Global warming discussion III

[Trakar]

Well NO according to this expert

Expert what? Please reference the training, relevant climate science publications and peer supported climate science work which he has accomplished which would support your assertion that he is indeed an expert in planetary climate understandings.

 

[riptor]

It seems like the West Virginia Board of Education rejected the proposed changes to the science standards that would cast doubt on anthropomorphic global warming. A bit of good news I think, seeing how WV is a huge coal state.

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20...10153530834454689&fb_action_types=og.comments

 

[Trakar]

It seems like the West Virginia Board of Education rejected the proposed changes to the science standards that would cast doubt on anthropomorphic global warming. A bit of good news I think, seeing how WV is a huge coal state.

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20...10153530834454689&fb_action_types=og.comments

Good news indeed, now if we could just do something about most of our gulf coast states, we'd be cooking with solar!(to paraphrase an adage)

 

[CapelDodger]

It seems like the West Virginia Board of Education rejected the proposed changes to the science standards that would cast doubt on anthropomorphic global warming. A bit of good news I think, seeing how WV is a huge coal state.

Not all hope is lost for West Virginia, then. Unlike the sad case of Virginia - you guys are well out of there.

(Should be anthropogenic, by the way, not morphic. An easy slip to make .)

 

[CapelDodger]

Expert what? Please reference the training, relevant climate science publications and peer supported climate science work which he has accomplished which would support your assertion that he is indeed an expert in planetary climate understandings.

He's old, white, male, and has the required opinion. That trumps any amount of book-larnin' in some circles.

 

[bit_pattern]

New Climate Change Study Just 400 Pages Of Scientists Telling Americans To Read Previous Climate Change Studies

 

[Haig]

--- snip usual RC stuff ---

The big flaw is that this is a personal opinion with no cited evidence - just an anecdote.
ETA: A misunderstanding from you, Haig - the anecdote is about unpublished research at one location (Lechfeld) which is weather, not climate .

The point is Reality Check " He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement." according to his CV

Given that FACT his claim can't be dismissed so easily ....

Warming an artifact of new instrumentation
One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):

""For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”"

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

Has there been ANY other studies of the EFFECT of the introduction of much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995 ???

btw Where is the "skepticism" of the mainstream dogma on CAGW or even AGW ? This is the ISF right ?

 

[bit_pattern]

Warming an artifact of new instrumentation

One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995

But I thought warming stopped in 1996?

You deniers really need to work on the coherency of your messaging.

 

[Pixel42]

Amazingly sea levels seem to have responded to this change in our instrumentation exactly as they would have to an actual rise in temperature.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30816143

The rate at which the global oceans have risen in the past two decades is more significant than previously recognised, say US-based scientists.

Their reassessment of tide gauge data from 1900-1990 found that the world's seas went up more slowly than earlier estimates - by about 1.2mm per year.

But this makes the 3mm per year tracked by satellites since 1990 a much bigger trend change as a consequence.

 

[Trakar]

The point is Reality Check " He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement." according to his CV

Given that FACT his claim can't be dismissed so easily ....

You do realize that individuals compose their own CVs,...don't you? Do you take at face value, an unknown individual's self assessments of their expertise in a given field of understanding?

Personally, I would be more interested in how that individual's peers within the fields of specialized study and understandings, that are applicable to the claims the individual is making, regard his assessments than in the individual's self-assessments of expertise, with regard to the assertions being made.

 

[hgus]

Expert what? Please reference the training, relevant climate science publications and peer supported climate science work which he has accomplished which would support your assertion that he is indeed an expert in planetary climate understandings.

http://www.geo.uni-augsburg.de/lehrstuehle/phygeo/personal/lehrbeauftragte/hager/

As I understand it (my german is so so) he is a non employed/free lecturer at the University of Augsburg. He has a history of working as a manager in the meteorological office of the German air force in Augsburg.

So I suppose he has a very good understanding of weather, but is he qualified to be called an expert on climate and the effect of co2? I would call him an informed amateur in that regard.

 

[CapelDodger]

The point is Reality Check " He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement." according to his CV

So he considers himself to be considered as an expert in weather instrumentation. I'm in no position to be ageist, but the self-regard of a man in his 70's is not something I take on faith myself.

Given that FACT his claim can't be dismissed so easily ....

It's a fact that people such as yourself will share his opinion of himself because they like what he's saying.

Has there been ANY other studies of the EFFECT of the introduction of much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995 ???

Of course there have. Studies like that are the source for those adjustments people such as yourself dismiss as manipulation (because they don't like the answers they produce).

btw Where is the "skepticism" of the mainstream dogma on CAGW or even AGW ? This is the ISF right ?

It melted away as the evidence came in.

 

[CapelDodger]

You do realize that individuals compose their own CVs,...don't you?

Where mine's concerned, trust but verify . (I lied about the trust).

 

[Trakar]

btw Where is the "skepticism" of the mainstream dogma on CAGW or even AGW ? This is the ISF right ?

Skepticism - is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge."

Mainstream climate science was produced via the thorough and rigorous application of scientific skepticism. Politicized climate science denialism is mere crackpot pseudoscience employed in the pursuit of the delay of public policy designed to address the problems directly relatable to human sourced climate influences.

 

[Trakar]

http://www.geo.uni-augsburg.de/lehrstuehle/phygeo/personal/lehrbeauftragte/hager/

As I understand it (my german is so so) he is a non employed/free lecturer at the University of Augsburg. He has a history of working as a manager in the meteorological office of the German air force in Augsburg.

So I suppose he has a very good understanding of weather, but is he qualified to be called an expert on climate and the effect of co2? I would call him an informed amateur in that regard.

Actually from reading his Bio, I wouldn't even argue that his understanding of weather is very detailed. At the least, such a contention would not be compellingly supportable from anything listed in his guest lecturer credentials.

My German is not too bad, and from reading that actual interview/article anyone seriously using the term "sogenannten Treibhauseffekt" (so-called Greenhouse effect) with derision in relation to "purported effects of human CO2 emissions" has no business being categorized as a spokesman representing any university.

 

[greybeard]

The point is Reality Check " He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement." according to his CV

Given that FACT his claim can't be dismissed so easily ....




Has there been ANY other studies of the EFFECT of the introduction of much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995 ???

btw Where is the "skepticism" of the mainstream dogma on CAGW or even AGW ? This is the ISF right ? :rolleyes:

I've never seen any evidence that the so called "sceptics" are sceptical. They seem to believe every nutty theory fed them by the likes of Lord Monckton, Steve Goddard, Anthony Watts etc. How many times have you linked to unscientific nonsense now? That isn't scepticism. There's a reason why the "sceptics" can't get their theories peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal and it aint because of any conspiracy.

 

[lomiller]

Well NO according to this expert

Your "expert" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the literature.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?a...ation=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Finding someone somewhere who agrees with your position and then calling them and "expert" regardless of whether they actually are one isn't exactly convincing.

 

[Reality Check]

The point is Reality Check " He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement." according to his CV

No, Haig: The point is that climate science is a separate area of atmospheric physics from meteorology !
An expert in meteorology need not be an expert in climate science. The mistakes made in that interview show that Klaus Hager is rather ignorance of climate science.

The new point is you snipping me stating what you state and so making it look like I was unaware of Klaus Hager's area of expertise .

Actually NO according to the rather ignorant opinion of a so-called expert, Haig. The instrumental observations are that there has been a global warming trend over the last 150 years.
What we really have is an "expert in weather instrumentation and measurement" who seems to be ignorant about how measurements of weather are used in climate science.
Basically Klaus Hager
* thinks that local weather is global climate (he has been looking at temperatures at one location).
* seems to think that climate scientists are ignorant.
They know about the movement to electronic thermometers and take that in consideration when calculating global temperatures. They take in account the entire history of weather stations !
* is ignorant of the fact that global warming is confirmed by satellite measurements.
* is in denial of the global warming up to 1995 (before the change to electronic instrumentation)!
* is in denial of the strong evidence that CO2 has been the primary driver of climate change over the last few decades.

The big flaw is that this is a personal opinion with no cited evidence - just an anecdote.
ETA: A misunderstanding from you, Haig - the anecdote is about unpublished research at one location (Lechfeld) which is weather, not climate .

(my emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

Has there been ANY other studies of the EFFECT of the introduction of much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995 ???

This looks like an example of seeming ignorance from Klaus Hager: There was no global change to electronic instrumentation in 1995!
There may have ben a change in 1995 for his local weather stations. But globally this has been happening over a period of decades. For example the USHCN stations were converted over a period of 25 year.
Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center

•A comparison of trends derived from poorly and well-sited USHCN stations indicates that there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data (relative to data from good exposure sites). However, this bias is consistent with previous studies documenting the impact of the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years because the majority of poor exposure sites were subject to this instrument change.
...
•Adjustments largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes but appear to leave a small overall residual negative ("cool") bias in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature.

As you can see climate scientists are well aware of the change to electronic sensors and many other changes to weather stations.

The answer to the correct question of "have there been studies of the effect of the change to electronic instruments in weather stations over the last 30 or so years" is YES according to NOAA.

 

[Mikemcc]

The point is Reality Check " He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement." according to his CV

Given that FACT his claim can't be dismissed so easily ....




Has there been ANY other studies of the EFFECT of the introduction of much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995 ???

btw Where is the "skepticism" of the mainstream dogma on CAGW or even AGW ? This is the ISF right ?

You mean apart from all of the homogenisation studies on each of the data records that are used to account for instrumentation, location, urbanisation, and screening changes...?