Hawking: 'Trump could turn Earth in to Venus'

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I'm not surprised by the difference shown in the two graphs.  That is exactly what one would expect to see when new data is added in one localized part of the dataset.  We're really trying to compare apples and oranges here.  Makes a nice fruit salad.

This is not an issue of adding new data. This is the adjustment of existing data. This is not apples and oranges, this is Apples only and you keep talking about oranges. 

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

This is not an issue of adding new data. This is the adjustment of existing data. This is not apples and oranges, this is Apples only and you keep talking about oranges. 

So? As the East Anglia intercepts show, they have been manipulating the data for years and years.

And yet, the models used to justify it all continue to be woefully inaccurate. 

 

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-inconsistent-


Still, the larger issue is confusing Nature caused cycles of climate flux, hopefully still on a trend warming away from another "Ice Age" rather than cooling towards such, with false data and models overplaying the human caused factors (which are near negligible).

[lost_shaman]

13 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

So?

Doug keeps talking about adding new data when that is not what is being discussed.

[lost_shaman]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

P.S.:  Here's a link to a wiki item about Anthony Watts: 

Wikipedia might be a fine quick reference for something benign like the population of Portugal, but it is not a valid reference for anything semi-controversial or for people. It is almost exclusively run and edited by left leaning people who let those political leanings show in their editing of certain topics including people they don't like such as Watts. 

 

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

P.P.S.:  Even if he were right about solar-output being the important variable, he ignores the need to do something about it.  His assumption that "It's natural, so it's not our fault if the world gets too hot to sustain human life" would result in our extinction.  Whether or not humans have caused climate change, we'll be just as dead either way if we continue to ignore the problem.

For one thing if he is right about solar-output being the important variable then what you do about it is very different than what you or Al Gore or any number of people and Organizations want to do about it. 

Also why are you talking about extinction? Get Alarmist very much Doug? 

The greater threat would be cooling by far to be honest.

[Doug1029]

16 hours ago, Harte said:

A grand jury is not an indication that any one individual is under criminal investigation. No special counsel (or special prosecutor) has ever not convened a grand jury.

Harte

No special counsel has ever adjourned a grand jury without finding anything to prosecute, either.

Since I wrote that, the Whitehouse has admitted receiving a request for documents pertaining to Flynn.  Also, one for documents pertaining to Kushner's Russian meeting.  And grand juries tend to keep their mouths shut, so we still have months to go before we know anything definitive.

Doug

[Michelle]

FBI confirms grand jury subpoenas used in Clinton email probe

Contrary to widespread reports, federal prosecutors issued grand jury subpoenas in connection with an investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server, an FBI official indicated in a court filing this week.

After FBI Director James Comey announced last July that there were no plans to prosecute Hillary Clinton or her top aides in connection with the exchange of sensitive national security information on her private email system, many Republicans argued that the FBI pulled its punches in the probe, particularly by failing to convene a grand jury that could subpoena records and evidence related to the case.

However, a top FBI official revealed in a civil lawsuit this week that investigators used grand jury subpoenas in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain archived copies of some of Clinton's old email messages.

cont...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/04/27/hillary-clinton-emails-subpoenas-fbi-237712

[Doug1029]

15 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

This is not an issue of adding new data. This is the adjustment of existing data. This is not apples and oranges, this is Apples only and you keep talking about oranges

Zierden said it was.

"Earlier this year NOAA recomputed the entire Climate Division, adding more observations early in the 20th century that had been digitized in the last decade or so."

Why is it that when somebody else says something, you like it, but when I say it, so decide it's automatically wrong?

Doug

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-inconsistent-


Still, the larger issue is confusing Nature caused cycles of climate flux, hopefully still on a trend warming away from another "Ice Age" rather than cooling towards such, with false data and models overplaying the human caused factors (which are near negligible).

Start with the first sentence:

"As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses..."

This is wrong.  The Paris Accords are voluntary.  No country has to do anything.  It is up to each to examine its own situation and do what it feels it can to implement them.  And that's one reason such accords have never worked in the past.  Except for Trmp, every President since Reagan has endorsed global warming and then done nothing.  The Accords cannot saddle America with any sort of debt we don't want to accept.

Dropping out of them was not such a great idea, either.  If we were members, we could determine what future agreements and accords say.  But now that we have joined Syria and Venezuela, we have no say in the matter.

 

Next item:

"According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:"

Peer reviews are conducted by research journals prior to publication, not by " administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities."   The original report brings out some valid criticisms, but this particular article seems to have confused everything.  Next time, post the original report (https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf) and not some distorted misinterpretation of it.

I note that this "report" has never been peer reviewed by anybody and has not been published in the scientific literature, which all makes me suspicious that there is a serious problem in there that I don't know about.

Doug

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Wikipedia might be a fine quick reference for something benign like the population of Portugal, but it is not a valid reference for anything semi-controversial or for people. It is almost exclusively run and edited by left leaning people who let those political leanings show in their editing of certain topics including people they don't like such as Watts. 

Want scientific corroboration?

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0002764213477096

Here's another:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01199.x/full

I'm sure you can come up with many scientific articles that refer to Mr. Watts.  He is creating quite a stir.

 

Non-scientific articles:

https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm

I know.  It's published in Skeptical Scientist, but not as a research paper.

 

The problem with Watts is not his opposition to climate change, but his misquoting of authors and distortion of actual findings.  His purpose is to mislead and confuse, not to inform and educate.

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

For one thing if he is right about solar-output being the important variable then what you do about it is very different than what you or Al Gore or any number of people and Organizations want to do about it.

What we do about it is reduce the CO2-content of the atmosphere.  We do that by converting to clean energy and by removing carbon from the atmosphere and putting it in the ground.  I haven't seen Al Gore's latest, but I wonder if he isn't doing more harm than good.  He's too politically polarizing.

If he's right and reducing atmospheric CO2 to 200 ppm, then we have to add geoengineering - essentially orbiting sunshades.  There are a bunch of proposals for this, but so far, nothing has gone beyond the talking stage.  And all these ideas will be expensive.  Why do that when we can switch to clean energy cheaper and sva money doing it?

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Also why are you talking about extinction? Get Alarmist very much Doug? 

The greater threat would be cooling by far to be honest.

While earth will never become another Venus, it can still approach the boiling point.  There's enough carbon available to do that.

At the current rate, it will take 300 to 500 years to get there, so extinction is not imminent, viewed from the perspective of a single human life.  But from the perspective of civilizations, it is just around the corner.  It will come about when something goes functionally extinct that we depend on to keep the ecosystem running.  Bees?  Certainly without the European honey bee we will have less food available.  Phytoplankton in the oceans and forests that together generate the oxygen we breath?  Maybe.  We've already killed off a substantial part of the Gulf of Mexico and deforested both Europe and North America (In both cases, we're below the maintenance level.).

The methane gun is still down there.  It has fired before, causing mass extinctions.  If we keep warming the oceans, we could trigger it again, bringing about our own demise.

So, yes.  Our own extinction is now within the range of practical possibilities.  Being concerned about and trying to slow warming to prevent it is just being prudent.

 

Cooling?  That's something we don't have to worry about.  We know how to warm the planet.  We're doing it without even trying.  As long as humans control climate, there will never be another ice age.

Doug

[Harte]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

No special counsel has ever adjourned a grand jury without finding anything to prosecute, either.

Since I wrote that, the Whitehouse has admitted receiving a request for documents pertaining to Flynn.  Also, one for documents pertaining to Kushner's Russian meeting.  And grand juries tend to keep their mouths shut, so we still have months to go before we know anything definitive.

Doug

There was an earlier grand jury in the Flynn case. Who was prosecuted then?

Harte

Edited August 5, 2017 by Harte

[Doug1029]

31 minutes ago, Harte said:

There was an earlier grand jury in the Flynn case. Who was prosecuted then?

Harte

That grand jury is still sitting, though its term will soon expire.

Also, Muehler is still investigating.  I sort of doubt he will prosecute anything from just the Virginia grand jury, though he will probably use material collected by it when he finally does prosecute.  He's after the whole picture, of which Virginia is a small part.  We may not know for years if there will be a prosecution based on the Virginia grand jury findings and even if there is, it will probably include evidence from other sources.

And even if the term expires, it can always be reconvened.

Doug

Edited August 5, 2017 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Zierden said it was.

"Earlier this year NOAA recomputed the entire Climate Division, adding more observations early in the 20th century that had been digitized in the last decade or so."

Why is it that when somebody else says something, you like it, but when I say it, so decide it's automatically wrong?

Doug

While you can cherry pick that one example, it is not true for the other datasets and adjustments I've pointed out and the adjustments were made to the entire dataset not simply that "early in the 20th century" part of the dataset. You are ignoring this and I won't let you get by with that.

[lost_shaman]

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I note that this "report" has never been peer reviewed by anybody and has not been published in the scientific literature, which all makes me suspicious that there is a serious problem in there that I don't know about.

 

It was reviewed. If you had looked at the report the reviewers are all listed right after the cover page.

 

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

What we do about it is reduce the CO2-content of the atmosphere.  We do that by converting to clean energy and by removing carbon from the atmosphere and putting it in the ground.  I haven't seen Al Gore's latest, but I wonder if he isn't doing more harm than good.  He's too politically polarizing.

If he's right and reducing atmospheric CO2 to 200 ppm, then we have to add geoengineering - essentially orbiting sunshades.

 

No. If Solar activity is the important variable then CO2 is not, therefore reducing CO2 is a waste of time i.e. that's not the problem so it doesn't help. However, why am I not surprised that even hypothetically you are still laser focused on the CO2 boggy Man?

Reducing CO2 levels to 200 ppm would be devastating to Plant life and be dangerously close to the limit where Photosynthesis would fail. It would be foolish and accomplish nothing but would certainly stress the Planets Plant life unnecessarily.

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If he's right and reducing atmospheric CO2 to 200 ppm, then we have to add geoengineering - essentially orbiting sunshades.  There are a bunch of proposals for this, but so far, nothing has gone beyond the talking stage.  And all these ideas will be expensive.  Why do that when we can switch to clean energy cheaper and sva money doing it?

Actually, this is something I've thought about in the past. It would not be that expensive. My idea is that you could send hundreds of small satellites each with its own Solar Sail out to Lagrange point 1. Then you can control how much light they block by controlling how many deploy their Sails (just in front of L1) and how many don't. Simple and relatively cheap. 

 

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

While earth will never become another Venus, it can still approach the boiling point.  There's enough carbon available to do that.

No there is not. 

 

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

At the current rate, it will take 300 to 500 years to get there, so extinction is not imminent, viewed from the perspective of a single human life. 

At the current rate, 500 years only gets you to something like 5,500 GtC total emissions which would be in the low end of this Model described at the link below. At worst 4 degrees C of warming and no where near Doug's boiling point!

https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/26700/

 

 

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That grand jury is still sitting, though its term will soon expire.

Also, Muehler is still investigating.  I sort of doubt he will prosecute anything from just the Virginia grand jury, though he will probably use material collected by it when he finally does prosecute.  He's after the whole picture, of which Virginia is a small part.  We may not know for years if there will be a prosecution based on the Virginia grand jury findings and even if there is, it will probably include evidence from other sources.

And even if the term expires, it can always be reconvened.

Doug

Ergo, we have a grand jury that didn't prosecute.

Harte

[lost_shaman]

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

At the current rate, 500 years only gets you to something like 5,500 GtC total emissions which would be in the low end of this Model described at the link below. At worst 4 degrees C of warming and no where near Doug's boiling point!

https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/26700/

 

Let me put this into perspective. So far since the beginning of the industrial revolution Humanity has released ~380 GtC and in the last three years these total emissions have plateaued at 9.9 GtC/yr. (1) This likely represents the high end of yearly Global emissions as reliance on Coal globally decreases. While this may not prove to be the Peak in Global annual emissions, it is likely very close to it. As such, the Doomsday junk that Doug talks about is pure fantasy! 

This does not even take into account obvious limiting parameters like "Peak Oil" (2), there will certainly be physical limits on the amount of fuels that can be extracted from known deposits. Current rates of extraction can not continue for hundreds of years into the future as Doug and other Alarmists must assume to "Boil the Earth" or whatever. 

Technology over the near future will make what fossil fuels we do use more efficient; at the same time new technology will continue to improve and introduce new energy sources. The latter continue to grow and no end seems to be foreseeable at this point. (3)

Quote

"Thus, not only has renewable energy's share of total domestic electrical generation nearly doubled in the past seven years, it has reached a level of output that EIA—just five years ago—did not anticipate happening for another four decades," Ken Bossong, executive director of the SUN DAY Campaign, noted.

 

1. Analysis: What global emissions in 2016 mean for climate change goals.

2. Peak Oil? Cornell University. 

3. Renewable Energy Growth: 40 Years Ahead of EIA's Forecast

Edited August 6, 2017 by lost_shaman
add links to show Sky is not Falling, Spelling.

[lost_shaman]

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Cooling?  That's something we don't have to worry about.  We know how to warm the planet.  We're doing it without even trying.  As long as humans control climate, there will never be another ice age.

Cooling is the biggest threat to Human survival that we know of. Vulcanism and Asteroids or Comets could cause catastrophic cooling at anytime that would be devastating to Human civilization on this Planet. 

That you hand wave this away as nothing is telling. 

Also the idea that Humans control the climate is not true. What we do influences a small small part of the influences that dominate the Climate at large.

Edited August 6, 2017 by lost_shaman

[lost_shaman]

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Also, Muehler is still investigating.  I sort of doubt he will prosecute anything from just the Virginia grand jury, though he will probably use material collected by it when he finally does prosecute.  He's after the whole picture, of which Virginia is a small part.  We may not know for years if there will be a prosecution based on the Virginia grand jury findings and even if there is, it will probably include evidence from other sources.

Anonymous sources tell CNN "collusion" between Putin and Top Kremlin officials is highly likely.

[Doug1029]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 3:31 PM, lost_shaman said:

While you can cherry pick that one example, it is not true for the other datasets and adjustments I've pointed out and the adjustments were made to the entire dataset not simply that "early in the 20th century" part of the dataset. You are ignoring this and I won't let you get by with that.

Strange that when we started this discussion you thought all data corrections were deliberate biases.  You had nasty things to say about Burnette's paper which employed a lot of corrections.  Now you have decided that at least some of his corrections were necessary.  I guess that's progress.

Adding additional data is one thing that increases the slope of the line because older data have lower temperature readings than more-recent data.  I expect we'll continue to see more of this.

Zierdan has a point, or did you miss that when I said it?  While the individual algorithms are justifiable scientifically, their cumulative effect may not be.  However, if you are going to whine about it and make claims that it is not accurate, you need a basis for doing so.  What is your basis?  Why don't you do some serious research into that and actually explain what is going on?

Note that your graphs are for US surface temps, not sea surface temps, not global temps, not atmospheric temps.  Also note that temperature is only one metric.  Storminess is another.  It can be measured simply by counting the number of times measureable rainfall was recorded at a given station in a month, or by the number of times barometric pressure dropped below a given level.  There are others, like the extent and duration of snow cover (measurable by satellite) or changes in range of armadillos.  Others are changes in migration dates of birds, or blooming dates of flowers.  When I was an undergrad back in the 60s, there was a study of blooming dates of lilacs in North Idaho; this has been repeated many times since - seems to be a favorite topic of graduate students at the U of I - and the blooming dates keep getting earlier.

Climate change is now undeniable by anyone who has looked at it.  Only the uninformed and easily misled still try to deny it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:54 PM, lost_shaman said:

Cooling is the biggest threat to Human survival that we know of. Vulcanism and Asteroids or Comets could cause catastrophic cooling at anytime that would be devastating to Human civilization on this Planet. 

That you hand wave this away as nothing is telling. 

Also the idea that Humans control the climate is not true. What we do influences a small small part of the influences that dominate the Climate at large.

Yes, and we could see another impact like the KT boundary one.  That would indeed be serious.  But it's the only one we know of in geologic history so a repeat is not likely within the next few million years.  Maybe the Younger Dryas was precipitated by a comet-strike on the ice sheet - and maybe not.  A repeat of that would be disastrous, but not likely to destroy civilization - and there hasn't been one like that in almost 13,000 years.  Maybe we could experience another Tunguska or Chelyabinsk, but those had little, if any, effect on weather and none on climate.  Even loss f a major city would have little effect globally.  What are the odds?  Certainly we can make up all sorts of disastrous and improbable scenarios.  But what is the point if you can't do anything about it?  NASA is working on a system to re-align orbits of asteroids so they won't strike the earth, but we haven't discovered them all yet and might get blind-sided.  Comets are beyond our ability, at least as of now.  Maybe in a few hundred years we'll have the technology - if we're still here to use it.

 

Tamboura caused barely a ripple in the tree ring record.  It produced a triple-ring signature for 1817-1819.  It caused some problems with weather in New England and Europe and was indirectly responsible for Frankenstein.  There was crop failure and starvation.

Fimbul Winter (535-537) is registered in the tree ring record.  It's the worst winter we know about and was probably the result of a volcanic eruption in South America.  Gottland had continuous winter for three years.  The Journal of the Four Masters records "shortage of bread" for 536 AD.

Loki-Grimsvoten left a tree-ring signature on the form of increased numbers of ice storms in the Americas.

And Krakatoa blew its top in 1883, producing severe winters in North America in 1886.  There's at least one climate research project underway to study the great storm and I am contemplating another.  109 people froze to death in their houses in Kansas.  Cattle dead by the tens of thousands - 7000 in the Cherokee Strip.  Millionaire ranchers reduced to picking up cattle bones to sell for fertilizer.  Providence harbor froze over for the only time in its history.  Forty below temps in Wichita, Providence, Hopkinsville, KY and Washington DC.  We have cost-sharing programs for people who want to increase insulation in their houses, but we also have conservatives in Congress trying to do away with those programs.

 

Back in the 1960s the US had a three-year grain reserve for emergencies such as these.  It was created through price supports - the govt simply bought up surplus grain to keep the prices up.  But conservatives in Congress viewed that as - Horrors!  SOCIALISM!  They ended the program and sold off the grain.  We now have a reserve good for only a few days.  So, thanks to government-by-ideology we have no safety net.  At least we'll all die as capitalists.

 

There is no tree-ring or ice core evidence of any volcanic winter lasting longer than six years since the end of the last ice age.  That's what we need to plan for in the short run.  It's long past time to throw the ideologues out of Congress and take action.  We should re-instate government purchasing of surplus grain so as to create at minimum, a three-year reserve.  The administrative machinery to do it is already in place.  What we need to get it done is a liberal Congress and a competent President.

When we study climate change, we're looking at 30-year changes.  A six-year change is weather doing its thing, not climate.  That is, unless there is a permanent change driving the short-term one.  In that case, it will take us 30 years to figure it out - like the "wild weather" we've been seeing since about 2007.  Turns out that the temperature excursion that started in 1976 was the result of a new evaporation basin opening in the Drake Passage.  We didn't figure that out until about three years ago.  That same excursion ended in 1998 when a "warm pool" developed in the western Pacific - westward blowing trade winds pushed warm water underneath the warm-water cap, driving the heat into the oceans and creating the "hiatus" on land.  But again, that wasn't discovered until about two or three years ago.

 

The only climate change humans can accomplish at the moment is to heat up the planet slowly or rapidly.  We do have some control, albeit, not much.  But that's enough to stop an ice age which requires centuries of feedback to get going.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:11 PM, Harte said:

Meanwhile, it's looking like we may be up for a second special prosecutor, or at least a special counsel:

Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice

If we really want to "drain the swamp" it's going to take more than just cleaning out the Trmp Whitehouse.  I would like to see the FBI appoint special prosecutors to examine every single Congressman (Dems and Rubs, Liberals and Conservatives) and all bureaucrats of cabinet level or higher, as well as all major campaign contributors and organizations that ran election ads.

There doesn't seem to be another way to get honesty back into government.

Let's put it all on the table.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 5:45 PM, lost_shaman said:

Here is the short article that the gif I posted came from. NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history

Rather than posting bs from climate deniers such as Watts, you might try reading up on the scientific literature.  For example, you never read Burnette's article, otherwise you'd know that he reported a 1.6-degree rise in temps at Manhattan, Kansas over a 150-year period.  This doesn't square too well with NOAA's three-degree rise since 1895.  Nor do tree-ring chronologies agree with NOAA.  Why is that?  What other articles are out there that might challenge NOAA?  All it would take is a literature search.  Why not do it and publish the result.  You might be onto something here if you have the ambition to pursue it.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Strange that when we started this discussion you thought all data corrections were deliberate biases.  You had nasty things to say about Burnette's paper which employed a lot of corrections.  Now you have decided that at least some of his corrections were necessary.  I guess that's progress.

Don't put words I've not spoken in my mouth. Look back to page 6 post 146 where I clearly quoted "Such adjustments are necessary not only for current period raw data but also possibly for previously reported historical data."

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Adding additional data is one thing that increases the slope of the line because older data have lower temperature readings than more-recent data.  I expect we'll continue to see more of this.

 

That may or may not be true, but I'm talking about these adjustments not adding new data. 

 

12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Zierdan has a point, or did you miss that when I said it?  While the individual algorithms are justifiable scientifically, their cumulative effect may not be.  However, if you are going to whine about it and make claims that it is not accurate, you need a basis for doing so.  What is your basis?  Why don't you do some serious research into that and actually explain what is going on?

I'm glad you can acknowledge the fact. The fudging is rewriting our climate history. It's fraud and cultural theft and this degree of data tampering would never occur in any other field of Science. 

Here is an article about the adjustments to the State of Maine I came across today.  The Author notes that the algorithm used for Maine which he had archived the 2013 data, is also the same algorithm used for the entire U.S. He notes it is systematic cooling of the Past to show a warming trend.

151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Note that your graphs are for US surface temps, not sea surface temps, not global temps, not atmospheric temps. 

Just the examples I choose to use. All the adjustments show basically the same tampering. The paper I cited did discuss the same issues with the Global data. 

 

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Climate change is now undeniable by anyone who has looked at it.

Well that's scientific. Based on lilacs in North Idaho. Forgive me but I'm not buying into your religion anecdotes. 

 

[Doug1029]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:10 PM, lost_shaman said:

It was reviewed. If you had looked at the report the reviewers are all listed right after the cover page.

Those are not peer reviews by people knowledgeable in the subject.  Peer reviews are anonymous (at least, they're supposed to be).  Reviewers are chosen by journal editors prior to publication.  If this was a publishable paper, it would have been published.  It's pretty plain that the reviewers found something that rendered it invalid in their opinions.

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:10 PM, lost_shaman said:

No. If Solar activity is the important variable then CO2 is not, therefore reducing CO2 is a waste of time i.e. that's not the problem so it doesn't help. However, why am I not surprised that even hypothetically you are still laser focused on the CO2 boggy Man?

I have personally run regressions to separate the effects of CO2 and the solar cycle on tree rings.  CO2 definitely has the greater effect.  Use a partial analysis of variance to separate the effects.  It's just simple statistics.  You can run the same process using temperatures rather than tree ring widths.  Same result.  CO2 is the primary driver, but solar activity also plays a small part.

There is plenty of research to implicate CO2.

Actually, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.  Just go look it up in some of my posts on older threads, or get out a book on the subject and read it.

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm glad you can acknowledge the fact. The fudging is rewriting our climate history. It's fraud and cultural theft and this degree of data tampering would never occur in any other field of Science. 

Here is an article about the adjustments to the State of Maine I came across today.  The Author notes that the algorithm used for Maine which he had archived the 2013 data, is also the same algorithm used for the entire U.S. He notes it is systematic cooling of the Past to show a warming trend.

151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History

Like I said, Burnette's paper (which you didn't read) showed only 1.6 degrees of warming in the central US over 150 years.  That's at odds with NOAA.  My still-unpublished data shows much the same.  Both are in parts of the country affected by greater-than-average by warming.  So why does NOAA's result show greater warming?  I've already pointed out several situations that might explain it.  I think that "black box" idea may have hit pretty close to the mark.

One does not have to use data from bad stations.  The statistical methods are available to detect it so it can be eliminated.  Same with incompetent observers.  There are regression models (which I'd have to look up) that allow for sudden changes in the line due to changes in recording technology.  One can adjust the weights given each station so that areas with lots of stations don't get over-represented while those in sparse areas aren't under-represented.  Admittedly, it's a lot of work, but it is important to do it right.

SO:  what are you planning to do about it?

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Just the examples I choose to use. All the adjustments show basically the same tampering. The paper I cited did discuss the same issues with the Global data. 

 

Well that's scientific. Based on lilacs in North Idaho. Forgive me but I'm not buying into your religion anecdotes. 

Just the examples I choose to use.

 

If you're interested in climate, here's a good place to start.

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

You could also use the IPCC's bibliography.

Jim Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" is another good one, though a bit dated.  It lays out that 300-500 year figure.

Anyway, I've got a paper to finish writing.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Those are not peer reviews by people knowledgeable in the subject.  Peer reviews are anonymous (at least, they're supposed to be).  Reviewers are chosen by journal editors prior to publication.  If this was a publishable paper, it would have been published.  It's pretty plain that the reviewers found something that rendered it invalid in their opinions.

Look Doug you don't know all of that. Besides this argument gets old, would you really give it any more weight if it was in some Journal? It's either a decent paper or not, people are reading it and noting that it is correct in that everywhere you look the adjustments change the records to introduce more and more warming. Cat's out of the bag so to speak, now this will be looked at more closely and it doesn't look good.

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have personally run regressions to separate the effects of CO2 and the solar cycle on tree rings.

By CO2 you really mean temperature means over time right? You just assume that equates to CO2. 

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Like I said, Burnette's paper (which you didn't read) showed only 1.6 degrees of warming in the central US over 150 years.

You mean ~1.23 C or rather 1C over 180 years, that is just natural variability coming out of both the little ice age and the actual ice age.  

[Doug1029]

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Look Doug you don't know all of that. Besides this argument gets old, would you really give it any more weight if it was in some Journal? It's either a decent paper or not, people are reading it and noting that it is correct in that everywhere you look the adjustments change the records to introduce more and more warming. Cat's out of the bag so to speak, now this will be looked at more closely and it doesn't look good.

By CO2 you really mean temperature means over time right? You just assume that equates to CO2. 

You mean ~1.23 C or rather 1C over 180 years, that is just natural variability coming out of both the little ice age and the actual ice age.  

I have been through peer review.  I know from experience how it works.  It's a brutal process.  Peer reviews are anonymous so the editors can get a better quality review, so the reviewer doesn't pull punches because he knows the author will know who reviewed him.  After all, next time the author may be reviewing the reviewer's paper.  And, yes, I give more weight to peer-reviewed papers because they have been fact-checked.  Not just in the peer review:  if you know your paper has to survive a peer review, you have the other authors review it first.  Then you have an experienced reviewer go over it.  Once all those people have signed off, then you submit it to the journal.

Research papers are organized thusly:  Abstract, Introduction (includes background and justification and may include a brief literature review), Procedure (includes experimental design), Results, Discussion (sums up findings and relates the paper to other research in the field), Conclusion, Acknowledgements and References, in that order.  There is almost no deviation from this organization.  Because your authors didn't follow this construction, it is a pretty good indication that they have no experience with writing research papers.

Because several individuals agree publicly with the paper, proves nothing.  We have no idea whether those listed reviewers were the author's best friends, or just wanted to get him off their backs.  If the paper has merit, it can stand on its own without such endorsements.  The fact that the author(s) obtained them suggests they lack confidence in their own results.

 

No.  I used atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the Mauna Loa observatory.  I used observed temperature readings from the historical record, averaged by year.  And I used sunspot records downloaded from NOAA's paleoclimatology site.  Using the resulting regression equation, one could predict temps from the CO2 concentration and sunspot count, but that was not my purpose.

 

The Last Glacial Maximum occurred about 19,000 YBP.  Things started to warm up about 17,000 YBP.  By 16,000 YBP the ice had melted to the Fort Wayne moraine.  By 15,000 YBP temps were approximately modern.  By 14,000 YBP the ice melted to the Ashtabula moraine in my hometown.  The Younger Dryas Cold Period began about 12,900 YBP when the ice stood at the Girard Moraine and ended about 10,660 YBP.  Sea levels continued to rise, indicating that somewhere, ice was still melting.  They stabilized about 3000 YBP at about 2.7 feet higher than modern.  After a few ups and downs, they reached the Holocene high stand at 5.6 feet above modern during the Roman Period.  "Modern" means 1950.

Just where in there you want to say that the ice age ended is a bit arbitrary, but geologists place it at the end of the Younger Dryas (10,660 YBP).  Perhaps a better "ending" for the ice age is 3000 YBP when sea levels stabilized.  "Stabilized" is relative.  All it means is that sea level changes were smaller and tended to cancel each other out.

On Baffin Island, a tiny fragment of the great Laurentide Ice Sheet still exists, but if you want to see it, you'd better hurry because it's melting.  Using that as your basis, you could truthfully say that the Wisconsin Ice Age isn't over - yet.

The Little Ice Age was the result of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums in solar output, combined with four volcanic eruptions that together chilled the earth, creating a temporary feedback loop with polar sea ice.  We could look through the sunspot record and get the exact date the Little Ice Age ended, if you like.  We should be able to come up with the approximate year and if the record is sufficiently-detailed at that time (It probably isn't.) we could determine the exact day.  The coldest year of the Little Ice Age was 1841, just before its end.  By 1854 temps were already at normal levels.  Strange that the hottest temps ever recorded in Oklahoma, 115 degrees F., happened in 1837 during the Little Ice Age.

Burnette's paper gave two estimates for warming, with and without the oldest, somewhat suspect data.  He began his analysis with 1828, making the total length of his record, about 180 years.  I used 150 to exclude the oldest data.

When one models temperature, one uses a regression model to smooth out the myriad ups and downs in the record.  Or one can do the same with 30-year running averages.  "Normal variation" is any reading within 1.96 standard deviations of the estimate or the running average.  When the estimate or the running average changes, the climate has changed and that's not normal variation.  Current variation is outside the normal range as determined over the entire Holocene.  But it is within the 1.96 standard deviations determined over the last 30 years.  When climate is changing the standard deviation goes up.  That's a quick-and-dirty means of identifying periods of climate change.

Words like "normal" have very precise meanings in science and we need to be careful how we use them.

Doug

Edited August 10, 2017 by Doug1029