Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

The only buildings I know of which can survive an F5 with only damage are reactor containment vessels.

We tested the construction used those with an air cannon and telephone poles. They have to survive a square hit from a telephone pole at 350 mph.

Not one of the buildings that you have posted have a prayer of surviving that.

http://www.krrao.com/images/ASME_Ch14_p001-026_Oct-7-08.pdf
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec2/a38r3.html
http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT17/A03.pdf

And aircraft too!


Now, what applies to a tornado equally applies to hurricanes because hurricanes often spawn tornadoes.

 

[Furcifer]

And this changes the delta-T readings from those instruments how? Be very careful before you answer because I know the answer.

Significantly, depending on the natural shielding from radiation ie; clouds.

I know you couldn't possibly be suggesting the entire planet has the same cloud cover all the time.

There are instruments that can properly measure the temperature without the necessary shielding but they aren't widely employed. Until then this study clearly shows how inaccurate the measurements are and in which direction they are biased.

 

[Furcifer]

The only buildings I know of which can survive an F5 with only damage are reactor containment vessels.

We tested the construction used those with an air cannon and telephone poles. They have to survive a square hit from a telephone pole at 350 mph.

Not one of the buildings that you have posted have a prayer of surviving that.

http://www.krrao.com/images/ASME_Ch14_p001-026_Oct-7-08.pdf
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec2/a38r3.html
http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT17/A03.pdf

And aircraft too!


Now, what applies to a tornado equally applies to hurricanes because hurricanes often spawn tornadoes.

This is a strawman. Your the only one is suggesting every building needs to survive F5 storms. It's a completely absurd.

Billions could be saved if people simply gave up the notion of aesthetics and built round homes instead of square ones. If you want to build your home in Tornado Alley make it round. It's such a simple concept.

 

[BenBurch]

The truth behind global warming, and the mendacious political tools who deny it;



http://climatecrocks.com/

 

[Trakar]

This is a strawman. Your the only one is suggesting every building needs to survive F5 storms. It's a completely absurd.

Why "suggest" what you have stated outright?!

Cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, tropical storms, earth quakes, forest fires, the principles the same; build a house in prone areas and not take due diligence you should pay through the nose for insurance.

It's getting worse because people continue to build sub par homes in these areas expecting insurance to cover them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Significantly, depending on the natural shielding from radiation ie; clouds.

I know you couldn't possibly be suggesting the entire planet has the same cloud cover all the time.

There are instruments that can properly measure the temperature without the necessary shielding but they aren't widely employed. Until then this study clearly shows how inaccurate the measurements are and in which direction they are biased.

Delta-T refers to the change in temperature over time (from calculus notation). Since any inaccuracies are consistent over time, delta-T is still reasonably accurate. (I knew the answer as well.)

This is confirmed by the actual physical changes taking place, such as ice-loss, extreme precipitation and phenological changes, and also by satellite data. Clinging to the hope that it's all an artefact of scientists who don't care about clean data is getting pretty desperate. Remember what happened to Watt's Photo Gallery project? He doesn't mention it any more, and for good reason. It was so much easier to crow about what the data would show before it came in.

Deniers have now retreated to "proving" that the CO₂ increase isn't man-made at all. That movement is dying on its feet.

 

[Furcifer]

Delta-T refers to the change in temperature over time (from calculus notation). Since any inaccuracies are consistent over time, delta-T is still reasonably accurate. (I knew the answer as well.)

No it isn't "reasonably accurate". It's off by up to 10 degrees depending on the shielding from radiation. I'm afraid that affects the delta t as well.

This is confirmed by the actual physical changes taking place, such as ice-loss, extreme precipitation and phenological changes, and also by satellite data. Clinging to the hope that it's all an artefact of scientists who don't care about clean data is getting pretty desperate.

Peer reviewed scientific studies show the data is off by up to 100 times the change they are trying to measure (possibly more). That's a fact. The only thing desperate is trying to cling to data that's been shown to be extremely inaccurate.

Deniers have now retreated to "proving" that the CO₂ increase isn't man-made at all. That movement is dying on its feet.

Let's not talk about the study let's talk about something totally unrelated.
"Nothing to see here people, move along".

I'm afraid CO2 is man made, coming from the burning of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, so is the warming observed in the Antarctic. The dominoes are beginning to fall. It's only a matter of time before people begin to question why the bias in temperature measurements is always positive.

 

[CapelDodger]

No it isn't "reasonably accurate". It's off by up to 10 degrees depending on the shielding from radiation. I'm afraid that affects the delta t as well.

Only if the source of error changes.

Peer reviewed scientific studies show the data is off by up to 100 times the change they are trying to measure (possibly more).

Change over what period? Per decade? Per year? Per day?

That's a fact. The only thing desperate is trying to cling to data that's been shown to be extremely inaccurate.

In your dreams it has. In certain circumstances (such as the Sun being above the horizon) thermometers in Antarctica can be inaccurate according to a paper you cite. It's hardly world-shattering news, but then you continue with

"I'm sure it only affects Antarctic thermometers. "

Which rather suggests that you cling to the hope that thermometers elsewhere have similar problems. Meanwhile satellites go right over your head.

Let's not talk about the study let's talk about something totally unrelated.
"Nothing to see here people, move along".

I'm afraid CO2 is man made, coming from the burning of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, so is the warming observed in the Antarctic. The dominoes are beginning to fall. It's only a matter of time before people begin to question why the bias in temperature measurements is always positive.

It isn't always positive. I know you've been told it is, I know you believe it is, but it ain't so. That said, to what do you attribute this "positive bias"? Is it deliberate? Coincidental? Act of god? Act of Gore? Inquiring minds want to know.

People are beginning to question why they're being told there's no global warming when they're actually living in it, all with reference to thermometers (and, often as not, "alarmist models"). Watts and all his sad acolytes were claiming a positive bias from the UHI, only to discover (but not talk about) a negative bias introduced by the adjustments made for it.

Consider where you hear about these positive biases and ask yourself whether you'd hear about negative biases on those same websites. You wouldn't, would you?

 

[Furcifer]

Only if the source of error changes.

I don't know what you mean?

Change over what period? Per decade? Per year? Per day?

I had decade in mind when I was writing that. It's kind of irrelevant, I was just trying to put it into context. It's hard to measure something as small as temperature change with instrumental error that large.

In your dreams it has. In certain circumstances (such as the Sun being above the horizon) thermometers in Antarctica can be inaccurate according to a paper you cite. It's hardly world-shattering news

No it isn't, I know how inaccurate the measurements are and how little change they're trying to measure. It's nothing new to me.

Which rather suggests that you cling to the hope that thermometers elsewhere have similar problems. Meanwhile satellites go right over your head.

Exactly, land based measurements are useless. Talking about any change prior to satellite measurements is just as pointless.

It isn't always positive. I know you've been told it is, I know you believe it is, but it ain't so. That said, to what do you attribute this "positive bias"? Is it deliberate? Coincidental? Act of god? Act of Gore? Inquiring minds want to know.

No not always, once in a while there are fractional errors that turn out to be positive, but they are few and far apart. It's just lazy and a clear indication of the confirmation bias inherent in the current studies.

People are beginning to question why they're being told there's no global warming when they're actually living in it, all with reference to thermometers (and, often as not, "alarmist models"). Watts and all his sad acolytes were claiming a positive bias from the UHI, only to discover (but not talk about) a negative bias introduced by the adjustments made for it.

In very few cases resulting in very small changes.

Consider where you hear about these positive biases and ask yourself whether you'd hear about negative biases on those same websites. You wouldn't, would you?

They come up infrequently and they are discussed openly in all the cases I've seen. Do you have an example of a 10 degree positive bias? Fat chance of that. They're always small and they're almost always a result of over compensating for the positive bias in measurement!
"Well we're going to show about 2 degrees warmer than it actually is"
"So adjust down 2 degrees"
"Hey, guess what, we only OVERESTIMATED the temperature, again, by 1.5 degrees"
That's called bias. The bias is almost always positive. You don't get brownie points for underestimating your over estimate.

I guess if I'm going to have a serious discussion about the paper and the bias I'll have to wait for the propaganda machine at RealCrapClimateScience.com to turn out another expose in how to handwave away reality.

 

[macdoc]

nothing to see here

Aug 1, 2011; 3:22 AM ET
“A total of 2,676 daily record high temperatures were either broken or tied in July…”

The month of July wrapped up across the nation in a similar fashion to how it began–blisteringly hot.

More than half of the country, from the Plains to the East Coast, endured one of the hottest calendar months in generations. Thousands of daily record highs fell and many cities recorded temperatures not previously seen over the course of 100 or more years of record-keeping.

Unfortunately, the record and sizzling heat looks to continue for many as we kick off the first week of August.

July Heat by the Numbers

According to the National Weather Service, a total of 2,676 daily record high temperatures were either broken or tied in July, besting the total from a hot July 2010 by more than 1,200.

In some cities, all-time record highs for any time of the year fell, with most of them occurring on Friday the 22nd. Bridgeport (103°) and Hartford (103°), Conn., Newark, N.J. (108°), Reading, Pa. (106°), and Washington, D.C. (105°), are among those that established new highs.

But the hallmark of this summer’s heat has been its relentless nature and its consistency, especially throughout July as a broad dome of high pressure parked itself over the eastern half of the country.

As first reported by Meteorologist Heather Buchman, Dallas, Texas, is approaching a gaudy record of consecutive days at or above 100°. The Big D finished July with 30 straight days in the triple digits, second all-time behind the record of 42 days from June 23-August 3, 1980.

In Cincinnati, Ohio, Sunday marked the 15th straight day with temperatures at or above 90° (2 days away from the record set in 1901), while Washington, D.C., has been sizzling at 90° or above for two straight weeks.

Thanks to 25 days above 90° in total, this July was the hottest on record for our Nation’s Capital, with an average temperature of 84.5°, besting last July and July 1993 by more than a degree. The average temperature is the mean of each day’s high and low temperature.



AccuWeather.com Facebook fan John M. took this photo of his dog, Bulik, cooling off on a 100° afternoon in Raleigh, N.C.

Philadelphia, Pa. (82.3°), and Atlantic City, N.J. (81.0°), also experienced their hottest July’s ever, and according to the local National Weather Service office, the hottest calendar months in recorded history for both cities.

Of course the heat didn’t stop at the U.S.-Canadian border. Windsor, Ontario, endured a day on July 21st where the average temperature was 89.8° (32.1°C), the hottest ever for the city of more than 200,000.

more

http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2011/07/31/july-2011-sizzles-into-the-record-books/

 

[Furcifer]

nothing to see here
more

http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2011/07/31/july-2011-sizzles-into-the-record-books/

Weather is not climate. July is typically hot. April is typically wet. January is cold.

For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.31°C (57.82°F) was the 11th warmest January–July period on record. This value is 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

0.5C in the last 130 years. Insignificant.

 

[Warmer1]

0.5C in the last 130 years. Insignificant.

This quote proves that you have absolutely no grasp at all of the science and concept of climate change. As usual your data is incorrect, but how you can fail to understand a subject that you write so much about is just incredible.

 

[BenBurch]

Weather is not climate. July is typically hot. April is typically wet. January is cold.

For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.31°C (57.82°F) was the 11th warmest January–July period on record. This value is 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

0.5C in the last 130 years. Insignificant.

LOL!

July is typically hot, true, but Every July for the last decade has been atypically hot. Can't you see the difference in those two statements?

 

[Mikemcc]

Weather is not climate. July is typically hot. April is typically wet. January is cold.

For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.31°C (57.82°F) was the 11th warmest January–July period on record. This value is 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

0.5C in the last 130 years. Insignificant.

You STILL don't understand what happens when the mean value shifts, do you - you get a greater number of extreme events. Funnily enough that's being seen:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-2011-Earths-most-extreme-weather-since-1816.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110208144927.htm

and 2011 is following suit:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=noaa-makes-2011-most-extreme-weather-year
http://daviddegraw.org/2011/08/unpr...f-2011-leads-to-record-265-billion-in-losses/

Personally I don't call $265 billion losses insignificant.

 

[Trakar]

Weather is not climate. July is typically hot. April is typically wet. January is cold.

For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.31°C (57.82°F) was the 11th warmest January–July period on record. This value is 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

0.5C in the last 130 years. Insignificant.

20th century = 130 years?, really?!



and this is 0.51^oC (so far this year) above the 20th average. By the logic you are misusing, we've went up 0.51^oC in the last 11.5 years. 20th century covered 1900-1999.

 

[Trakar]

...I guess if I'm going to have a serious discussion about the paper and the bias I'll have to wait for the propaganda machine at RealCrapClimateScience.com to turn out another expose in how to handwave away reality.

Until you demonstrate something that substantively and meaningfully alters the mainstream climate science understandings, there isn't much to discuss.

 

[Pixel42]

0.5C in the last 130 years. Insignificant.

Global temperatures were 0.5C cooler in 1881 than they are this year, and coincidentally almost exactly the same as the 20th century average? Amazing. Citation?

Incidentally you forgot to point out that this time last year

For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.5°C (58.1°F) was the warmest January-July period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average.

This clearly proves that temperatures have dropped 0.17°C in just one year,. and that a new ice age is therefore imminent.

 

[Furcifer]

This quote proves that you have absolutely no grasp at all of the science and concept of climate change. As usual your data is incorrect, but how you can fail to understand a subject that you write so much about is just incredible.

The data is from NASA. Your objection is noted.

 

[Furcifer]

20th century = 130 years?, really?!



and this is 0.51^oC (so far this year) above the 20th average. By the logic you are misusing, we've went up 0.51^oC in the last 11.5 years. 20th century covered 1900-1999.

Measurements began in 1880. Do the math.

I'm really beginning to lose faith in this forum, the simplest things always present the most confusion.

 

[Furcifer]

You STILL don't understand what happens when the mean value shifts, do you - you get a greater number of extreme events. Funnily enough that's being seen:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-2011-Earths-most-extreme-weather-since-1816.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110208144927.htm

and 2011 is following suit:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=noaa-makes-2011-most-extreme-weather-year
http://daviddegraw.org/2011/08/unpr...f-2011-leads-to-record-265-billion-in-losses/

Personally I don't call $265 billion losses insignificant.

None of which has been attributed to Global Warming, Why? Because weather is not climate.

If you're going to present examples of weather as climate the least you can do it convert to 1962 dollars and express it on a per capita basis. Do you know how much damage the same tornado did in 1920? The exact same tornado in the exact same path? I'm going to leave it to you to think about for a second. Hopefully you'll see why the cost of natural disasters is on the rise, and it doesn't have anything to do with global warming.