISS using GISS data, GISS methods and GISS station classification for rural/urban, run their "analysis" agreeing with GISS, then give a stamp of approval as if it is some sort of validation. So tell us socold, why is it that Tamino, Zeke & co. can't dig into issues such as this? GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data  |
|
|
|
Post by dartman321 on Jun 2, 2010 22:17:14 GMT
Astromet: La Nina's knocking on the door. What happened to your prediction?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2010 12:12:30 GMT
Ultimately the scientific validity of all these data sets, which rely a lot upon the same information, is dependent upon demonstrating to the public that the means of selection of stations follows a logical and random process and if the methodology looks good and you have all the data one should be able to repeat it. This has been demonstrated to the public. The problem is a small subset of them are refusing to accept it. Small subset of the public is unconvinced? I think the number is around 70%. You can try doing an imitation of an ostrich with his head in the sand but the facts are the small subset is the portion of the public that has imbibed the Hansen koolaid. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 4, 2010 18:31:52 GMT
There are plenty of people arguing the rate of warmth in the early 20th century and indeed in the late 20th century too. It's not possible to talk about causes when some people are questioning the warming in the last 30 years. yes socold, particularly when some people continue defending the surface station records without question. The issue is that some people find excuses to deny the surface station records citing problems they haven't even analyzed. ClearClimateCode replicated the analysis using GISTEMP methods and station/classification, because ClearClimateCode actually base everything off the publically released GISTEMP source code. Zeke and Tamino reproduced it without using GISS methods or station classification for rural/urban. They wrote their own analysis code from scratch. Here's Zeke's compared to GISTEMP:  Taminos is similar. Given it's their own analysis, you can't claim the warming is unique to Hansen's choices of adjustment. The whole skeptic claims in that regard are now revealed to have been bogus all along. Those making the claims were probably ignorant rather than malicious given I haven't yet seen any skeptics bothering to do a temperature record analysis themselves. tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/replication-not-repetition/Hansen has already dug into that issue. He's already shown that removal of the arctic extrapolation in GISTEMP produces closer results to HADCRUT3. This has in fact been known for years. However you seem to be forgetting not-so-recent issues like: Station drop-off in the 90s, where skeptics, probably including yourself, claimed a reduction in the number of high latitude temperature stations in the 90s had introduced false warming. They made a big splash about this, CEI or heartland or one of those propaganda tools even published a PDF about it authored by Joseph D'laeo and Anthony Watt's. Funny thing was all those skeptics went to all that effort talking it up but had never bothered checking the claim. Weeks later when skeptics have moved onto a dozen more scam claims, it is demonstrated they were wrong. Bet you didn't hear about this on WUWT: The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effectclearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/ tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/"As stated before, contrary to the claims of D’Aleo and Watts, station dropout did NOT introduce a warming trend. If anything, it introduced a cooling trend."You won't be able to point me to where D'Aleo or Watts actually did any kind of similar analysis to form the basis of their claims. They didn't. They just saw station dropout in the 90s, assumed that would generate a warming trend (via some abysmal logic) and then made public their accusations. Perhaps they didn't even care, perhaps they realized they could fool most of the people some of the time and by then they would have another talking point to fall back on. The point is that noone should trust anything the skeptic blogs claim on face value. Until skeptics actually demonstrate their claims using the temperature data noone should take their musings and guesswork seriously. It turns out that among other things, no, you can't just assume station dropout at high latitudes will cause warming - it turns out, shock horror, that to demonstrate such a thing you have to analyze the data. The errors climate science has made pales into comparison with the mistakes skeptics make on an almost daily basis. If anyone has lost credibility, it's the skeptics on their blogs. "climateskepticgate" if you will. Same deal for example with the "temperature sensors at airports are causing warming" idea. That claim isn't looking too hot now either and I notice once again it wasn't skeptics who bothered analyzing the data: clearclimatecode.org/airport-warming/To clean up their act and regain some semblance of competence skeptics need to produce their own surface temperature analysis and refer to that when making their claims in future. Because mere unbacked claims aren't going to wash anymore. That horse has bolted. |
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Jun 4, 2010 22:36:37 GMT
 .png) These graphs are of five stations in and around Providence RI. The first is unadjusted data and the second is adjusted data for temperature anomaly. It looks like the only data which needed adjustment is prior to 1950. I would not argue that in the last 30 years we have not seen a warming trend globally, however I would be inclined to view some of the earlier temperature records with some degree of skepticism. These graphs are from www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/climate.aspxThe site allows you to select view data from stations all around the globe. I picked this area because it is a GW hotspot. The station data in my area actually shows a cooling trend since the 1920's. |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jun 5, 2010 4:19:17 GMT
The thing with the adjustments is they are always done to show a warming - Darwin was a hilarious case in point
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jun 5, 2010 4:27:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 5, 2010 13:25:37 GMT
The thing with the adjustments is they are always done to show a warming - Darwin was a hilarious case in point Are you sure the adjustments are always done to show warming? Are you claiming that there are no stations on Earth that have been adjusted in a cooling direction? |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 5, 2010 14:48:55 GMT
Yeah, they showed that many US stations had been adjusted to the point that they actually showed a slight cooling bias...but that doesn't mean everyone else has done the same. In La Nina related news...bringing the ol' surface temperature map forward  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 5, 2010 16:24:37 GMT
The thing with the adjustments is they are always done to show a warming - Darwin was a hilarious case in point Are you sure the adjustments are always done to show warming? Are you claiming that there are no stations on Earth that have been adjusted in a cooling direction? Hey there has to be at least one or two Socold! Like two hockeystick reconstructions to refute criticisms. The must be a hundred examples back just in the archives here of warming adjustments it would be nice if somebody caught up. . . .certainly would be curative to the credibility issue. And of course we have your admission on the accuracy of measuring the earths temperature within a deg C in the first place. Which actually is dependent upon a good sampling of temperatures and the length of station records. Seems the only significant area of the globe that exhibits a long station record is the good ol USA. And guess what! There has been no warming in the good ol USA if you go back to the 30's and 40's exactly the distance the world's measurements disappear from a station longevity record. Can anybody explain why the best measured place in the world isn't warming after 7 decades and the worst measured is warming the most?
My audit nose says its the rubber band theory, the band stretches easier where its skinnier. Have anything at all to counter that with? It seems that where we see these warming adjustments are primarily in the USA, Australia and Europe where the citizens are on alert to such nonsense. But what is going on in equatorial Africa? Why is there such a huge discrepancy between the satellites and the Jones/Wigley work? Do we know what is going on in Siberia? How is the retraining program going for the out of work KGB prison guards? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 5, 2010 19:46:48 GMT
Are you sure the adjustments are always done to show warming? Are you claiming that there are no stations on Earth that have been adjusted in a cooling direction? Hey there has to be at least one or two Socold! Like two hockeystick reconstructions to refute criticisms. The must be a hundred examples back just in the archives here of warming adjustments it would be nice if somebody caught up. . . .certainly would be curative to the credibility issue. Isn't that an indictment on the part of the skeptic web community that you have only focused on stations with warming adjustments and not stations with cooling adjustments? And with your "somebody caught up" reference - why do you put the burden of refutation on others? Shouldn't the skeptics be critical of their own arguments and therefore have sought out adjustments that run counter to their hypothesis? Wouldn't an unbiased inquiry look at both types of adjustments, and further wouldn't a competent enquiry analyze the whole dataset rather than focusing on one or two case-examples that agree with the conclusion they seek (eg Darwin Zero)? I have for a long time thought that skeptic blogs are just trying to score points and are not interested in proper scientific analysis of these issues. Seemingly you are unaware what you have just admitted. |
|
