Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Next
Comments 17551 to 17600:
-
randman at 14:45 PM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom you do realize the slope is pretty easily manipulated based on the time-frame involved among other things, right?
The bottom line are the comments of 59 degrees as a mean from 1950-1980 were not arbitrary. I am open to explanations from those involved as to why they were wrong. At the same time, adjusting the past temps down, excluding stations, adjusting temps from stations, etc,...make a very big difference in calculating anomalies, right? They are based on a mean of specific weather stations or measurement instruments.
So the question is if adjustments are made, why were they made? Are the same standards applied to the present measurements such that there is an honest account of relative changes. Just show the papers and data.
What's the problem here? You guys have a beef with someone like me watching this unfold for 30 years, hearing the mean was 59 degrees or 15 degrees celsius, and then seeing over and over again that such and such year was the warmest with an announcement of the mean for that year less than 15 degrees celsius?
Can't you see how any normal person would take that with a grain of salt. At least show me why and how you changed your view of the data in the past.Moderator Response:[DB] Blatant lie and inflammatory snipped.
-
randman at 14:37 PM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
So why would the Washington Post mention an absolute temperature and claim the NOAA does?
"The average temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces was 58.69 Fahrenheit, or 1.69 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees, NOAA declared. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/18/u-s-scientists-officially-declare-2016-the-hottest-year-on-record-that-makes-three-in-a-row/?utm_term=.1a251a1f56ee
Note it is less than 59 degrees. So obviously if in the 80s people like Hanson and Jones believed the cumulative data indicated 59 degrees as the mean from 1950-1980, then there has been an adjustment in that data such that the NOAA can declare less than 59 degrees the hottest year ever since data has been collected.
Where is the explanation and peer-reviewed papers discussing that downward revision? -
Tom Dayton at 14:15 PM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman, you wrote "why is it published and stated and used, by the way, to compare current global surface temps in claims of the hottest year and so forth, something we see a lot of?" You are flatly, objectively, wrong. Absolute temperatures are not used in claims of the hottest year. Relative temperatures (anomalies) are used.
You wrote "Only way to argue it was the hottest year, as just an example of what I am talking of, is to have an idea what the prior year's were." Yes, you are correct. But the prior year's temperature need not be known as absolute temperature. The temperature relative to any baseline period's temperature is completely, perfectly, logically, mathematically, sufficient, as long as both this year and the prior year's anomalies are calculated from the same baseline time period.
-
Tom Dayton at 14:08 PM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman, you wrote
"statements of, for example, the warmest year ever are not based on mere consideration of a single or a few stations but on an aggregate of all the data, which would include either all stations or a sufficient spread of them to make a reasonable calculation."
Correct. But then you implicitly made an incorrect conceptual leap. You incorrectly assumed that the "aggregate of all the data" is the global mean absolute temperature. It is not. The data being aggregated are the anomalies. Therefore the aggregate of those anomalies is the global mean anomaly temperature. Not the absolute temperature. The absolute temperature for the globe never is calculated in that procedure. Even the absolute temperatures for each of the individual stations disappear from the data as soon as the individual anomalies are calculated.
Estimating the mean absolute temperature of the globe cannot be done to any useful precision or accuracy simply by averaging the absolute temperatures of all the individual stations. The operations for doing it instead are very complex, require much more information and assumptions, and inevitably yield an estimate that is an order of magnitude (that's 10 times--move the decimal point to the right by one digit) less certain than an estimate of global mean anomaly. Changing any of that can yield a very different global mean absolute temperature even if 100% of the individual absolute temperature measurements are not changed.
People have been attempting to estimate global mean absolute temperature since at least Fourier's calculation in the 1820s, which allowed him to realize that the atmosphere was insulating the Earth. There have been, and ongoing continue to be, many estimates, and they have and continue to vary between each other, even when they use exactly the same temperature measurements as inputs. So your claim that "the" estimate of the mean global absolute temperature was changed from 15 to 14 degrees Farenheit, is wrong. There never has been a robust consensus on absolute global mean temperature at high precision nor high accuracy. If you really were interested in absolute temperature, you would have surveyed the considerable literature.
But you did not. Your citation of the Hansen et al. paper for your 15 degree claim is inappropriate. I believe global mean absolute temperature was mentioned in that paper only once, was only approximate ("~288"), and was mentioned only in passing as context for the rudimentary and obligatory background introduction about the laws of radiation and so on. That paper did not in any way address the precise value, and the authors did not in that paper describe any of their work to attempt to determine that value, because that paper instead described only their work to estimate the trend with anomalies. I would be shocked if estimates of absolute temperature have not changed over the decades, because climatologists have continued to attempt to improve their estimates. But not for the purpose of better estimating the trend of global temperature change.
The mean absolute temperature of the globe could be re-estimated to be 40 degrees colder or warmer without in any way affecting the mean anomaly of the globe. It's just arithmetic.
People interested in global warming are interested in the how fast the global mean temperature is increasing. That is the "trend" in the global mean temperature. The trend is the "slope" of the graph of temperature by time. The absolute temperature is irrelevant to the slope; changing it merely slides the curve up and down the y (temperature) axis, leaving the slope unchanged. Literally, unchanged. Because of arithmetic.
-
barry1487 at 14:01 PM on 25 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
OPOF,
27 years for GMST seems about right to me, too, but I'm not convinced that 4 years is sufficient for OHC. The opinion piece only considered 12 years of data to 2014. Further back in the record are many occasions when OHC did not warm for 4 years and even longer.
Though the data get spottier further back in time, a statistical test using other periods, rather than just one, would have been more convincing. Why should 2004-2015 be assumed to be typically representative?
-
randman at 13:57 PM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
In response to the mod, I am merely asking for the peer-reviewed papers that show the adjustment. If you are requiring something stating 14 degrees celsius at present, I an easily do that. If you are saying that's meaningless, c by the way, to compare current global surface temps in claims of the hottest year and so forth, something we see a lot of?
What's with the press reports stating 2016 was the hottest year, for example, if that's such a dubious claim to begin with? Only way to argue it was the hottest year, as just an example of what I am talking of, is to have an idea what the prior year's were. So if you start saying the mean from 1950-1980 was roughly 15 degrees celsius and then have numerous years you state are less than 15 degrees celsius, obviously you no longer consider the mean from 1950-1980 to be correct, right?
I am not understanding your grievance here. All I am asking for is how that determination to revise downward the mean happened. Where are the papers showing that? Is your position none are needed?Moderator Response:[PS] There is no adjustment. We are trying to understand why you think there is one. Where do you get the idea that absolute temperature is now 14 and was 15 in past? In what context do you see absolute temperature being stated and used? You claim a certain year is hottest because the anomaly has changed x degrees from baseline. The baseline defines zero. There is no need to know what that is in absolute terms. Look at the graphs of various temperature series in the article. They never report a temp. Only the change of the average of the anomalies.
Our "grievance" is struggling to understand how you have your wires so badly crossed about something that is fairly simple. A temperature station doesnt report that average temperature in 2000 is say 17. It reports that is say 0.8 degrees higher than whatever the average of that stations temperatures was from 1950-1980. Spatially average all those differences from all the stations worldwide and you have the number plotted on all those graphs above.
-
bozzza at 13:20 PM on 25 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
I note how blue, and a strong blue at that, the Arctic is in this map.
That makes sense given the recovery in the sea ice extent, area and volume numbers.
What I am therefore very keen for more information on is: the state of the multi year sea ice. I think the whole world is desperate for information on the state of the multi-year sea ice in the Arctic.
Worldview was so cloudy this melt season that you couldn't see what was going on... although there did seem to be some adventurous cracking before the clouds kicked in at the start of the season.
They talked about Nares Straight a lot this year being open way earlier than usual: how significant is this point by itself I wonder?
-
randman at 12:29 PM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
These are quotes from this particular site on how to understand calculations of anomalies.
" The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) defines Climate as the average of Weather over a 30 year period. So if we look at a location averaged over something like a 30 year period and compare the same location averaged over a different 30 year period, the difference between the two is how much the average temperature for that location has changed. And what we find is that they don’t change by very much at all.
....
Rather than averaging all our stations together, instead we start out by looking at each station separately. We calculate its long term average over some suitable reference period. Then we recalculate every reading for that station as a difference from that reference period average. We are comparing every reading from that station against its own long term average. "
So comparing individual station's data "against its own long term average", which means calculating the long-term, maybe 30 year term average is critical to assessing the difference between measurements against that average.
Not very complicated.
As I stated on other posts, the mean in Hensen's paper for 1950-1980 globally was very close to 15 degrees, and in 1988 he said the mean was 15 degrees and Jones in 1988 said "roughly 15 degrees." Those are facts of what was stated and reported, whether correctly or not.
Some here have accussed me of not understanding the calculations of anomalies. Of course, individual stations are not compared to the global mean. Some areas are warmer or colder than others, for example. That would be ridiculous.
However, statements of, for example, the warmest year ever are not based on mere consideration of a single or a few stations but on an aggregate of all the data, which would include either all stations or a sufficient spread of them to make a reasonable calculation.
It is doubftul Hansen and Jones just made up the number of 59 degrees or 15 degrees celsius. Hope not at least. Hansen was testifying before Congress and arguing global warming was a very serious issue.
One must assume they based their view of the mean from 1950-1980 on actual data, right? They were looking at changes in the temperature record at each individual station and analyzing that. Since then, we see the global mean surface temp announced with claims of one year being warmer than another and so forth.
So if based on studying this data, the claim was the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius, can someone please show the peer-reviewed papers justifying lowering it to 14 degrees? Just asking that once again. Only one person has even tried to answer by suggesting some possibilities, linking to a blog to look further, and yet to me, I would think this is something proponents would have on-hand. I mean, of course, there should be an explanation of such a large shift on the view of what the data indicated, right?Moderator Response:[PS] The whole point of anomaly method is that absolute temperature average is very difficult to measure with any precision (and is dubious as to whether it is meaningful number in any actual application), whereas change in the anomaly can be measured with considerable confidence. Hansen's number of 15 degree is really a rough estimate.
As far as I can tell, nobody gets where you have inferred that temperature average has somehow been lowered and you seem to implying nefarious adjustment from this. If you understand that trends are change in anomaly from some baseline, then why are going on about absolute temperature? it is meaningless in this context.
-
randman at 08:42 AM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom, this is the paper by Hansen with 288 Kelvin as the mean. I think you've already seen the press comments by Hansen and Jones in 1988 of 59 degrees F and "roughly 59 degrees" respectively, right?
LINK
Obviously regardless of looking at anomalies, there is a reason they believed the mean was 59 degrees. The fact climatologists like to look at anomalies does not change that, does it? Not seeing your point.
On a wider note, this appears to be a pattern. 15 degrees was later adjusted down to 14 degrees, which had the effect of making the then present temps appear warmer, whether correctly so or not.
More recently, we've seen satellite data that showed no sea level rise to speak of "adjusted", perhaps correctly so or not, to now show sea level rise.
http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312
Prior to that we saw the posited warming hiatus changed by some, which changes including lowering the past means among other things. One climatologists somewhat famously has complained about this, Judith Curry. Some of her comments here:
""This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set," she wrote. "The global surface temperature data sets are clearly a moving target. So while I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama Administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.""
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150604-hiatus-climate-warming-temperature-denier-NOAA/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/09/recent-hiatus-caused-by-decadal-shift-in-indo-pacific-heating-2/
As I understand it, Curry was a proponent of AGW and perhaps still is in some respect, but has had problems with the way the data has been adjusted and the accuracy of the models among other things.
She's not the only scientist raises these questions. So it's not just laymen like myself who wonder why there appears to be a pattern of data that does not line up with predictions simply being "adjusted." These adjustments are not just one-off things either but a fairly consistent feature here.Moderator Response:[DB] Blatant lie snipped. Sloganeering snipped.
[PS] "Obviously regardless of looking at anomalies, there is a reason they believed the mean was 59 degrees. "
And just as obviously, you still have not understood that anomaly measurements do not reference a global absolute temperature. Until you bothered to study and understand this, you cannot make progress. Read the material provided.
[RH] Shortened link.
-
randman at 08:27 AM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Steve, if interested, this the 1981 paper with 288 Kelvin as the 1950-1980 average.
LINKModerator Response:[RH] Can I request that you learn how to use the embed function for links? Some long links break our page formatting. It's quite easy to create a short description or title and then embed the link into the text. Thx.
-
randman at 04:43 AM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Steve, thanks for answering or trying to. Will look at those papers and blog on the oceans. However, not precisely sure estimating past oceanic readings to lower the mean is necessarily valid. At a minimum, it should be a reasonable discussion and debate. We, in the public, are being asked to use governmental power to make wide-raning changes, and yet what appears to me as the answer to reasonable questions is often just to shout people down and call them deniers. Moreover, it really looks very fishy. Bold predictions were made that didn't come true and then the mean in the past is lowered, which coincidentally props up the theory as well as the flow of funding?
Btw, the reference ot 288 Kelvin is from 1981 but will look at the papers you mentioned as well.Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering removed.
So far your participation on this forum shows you asking reasonable questions based on a misreading of media reporting, misunderstanding of how temperature series are constructed and now misunderstandings of how and why adjustments are made. Furthermore you "reasonable" questions would seem to suggest that you have uncritically accepted misinformaton from denialist sources. Just because you misunderstand something does not make it wrong.
If you wish to participate here can I suggest the following:
A/ Consider the possibility that your understanding of the science may be wrong and misinformed. People here are trying to fix that but it behoves on you to put reasonable effort into understanding the explanation and reading resources provided. Clinging to misinformation because it suits your beliefs is the heart and soul of denial and you dont want to be accused of that do you?
B/ Cite your sources. Do not make statement without saying what informs your opinion preferably with link or at least a proper cite. Hansen 81 is barely good enough - a title it much better.
C/ If you wish to claim science is wrong, then first cite the reference where science makes the claim you dispute. (Straw man claims are the heart of denialist blogs). Then cite the evidence which you think disproves the claim. Doing this will get reasonable responses from people here.
Any further sloganeering will simply result in comments being deleted. The comments policy here is not optional.
-
randman at 04:37 AM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom, where have you explained how the consensus mean from 1950-1980 was considered to be 15 degrees celsius and later changed to 14 degrees celsius?
Nothing you've "explained" explains that. This has signifant ramifications because if the mean was 15 degrees, we've experienced no warming the past 30 years and the whole thing crashes like a house of cards. It'd be like amassing all this evidence someone committed a murder but then the guy supposedly murdered shows up alive. That "evidence" is then moot.
Now you can talk about comparing changes in individual weather stations and amassing those averages and differences all you want or any other technique but that's a separate question. Could be they changed how they do that? Could be they just arbitrarily lowered everything en-masse? Could be the adjustment to 14 degrees is totally honest and the same standards are applied to recent temperatures as to those such that if we went with the old standards, we'd have global means higher than 15 degrees celsius?
But where are the peer-reviewed papers discussing why the mean was lowered, which coincidentally makes the past 30 years look warmer relative to that mean?Moderator Response:[DB] Blatant lies snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up (i.e., blatantly lie). We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:37 AM on 25 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rbrooks... At this point I would just restate what I said before. There is no amount of evidence that will convince you that all the world's experts are correct on this topic. The research is all available to you, the same way it's available to me. It is not my responsibility, nor anyone else's, to ensure that you (and people similar to you) understand it.
The world is moving forward without your agreement. And yes, governments are likely to force you to contribute your 23 cents/day so that we can solve problems you won't acknowledge exist. That's just a reality.
If there are aspects of climate science that you are curious about, there are a great number of people here who would be more than happy to help you understand it. Dozens here would gladly spend hours showing you the published research and going over the details of what it means. The only challenge is that you need to be willing to learn.
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, "The great thing about science is, it's true whether or not you believe it."
-
Tom Dayton at 01:58 AM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman: You are Gish Galloping. You complained about absolute temperature estimates changing, but you were mixing terms and concepts. Several people gave you information that answered your question and (should have) cleared your confusion.
Then you were complaining about supposed changes in estimates of temperature changes. Scientists do not measure changes in temperature by differencing one year's absolute global temperature from an earlier year's absolute global temperature. Instead they difference anomalies. After that was explained to you several times you insisted that you fully understood that.
Now you are complaining about supposed changes in relative temperatures. Again. But you are acting as if you have been discussing the same topic all along, and that I am an idiot for not recognizing that. No. You have been changing topics. Several people have been trying to give you the answers you are asking for, but you are a moving target.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:49 AM on 25 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rbrooks502: The 0.3 degrees cooling is in the first graph of the article that a moderator comment told you to find by searching for Zharkova. So either you can't read a graph, or you did not bother to actually read the article.
-
Eclectic at 00:28 AM on 25 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rbrooks @40 . . . very droll of you. No, I definitely didn't mean Encapsulated Phsychosis [sic].
As to "educating the novice" (unquote) : the novice has to have a wish to learn (and not start out by declaiming that all the climate experts are wrong). SkS website is an excellent website for learning : indeed, SkS has recently received an award from the National Center for Science Education. You can learn much here, Rbrooks — if you truly wish to.
Back to the science itself, Rbrooks. Please read a little more deeply about Professor Zharkova and the 0.3 degreeC of trivial cooling — a matter which entirely fails to support any of the denialists' hype & "bad science".
Even more on topic (for this thread) is the psychology of Warren Meyer. Meyer is an intelligent guy : but as Rob Honeycutt's article has shown in much detail, Meyer gets it very wrong. From your experience, Rbrooks — why do you think that Meyer has allowed himself to be hijacked by his own Motivated Reasoning? Aye, there's the rub! Over to you, Rbrooks — how & why do you think Meyer chooses to purvey his nonsense?! I am definitely interested to hear your opinion on that.
-
SteveS at 00:03 AM on 25 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman,
I don't often comment here, but thought I would this time since I may be able to answer your question on the change in global mean temperature for 1951-1980.
I suspect that you're mistaken about what paper Hansen used to get that value. I suspect it actually came from Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987. (There's also an updated version of that paper from 1988, but I can't find a copy of it and it just seems to include the data through 1987, so it probably doesn't change anything.) If you look at Figure 1 in that paper, you'll notice that the paper is missing a lot of data from the oceans. More recent attempts to find global temperatures has included ocean temperatures as well, and I believe that will tend to lower the global temperature values overall. (See also Victor Venema's blog about station data homogenization. You might read some of the articles on Victor's blog - they may answer some of your questions.)
I don't think it's particularly surprising to find that, as time moves on, science has found better answers to questions - that is, after all, kind of the point of science.
Moderator Response:[TD] I fixed the links. You can't type HTML to enter a link. You must click the Insert tab and then the link button. I deleted your followup with the now-redundant links.
-
Rbrooks502 at 21:36 PM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Eclectic @39 As predicted above, out come the claws to dress any skeptic down in any way. Ahhhh the grandiose ideology of the academic. There are reasons why they should be taken with a bit of skepticism. Suggesting that I have this superiority complex with an inability to see my own noviceness on the subject has nothing to do with my last statements above. And I think you meant to say Encapsulated Phsychosis.
I dont need you to frame my thinking by your accusations and I could care less if you attempt to define what it is and where I stand. Try getting out of the bubble.
Regarding your last statement I quote "Read somewhat more deeply, and you will see that [proposed] Grand Solar Minimum would produce a transient global cooling effect in the region of 0.3 degreesC. In other words, quite trivial (and not cooler than today's hot climate, bearing in mind the ongoing global warming which is occurring currently & in the next few decades."
This 0.3 degree issue is that you speak of is no where in that article. But the article did predict with a 97 percent rating.
There seems to me that there are so many variables both positive and negative and so many unknowns like natural Methane release. volcanic eruptions above and below the surface, that I still hold that the science is far from completion. You might as well say that the science on dark matter is settled. It is not that what you are saying is falling on deaf ears either. I am trying to keep an open mind as much as possible but thus far it is quite difficult based on the reactions that I am getting. I admitted that I am no master of this, but I will argue that you cant produce anyone who has mastered this subject. If you have one, I will greatly appreciate the name and contact information.
I have said this 100 times and perhaps this is a good time to say it again. Social media like this string here are good for starting conversations but are terrible for true communications to take place. For that you need so many other factors involved. I personally think face to face and eye to be the very best.
I will part this tidbit. "If everyone is thinking the same way, then someone is not doing thier job" General George S. Patton.
Perhaps a little more openmindedness and little less of other things would be helpful for anyone casually looking this subject over.
The concept of forced taxation seems to have eluded you my friend. Since you require me to do more reading, i will offer to you to get more involved and read more yourself. Perhaps if you framed your thinking a little different you might spend more time doing some good ole fashion educating for the novice instead pf taking the dressing down tack that you are on. It doesnt help the cause at all. Everything you posted IMHO did nothing to move the conversation forward. IE more negatives than positives.
Regarding your "B)" comment. You couldnt possibly be more off base and the fact that you find it psychologically interesting, for me, is nothing more than a veiled assertion and an insight into your own phsychology. Yes, I noticed.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Multiple instances of sloganeering, inflammatory and off-topic snipped.
-
Eclectic at 20:11 PM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rbrooks @38 & prior ,
: several points for you to consider :-
(A) You say in #35 that you "have research in Psychology ..." (unquote). Yet there is no internal evidence of that to be seen in your posts. Permit me to recommend you read more deeply into several important psychological topics : Motivated Reasoning ; and Dunning-Kruger Effect ; and Encapsulated Paranoia .
For greatest benefit with those, you need to read with personal insight. As the colloquial cliche goes . . . "And good luck with that!"
(B) In #37 you imply you believe "that forced taxation is theft" (unquote). It is (psychologically) interesting that you seem to favor only the voluntary payment of taxation.
Once again . . . "And good luck with that!" But this is well off-topic for the SkS website, so let's move on.
(C) Rbrooks @38 , you have also failed to do sufficient reading of very basic concepts in climate science.
Please note that Professor Zharkova's work showed little more than a "possibility" of a Grand Solar Minimum occuring in the mid part of this Century.
Read somewhat more deeply, and you will see that [proposed] Grand Solar Minimum would produce a transient global cooling effect in the region of 0.3 degreesC. In other words, quite trivial (and not cooler than today's hot climate, bearing in mind the ongoing global warming which is occurring currently & in the next few decades.
__________________________________________________
( Rbrooks, you have a lot of reading to do, to catch up with the current circumstances! )
-
MA Rodger at 18:46 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman @461.
I am struggling to keep up with your wild pronouncements.
You claim that "Hansen's 1981 paper has the mean from 1950-1980 at 288" with a link to Hansen et al (1981) which says no such thing. It does say "The mean surface temperature is Ts ~288K" but this is not associated with any global average temperature measurements or the period 1950-80. Instead, it is presented to illustrate the power of the greenhouse effect on climate.
And the second piece of evidence you provide is another NYT article, this one from 1988 which tells us "How hot is the world now? The scientists do not offer a straightforward response, saying that the vast amount of data is still being studied and that comparisons cannot be precise." It is in this context that the article offers an average global temperature from Hansen:-
"One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations."
I would suggest the 59ºF being quoted in both the 1988 and 1989 NYT articles results from a journalist insisting on obtaining an average temperature to better inform his readers, a value reluctantly provided by his interviewees. It is certainly no indication of any "consensus" and your insistence that there has been a revision of the temperature record remains entirely unfounded.
May I also correct some of your confusion @476.
You describe "the 4 years in the 80s that were supposedly warmer than 1934," the four 80s years being "4 of the warmest years on record were in the 80s" apparently set out in a peer-reviewed article by Hansen. Without sight of that article, I note in yet another 1988 NYT article it is stated that "Dr. Hansen ... had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980's." So of the years 1980-87, Hansen had reported that four of these years exceeded all pre-1980 anomalies. Where have they gone? A quick glance at GISTEMP LOTI shows they (1987, 81, 83, 80) are still there.
As for 1934, all 1980s years are warmer than 1934 by some considerable degree. However there has been a bit of a kerfuffle involving 1934 it being for some years (and may still be for all I know) the hottest year on record in the "contiguous states."
-
Eclectic at 17:10 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, it appears you have also not read the Nature news article (with its linked scientific paper by Dieng et al, 2017) which demonstrates the opposite of what you said. A scientific source which you yourself referenced. Or perhaps you did read that, and chose to brazenly misrepresent the sea level information.
Randman, your credibility is zero — though you do score points for black humor and/or orange-haired chutzpah in your promotion of Alternative Facts.
But you go too far, Randman. For even the Chief of Alternative Facts knows that more ice melts as conditions get warmer.
-
randman at 16:15 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom, I will try to make this simple. The only constant I see is claiming every decade we see a number of the warmest years. It's their MO.
Hansen published in a peer-reviewed article that 4 of the warmest years on record were in the 80s. I can show you that if you don't believe me. Then when challenged on 1998 being the warmest year, to make a long story short, he moderates and says 1998 was tied with 1934 as the warmest year.
Wait, what happened to the 4 years in the 80s that were supposedly warmer than 1934?
At some point, you gotta say this looks like some bigtime bs. The only consistent thing is the scare-mongering and claims a number of the past 10 years are the warmest ever and pretty soon NYC will be under water or some such.
Pretty soon it will be 2018 and none of the predictions will have come true but we will still hear the same based on "adjustments" to the data selling the same narrative.Moderator Response:[DB] Multiple instances of off-topic, sloganeering and inflammatory snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Tom Dayton at 16:06 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, you are missing the part of that post that answers your question. It explains and demonstrates the large variability in estimates of absolute temperature. Whichever estimate of absolute temperature from the 1980s that you are fixated on was not the only estimate then and certainly is not the only estimate now. Stop typing long enough to really read that article.
-
randman at 15:54 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom, come on. Let's talk honestly. Of course I get the concept of looking at the changes rather than absolute data (although the absolute data should be shown, imho).
The issue is they were doing that when they said the data showed 15 degrees was the mean over the time period from 1950-1980.
Do you get that?
Why was the mean subsequently adjusted to 14 degrees celsius? If you look at the data based on the prior mean, aggregated I assume from many data points, then we have had no warming. It's pretty simple. There's no way looking at the changes can make 14 degrees equal 15 degrees, right?
There wasn't new data for "reanlysis" as far as I can tell that applied to the period prior to 1979. What you have are assumptions or hopes or professional stances linked to one's career that call for reinterpreting very basic data. The readings people took did not change. -
Tom Dayton at 15:42 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, your answer is in the RealClimate post I linked for you. Actually read it this time, please.
-
Rbrooks502 at 15:30 PM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
In the meantime, this prediction is out saying that in 2030 we should start seeing more global cooling. I quote the article. "However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.
From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen."
Seems to me that even if Warren was completly wrong about any of his assertions, the science community has some bugs to work out. My skepticism will continue, as well as my anger regarding how my taxxes are spent. Enough said?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates
Moderator Response:[TD] No, "the prediction" is not out. Use the Search field at the top left of this page to look for Zharkova.
-
Rbrooks502 at 15:16 PM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Your closing arguement is exactly what I was referring to in 1) and 1a). You will find that there are many out there who have a higher respect for that 23 cents a day than evidently you do. And by the way, that is 23 cents a day for every Citizen of all ages in the US every day, every year by the looks of it. It is not your 23 cents, it belongs to the tax payers. The social construct as you so aptly suggest here for its value is not the consensus of everyone. You see I have a problem to the core with the concept that forced taxation is theft. This is something that shows itself in what many call taxation for charity. IE Social Programs. An issue many Americans have a problem with. This is part of the social science that is never applied to any of this. If this concept of mine eludes you and still feel that it is nothing more than word salad, I have no response for you.
BTW, Dopler radar is the reason that so many were able to leave Florida. That science was and is a worthy pursuit without a doubt, but I dont see where that has anything to do with Climate Change and or Warren's article.
My neutrality is based on my own perceptions and not yours. I find that often times taking the devil's advocate allows me to see things in broader scope. Surely you have done this once or twice. Being as I am like most people, and can see patterns like all others, the patern that I have seen through out the years is a force feeding of Global Warming, Climate Change, Man's influence, all of which have always pointed to catastrophe. Each and every time that so called science has come up short. In the 70's it was global cooling. Now we are heating up the planet.
You speak about sciences that are proven, and perhaps that is true if we are measuring Irredium for example to determine if there was a fifth Snow Ball Earth. Perhaps that science has weight and definitive. But surely you can appreciate the skeptic based on past performances.
Here is what I can say, in the upper corner of the page there is 10 things listed that represent the 10 most used Climate Change myths. To the casual observer, these will continue to be used until someone can put forth a convincing arguement one way or other to the average reader that they should not be included in thier skepticisms. For me the appearance of Sun spots, Solar flares, Solar cycles stand out above all others, and as yet, for every article that I read, it is left out of the equation as if it is not relevant. Mind you I recall the Ohio River freezing over twice in my lifetime, when it only did it once before a century earlier. A reason to be skeptical. Mind you that happened after we built the locks and dams. In 1925 there was less than a foot of water in the mighty Ohio in some places.
Regarding getting the information out to help luke warmers or deniers, I recall the instance of the Korean War. In the battle of the Chosin Reservoir in 1950 where temperatures in North Korea were 30-40 below F. virtually all the information regarding the battle at the Chosin/Changjin Reservoir was manipulated and managed by the US Marine Corps. It took over 60 years and the tireless work of a few people that show the realities of that battle, that refute virtually all the statements the Marine Corps and the Media put out. Thier data far out weighed that of the Army's in both quantity and scope to the point that virtually no one ever even thought that there were members of the US Army even in the battle. And it would show, after the research was done, had it not been for the Army, the surviving Marines would probabley have been destroyed like the members of the 31RCT and Col. Faith.
This same logic has and is still playing out on the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change or what ever it is you scientist are calling it these days. You have far outweighed the information output on the subject that anyone with the slightest bit of skepticism wants to take a different tack and try to get thier own conclusions, they are almost immediately dressed down as you have done with your comment regarding "I dont think we need you to agree with us in order to fix the problem". And you wonder why you cant be convincing. Strikes me as working in a bubble.
You want to be scientific, break down these ten myths one by one and offer your evidence, and show where that evidence was verified by other scientist who were skeptical. If you have no Climate Science degree you will have to forgive me if I take your writing with skepticism.
Moderator Response:[TD] Perhaps you should actually read the posts about the myths. For instance, "Its the Sun."
-
randman at 14:37 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, why don't you discuss the questions and facts I posed to you? I think they are very clear. The paper states the satellite data did not show sea level rise, right? That just this July they found a "solution" that would show it by adjusting the data.
Now, how long have you believed the satellite data showed sea level rise? Since late July or earlier? Please answer the question. -
Eclectic at 14:29 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman @466 , your referenced Nature news article (itself citing Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac & Ablain 2017, in Geophysical Research Letters) confirms an accelerated rising sea level globally. The satellite data is also in accord with the longstanding worldwide tidal gauge data.
And yet you come out with your complete fantasy that the observed long-term sea level rise worldwide has halted or even reversed [which would require 100's of cubic miles of "re-freezing" to occur in quick order — and something of which there is zero evidence . . . except perhaps in Secret Government Mega-Freezers buried under the Florida swamps & guarded by gators].
Do you not understand that the world's ice is melting because conditions are getting warmer? And that the melting is happening — regardless of the presence of any calibrated thermometer within a 10,000 mile radius.
In effect, Randman, you are stating that all the well-correlated data globally has been manipulated in a century of Giant Worldwide Conspiracy. More black humor from you, Randman?
-
randman at 13:57 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom reading your comment again and more closely, the thought comes to mind then that the only way to lower the global mean is to say the temperature readings in the past which previously said such and such, were changed, right?
Otherwise, there'd be no revision lower from 15 to 14. If the 15 degrees was based on an average of temp readings, and of course looking at the different regional placement of such weather stations and distances, well if you assume they used decent basic analysis in the 80s for the data, how in the world did the data change? -
randman at 13:46 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Ok, let's use the term "mean" as Hansen does here when he says the mean surface termperature is 288k.
LINK
How is it in the 80s, the consensus, it appears, is the mean from 1950-1980 was roughly 15 degrees celsius, and then later that was changed to 14 degrees celsius? What the mean "for one particular station" isn't what we're discussing but changing the mean from a 30 year period from 15 to 14, which of course shows a very different picture in terms of anamolies, right?
When you read these papers with graphs showing such and such anomaly, they are discussing more than one weather station with a baseline which is 0. That's why I used the term, baseline.Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Tom Dayton at 13:32 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
No, randman. You are confusing terms and concepts. "Baseline" used for computing an anomaly for one particular temperature station is the average temperature across the baseline period as measured at just that one particular station. The same is done for each of the other stations. The anomaly in each geographic grid cell is the average of those anomalies. The global anomaly is the average of those grid anomalies. Never in that process is the global absolute temperature computed. I was confused by your use of the term "baseline" To mean global absolute temperature.
-
randman at 13:00 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Tom, I understand that but anomalies are based on differences from a baseline. So the mean is critical to whether warming or cooling or nothing much has occured. If you just change the prior baseline one whole degree celsius from 15 to 14, the picture of recent anomalies greatly changes, right? But unless that change is accurate, that picture of anomalies means very little in terms of reality.
-
randman at 12:55 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
I am a little concerned about rebutting you on sea levels as not sure it's OK here to do that or not. But be that as it may, consider the following:
"The numbers didn’t add up. Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady — or even declining.Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar. Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year."
http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312
1. The July 2017 report says the satellite data did not show sea level rise. My question to you is did you know that or were you led to believe prior to July that the satellite data showed sea levels rising? Be honest and ask yourself how that happened if "scientists" actually knew the data said something else.
2. Note the solution of adjusting the data. (Note to mods: this is why I think responding on this is appropriate on this thread because we are discussing the trustworthiness and reliability of data.)
If "adjusting the data" were just a one-off thing, this would appear unobjectionable perhaps. Would have to look at the technicals on the sensor stuff, but this seems like part of a pattern. Baseline in the 80s was 15 degrees celsius and then that's "adjusted" to 14 degrees which just happens then to show warming.
You don't find that suspicious, especially in light of the recent paper questioning such "adjustments" along with many scientists also questioning the adjustments with some of them having been much more pro-AGW.
I think there is an issue here and should be looked into. Are we merely being sold a story based on adjusting data to fit a narrative? -
Tom Dayton at 12:55 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman: climatologists use anomalies instead of absolute temperatures, because the former can be estimated much more precisely. See the recent RealClimate post about that.
-
randman at 12:42 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic also, perhaps the point on oranges went over your head? We're talking around several hundred years of significant climate change for the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida where the region became colder, not warmer. This began long before industrialization and is a pretty significant climate change then that cannot be blamed on man causing it.
Particularly after the freeze of 1835, we saw a steady change pushing back commercial orange groves further and further south due to the region becoming colder, not warmer. That has yet to change, in fact.
Why is that if we are experiencing such unprecendented warming? What caused the climate change beginning in 1835 or actually earlier? -
randman at 12:30 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, can you just stick to the facts? You say there is all this evidence. I have been looking at the presentations of that "evidence" for 30 years and frankly, doesn't appear to be any evidence at all to speak of.
That's why I asked about the mean of 59 degrees, 15 degrees celsius. I was hoping someone here on a site dedicated, it appears, to discounting skeptic arguments of AGW, would be able to offer their explanation of why the mean was retroactively changed. Just read a few peer-review papers from the 80s which boldly talk of deviations from the mean in great detail. But noticeably absent is a discussion of the actual base-line. Seems like you have to search high and low for that.
Hansen's 1981 paper does include his baseline as well as various comments from he and Jones to the press and testimony before Congress.
But at some point, 15 became 14, and I can't find a single scientific paper explaining why that was. Now maybe you don't see the significance of that? But if the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius, we have seen no warming whatsoever in 30 years, and whatever else has happened could not have been caused by warming because it didn't happen.
So I ask again. What was the justification or reason for lowering the baseline from 15 degrees celsius to 14 degrees celsius. If you don't know, that's fine, but don't act like it's some kidn of crazy question. -
Eclectic at 12:00 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, you have an interesting way of thinking.
On the basis of (A) one alleged sea wall in Portugal, and (B) whether oranges can be grown in northern Florida versus southern Florida . . . you entirely dismiss a century's accumulated evidence of substantial rapid global warming. (Including your handwaving away of the latest 4 decades of satellite evidence of ongoing accelerating sea level rise / spectacular attrition of glaciers / and the melting of thousands of cubic miles of ice.)
Quite marvellously amusing, Randman. Clearly you possess a peculiar & intense sense of humor.
Though in view of the seriousness of the global situation, your humor counts as black humor. Or is orange the new black?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:15 AM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rbrooks502... First of all, my name is Rob, not Ron. Second, no. I am not a paid writer. After that, it's really hard to know where to begin.
I'll state that, thinking that I wouldn't have the ability to go into the devil's den in a similar way as Meyer's has come here... That would be incorrect. I've spend years wading into debates with climate skeptics. Anyone who knows me can attest to that.
Let's see if we can go through your list here...
1) I'm sorry but this is very close to word salad. I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of what you're trying to say.
2) Ditto on this one. I do not understand what you mean by "solidifying" in respect to weather or how this relates to anything discussed in my piece, or how this relates to anything relative to human nature.
3) I had to do a quick search on this page to see where the term "denier" is used. The first occurrance here is in your comment.
4) I agree (I think). That's why I've tried to keep my entire article based in the evidence presented in the body of scientific research.
5) All of Michael Mann's relevant data is available to the public. No FOIA req'd.
6) The NIPCC report comes from a very small group of scientists, most of whom have no specific expertise in climate science. They are funded by oil companies. Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC goes through no formal review process. In short, it's a farcical report (and that's trying to put it kindly).
7) That's rather easy. Because if you lie as a scientific researcher you will get incorrect answers and your research will not stand the test of time. The scientific process works exactly the same with climate science as it does with any other science.
8) Meyers is not the only person talking about the costs. The entire world is discussing the costs AND the benefits relative to the costs of inaction.
9) Yes. I agree that you are able to understand, but for some reason it's quite clear that you are choosing not to. You are choosing to take a non-neutral position which is contrary to the position presented by the vast body of scientific evidence.
10) There are areas of settled science, and there are areas that are not settled. The elements that are not yet settled do not affect those that are.
RBrooks... Contrary to your claims of neutrality, it's clear that you are anything but. If you are, at this point in history, unconvinced by the science then it would be completely impossible for there to ever be enough evidence to convince you. That is not an opinion. It's just an observation.
As for the $83/person for climate science, that works out to about 23 cents a day. You likely spend many times that on coffee each day. Given that much of that cost is also related to weather predictions, I'd have to suggest, when the population of entire southern half of Florida can evacuate in a timely manner because of those weather predictions... That $83 more than pays for itself. It's a net return on the investment.
Given that there is almost certainly always going to be a sub-set of the human population who will never accept the science related to climate change, as a species we will have to continue to take action without your help. That's fine. A great deal is already being accomplished in reducing our carbon emissions. Other nations like China and India are also starting to take aggressive action to decarbonize.
Please don't take it personally, but I don't think we need you to agree with us in order to fix the problem.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:29 AM on 24 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
The article identifies that there are portions of the USA that the global community can strive to support.
Selective international trade that benefits that 'deserving portion of the USA' could be helpful.
And International trade sanctions against the USA may be needed to change the minds of 'people who can regionally temporarily get away with Winning the ability to have more of a competitive advantage by behaving less acceptably.' If so, those sanctions need to be targeted to get the attention of the portion that needs to change its mind.
But in spite of those efforts it is likely that the USA (and the future of humanity) will collectively suffer set-backs because of this brief period of 'Being Collectively Led Further in the Wrong Direction'.
Responsible leadership can make things better. Irresponsible leadership undeniably can only try to create temporary impressions that ultimately fade away/can't be maintained/can't be sustained. Unfortunately the inevitable negative ending of the unsustainable developed delusions seldom significantly impacts the few who benefited most from developing the damaging deceptions. That is why some wealthy powerful people support irresponsible leadership (in business and government) - they only care about improving-prolonging their chances to be short-term Winners, with all others being the Losers.
-
randman at 06:37 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
MA Rodger, look it up if you don't believe me. Hansen's 1981 paper has the mean from 1950-1980 at 288 LINK
In 1988, he testified it was 59 degrees F. Same thing basically.
LINK
Jones also said it was 59 degrees which is the same as 15 degrees celsius.
Where are the papers to justify revising it MUCH LOWER to 14 degrees? Just looks very arbitrary to me and after the predictions of higher annual means over 15 degrees failed to materialize.
If you disagree, show me something from 1988 or earlier, meaning that was written and published then.Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened links.
[JH] The use of all caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read this policy and adhere to it.
-
MA Rodger at 05:27 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman @454.
You state "The consensus was that the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius." Where do you get this from?
All I see is a newspaper article from early 1989 (see link @452) that quotes PD Jones saying:-
"The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was 0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period 1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the British researchers said."
While 59ºF = 15ºC, I don't see this statement in a newspaper article about a 1950-79 anomaly-base obtained as part of a telephone interview as constituting any sort of past "consensus."
If you calculate the average anomaly from today's HadCRUT4 for this period 1950-79, it comes out to -0.065ºC. And just to join all the dots up, the HadCRUT4 anomaly for 1988 is +0.199ºC, yielding a 1950-79-based 1988 anomaly of +0.264ºC. While this is significantly lower than the "0.612 degrees Fahrenheit" quoted in the article (= +0.34ºC), it must be born in mind that the coverage of global temperature data was still being developed back in the late 1980s as Jones (1988) rather well ilustrates.
-
randman at 04:32 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Here's a timeline of significant freezes.
"The *impact freeze that occurred on February 2-9 brought the lowest temperatures that had ever been recorded in north and central Florida. This freeze is considered an *impact freeze because it ended attempts to commercially grow citrus in South Georgia, southeast South Carolina and in the northern part of Florida."
http://flcitrusmutual.com/render.aspx?p=/industry-issues/weather/freeze_timeline.aspx
Note this comment elsewhere as well:
"he century preceding the damaging freeze of 1835 was relatively warm as evidenced by the fact that unprotected orange trees were grown and reached full size in South Carolina and Georgia (Attaway, 1997). Freezes that caused injury to citrus as far south as central and southern Florida occurred in 1835, 1857, 1894, 1895, 1962, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1989. In Alabama during the first half of the 1900s (1900 to 1948), severe freezes that injured satsumas occurred in 1924, 1928, 1930, 1933, and 1940 (Winberg, 1948b)."
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/2/287.full
This region grew colder, not warmer. Also note, there are different kinds of citrus. Satsuma, which the paper discusses, can withstand colder temps from what I understand. -
randman at 04:21 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Philippe, not sure what you asking here. My comments are based on observation. It's a fact that you can't really grow oranges in the Jacksonville, FL are anymore, at least not commercially. I base that on having lived there, had an orange tree in the yard, noted how oranges don't grow or turn sour if grafted, and on the fact when I was a yojng boy travelling to Florida, there were tons of orange groves in areas that can't grow there now.
If you want, look up the zones for growing things, and you can see this for yourself. Orange groves had to move south. This shouldn't be a controversial comment as it's demonstrably true.
In colonial times, you could grow oranges in South Carolinal which is why a town was named Orangeburg.
If you want sources, google the towns of Orangeburg and Orange Park, and you can verify they do exist. You can also look up the times when orange groves would grow there if you'd like. -
Rbrooks502 at 03:57 AM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
I wonder if Ron Honeycutt is an IPCC supported columnist. IE paid to write. I am writing as a skeptic of all. I have found in my years that the more I think I know the less that I actually do know. By that criteria, I find myself researching more and more and would offer that others do the same. My experiences are in US History which requires a deep understanding of political and military history. In that arena I study Combat Veteran studies from the front line. I also have research in Psychology, Philosophy, Current events. I have an equisitive mind that dates back 50 years. I am published, and will be published again soon. But that all together by no means makes me a master of any of this, but it does make me informed or at least better than average. You may have to excuse my punctuation as I have professionals handle what I miss. From a scientific point of view i agree with Einstien and will let the others do all the math.
I come at this from the perspective of neutrality. I have read Warren Meyer's Forbes magazine articles and I have red Honeycutt's above. Coming to this from a neutral stance I would argue that what I am seeing is piling on of one columinst's points of views over another columnist's point of view. As such, one has to ask the question, who is selling what to whom. And all I am seeing is more of the same. Arguements that I am seeing here are in direct parrallel with the types of arguements that I see regularly on FaceBook, and with the same amount dressing down. Ibeit the verbage is of higher caliber, the reality is still the same. He said, she said, we have more evidence than you, you are wrong, I am right, etc.
Let me applaud Warren Meyers first and foremost for coming into the devils den and assert again his opinions based on his knowledge. That is a tough thing to do. I am sure that Ron Honeycutt would have similar difficulty for coming into a group that is heavily weighted against him. But here is the point. Sites like this will draw in people like me looking for answers and in the end result based on previous experiences and from what I have seen here, nothing is accomplished.
Reasons
1) 'Global Anything" should and must keep social sciences and logic in the equation at all times in order to cover the realities of the subject.
1a) The reason for that is because all science is built upon human experience so that at the forefront it must be accounted for. Because if there is no humans, there is no science. Honeycutt's article seems to purposely avoid this reality and as such gives only a partial explanation or 'tunnel vision' point of view at best.
2) Solidifying the science of weather is one thing, but offer solid conclusions on how best to address it. It must have in it a solid understanding of not only Human Nature, but human population growth, psychology, and social accepted norms and realities. Honeycutt's article does scant addressing of this hard reality.
3) Deniers, Luke Warmers, Climate Change Promoters, are all stereotypes and affords nothing much beyond Identity Politics/categorizing. While it seems scientific, in the world humans it is mostly just degrading. It also supports the logic that people in these subgroups are stuck in a bubble.
4) When someone like myself comes to see what he can discover for himself in order to form thier own opinions, they are not looking to categorized and could generally care less about opinions.
5) A failure on Honeycutt's article should include other findings that Meyer's speaks about in his Forbes articles. Issue like Mann and good ole Uncle Sam preventing data to be retrieved so that it could be researched and duplicated. Freedom of Information Acts have to be employed in order to even get to the data that is built into the IPCC findings. Why would a neutral party buy into Honeycutt's perspective if all he did was attack Meyers and never even bother to bring this up. I am just asking here. Science should never require a FOIA.
6) Meyer's in his articles speaks about the NIPCC. Honeycutt does not bother to even mention that either. Why as a neutral party doing research would one trust his finding while at the same time he leaves this inportant section of research completely out of the subject matter that was there in Meyers articles. Nor does he state anything regarding VP Gore's actions.
7) Climate Change/Global Warming/Weather is a 4 billion dollar taxpayer funded research paycheck annually. Why is it that no one here as ever spoke about the reality that their are people who would most definetly lie about thier findings in order to get a piece of that Pie?
8) New American said that the US government will spend 22.2 billion to fight Global Warming this year alone. I am sure that all the players in this equation is on the up and up. Dont you? Why is no one here other than Meyers speaking about this. Surely any basic understanding of human nature would support that thinking and yet, Science can not be concise with those types of motivators screwing up the works. Can it?
9) When a novice looks for data and wants to learn from the ones in the know they could fair better with out all the opinions and deal only in the facts. We are, contrary to popular belief, able to understand. That is why we come to sites like this.
10) The Science is not settled in my honest opinion because of out liers that are into it for the money, and when I see this level of attacks on one side or the other, the observer cant help but think that is far from being accepted science. That, IMHO, is where we are at, and where we will stay for years to come. If you cant convince people like myself. you have no chance of convincing enough. As it stand right now, the 22.2 billion and the 4 billion research causes every US citizen on the tab for about 83.00 dollars a person for this unconvincing science just this year alone. We are simple creatures designed to see patterns and the only exact fact that can be proven to me is Change. It is the only constant in the universe that I trust.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, I have to wonder what you use for sources. So far, the worst freezing impact event I have found for Florida citrus growers was the great freeze of 1894-95. There has not been an impact freeze event since 1989. The northern and central portion of the state saw some snow back in 2010. Snow is reported as far back as records exist, 1774. I'm quite skeptical of your Florida claims.
-
randman at 03:42 AM on 24 September 2017Was Greenland really green in the past?
MWP was global. Handwaiving it away and reconstructing a map in an effort to show it was not global isn't evidence. I will grant that, although there is evidence it was global, perhaps that's open to investigation; hence my first adament comment it was global should be rephrased.
Of course, so should all claims it was not global as well...:) -
randman at 03:11 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Meant to write, it's clear the sea is "not" rising. Don't see an edit button. Apologize for that.
-
randman at 03:10 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, concerning some other comments on evidence: take, for example, the claims of sea level rise. Frequently, sea levels rising in a location due to the land subsiding are credited to climate change such as the case of south Florida. But the truth is they are pumping the aquifier, have dammed up and filled in wetlands and so it's clear the sea has risen rather than the land subsiding, and yet flooding is credited to climate change.
On the other hand and this is anecdotal, there is a town built in the 1500s by the Portugese where the sea walls were precisely designed to flood once per month with the highest tide. There appears to be no rise or change in sea level there in several hundreds years. I know it's anecdotal but still. We have a hard physical record of no change.
In Florida, when I was a boy you could grow orange groves in north Florida. There is a town called Orange Park, in fact. In colonial times, you could grow oranges in South Carolina: hence a town called Orangeburg. Over the few hundred years, beginning long before industrialization, the freeze line has crept further south such that now orange groves freeze at those latitudes.
So yes, that is climate change but it's not evidnece of global warming (got colder, not warme). Nor is it evidence of industrialization and production of CO2 causing this.
During the MWP and Little Ice Age, we saw much more rapid climate change prior to industrialization. Jones finally admitted that the MWP could have been global. The proponents of AGW had handwaived the MWP away insisting it was just confined to the northern hemisphere.
Some of the glaciers that melted and presumably back to prior to man's settlements, actually showed settlements underneath. The truth is none of these things are unprecedented. Back in the 30s, there were numerous published reports of the arctic melting and warnings of sea level rise but it didn't happen. There were just some very warm years around that time.
So this claim of high speed climate change is simply incorrect. We've seen much higher change in human history already.Moderator Response:[JH] If your false statement about about Orangeburg, SC is indicative, your entire post may be nothing more than a fabrication.
From Wikepedia...
European settlement in this area started in 1704 when George Sterling set up a post here for fur trade with Indians. To encourage settlement, the General Assembly of the Province of South Carolina in 1730 organized the area as a township, naming it Orangeburg for Prince William IV of Orange, the son-in-law of King George II of Great Britain.
-
randman at 02:39 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, still learning to use this forum. Phil Jones (English pioneer of some note for global warming scenarious, etc,...) is the Jones I referred to, as someone else stated.
In an effort to simplify, will repeat myself a little. The consensus was that the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius. The prediction and warning had to do with rapid increases ABOVE 15 degrees celsius. That never happened and so no, I can't agree the planet has warmed.
No matter how many graphs, claims, adjustments, etc,.....that purport to show increases in mean global temps, unless there is a good, peer-reviewed series of papars, or at least published and discussed widely with skeptics not shouted down, it's unreasonable to accept as necessarily valid claims of warming.
Where's the beef here? I am open to why the mean from 1950-1980 was lowered retroactively from 15 degrees celsius to 14 degrees celsius but hope you can understand my skepticism. You have a group who forcefully argues a near doomsday scenario requiring massive global regulatory changes with very specific and bold predictions, and they don't happen. No years above the mean, and then the mean is lowered?
What is the basis for lowering the mean? The science behind it? Are there published papers dealing with that? Were skeptics allowed to offer pubished rebuttals? Or is this more a matter of faith?
Prev 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Next
