Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

So what?
I don't answer dishonest people, or read their responses.

But I can understand why somebody would avoid answering, and keep trying to focus on something else.

Anonymously slandering people and then making it obvious you have nothing to back it up just so you can troll a forum is not only thoroughly dishonest, it's also cowardly and nasty.

 

[DC]

globaly winters are not colder ,only regionally there are some cooling trends.

 

[greybeard]

I did in the very first response to the claims found on realclimate, by the Berkeley experts.

Their claims were so egregious, so completely out there, that anyone can simply look at the official data from 1930-1948, and see with ease why they are either idiots, or liars. Or more likely, just repeating some idiot claim they read. Obviously neither has actually done any research on Chicago weather history, and especially on the station changes made.

That they use this completely wrong, even fabricated idea, to adjust temperatures shows clearly how wrong those people are, and why changing past data (not the actual data, they can't touch that), and presenting it as the true climate story, is fraudulent in the extreme.

I'm going to ask the mods if there are any implications legal or otherwise to making posts like this with serious allegations and then refusing to provide the links which he says will prove it. Saying I wont tell because the person who asked is dishonest and other childish nonsense only makes it worse.

 

[r-j]

r-j : in post 701 you quote me as saying something I have no recollection of and cannot find in the last 4 pages.

Since I always include a link when I quote someone, just click on the little icon. It will take you directly to your post.

It's actually against the rules here to quote a post with out a link to the source.

 

[r-j]

Are you claiming that the line on that graph is a trendline?

The software generates everything, there isn't any claim, it's just what the NCDC displays. Since we used and discussed this utility in this very thread (thread version 1, March 2013), your blustering is silly.

Where did you copy it from, and is this more plagiarism?

Your ignorant and false accusations aren't making me look bad.

While you try to slander and poison the well, the facts remain.

Like this Berkeley post on realclimate. They offer zero wevidence, much less any source for their claim. And it's a huge claim, it's the reason for actually changing the past, rather than showing what the actual real data shows. The source can be found on real climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

But they don't link to it where they make the claim, much less make it easy to find.

 

[macdoc]

Iy would be nice to be free off unmitigated nonsense and get back to some climate science.

••

Firming up some suspicions...

New research by a Florida State University geography professor shows that climate change may be playing a key role in the strength and frequency of tornadoes hitting the United States.
Published Wednesday in the journal Climate Dynamics, Professor James Elsner writes that though tornadoes are forming fewer days per year, they are forming at a greater density and strength than ever before. So, for example, instead of one or two forming on a given day in an area, there might be three or four occurring.

"We may be less threatened by tornadoes on a day-to-day basis, but when they do come, they come like there's no tomorrow," Elsner said.

Elsner, an expert in climate and weather trends, said in the past, many researchers dismissed the impact of climate change on tornadoes because there was no distinct pattern in the number of tornado days per year. In 1971, there were 187 tornado days, but in 2013 there were only 79 days with tornadoes.

But a deeper dive into the data showed more severity in the types of storms and that more were happening on a given day than in previous years.
"I think it's important for forecasters and the public to know this," Elsner said. "It's a matter of making sure the public is aware that if there is a higher risk of a storm, there may actually be multiple storms in a day."

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140806154011.htm

 

[r-j]

Iy would be nice to be free off unmitigated nonsense and get back to some climate science.

"We may be less threatened by tornadoes on a day-to-day basis, but when they do come, they come like there's no tomorrow," Elsner said.

Is that a scientific term?

"they come like there's no tomorrow"

 

[r-j]

Speaking of getting back to science. Here's a couple of NCDC's Climate at a Glance graphs, used in the topic in 2013. While the discussion was about winters, they now illustrate another issue. The changing of what NCDC displays, as climate records. This is directly connected to the Chicago nonsense from realclimate/Berkeley

And of course, of all things, both Divisions show winter is colder using a century of data. Kentucky Div 4 is -1.7 century trend. Tenn Div 1 is -1.4

And of course, of all things, both Divisions show winter is colder using a century of data. Kentucky Div 4 is -1.7 century trend. Tenn Div 1 is -1.4

[/quote]

In one of those remarkable moments of serendipity, those two images, uploaded to the forums in 2013, illustrate quite well the problem.

Because they changed the data, so that those graphs are no longer "true" according to the NCDC

 

[macdoc]

Does not bode well for curbing emissions.

World Should Prepare for 11 BIllion or More People
Contrary to previous estimates, the number of people on the planet now seems unlikely to stabilize this century
Sep 19, 2014 |By David Biello
crowd


In the 1970s, the world reached peak child—the highest rate of human population growth. Since then, countries in Asia, the Americas, Australia and Europe have all seen birth rates decline dramatically and in Africa, the number of children in families has dropped from an average of more than six to around four. But that decline in Africa is slower than the birth rate drops in other parts of the world. The persistence of that relatively high birth rate stems from a wide range of factors, including cultural influences, economics, and a lack of access to birth control or family planning. And there are enough children in Africa now that some demographers and statisticians are predicting that human population growth will not actually flatten in the 21st century, as some experts had foretold.

more

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-should-prepare-for-11-billion-or-more-people/

 

[Pixel42]

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/div-dataset-transition-readme.txt

December 11, 2013

An important message to users of data in the ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/ directory:

The NCDC anticipates an early 2014 release of its new climate division database. An official name for this database will be revealed in the near future. This database is based on GHCN-D 5km gridded data and utilizes new methodologies for computing temperature, precipitation and drought for the contiguous United States. In addition, data from a larger array of stations is used which improves the divisional data quality in the pre-1930s era.

Out of curiosity I put in the same parameters as the first of r-j's graphs to see how much difference it made:




Very little, it seems, though the computed trend line is slightly shallower.

 

[CapelDodger]

Since I always include a link when I quote someone, just click on the little icon. It will take you directly to your post.

From August 2013; you do hold a grudge, don't you? You quote part of

"You make no effort to discuss the science, you simply make erroneous statements backed by no reasoning or justification, then don't even try to defend them. You demand that there be a Theory Of Global Warming simple enough for you to comprehend, which is an impossible standard, then gleefully declare the science is overturned or something, it's hard to quite get where you're going with things. Do you deny global warming? Do you deny the greenhouse effect? Do you deny that what's happening was predicted in principle over a century ago? Do you deny there's a scientific concensus that AGW is real, and the largest anthropogenic influence is through atmospheric CO2? Just what is it you don't get about what is, frankly, a pretty simple subject?"

Still finding it hard to work out where you're going with any of this, except that it doesn't seem to be towards a Theory of Global Cooling, nor even a Theory of NH Winter Cooling.

Just in case, if this NH winter turns out to be a warm one (and why would it not?) will that be a "short-term measurement" signifying nothing? Or will it signal the end of the "winters are cooling" period?

 

[r-j]

Still finding it hard to work out where you're going with any of this

I actually believe you. No matter how simple and plain I make it, it just doesn't seem to get through to you. The point of looking at what has gone before, is part of science. You claimed things that were obviously false, with no evidence. A lot of people did. Debunking nonsense and exposing false claims often requires presistance and effort.

In the mid 1800s, it may still have been appropriate to call the radiation transfer interactions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect the "CO2 hypothesis," it has, however, since then, amassed a compelling body of supporting evidences and interrelated understandings such that it has been considered an established and well evidenced scientific theory since the early 1900s. .

link

Asking that you define what you mean by the theory is an obvious question. Denial that there is a theory, or denial that the theory makes predictions, is pseudoscience, it's woo woo nonsense. It's so ridiculous, it's comical.

You demand that there be a Theory Of Global Warming simple enough for you to comprehend, which is an impossible standard, then gleefully declare the science is overturned or something, it's hard to quite get where you're going with things.

link

Again, that is both false, and a misrepresentation of what occurred. I asked what you mean when you use a term. I don't have any confusion over the CO2 theory (or Global Warming, or what ever name is used) nor over what it predicts. I've been asking you to define what you mean by it.

Theories of global warming, are quite different than you seem to be thinking about the terms.

link

This started when I quoted and sourced Cohen et al 2012 (and others), which specifically noted that the observed trends were at odd with the theory, and what models based on the theory predict.

(Hint: there is no single, all encompassing "Theory of Global Warming")

link
That wasn't what was being discussed. When you (and others) objected to the problem with a cooling trend for boreal winters, I told you it was the opposite of what the theory predicts. That's when this nonsense started. It was either "winters are not cooling", or "there is no theory", both of which are ignorant and wrong.

Far from what we've heard for some time now, the global warming theory is easy to explain, and it can be done in one paragraph.

In fact, NOAA has a tidy little paper on their site, which I've taken the liberty of snipping the important part.

One more reason to find the false claims we read here ignorant in the extreme.

"Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread,

link

So when we read actual climate researchers say, in an actual scientific paper, published in an actual scientific journal, it actually means something.

http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf

Once you can grasp that there is a theory, and models are based on the theory, then we can finally discuss the problem the cooling winter trend presents.

Not that I expect facts, scientific facts, to sway anyone.

 

[Mikemcc]

R-J, you are being picky to an extreme.

There is no easily expressed 'Theory of Global Warming' that can be articulated in a manner that would fit into a single blog post, To fully understand the subject takes the equivalent of degree course of study and then find at the end that there is still far more to investigate and understand! The basic underpinning theories are well understood:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Our civilisation is a massive net emitter of CO2. The amounts of fossil fuel burnt match the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and this is also backed up by O2 depletion and CO2 isotope analysis.

All that Cohen et al, 2012 shows is that 'Using a skillful winter temperature forecast, it is shown that the AO explained a greater variance of the observed temperature pattern across the extratropical landmasses of the NH than did ENSO.'

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Anonymously slandering people and then making it obvious you have nothing to back it up just so you can troll a forum is not only thoroughly dishonest, it's also cowardly and nasty.

You really haven't visited the conspiracy section before if you're saying this... That's pretty modest criticism by comparison to what you see made by posters there on various topics. I don't agree with R-J on the extent of his criticisms, but I do happen to find common ground with people when it's pointed out that in terms of politics, given the doomsday scenario that the current climate trends present according to backers, there's very little priority given to advancing the climate agenda. Case in point, the healthcare bill trumped climate change legislation when democrats had the super majority in congress a few years ago. Or when the chief enforcement of changes are based on ineffective taxation of industries to push on sustainable resources faster. From a political standpoint, democrats need the support of conservatives regardless of what they may think of the party, because they certainly missed their opportunity to do it when they had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses. And it's a wild card to figure when they might have that advantage again, though if the last time is any indication doomsday preparations will get postponed yet again for a later time... and legitimate efforts to develop and advance sustainable technology will continue to suffer.

I suggest that kind of priority balance is due to the fact that climate change is often viewed individually as a long term (read: far in the future, no effect on me) mentality, whether the base belief pushing that mentality is associated with not believing in man-made warming or with supporting that conclusion in light of the data points available.

 

[greybeard]

You are right Grizzly. I hadn't realised that people could anonymously slander named individuals, talk big about how easy it is to find the data to prove it, and then say no they've hidden it. I must admit that has come as a bit of a shock to me. I try to avoid the conspiracy forums because you can only take so much of people coming out with stuff like terrorist attacks being inside jobs and scientists around the world are conspiring to hide data so that they can bring about a New World Order.

 

[ideogram]

r-j you are obsessed with defining this term "Theory of Global Warming". This is a semantic argument not a scientific one.

 

[ideogram]

r-j did you ever get a satisfactory answer to the question of how much heat is trapped in one CO2 molecule?

 

[greybeard]

r-j you are obsessed with defining this term "Theory of Global Warming". This is a semantic argument not a scientific one.

R-j indulges in semantics because it's all he has got. Well that and conspiracy theories. Every time he gets involved in a science argument he gets humiliated. That's why global warming threads are clogged with posts about the term "Theory of Global Warming" and whether some small part of the world has cooled in one season. Ironically r-j accepts any figures and statements from climate scientists when he can present them as agreeing with his semantics but when presented with evidence that the whole globe is warming from the same scientific community decides the the data has been fiddled. As long as people are discussing these things that only r-j holds to be highly relevant we are not discussing the fact that Globally temperatures are rising, that scientists (and anyone with any sense) know that this is due to human behaviour. Getting the thread bogged down in "I said this" and "you said that" or quoting from libertarian websites is really all the science deniers have got.

 

[a_unique_person]

Speaking of getting back to science. Here's a couple of NCDC's Climate at a Glance graphs, used in the topic in 2013. While the discussion was about winters, they now illustrate another issue. The changing of what NCDC displays, as climate records. This is directly connected to the Chicago nonsense from realclimate/Berkeley






In one of those remarkable moments of serendipity, those two images, uploaded to the forums in 2013, illustrate quite well the problem.

Because they changed the data, so that those graphs are no longer "true" according to the NCDC

You don't seem to understand the obvious. If they were uploaded in 2013, they weren't going to be using all of 2013 for the trend.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are right Grizzly. I hadn't realised that people could anonymously slander named individuals, talk big about how easy it is to find the data to prove it, and then say no they've hidden it.

Rather this appears to be a trumped up charge that blows what's been discussed out of proportion (another example of the "political" aspect of the discussion - don't worry, I'm not singling you out). Regardless, I'll let him either speak for himself or dig his own grave on what you're asking for. I'm only pointing out that I have reasons to agree with the sentiment, but have my own reasons (care to comment?).

I have to admit myself that having spent too much time in the CT section has made the shock value of claims elsewhere most underwhelming by comparison.