Global warming traps scientists in ice

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere:

www.thestar.com/sports/tennis/2014/01/15/australian_open_brutal_heat_wave_with_44_c_forecast_for_thursday.html

www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html

www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/another-heat-wave-for-buenos-a/22113203

Was there a point here? Hot summer weather is hardly shocking stuff.

I had to compete in 43C before...in Orange County (6 miles from the ocean) in May in the 80s...and of course Arizona or Nevada spends most of the summer in these temps.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere:

www.thestar.com/sports/tennis/2014/01/15/australian_open_brutal_heat_wave_with_44_c_forecast_for_thursday.html

www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html

www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/another-heat-wave-for-buenos-a/22113203

And there are those saying, "this is because of anthropogenic climate change."

Meanwhile, it was hotter in Melbourne on this date in 1939. But that wasn't climate change - that was stable climate. Indeed, NSW hit 51C in 1897, but that only what a denier would put.

In order to show how hot we're getting, we must forget how hot it's been in the past. Or just say it was colder then.

We must believe that climate is stable and was always in balance until the Republican Party was founded. Chaos truly didn't develop until Reagan was President.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,691]

>In order to show how hot we're getting, we must forget how hot it's been in the past.

That would be contained in the instrumental temperature record.

Take a gander at it. Which year was the hottest year recorded?

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>In order to show how hot we're getting, we must forget how hot it's been in the past.

That would be contained in the instrumental temperature record.

Take a gander at it. Which year was the hottest year recorded?

Which data? RSS, UAH and HADCRUT3 have 1998. 9 months ago, HADCRUT 4 came out and decided that 2005, 2007 and 2010 were all warmer.

Problem I face is - what to trust? The GCHN data gets adjusted. Then GISS adjusts it again. And so if NOAA adjusts the past temperature down at 2 degrees C per century, I scratch my head. And they keep adjusting the past again and again. And again. So a year ago, the answer is wildly different from now.

The instrument observations are't showing a warming trend. We know this because the adjustments are on par with the warming. Adjust the past data down 2 degrees per century and wow, we have 2 degrees of warming in the last century.

So, yes, I do have a problem with trusting data that is adjusted and readjusted and readjusted and readjusted. I don't know what to trust. Because we can't seem to get the observations that aren't adjusted in some way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,691]

>The instrument observations are't showing a warming trend.

If you can honestly look at the instrumental data from 1850 and claim that you don't see a warming trend, well . . . I guess there's a reason the term "denier" came about.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>The instrument observations are't showing a warming trend.

If you can honestly look at the instrumental data from 1850 and claim that you don't see a warming trend, well . . . I guess there's a reason the term "denier" came about.

Actually, he is talking about the unadjusted untweeked unskewed data

what data are you talking about?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>The instrument observations are't showing a warming trend.

If you can honestly look at the instrumental data from 1850 and claim that you don't see a warming trend, well . . . I guess there's a reason the term "denier" came about.

but the immediate context here was Kallend's citations of Australia being really hot, and Buenos Aires being kind of hot at 95-101. Nothing to do with 1850, or the global averages.

[lawrocket 3]

I didn't say that. Or didn't mean it.

What I am saying is that I can't tell. At least not the extent of it because the data keeps getting adjusted. And the adjustments are either cooling the distant past, heating the present, or a combination thereof.

Accorfing to HADCRUT, the global temperature was flat since 1997. Until last March, when by golly by gee it moved to fourth place and now we've got an upward trend. But yes, I do still believe that warming is real, and human activities have something to do with it.

How much warming there is over the last century? That I don't know. I think it's there, but I fear that a half a degree of warming just isn't good enough.

I fear that in twenty years, the newly adjusted data will show we've warmed 10 degrees C since 1900 and that the sea level actually rose three meters during that time because the tide gauges were adjusted downward in the past, so then we'll see that sea level rise is accelerating.

Question, Bill: how much warming has there been since 1950? Give me an answer and I'll find a different source. Give me your source, and let's make a friendly bet that in ten years, your answer will be different.

Another question, Bill: which dataset do you find most trustworthy. And why?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,691]

>Actually, he is talking about the unadjusted untweeked unskewed data

Ah yes, better get to work "unskewing" the data. Sometimes data takes a lot of unskewing until it tells you what you want. (Witness the most recent presidential election.)

[billvon 2,691]

>What I am saying is that I can't tell. At least not the extent of it because the data
>keeps getting adjusted.

The data isn't getting adjusted. Our analysis of it is. As we get better at analyzing data, we get better results.

Let's take DNA as an example. Take a rape case, years old, that put a man in jail. Once DNA testing became available, the test was run on the evidence - and he is exonerated. The DNA found in the evidence was not his. Was the evidence adjusted? Or did we just apply better tools to the same evidence?

GISTEMP: warmest year 2010

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/graphics/gl_land_ocean.gif

HADCRUT: tie for 2010 and 2005

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4.pdf

>Question, Bill: how much warming has there been since 1950?

About .8C.

Now, you might quibble and say "no, it's .7C" or "it looks more like .9C because I used data from an older analysis." Fine. What you _cannot_ say is "well, we have no idea" or "it's remaining the same" or "it's cooling" - because that contradicts all the evidence we have. (Well, you can say those things, but they're not supportable.)

[brenthutch 416]

billvon

(Well, you can say those things, but they're not supportable.)

Sort of like "the heat is hiding in the deep oceans".

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]The data isn't getting adjusted. Our analysis of it is. As we get better at analyzing data, we get better results.

[Stumpy 280]

brenthutch

***
(Well, you can say those things, but they're not supportable.)

Quote

CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are growing at four times the rate they grew in the 1990s. 2010 was the hottest year on record, and the 2000s the hottest decade on record.

Sort of like "the heat is hiding in the deep oceans".

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,691]

Quote

Poor example. It's new evidence previously unavailable.

No, it was quite available; the police had easy access to it. Only after we had better analytic tools could it reveal more information.

Quote

This is true. What you cannot say is "this is not an oscillation."

You are correct! There are undoubtedly oscillations involved, both short and long period. Look at 1940 to 1980, for example; huge dip. The trend, overall, is upward over the past 150 years - even accounting for all the oscillations.

Quote

Do you admit that plenty of evidence suggests that the rate of warming has slowed in the last two decades?

The past 20 years start to finish still shows pretty rapid warning. But if you take only 1998 to 2013 than warming is much slower. So if you carefully redefine your question to 15 years, then yes, it has definitely slowed.

[lawrocket 3]

I think there is remarkably little we disagree about on the subject. I can just be a bit dickish.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

lawrocket

I think there is remarkably little we disagree about on the subject. I can just be a bit dickish.

A lawyer? Never!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,278]

lawrocket

I think there is remarkably little we disagree about on the subject. I can just be a bit dickish.

I think I am having a little bro-mance moment...

Bravo my friend!

[kallend 1,819]

kelpdiver

***

Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere:

www.thestar.com/sports/tennis/2014/01/15/australian_open_brutal_heat_wave_with_44_c_forecast_for_thursday.html

www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html

www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/another-heat-wave-for-buenos-a/22113203

Was there a point here? Hot summer weather is hardly shocking stuff.



Neither is cold winter weather.

However, "weather" is not generally considered to span an entire ocean.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Quote

Was there a point here? Hot summer weather is hardly shocking stuff.

Neither is cold winter weather.

However, "weather" is not generally considered to span an entire ocean.

What, you can't have a hot day in San Francisco and Korea on the same day in summer?

Again, is there a (legitimate) point being made with these citations? No. Just because the idiots here pointed to that cold spell across the entire US in late Dec as evidence of something should you debase yourself in the same way.

[kallend 1,819]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

Was there a point here? Hot summer weather is hardly shocking stuff.

Neither is cold winter weather.

However, "weather" is not generally considered to span an entire ocean.

What, you can't have a hot day in San Francisco and Korea on the same day in summer?



Generally we don't call a "hot day" a heat wave. Maybe it's a Bay Area thing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

******

Quote

Was there a point here? Hot summer weather is hardly shocking stuff.

Neither is cold winter weather.

However, "weather" is not generally considered to span an entire ocean.

What, you can't have a hot day in San Francisco and Korea on the same day in summer?



Generally we don't call a "hot day" a heat wave. Maybe it's a Bay Area thing.

I'm pretty sure the Bay Area and Korea have seen heat waves at the same time as well. It doesn't mean anything in itself.

The California coast sees this pretty much any time the wind stops blowing in from the ocean. That's not global warming, that's life in this state.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******

Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere:

www.thestar.com/sports/tennis/2014/01/15/australian_open_brutal_heat_wave_with_44_c_forecast_for_thursday.html

www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html

www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/another-heat-wave-for-buenos-a/22113203

Those aren't peer reviewed. The classic denier trick of printing non-peer-reviewed material.

This is such bullshit even Fox News reported it. [Url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/15/dozens-wildfires-blaze-across-southern-australia-in-heat-wave-conditions/[/url]

Until you show me peer reviewed literature, the temperatures didn't happen. You know the drill - unless peer reviewed, thermometer readings aren't trustworthy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Fresno's been in the mid-60s to low-70s for the last 3 or 4 weeks. We should be in mid 50s. Thus, we've been in a heat wave. Kinda weird how many people and plants aren't dying.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,819]

lawrocket

Fresno's been in the mid-60s to low-70s for the last 3 or 4 weeks. We should be in mid 50s. Thus, we've been in a heat wave. Kinda weird how many people and plants aren't dying.

I never said they would.

The planet really doesn't mind at all, and I don't mind much.

Not being in denial doesn't make one an alarmist.

I just believe the climate science rather than the shills for the Koch brothers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 220]

kallend

***Fresno's been in the mid-60s to low-70s for the last 3 or 4 weeks. We should be in mid 50s. Thus, we've been in a heat wave. Kinda weird how many people and plants aren't dying.

I never said they would.

The planet really doesn't mind at all, and I don't mind much.

Not being in denial doesn't make one an alarmist.

I just believe the climate science rather than the shills for the Koch brothers.

That is where we differ. Being a skeptic, I believe nothing.

There are things that I accept for their utility, but it does not rock my world when someone finds a factor in a popular equation that changes its overall meaning.

Just because I like a source does not make everything they say accurate, and even the most clueless can make the odd accurate statement. Nobody bats a thousand, a broken clock is right twice a day (at least mechanical analog ones) and all that.

P.J. O'Rourke observed a fundamental flaw in Environmentalist thinking, and it had to do with our propensity to view the recent past as a baseline. We tend to look to our youth and think that is 'the way things should be.'

P.J.'s comment had to do with a slogan along the lines of 'Save the Bay!' or some such. He commented to the effect that the Bay and/or Earth had been through much worse and would be there long after we were all gone, and that the shrill voices were actually hoping that we could somehow maintain the Bay to our liking for the foreseeable future.

This is, of course, fine, but it is a separate issue altogether. In the Boy Scouts we prided ourselves in leaving an area in a condition at least as good (to our eye) as it was when we got there. From our ethical standpoint, it was human intervention that we sought to minimize.

Natural forces, OTOH, are not always pleasing to the human eye - Mother Nature is a bitch. Smokey the Bear, in the attempt to rid the U.S. of the scourge of forest fires, served to interrupt the natural cycle of burning and regrowth in large areas of the Lower 48, and the Corps of Engineers attempts at regulating the hydrodynamics of Florida and other swamp areas has had the usual range of unforeseen consequences.

Environmental Science is like Oncology in that its practitioners are focused on symptom management to the detriment of overall system control. I would expect anyone who ever studied Boundary Values (as I suspect you did) to look at the limits first and to worry about the details thereafter. Picking flyshit out of pepper is a sign that someone really does not get it.

Having spent many years in Postgraduate Academia, I greatly prefer the input of people who have done their homework. I do not, however, accept their conclusions out of hand, particularly when their patrons link their funding directly to clear agenda (DOD, DOE, DOA, FDA, etc.). The applicants who fail to stifle the urge to question the basis for the $1.7 Million grant are unlikely to wind up on the short list of recipients.

In any event, I do not pay much attention to what the Koch brothers tout, but I am equally suspicious of anything Al Gore has to sell. If that dumb sonofabitch buys into something, there has to be something seriously wrong with it.


BSBD,

Winsor