PR companies: no working with climate deniers

[Doug1029]

Did you read link?

Yes I did.

First: the article is an editorial, not a research article. It did not go through peer review. Why? It was published in Nature, a highly prestigious journal. But I have found mistakes in Nature, myself - and it was in an article on climate simulation. In that case, the authors forgot to vary sea surface temps and by the time they discovered the problem, they'd exhausted their budget, so they published it anyway, without mentioning the defect. A reader caught it, brought it to the magazine's attention and they came clean. The article, published in the early 1990s, remains in circulation with an attendant footnote.

Second: I have no reason to doubt what they're saying. The CMIP5 models are land surface temperature models. They do not take sub-surface ocean temperatures into account. The hot pool in the western Pacific has been blocking the flow of equatorial surface water, forcing it down into the ocean depths. That's where the missing heat is going. There is no data set for that, so the models can't consider it. But they can use sea surface temps. The article was published last fall and based on CMIP5 versions available in 2008. The data is more-recent, but the simulator is an outdated version. "New improved" versions will soon be available, but in the meantime, we are stuck using the old one.

Third: The last fifteen or so years is a rather special situation. Up until that time (1998), the model worked fine. If you are going to test the model, you need to run it for the entire time frame covered by available data - at least since 1900. The model didn't do very well for 15 years out of 112. But the article says nothing about the previous 97 years. In fairness to the authors: testing the model was not their purpose.

Fourth: climate models are only a tiny part of climatology, an attempt to synthesize all relevant knowledge into a single system. The article points out that this hasn't been accomplished yet.

The authors are not disputing global warming. They're saying that it isn't being measured with sufficient accuracy. And they're right: it isn't.

Doug

Edited August 5, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Wait but isnt temperature rising globally? Not just in specific places where IPCC take messures?

Correct. That's where spatial analysis comes into play. Weather stations are scattered around the earth, mostly in the north temperate areas. There are some on ships - moving weather stations, and now, we have satellites that are used for the ocean surface. There are very few weather stations in polar areas. Each one is measuring conditions where it is. But if you average these temps, you get a result highly-biased toward temperate zone conditions. You solve the problem by selecting 1000 (or more) points equally-spaced over the surface of the earth. Then you take the average of each measurement within, let's say, 200 miles of each point. You then average those numbers for an estimate of what is happening around the globe.

No one station, by itself, produces a record that is applicable to the world, generally. Global temperature anomalies are averages of averages.

BTW: few if any of those weather stations are IPCC stations. They are mostly run by each country separately, each working in its own part of the world. The US has about 3000 such stations.

Were humans also responsible for melting and spilling in period BC?

There were some very minor human affects on climate as far back as 8000 years. Those effects are inferred based on rates of change, human populations and so on. As a practical matter, human-caused climate change has only been measurable over the last 150 years or so. That it wasn't detected before the early 70s is because nobody was looking for it.

Wait,,,when I remove it temperature is droping. And why to remove it in the first place?

Natural variability is caused by a lot of different things. Some, like the Milankovic Cycles are pretty well-known. Others, like volcanic effects are less well-known. If you want to know whether the change you are seeing is due to a given variable, you build a statistical model of that variable, estimate its value at each datapoint, then subtract that estimate from the measured value. If the change disappears, you are on the right tract. If it doesn't, you need to keep looking. This is done both as a test of the variable and to make the actual, unexplained, changes more visible.

And no. If you remove the orbital mechanics signal, even in that graph, temperature is not dropping.

How accurate is this and from where is this data come from?

It's the Keeling Curve. Most data was recorded on Mauna Loa on Hawaii. Once it became apparent that Keeling was onto something, a number of other stations were established. Measurements are taken at Mauna Loa and in Antarctica because they are a long way from pollution sources and the air is well-mixed before it gets to them.

The 1937-1938 bump in my own data may be due to a smelter at Henrietta, a hundred miles away. The air wasn't very well mixed when it reached the Ouachitas. You wouldn't want to use my data as a global estimate.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Doug

[Ichihara]

Doug,

Who run Mauna Loa? IPCC trough various agencies perhaps? Who fund it?

Far as I see when I move curve temperature is dropping.

If GW is global how come in some parts of world we dont messure it?

I wish you cover all my questions. Anyway you did answer on estimation excellent. Im glad that we agree atleast on some points.

[Ichihara]

wow...I will leave this to read for a weekend.

thank you my friend!

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ichihara

[Doug1029]

Doug,

Who run Mauna Loa? IPCC trough various agencies perhaps? Who fund it?

US Govt. NOAA - NCAR, I believe.

Far as I see when I move curve temperature is dropping.

If GW is global how come in some parts of world we dont messure it?

Before 1907 global temps were falling. They began a very rapid rise in 1907, reached a local maximum in 1950, trended slightly downward until about 1976, then started up again. They reached another peak in 1998 and remained level until 2005 when they started creeping up again. The current "hiatus," even if you count everything since 1998 as being part of it, has only lasted 16 years; the 1950s one lasted 26. It's a bit early to try burying global warming based on the "hiatus."

A 10,000-year graph is only going to show global warming as a small uptick in the last 1% of it.

It just dawned on me that immediately before each upturn in warming, there was been a substantial drought in the central US. We're in such a drought now. I wonder...

Sea surface temps are measured by satellite. Before satellites, all we had was ships' logs. It's a big ocean, so there weren't many readings available. In the US, the army started keeping weather logs on July 1, 1838. Most western military bases, including Fort Sill in Oklahoma did this. But there weren't all that many bases. About 1880, most European countries started keeping good weather records (There are a few records kept by individual cities that go back to 1600.).

When Oklahoma became the Indian Nations, the army quit keeping records here. Technically, it was a foreign country and I guess the army figured the Indians weren't worth the expense. The Weather Bureau started a hodgepodge system about 1880 using country schools, providing them with instruments and free pamphlets about weather. But the schools were closed during the summer and the stations depended on teachers being interested enough to take the readings. It was a hit-or-miss operation. In 1892 the Weather Bureau started its own system of stations which are still operating. Eventually they wound up with stations behind every country store and hay bail clear across the country. But it wasn't until 1905 that they reached the Ouachita area. Anyway, the first few editions of Climate Data for Oklahoma are titled: "Oklahoma and the Indian Nations."

Some parts of the world are still so remote that regular land-based stations don't exist. On some remote islands there are automated stations that send in their reports by radio every 20 minutes, but where there are people around, the stations get vandalized so they can't be used.

Doug

Edited August 6, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Mods:

You could save a lot of space by deleting Post 55. I don't know what happened here.

Doug

P.S.: Also, this one.

Doug

[Doug1029]

It just dawned on me that immediately before each upturn in warming, there was been a substantial drought in the central US. We're in such a drought now. I wonder...

Yes. I'm quoting myself. When an author cites himself, it's called academic m......n. There! UM's censor won't have to work overtime.

It seems that warmer sea surface temps in the Atlantic have been intensifying westward blowing trade winds worldwide. This is pushing warm surface water into the western Pacific and holding it there. And that is doing several things: 1. Creating more and stronger typhoons in the western Pacific, like in the Philipines last year. 2. Stalling the development of La Nina. 3. Lengthening and maybe causing the droughts in SW United States. 4. Driving warm water downward into the ocean depths where it is warming the oceans. 5. Cooling land areas, producing the "hiatus" in global warming. All caused by global warming of the Atlantic. So that's the explanation of the "hiatus" - it's global warming in action.

And for those who don't like the computer models: all 300 predict the drought in the southwest US. It's starting to look like global warming and climate change has actually arrived.

Doug

P.S.: why we aren't seeing an intensification of Atlantic hurricanes is a mystery. Also, past climate shifts have usually been accompanied by a "flickering" of the climate system as it crosses a threshold. It oscillates back and forth between the two regimes for awhile before settling into the new one. That would seem to be California's only hope in the short run. In the long run, there probably isn't much hope.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Mods:

You could save a lot of space by deleting Post 55. I don't know what happened here.

Doug

P.S.: Also, this one.

Doug

You took out both of them! Doug

[Ichihara]

its okay Doug. i read them. i will answer you when i catch time.

[Ichihara]

Doug

i read your deleted posts and posts from some other threads to see your views. it seems you didnt understand some of mine questions, that in some case you contradict yourself and that you didnt notice some of links. also your previous post have gaps.

first why do you call people deniers who are sceptic about agw? no one call you conspirator. talking about conspiracy did you read link about NASA and NOAA alter temperature to recent years look warmer? Here it is if you didnt: http://stevengoddard...ficial-at-noaa/

when we mention NOAA its interesting that NOAA runs Mauna Loa. they tried to trick us once why should i believe them again?

its interesting how you compare climate journals to "Journal of evelutionary biology." ofcourse no one would disagree evolution in same monolithic journals. but agw isnt evolution theory because there is no consensus among scientists. and btw Pat Michaels and Fred Singer arent only one who disagree with agw. there are plenty scientists.

you agreed that sea level rise 7 inches per century. and whats your view on it?

also models failed once how do we know they will not fail us again?

what is interesting that we survive minoan warming and roman warming which were not caused by us and were warmer, so how do we know humans causing this gw? perhaps is sun.

read this link: http://www.co2scienc.../V17/N32/C1.php

when i asked how come that we dont messure rise of temperature in some parts of world i didnt asked why dont we have station allover. i asked why you dispute my graph from grenland? shouldnt that station messure rise of temperature too?

this you didnt answer. isnt wrong to say that 97% of scientists agrees on gw which are in fact 77 scientists in online poll. what us tell us about nature of IPCC?

polars bears and hurricanes were often pictured in media as sign of gw. i just want to clear this with you.

in another thread you said that "world is warmer than it was century ago." so? its cooler then during previous periods. isnt that cherry picking?

also you said that we need to move politics out of gw debate yet you said: to boycott china products to reduce pollution- this is to say atleast...politics.

isnt clouds causing more heating then humans. ofcourse if we agree that humans cause it. so to follow your reasoning, what will we do about clouds?

climategate is much wider then you wrote and they broke several laws. here is one link: http://blogs.nature...._broke_l_1.html

or climategate 2.0.

http://www.forbes.co...warming-debate/

all this questions, dilemas, affairs, technobabble, contraversy, contradictions makes common people to think thats something fishy about whole thing.

personally i start to questioned agw when al qaida start to talk about it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ng-in-new-tape/

Edited August 7, 2014 by Ichihara

[Rand0m_UMer_]

Public Relations firms offer nothing more than propaganda repackaged. I would prefer that these companies were not supporting my position on any issue. So thankfully, i am safe in this case

Scientific journals have been hijacked (some 30 years ago) and are now political in nature. More recent news on this issue can be found here

Edited August 7, 2014 by Rand0m_UMer_

[Doug1029]

Public Relations firms offer nothing more than propaganda repackaged. I would prefer that these companies were not supporting my position on any issue. So thankfully, i am safe in this case

Scientific journals have been hijacked (some 30 years ago) and are now political in nature. More recent news on this issue can be found here

So he's not going to publish in the top-tier journals. What about the other 6500 or so journals? Most grants have a publication requirement. If he doesn't publish, he won't be a scientist much longer.

Doug

Edited August 8, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

first why do you call people deniers who are sceptic about agw?

A skeptic is somebody who examines the best evidence available, critiques it and comes to a decision after due consideration of the issue. A denier is someone who doesn't consider the evidence before making up his mind and no amount of contrary evidence will change it.

talking about conspiracy did you read link about NASA and NOAA alter temperature to recent years look warmer? Here it is if you didnt: http://stevengoddard...ficial-at-noaa/

Here it is, right in the middle of the page. This is a direct quote from that site:

"3.2 degrees above the average recorded during the 20th century and 1.0 degree above 1998, until now the hottest on record."

And it's WRONG. There have been several warmer years since 1998. And if you don't believe NOAA (Global Temperature Anomalies address is:

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt), you can find the same information on the Hadley website (Hadley-Crutcher 3 address is: http://www.cru.uea.a...hadcrut3ggl.txt).

1998 was 0.62 C above the 1951-1980 average.

2002 tied with it: 0.62 degrees above the average.

2005: 0.64 C.

2007: 0.65 C.

2010: 0.67 C.

And according to NOAA, 2012 was 0.57 above the mean. IT WAS NOT A RECORD.

How could Mr. Goddard come up with such a piece of garbage? By reading the wrong column. November 2012 was the warmest November on record. That's ONE MONTH, not a year. Even then, he should have noted that the temperatures listed are in HUNDREDTHS OF A DEGREE. The last year that was a full degree colder than 2012 was 1917.

But this is why you should study the science. If you had known that there were several warmer years since 1998, you would have instantly recognized the article as a fraud. You need to read better-quality pseudo-science.

when we mention NOAA its interesting that NOAA runs Mauna Loa. they tried to trick us once why should i believe them again?

Why do I believe them? Because I can use tree ring thicknesses from Arkansas to predict the Keeling Curve with a high degree of accuracy. Trees don't lie. I don't take anybody at their word unless I can test it. And I have tested this one. It works.

its interesting how you compare climate journals to "Journal of evelutionary biology." ofcourse no one would disagree evolution in same monolithic journals.

Seeing as I no longer have a copy of what I wrote, I'm having a little trouble remembering, but as I recall, I was using the comparison as an example, assuming you would be familiar enough with evolution to grasp the concept.

but agw isnt evolution theory because there is no consensus among scientists. and btw Pat Michaels and Fred Singer arent only one who disagree with agw. there are plenty scientists.

As I recall, I explained that published journal articles - the scientific gold standard - show that 97% of published articles either explicitly state that warming is happening, or take it as given. That's not a poll. That's not an opinion. You can repeat the experiment yourself, if you like. Just get subscriptions to about 500 journals and start reading.

Yes. Three percent of 100,000 scientists is going to produce about 3000 who disagree. You ought to be able to find somebody in that group you can quote. The reason I picked on Dr. Singer is that he also said that smoking was not a health hazard and that the ozone hole wasn't a problem. Everybody makes mistakes, but those were two whoppers.

you agreed that sea level rise 7 inches per century. and whats your view on it?

I said that sounded about right. But that's a point-estimate - what's happening right now. If every temperate-zone glacial on earth melts, which will probably happen by 2100, it will raise sea levels about 18 inches. Sea level rise is accelerating. But there's only so much ice out there. If all of it melts, sea levels will rise a bit over 100 meters. But don't worry about that. It's still at least 200 years away and by that time, ecological collapse will get us.

also models failed once how do we know they will not fail us again?

If you're not a modeler, you'll have to trust the scientists. But if you are a modeler: the r^2-value is the amount of variation "explained" by the model; the standard error tells you how close the estimates came to the truth and the i-value tells you the chance that your model is wrong. Check the numbers.

what is interesting that we survive minoan warming and roman warming which were not caused by us and were warmer, so how do we know humans causing this gw? perhaps is sun.

Orbital mechanics is the explanation for those two. Orbital mechanics effects are exaggerated by feedback loops, so they have a greater effect than direct measurements would suggest.

How do I know it's not the sun? Solar output does not match the warming curve. Solar output has gone up and down eleven times since 1907 and is now actually lower than it was during the last cycle, but with only two brief respites, temperatures have risen steadily.

read this link: http://www.co2scienc.../V17/N32/C1.php

when i asked how come that we dont messure rise of temperature in some parts of world i didnt asked why dont we have station allover. i asked why you dispute my graph from grenland? shouldnt that station messure rise of temperature too?

this you didnt answer. isnt wrong to say that 97% of scientists agrees on gw which are in fact 77 scientists in online poll. what us tell us about nature of IPCC?

polars bears and hurricanes were often pictured in media as sign of gw. i just want to clear this with you.

in another thread you said that "world is warmer than it was century ago." so? its cooler then during previous periods. isnt that cherry picking?

also you said that we need to move politics out of gw debate yet you said: to boycott china products to reduce pollution- this is to say atleast...politics.

isnt clouds causing more heating then humans. ofcourse if we agree that humans cause it. so to follow your reasoning, what will we do about clouds?

climategate is much wider then you wrote and they broke several laws. here is one link: http://blogs.nature...._broke_l_1.html

or climategate 2.0.

http://www.forbes.co...warming-debate/

all this questions, dilemas, affairs, technobabble, contraversy, contradictions makes common people to think thats something fishy about whole thing.

personally i start to questioned agw when al qaida start to talk about it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ng-in-new-tape/

Edited August 8, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

A skeptic is somebody who examines the best evidence available, critiques it and comes to a decision after due consideration of the issue. A denier is someone who doesn't consider the evidence before making up his mind and no amount of contrary evidence will change it.

Here it is, right in the middle of the page. This is a direct quote from that site:

"3.2 degrees above the average recorded during the 20th century and 1.0 degree above 1998, until now the hottest on record."

And it's WRONG. There have been several warmer years since 1998. And if you don't believe NOAA (Global Temperature Anomalies address is:

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt), you can find the same information on the Hadley website (Hadley-Crutcher 3 address is: http://www.cru.uea.a...hadcrut3ggl.txt).

1998 was 0.62 C above the 1951-1980 average.

2002 tied with it: 0.62 degrees above the average.

2005: 0.64 C.

2007: 0.65 C.

2010: 0.67 C.

And according to NOAA, 2012 was 0.57 above the mean. IT WAS NOT A RECORD.

How could Mr. Goddard come up with such a piece of garbage? By reading the wrong column. November 2012 was the warmest November on record. That's ONE MONTH, not a year. Even then, he should have noted that the temperatures listed are in HUNDREDTHS OF A DEGREE. The last year that was a full degree colder than 2012 was 1917.

But this is why you should study the science. If you had known that there were several warmer years since 1998, you would have instantly recognized the article as a fraud. You need to read better-quality pseudo-science.

Why do I believe them? Because I can use tree ring thicknesses from Arkansas to predict the Keeling Curve with a high degree of accuracy. Trees don't lie. I don't take anybody at their word unless I can test it. And I have tested this one. It works.

Seeing as I no longer have a copy of what I wrote, I'm having a little trouble remembering, but as I recall, I was using the comparison as an example, assuming you would be familiar enough with evolution to grasp the concept.

As I recall, I explained that published journal articles - the scientific gold standard - show that 97% of published articles either explicitly state that warming is happening, or take it as given. That's not a poll. That's not an opinion. You can repeat the experiment yourself, if you like. Just get subscriptions to about 500 journals and start reading.

Yes. Three percent of 100,000 scientists is going to produce about 3000 who disagree. You ought to be able to find somebody in that group you can quote. The reason I picked on Dr. Singer is that he also said that smoking was not a health hazard and that the ozone hole wasn't a problem. Everybody makes mistakes, but those were two whoppers.

I said that sounded about right. But that's a point-estimate - what's happening right now. If every temperate-zone glacial on earth melts, which will probably happen by 2100, it will raise sea levels about 18 inches. Sea level rise is accelerating. But there's only so much ice out there. If all of it melts, sea levels will rise a bit over 100 meters. But don't worry about that. It's still at least 200 years away and by that time, ecological collapse will get us.

If you're not a modeler, you'll have to trust the scientists. But if you are a modeler: the r^2-value is the amount of variation "explained" by the model; the standard error tells you how close the estimates came to the truth and the i-value tells you the chance that your model is wrong. Check the numbers.

Orbital mechanics is the explanation for those two. Orbital mechanics effects are exaggerated by feedback loops, so they have a greater effect than direct measurements would suggest.

How do I know it's not the sun? Solar output does not match the warming curve. Solar output has gone up and down eleven times since 1907 and is now actually lower than it was during the last cycle, but with only two brief respites, temperatures have risen steadily.

The system is telling me I have too many blocks of text - that after I worked over an hour on it. Repost your questions and I'll try again when I have the time.

Doug

[Doug1029]

its okay Doug. i read them. i will answer you when i catch time.

UM's system is getting senile. It took all the quoted material out of my last post. You'll have to cross-check with your post to see which items I was answering. I never got to the end; the system started acting squirrelly before I finished. An hour's work gone!

Anyway, repost anything you want me to answer.

Doug

[Ichihara]

repost

read this link: http://www.co2scienc.../V17/N32/C1.php

when i asked how come that we dont messure rise of temperature in some parts of world i didnt asked why dont we have station allover. i asked why you dispute my graph from grenland? shouldnt that station messure rise of temperature too?

this you didnt answer. isnt wrong to say that 97% of scientists agrees on gw which are in fact 77 scientists in online poll. what us tell us about nature of IPCC?

polars bears and hurricanes were often pictured in media as sign of gw. i just want to clear this with you.

in another thread you said that "world is warmer than it was century ago." so? its cooler then during previous periods. isnt that cherry picking?

also you said that we need to move politics out of gw debate yet you said: to boycott china products to reduce pollution- this is to say atleast...politics.

isnt clouds causing more heating then humans. ofcourse if we agree that humans cause it. so to follow your reasoning, what will we do about clouds?

climategate is much wider then you wrote and they broke several laws. here is one link: http://blogs.nature...._broke_l_1.html

or climategate 2.0.

http://www.forbes.co...warming-debate/

all this questions, dilemas, affairs, technobabble, contraversy, contradictions makes common people to think thats something fishy about whole thing.

personally i start to questioned agw when al qaida start to talk about it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ng-in-new-tape/

[Doug1029]

repost

UM computer: 2

Me: 0

I work in an office full of people who sit at computers all day and work on high-tech problems, do all sorts of wondrous things. Yet nobody can program his cell phone. It was the office janitor who noted that.

I'll see if I can answer those other questions:

read this link: http://www.co2scienc.../V17/N32/C1.php

when i asked how come that we dont messure rise of temperature in some parts of world i didnt asked why dont we have station allover. i asked why you dispute my graph from grenland? shouldnt that station messure rise of temperature too?

"That station" is an ice core (GISP2). Temperatures are inferred from oxygen isotope ratios in the ice. Age of the sample is determined from carbon isotope ratios in trapped CO2, During warmer times more water bearing lighter isotopes evaporates from the sea and falls as snow on the ice cap. When temperatures cool down, there are more heavy isotopes in the sample. The ratio of lighter-to-heavier isotopes is used to determine the temperature and the time it was laid down.

That ice core describes temps at its location ONLY. There are different things happening in different places; thus, no one record is representative of the world at large. In some places it gets warmer, while in others it gets colder. Fort Smith Arkansas and Amarillo Texas are showing the effects of warming: you can use Hansen's list of temperature anomalies to calculate the mean annual temps in both places. Williamsburg North Carolina and Meridian Mississippi are not warming. To find out what the average conditions are world-wide, you need records from around the world. Then average the averages.

this you didnt answer. isnt wrong to say that 97% of scientists agrees on gw which are in fact 77 scientists in online poll. what us tell us about nature of IPCC?

Online polls are pretty much worthless. That is because each person gets to decide for himself whether he will respond. And that means that people who didn't respond are not represented in the sample. If you took a whole bunch of different polls in a whole bunch of different demographics, you might be able to figure out who is responding and who isn't and what they would say if they did respond. But that is pretty sophisticated stuff and online polls don't spend the kind of money to do it (or they'd have sampled a LOT more than 77 people) or, in most cases, even realize that it is possible.

The study I mentioned above was not a poll. It was done from published research articles. That way, you know that the people responding are real scientists and they don't have a chance to opt out of the sample.

polars bears and hurricanes were often pictured in media as sign of gw. i just want to clear this with you.

Polar bears survived an ice-free Arctic on the Canadian islands during the Altithermal. I expect they'll do it again. I don't think that melt-off of Arctic ice will exterminate them, but it will probably reduce their numbers. "The media" was mostly the National Wildlife Federation which used pictures of cute polar bear cubs to raise money.

There are simply not enough hurricanes each year and their numbers are too variable to allow forecasts to be made. There really is no way to tell if NUMBERS of hurricanes are increasing. But the whole idea was that storms dissipate atmospheric energy, so if that increases, there will be more storms. Well, there are more storms: little ones. But the statistics fizzle out before you get to hurricanes.

in another thread you said that "world is warmer than it was century ago." so? its cooler then during previous periods. isnt that cherry picking?

A few European cities have records going back to 1600. But that's a pretty small number in one pretty small area; the US has COUNTIES larger than many European countries and we have 3355 counties or county equivalents(Louisiana calls theirs "parishes" and Alaska calls theirs "boroughs," ten of which are "unorganized boroughs" and aren't counted.). The army started keeping weather records on the American frontier in 1838 (Manhattan Kansas has a record that goes back that far, as does Fort Smith Arkansas and Fort Sill Oklahoma.). But when the Territory of Oklahoma became the Indian Nations, the army quit keeping records here. It wasn't until the 1880s that feeble attempts at data collection were made. The Weather Bureau opened 20 stations in Oklahoma in 1892. The oldest station on the Ouachita (Mena Arkansas) opened in 1906.

My point is that we have used all the data we have. That keeps it from being "cherry-picking."

also you said that we need to move politics out of gw debate yet you said: to boycott china products to reduce pollution- this is to say atleast...politics.

Right. We need to get politics out of climate discussions. But how? Whatever changes are made, they will involve people and people love their politics.

isnt clouds causing more heating then humans. ofcourse if we agree that humans cause it. so to follow your reasoning, what will we do about clouds?

Clouds do not cause warming. They respond to it. More heat energy in the system evaporates more water from the sea which condenses in the air to form clouds. A warmed planet is going to be a cloudier place.

What do we do about clouds? Aside from clouds not being a problem? We could cool the planet. Less evaporation, less condensation, fewer clouds.

climategate is much wider then you wrote and they broke several laws. here is one link: http://blogs.nature...._broke_l_1.html

The university's own internal investigation found that no laws had been broken by university personnel, but criticized the researchers for "not being more forthcoming with information." They didn't do a very good job of fielding requests, but they didn't break any laws.

I reviewed those events myself. The only example of actual law-breaking I could find were those of the people who "hacked" the university's computers, stole private correspondence and then released parts of it out-of-context so as to do the most damage. That constitutes theft and criminal mischief.

or climategate 2.0.

http://www.forbes.co...warming-debate/

First, the source is a blog - one man's opinion. If you want to start a blog and say that little green men from Zara are causing global warming, you're allowed to do it. And anybody who wants to believe you can. Second, the blog is called "Nature" in a transparent attempt to seem like it speaks for the journal "Nature." It doesn't. And if I had just been through what those guys went through, I'd be deleting emails, too. I saw nothing in that blog to indicate that he didn't make up the entire thing, like the author in the post I answered yesterday had done.

Michael Mann is mentioned in the blog. He has filed a libel suit against the people who charged him with falsifying data and results. The judge has upheld all seven complaints and the trail has moved to the exploratory phase. The court will rule on whether or not the law was broken and whether Mann's charges are well-founded. We'll just have to wait until it does.

all this questions, dilemas, affairs, technobabble, contraversy, contradictions makes common people to think thats something fishy about whole thing.

personally i start to questioned agw when al qaida start to talk about it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ng-in-new-tape/

All those "questions, dilemmas, affairs, technobabble and contradictions" are deliberately put out there by deniers who are paid to do so by the world's worst polluters, including Koch Industries.

Technobabble is usually a giveaway that the speaker doesn't know what he's talking about (on both sides). They use big words to hide their ignorance. The most-complex scientific ideas can usually be expressed in fifty words or less, maybe a hundred in a few cases. Watch Neil de Grasse Tyson. He explains science to grade schoolers.

There are some scientific concepts that require some study to fully grasp. A friend of mine studies chaos theory as a hobby - I don't think I'll ever get it. But most of the technical stuff just involves the statistics needed to determine whether something is true. If you don't care about proving something, then you don't need to know them.

I hope I can get this past UM's eletronic monster.

Doug

Edited August 8, 2014 by Doug1029

[Ichihara]

In some places it gets warmer, while in others it gets colder.

thats why i said that people start to think its fishy about all thing.

and whats your view on al qaida as agw proponets?

(or they'd have sampled a LOT more than 77 people)

its 77. and its really unscientific. by IPCC.

There really is no way to tell if NUMBERS of hurricanes are increasing.

http://www.washingto...ve-in-30-years/

its blog but you have refrences

That keeps it from being "cherry-picking."

but why not look period of 1000 years or 2000 years? who decide to look in last 100 years?

Right. We need to get politics out of climate discussions. But how? Whatever changes are made, they will involve people and people love their politics.

paradox situation. and it contradicts you.

All those "questions, dilemmas, affairs, technobabble and contradictions" are deliberately put out there by deniers who are paid to do so by the world's worst polluters, including Koch Industries.

maybe its other way around.

http://in.reuters.co...E9AS0H520131129

http://wattsupwithth...llow-the-money/

http://www.thewire.c...trillion/67605/

"$140 billion in government grants" "$315 billion"

huge investments dont you agree?

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ichihara

[Ichihara]

its seems that you didnt notice why i bring this up. maybe it is sun afterall. unique and rare event.

http://www.co2scienc.../V17/N32/C1.php

As a "unique" and "rare" event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question. Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun's influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth's atmosphere.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ichihara

[Doug1029]

thats why i said that people start to think its fishy about all thing.

and whats your view on al qaida as agw proponets?

They certainly aren't helping matters. Who they are is speaking louder than what they're saying.

its 77. and its really unscientific. by IPCC.

To the best of my knowledge, IPCC does not do its own research. They rely on others for that. I am wondering where you found this. Could you refer me to the original publication?

http://www.washingto...ve-in-30-years/

its blog but you have refrences

The article is about the 2013 hurricane season which had only 12 hurricanes, less than usual. To determine if the number is increasing, you need to compare the current climate conditions (usually 1981 to 2010) with the previous one (1951 to 1980). You could compare 1984-2013 with 1954-1983. Either way, you need sixty years of data to make a comparison. Otherwise you don't have enough observations to run the analysis. There is an increase only if the difference is large enough to overcome natural variation. The problem is that any increase has occurred only in the last few years, so we don't have enough data to detect it yet.

There are better measures of atmospheric activity than number of hurricanes. One such method is the standard error of the daily temperature run. You can track changes on a monthly basis with it, though you still have the problem of annual variation that you're not considering.

but why not look period of 1000 years or 2000 years? who decide to look in last 100 years?

That period was chosen because that period (1891 to 2010) is the period for which we have adequate weather observations. Also, the temperature excursion began in 1907. Before that, global temps were falling.

paradox situation. and it contradicts you.

It's the difference between what should be done and what can be done.

maybe its other way around.

http://in.reuters.co...E9AS0H520131129

http://wattsupwithth...llow-the-money/

http://www.thewire.c...trillion/67605/

"$140 billion in government grants" "$315 billion"

huge investments dont you agree?

Yes it is. But your sources are notoriously unreliable. I'd want to double-check those numbers before I believed them.

Watts is one of those folks who thinks we shouldn't build a new power grid because "it's too expensive." His prescription: let the old one fail, then spend three times as much on a crash program to rebuild it. Got to wonder about that boy's arithmetic.

And: if we are going to do anything about climate change, that's just a drop in the bucket. And not doing anything will be more expensive. Pay me now or pay me later - either way, you get to pay.

Doug

Edited August 9, 2014 by Doug1029

[Ichihara]

can you respond on post 69.

about 77 and IPCC. i recived information about consensus from IPCC. link for 77: http://wattsupwithth...ists-consensus/

you have refrences.

edit:btw since when reuters become notoriously unreliable?

Edited August 10, 2014 by Ichihara

[skookum]

Am I alone in not really giving a damn either way?

I will be gone the way of the Dodo before I drown in rising sea levels.

Whether it is happening or not the only ones deluded are those who think the world with miraculously ditch fossil fuels for windmills. Won't happen, too many third world growing economies whose people want to cut themselves a slice of what the western world have enjoyed for many decades. From them cheap coal, gas and oil is the answer end of.

If these over paid scientists really want to make a difference they should be looking into viable alternatives, carbon capture and changes in farming which doesn't involve us all returning to the dark ages.

The planet has been warming we know that, whether it is man made or not natural is irrelevant now. What we need is answers not the same old rubbish thrown at us over and over again. I think most people are bored of hearing it now like anything people go on and on about in life.

[Doug1029]

its seems that you didnt notice why i bring this up. maybe it is sun afterall. unique and rare event.

http://www.co2scienc.../V17/N32/C1.php

If you'll look at that graph: temperatures tracked pretty well with solar output until about 1900. Then they quit tracking each other. What happened to cause the change? That red line is the modern temperature record; it doesn't follow solar output.

As a "unique" and "rare" event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question. Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun's influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth's atmosphere.

It's not an assumption. The effects have been measured and correlated with temps. I'd have to look up the studies to give you the details and I'm at home at the moment. The stuff I need is in my office.

Doug

[Doug1029]

edit:btw since when reuters become notoriously unreliable?

Reuters is popular press. They try to be honest and accurate subject to time constraints, but they have to publish a huge volume of material and they don't have the resources or the time to fact-check everything. And their writers aren't climate scientists - they're writers. They don't have the in-depth knowledge needed to make them reliable sources of climate science. They also have the problem of having to sell articles, so they do a little sensationalizing.

Lord knows we have enough trouble eliminating mistakes. That's what peer review is supposed to do, but stuff still gets through that shouldn't.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Am I alone in not really giving a damn either way?

You're posting here. You think it worth at least that much effort.

I will be gone the way of the Dodo before I drown in rising sea levels.

So will we all. But who is going to move the New York subway system out of harm's way? They flooded out during the Sandy disaster and there are more severe storms on the way. Each little rise in sea level makes it that much worse. One-third of the world's people live near the coasts. Rising sea levels haven't made a big difference yet, but that isn't much consolation if the little difference they made was your farm, or the entire island you live on, or the house you own on the seashore. Those have already happened with more to come.

Whether it is happening or not the only ones deluded are those who think the world with miraculously ditch fossil fuels for windmills.

Would you do it if it cut your electric bill? Wind is already cheaper than any other form of electric power except gas-fired turbines and the two are neck-and-neck. Solar will probably catch up in a few years.

Won't happen, too many third world growing economies whose people want to cut themselves a slice of what the western world have enjoyed for many decades. From them cheap coal, gas and oil is the answer end of.

You have hit the nail on the head. No solution will work if it doesn't meet the needs of the world's people. A starving man will kill the last spotted owl, or cut the last redwood, to feed his family. Climate solutions must be people solutions in order to work.

That is why big business fears climate change. They think it automatically means socialism. That's what comes from not seeing beyond the end of your nose, of thinking like OIL or COAL companies instead of like ENERGY companies. Some of these companies will fail and should, but others will make the switch to renewables and prosper. It is up to each one to decide which it is going to be.

If these over paid scientists really want to make a difference they should be looking into viable alternatives, carbon capture and changes in farming which doesn't involve us all returning to the dark ages.

That is being done. Carbon sequestration in basalt formations, for example. Trapping carbon in the soil with better tillage methods already exists and the US has all the machinery needed to get most of it done in three years' time (Application of some techniques will have to wait for existing contracts to expire before they can be applied - take about ten years. What we lack is the political will to do it.).

And nobody's talking about returning to the dark ages. We could make the switch to wind without even turning the power off - you'd never know the change had happened. The New England grid has already signed the contracts to begin converting to wind with gas backup. There is a lot happening under the conservative's radar. The actual implementation is happening while the politicians dither.

The planet has been warming we know that, whether it is man made or not natural is irrelevant now. What we need is answers not the same old rubbish thrown at us over and over again. I think most people are bored of hearing it now like anything people go on and on about in life.

The first thing to do is turn off the problem by switching to clean energy. Then we can get started on reducing CO2. Efforts to reduce CO2 will fail unless we first get rid of the source of the problem.

Doug