Climate-gate

milkweed said:
Oh Wait!! Its from 1922...
Click to expand...
Uh, yes, and your point?

Do you find it surprising that the current warming trend is most and earliest visible in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, exactly as predicted by those attributing it to CO2 boosting?
 
sculptor said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that many will fail to appreciate the humor embodied in this post.
Click to expand...
Nor the humor in "control knob"

clip_image005_thumb.jpg
 
sculptor said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that many will fail to appreciate the humor embodied in this post.
Click to expand...
No. not funny as you fail to note that not only is Iceaura's post valid but also at high latitudes the temperature volutity is greatly increased. Recently one Alaskan city set new temperature record more than 30 degrees F higher than the old one.
 
milkweed said:
Link please. I do not believe you.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I heard it (probably on CNN) or read it some where. I'm not good at searching but will Google a little to see if I can find it.

A city called Bettles broke the old high by 8 degrees of 1977 of 25F to 33F in February 2015- from: http://www.adn.com/article/20150223/february-heat-wave-sets-more-alaska-temperature-records
That is much less than 30, but still impressive. I will not spend more time. It is possible my memory is wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The equable climate models predict that in a warming world, most warming will be at higher latitudes and altitudes.
Based on the limited evidence of previous warmer earth interglacials, the model holds true.
 
Cultists of CO2 keep making it up...

TrendsGlobalEmissions.png


Looks to me like a cooling trend until around 1978. But then again glaciers dont melt in 10 years and the article was from 1922 so... my guess is the melting of the glaciers pre 1922 had NOTHING to do with co2. Cuz it sure wasnt getting warmer 1940 - 1978 while co2 was climbing.

191801-201212.gif


Could it possibly be... Just Maybe.. maybe its a natural cycle... Like all these other ones..

clip_image005_thumb.jpg
 
milkweed said:
Looks to me like a cooling trend until around 1978.
Click to expand...
instrumental_temperature_record.png



But then again glaciers dont melt in 10 years and the article was from 1922 so... my guess is the melting of the glaciers pre 1922 had NOTHING to do with co2.
Click to expand...
Your guess would be wrong, since the warming we saw starting in 1910 or so matched the increase in CO2.
Cuz it sure wasnt getting warmer 1940 - 1978 while co2 was climbing.
Click to expand...
That's right. It is neither monotonic nor constant. Few complex physical systems are.
 
milkweed said:
Looks to me like a cooling trend until around 1978.
Click to expand...
That's an error.
milkweed said:
But then again glaciers dont melt in 10 years and the article was from 1922 so... my guess is the melting of the glaciers pre 1922 had NOTHING to do with co2.
Click to expand...
And your guess is probably a bad one - don't bet any serious money.

milkweed said:
Could it possibly be... Just Maybe.. maybe its a natural cycle... Like all these other ones..
Click to expand...
Odds are a thousand to one against. At best. But it's your money and reputation - step right up.

Or if you want to avoid getting suckered yet again, recognize this: You don't know enough to do this kind of guessing. You have no idea what would be a possible "natural cycle" to match this data, for example - it's just a term you use that you think must refer to something relevant.

Tip? Find a different collection of sources, some that do not have a track record of lies and deceptions, and pay attention to what they say.
 
Photizo said:
"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record."
Click to expand...


Looks like you didn't understand the study. No surprise there.
 
karl1HR.0.jpg

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/4/8727459/global-warming-hiatus-never-happened-study[b said:
]The results come as surface temperature datasets are expanding to cover more weather observation stations, resulting in more accurate readings.
The authors analyzed more than double the amount of data previously compiled by the NOAA, from buoys and commercial ships as well as the land surface. In doing so, they took into account the variations on how ships and buoys collect ocean temperatures as well as the recent increase in land observation stations — factors that the IPCC did not consider.
Click to expand...
The fact that such small changes to the analysis make the difference between a hiatus or not merely underlines how fragile a concept it was in the first place," says Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the Columbia University Earth Institute who was not involved in today's study. For some climate scientists, the notion of a recent hiatus was always tenuous, if not a red herring. As they have pointed out, overall temperatures still rose during the supposed hiatus period, and the 15-year time frame was too short to separate signal from noise.

"I think for scientists, the hiatus was not regarded as something that was fundamentally changing the picture of global warming," says Ronald Prinn, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, who was not involved in the NOAA study. But he says it could have stronger repercussions at the political level, since climate change skeptics may no longer be able to point to the hiatus to make their case. "I think that this paper will have very significant policy implications," he adds.
Click to expand...
More data by factor of two reduces the random error by sq root or 2. Thus "more than two" mean the random variation is reduced by factor of about 1.5 and:
The true trend becomes more evident. No "fudging the data" - just a fact of statics. Same reason why the result of 100 coin flips will be much closer to 50% heads than only 10 coin flips will be..

You can test this "square root of n" where n is then number of trials. On average the error from 50% heads with 40 coin flips will be on half as great as with only 10 coin flips. The more data, the closer you get to the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
milkweed said:
"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record."
Man-made global warming indeed.
Click to expand...
Now you're quoting one of Photizo's spam posts, which is in its entirety the first line from one of deceiver Michael Bastach's contributions to the literature of The Daily Caller, and the headline from a Breitbart article. Those are your chosen sources for information, on which you are basing your opinion or take on a matter of factual reality.

Here's a noticeably better informed (i.e. liberal) , take on the a previous article by Bastach in The Daily Caller: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/ Note the key step of talking to the actual scientist who did the actual research. Here's a more or less typical science-related article from the deep thinking Bastach: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/o...al-warming-buys-beachfront-mansion-in-hawaii/

And you haven't completely forgotten what Breitbart's record has been in the area of factual reality, like: what actually happened and what somebody actually said - right?

billvon said:
Looks like you didn't understand the study. No surprise there.
Click to expand...
Photizo never even looked at an actual press release from anybody, let alone the study itself. Whether he read past the first line on the blog raving is impossible to tell.

Here's the study report, from Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full

Sampling:
First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record - -
- - -
Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day. - -
- - -
Third, there have also been advancements in the calculation of land surface air temperatures (LSTs). The most important is the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) databank (14, 19), which forms the basis of the LST component of our new analysis. The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)–Daily dataset (20) with over 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available. The resulting integration improves spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have increased rapidly in recent decades (1). - -
- - -
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top