Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[DogB]

Time to post the R scripts for retrieving and graphing the temperature data?

If you have them handy, might be a good idea. I use a freeware NC file editor but it's pretty clunky.

 

[macdoc]

on temperature...

 

[DogB]

[qimg]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture7-1.png[/qimg] on temperature...

Because temperature is completely unimportant in looking at global warming.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

Does it occur to you that the use of dry ice to generate fake fog and smoke began to catch on in the mid to late 1960's?

Do you know what dry ice is made of?

 

[Tumbleweed]

I guess I don't see why you have a problem with me pointing out that HadCRU's data does not support the blanked statement made by Tumbleweed.

Apparently, NOAA looked at their compiled data, and put out a press release based upon said observation.

I look at HadSST2 compiled data, from the CRU data source, which leads me to dispute a claim made thus:



Seriously, what is the issue?

I am not manipulating the HadCRU data in any way, shape or form, I am only posting what their data shows.

What's the problem?

I assume that you agree with the statement that Tumbleweed posted, that ocean temps are the warmest ever?

I have at least one dataset, compiled by experts at HadCRU, that are at odds with that statement.

Do you wish to ignore that data?

Should I contact HadCRU and see if they agree with my conclusion, based upon them looking at the same data that I am looking at?

Give me a valid, scientific reason to discount the HadCRU compiled data, and I will.

Hey leave me out of it! I'm just going by what I read. Some scientists say the oceans are the warmest ever, not me. I'm just repeating what they said. I guess the argument can be made that no can be objective about statistics having staked their ego on a position. But I find it hard to believe that a group of respected scientists would risk tarnishing their reputations by using data that could be easily refuted. Kind of like why the moon hoax thing is so silly

 

[Tumbleweed]

So is the ice data a hoax or just plain wrong too.? Is it or is it not shrinking and/ or thinning. Can those statistics be twisted too? Or is the argument made that it is irrelevant.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Here's a thought that I'm sure many will consider bogus and probably it is. And it should probably be in a philosophy thread, not here: Nature has checks and balances right? So if things get out of hand due to over population by humans what's the check? How about soot. Once mankind began producing huge quantities of it daily, the Arctic ice became doomed to melt. Because of its disappearance, the weather went a little funny in the head destroying both man's crops and the aging transportation infrastructure needed to deliver food to the non agrarian masses. Bye bye overpopulation problem, and hello regained balance.

 

[DogB]

Hey leave me out of it! I'm just going by what I read. Some scientists say the oceans are the warmest ever, not me. I'm just repeating what they said.

Which is fair enough

I guess the argument can be made that no can be objective about statistics having staked their ego on a position.

It'd be nice to believe this wasn't true but...

But I find it hard to believe that a group of respected scientists would risk tarnishing their reputations

I'm still wondering who actually released the data. I think a PR department might have been involved. I'm still debating the point with Piggy over on the other thread.

by using data that could be easily refuted. Kind of like why the moon hoax thing is so silly

I've bolded a significant part of your post.

The current situation is that we have multiple methods of estimating global ocean surface temps and they all seems to give different results. No easily refuted data at all. IMHO we're still learning how to do climate science properly.

 

[DogB]

Here's a thought...[snip]

Interesting thought. You’re familiar with the Gaia hypothesis?

 

[Tumbleweed]

Interesting thought. You’re familiar with the Gaia hypothesis?

That's a lot to read and consider, but yes I am familiar with the principle, and like the American Indian does, I believe it too. The old Earth Wind Fire and Water thingie, and the Earth being a mega-consciousness composed of a multitude of mini consciousnesses - us for one, that adds the better developed concepts of logic, beauty and abstract thought to the whole mix. Or DOES a bear look out upon its mountain meadow domain and think, MAN that's something!? (or rather BEAR that's something!) Getting just a skosh off subject here!
Aw what the hell: did you ever consider that The Grand Canyon is a function of -Earth Wind Fire and Water? Fire evaporates water, Wind transports it to the area and condensed H2O (thunderstorms) carved it out by creating flash floods that shaped the Earth

 

[BenBurch]

Interesting thought. You’re familiar with the Gaia hypothesis?

Yeah, a hypothesis ONLY, and even if there is some truth to it, if you think its a panacea you haven't studied paleoclimatology.

 

[DogB]

Yeah, a hypothesis ONLY, and even if there is some truth to it, if you think its a panacea you haven't studied paleoclimatology.

I’m a (very) cautious advocate of the weak version of the hypothesis but I’m not foolish enough to imagine that humans are somehow special in the scheme of things.

 

[lomiller]

Hey leave me out of it! I'm just going by what I read. Some scientists say the oceans are the warmest ever, not me. I'm just repeating what they said.

But you have to understand! DogB found this stuff written by a guy on the internet, he hasn't published any climate research or anything but he knows for a fact NOAA was lying and the press release was written by a secret PR guy and all the scientists would disagree with it of only they had computers to post on the internet!!!

 

[DogB]

But you have to understand! DogB found this stuff written by a guy on the internet, he hasn't published any climate research or anything but he knows for a fact NOAA was lying and the press release was written by a secret PR guy and all the scientists would disagree with it of only they had computers to post on the internet!!!

Yes, that's precisely what happened.

What colour is the sky in your world anyway?

 

[CoolSceptic]

Flood water marks are often the easiest to "sample" as towns and cities have tracked it for decades and sometimes ( Paris ) centuries.

In fact, the Egyptians have been tracking flood levels from the Nile for millenia. Funny how you forgot that record, because this is the record that Hurst used to show that extreme flood events (such as 100-year events) are prone to clustering. We've only known about this for the last 50-60 years, so perhaps you could be forgiven for missing it.

I suggest you read up on the work of Kolmogorov, Hurst, Mandelbrot, Wallis, van Ness, Klemes and all the other great scientists whose works you are currently dismissing. Or why not have a chat with Dr. Tim Cohn, a flood frequency expert at the US geological survey, who may be willing to explain to you the finer aspects of the last 50 years of hydroclimatic research.

Ugh. This sort of garbage is why I don't post on climate threads any more. The standards of science on this forum are generally very good, but the climate threads are a joke.

 

[macdoc]

Strange the USGCRP cites similar info as indicators....

Average temperatures in the Midwest have risen in recent decades, with the largest increases in winter. The length of the frost-free or growing season has been extended by one week, mainly due to earlier dates for the last spring frost. Heavy downpours are now twice as frequent as they were a century ago. Both summer and winter precipitation have been above average for the last three decades, the wettest period in a century. The Midwest has experienced two record-breaking floods in the past 15 years.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publica...pacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/midwest

and NOAA from a longer and detailed article on the 2008 flooding in the midwest

NCDC Analysis:
In general, the rainfall accumulations over the flood zone since April 1 are exceptionally large by historical standards. For instance, numerous locations in the immediate area experienced as many as 10 extremely wet days i.e., days with more rainfall than 90% of all historical events for that location and time of year. Furthermore, approximately one third of NOAA's observing stations in the region (40-45°N, 85-100°W) experienced a record number of extremely wet days since April 1, more than in any other year in at least the past half century. In comparison, the second wettest year for this region and time period was 1999, during which about 15% of the weather stations set comparable records.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/flood08.html

at least the reality has sunk in some critical decision making levels in major nations...

A deluge of extreme weather, thanks to climate change

August 5, 2007 We’ve seen the Brits acknowledge that climate change is the driving force behind their record flooding. Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said, “The world is going to have to come to terms, so the scientists are telling us, with more extreme weather events.”


Now the Chinese have come to the same conclusion concerning the recent “weather extremes which have led to more than 700 deaths from flooding and left more than seven million with little access to water.” Song Lianchun, head of the China Meteorological Administration’s Department of Forecasting Services and Disaster Mitigation, said:

It should be said that one of the reasons for the weather extremes this year has been unusual atmospheric circulation bought about by global warming. These kind of extremes will become more frequent, and more obvious. This has already been borne out by the facts… I think the impact on our country will definitely be very large.
​

http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/05/a-deluge-of-extreme-weather-thanks-to-climate-change/

Common sense seems severely lacking in some of these threads..

 

[CoolSceptic]

Yep, this shows exactly why I ignore climate threads now. I highlight an important scientific phenomenon and I get a political advocacy website quoted back at me that doesn't address the issue I raised at all. Thanks for reminding me macdoc.

One more chance macdoc, then you're going on ignore. Simple yes/no questions.

1. Do you understand that extreme flood events tend to cluster in a manner that classical or Markovian statistics fails to deal with, as outlined in HE Hurst's infamous paper? (yes)/(no)

2. Are the various stats you are quoting unusual after accounting for the Hurst phenomenon? (yes)/(no)

If answer 2. is (yes), please point me to where this correction is applied and how it is applied. If the answer 2. is (no) then this analysis cannot indicate climate change until the Hurst phenomenon is ruled out as a possible explanation, and it does not matter whether it is carried out by NOAA scientists or ClimateProgress political advocates.

 

[mhaze]

.... This sort of garbage is why I don't post on climate threads any more. The standards of science on this forum are generally very good, but the climate threads are a joke.

Smart. Which makes me...-

 

[mhaze]

Here's a thought that I'm sure many will consider bogus and probably it is. And it should probably be in a philosophy thread, not here: Nature has checks and balances right? So if things get out of hand due to over population by humans what's the check? How about soot. Once mankind began producing huge quantities of it daily, the Arctic ice became doomed to melt. ....

And then they want to control CO2 when soot was the problem?

 

[CoolSceptic]

Smart. Which makes me...-

LOL. I don't think it has anything to do with smarts, much more to do with patience I suspect!