NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 5 of 117 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 116 117 >
Topic Options
#804711 - 13/12/2009 02:25 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Long Road Home]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2270
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Lets face it the numbers have been fudged to suit the agenda..

Top
#806000 - 16/12/2009 16:47 Re: Temperature trends [Re: marakai]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Two things I don't think should be fudged are the arctic and antarctic sea ice levels which are closing on the lower traces set in 2007 in both hemispheres even in opposite seasons.
sea ice coverage

We see the southern ice falling below the record anomaly of the previous season and the northern ice reaching parity with the record low of 2007 for this time of year.

Why misquote them?

Another concern is the remorseless rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in recent decades irrespective of which way the shorter temperate trend lines can be drawn. You could almost conclude that something was pumping it into the atmosphere faster than it could be removed.

What could that be?


Edited by Ben Sandilands (16/12/2009 16:48)

Top
#806020 - 16/12/2009 17:35 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Ben Sandilands]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
A long but eye opening [ complete] post on how much and how often the very basic and original global temperature data is adjusted and the huge increase in the error bars that result from all these adjustments as the temperature data is processed down through a multitude of agencies before being fed to the public as the supposed global temperatures.

From comments section on Jeff Id's Air Vent blog article ;Things that make you go HMM …

Green R&D Mgr said;

December 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Steven,

Your post proves a point, but perhaps not the one you wanted to make.

The initial mistake I made was to assume GHCN was adjusting raw data, but at least in the US, it has already been adjusted a number of times by NCDC for the USHCN. Each step introducing more possible smaller error while removing gross discontinuities. It has been an eye opening journey to see how many times the data is adjusted by various algorithms. I’m sure I still don’t have it all completely right, but this is what I have seen so far at least for US data.You may want to check that the raw is actually raw.

My observation is that the accumulation of these uncertainties appears to exceed the range of detected warming signal that is claimed.

Every time someone adjustments the data they also increase the band of uncertainty. This uncertainty builds upon the uncertainty already in the raw data prior to hand off to GHCN. Many of the adjustments appear to have legitimate reasons of trying to remove large discontinuities or false overall trends. However, every time they modify the data with an algorithm that reduces the volatility, they add some uncertainty even while these other problems are fixed.

In the US, the data is first gathered daily from the station.
The data is collected and reported in 1 degree F increments.

DSI-3200 Page 4:
“The accuracy of the maximum-minimum temperature system (MMTS) is +/- 0.5
degrees C, and the temperature is displayed to the nearest 0.1 degree F. The observer records the values to the nearest whole degree F. A Cooperative Program Manager calibrates the MMTS sensor annually against a specially maintained reference instrument.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/documentlibrary/tddoc/td3200.pdf

So before any adjustments are made, the data has an error range of +/- 1F or .5C !

Then it is adjusted least 3 times before it is handed to GISS
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Time of Observation Bias Adjustments (Adjustment #1) (Error range unknown)
“Next, monthly temperature values were adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986; Vose et al., 2003).

The TOB-adjustment software uses an empirical model to estimate and adjust the monthly temperature values so that they more closely resemble values based on the local midnight summary period.”

Homogeneity Testing and Adjustment Procedures (Adjustment #2) (Error range may be shown by NCDC, see below)
“Following the TOB adjustments, the homogeneity of the TOB-adjusted temperature series is assessed. In previous releases of the U.S. HCN monthly dataset, homogeneity adjustments were performed using the procedure described in Karl and Williams (1987).
Unfortunately, station histories are often incomplete so artificial discontinuities in a data series may occur on dates with no associated record in the metadata archive. Undocumented station changes obviously limit the effectiveness of SHAP. To remedy the problem of incomplete station histories, the version 2 homogenization algorithm addresses both documented and undocumented discontinuities.”
Estimation of Missing Values (Adjustment #3) (Error range unknown)
“Following the homogenization process, estimates for missing data are calculated using a weighted average of values from highly correlated neighboring values. The weights are determined using a procedure similar to the SHAP routine. This program, called FILNET, uses the results from the TOB and homogenization algorithms to obtain a more accurate estimate of the climatological relationship between stations. The FILNET program also estimates data across intervals in a station record where discontinuities occur in a short time interval, which prevents the reliable estimation of appropriate adjustments.
Urbanization Effects (NCDC says this is covered by their Homogenization algorithms)
In the original HCN, the regression-based approach of Karl et al. (1988) was employed to account for urban heat islands. In contrast, no specific urban correction is applied in HCN version 2 because the change-point detection algorithm effectively accounts for any “local” trend at any individual station. In other words, the impact of urbanization and other changes in land use is likely small in HCN version 2.”

Now after starting out with an observation error range of +/- 1F (.5C). Every one of these prior adjustments adds uncertainty to the data.

For example:

1. Raw Data point is 15C +/- .5C That means the range is 14.5C to 15.5C
2. The first adjustment add +/- .25. Now the range is 14.25C to 15.75C
3. Second adjustment +/- .25 Now the range is 14C to 16C
4. Third adjustment is +/- .505 Now the range is 13.5C to 16.5C!

I chose these numbers for 2,3 & 4 as examples, I do not yet know the real numbers. However I chose their net value because the NCDC gives an example in the document that describes their process. Their chart for Reno shows error bars that look to be around 1.8C to 2C range error introduced by their adjustments. This is additive to the +/- .5 C built in to the raw measurement as there is no indication it includes the raw error range. It could actually be worse as it is unclear if the TOB & Missing data interpolation is part of their uncertainty calculation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Only after these adjustments are doen GISS get the data for merge into the GHCN.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html

Then, incredibly, they make more adjustments!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
First they remove the Adjustment #3 data from above. So in a sense they remove one source of error. (Adjustment #4)
“The reports were converted from F to C and reformatted; data marked as being filled in using interpolation methods were removed.”

If they only remove part of Adjustment #3, then more uncertainty is introduced.

This indicates GISS is using the NCDC/USHCN data that has been through Adjustment #3 and they take it mostly back to Adjustment #2.

Then, they homogenize the data again! (Adjustment #5)

“The goal of the homogeneization effort is to avoid any impact (warming
or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced
by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the
long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term
monthly and annual variations. If no such neighbors exist, the station is
completely dropped, if the rural records are shorter, part of the
non-rural record is dropped.”

The specific stated goal of this adjustment is to take into account Urban Heat Island effect. Yet, NCDC says they already adjusted for this when they homongenized the data! Now the data is twice baked for UHI. (Which I thought the IPCC and Jones, Wang (1990) said was negligible)

A bit concerning is the video data analysis show UHI is still in the data by sampling city/urban pairs around the country. Hmm… are we smarter than a 6th grader..:-) (I need the URL, but it is well known and easily reproduced independently)

Roman M has done an excellent job in his blog showing these GISS adjustments are driving a bias into the data.
http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/

I have sampled numerous individual stations in CA and seen the same bias being introduced by this this process. I described the process for doing this in comments over at WUWT. Others using that method have found the same results in NY, Grand Canyon, Calgary, etc. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ (I need to find the exact links, sorry)

So there are two building concerns about this final step. First, it appears duplicative to (at least in the US) what has already been done. Second it appears to be reshaping the curves to fit the story. No one has any indication if this is just a bad algorithm or deliberate.

Don’t forget, this also introduces uncertainty. NCDC estimated their homogenization introduced up to +/- .9C if I read their example chart correctly.

So right now it appears the inherent cumulative range of error far exceeds the claimed warming signal that has supposedly detected.

This chart shows GISS claiming a warming signal of .6 C detected.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Remember, even the raw data was +/- .5 C from the moment it was written down per the NCDC.

The most incredibly generous reading of the Reno example for NCDC (assuming it includes the raw error rate, TOB, Missing Value Estimates included) shows an error band of at best +/- .9 C.

Then there is whatever uncertainty is added by the GISS process that also appears to bend the curve.

I don’t claim to know all the right numbers for the total uncertainty being introduced into the data. However, this error budget must be fully disclosed and understood. It certainly appears that the signal is less than the noise introduced by the original measurement and the up to 5 adjustments. Exactly by how much is critical to prove the point that a warming signal has in fact been detected.

I don’t know what process the raw European data goes through. Until someone describes the path from observation to the end, it is hard to say.
Your post show early 20th century adjustments of +/- 1C. Given my earlier mistake on GISS “raw” that turned out to already have been modified by NCDC, you may want to investigate if your data may be in the same position. Assuming a similar raw observation error of +/- .5C, the cumulative error range is already +/- 1.5C. It is really hard to claim a 1C signal detection in that environment.

Given this is an open review process, I’m sure others will find mistakes in this post, let me know and I will investigate and correct as required.

Top
#806202 - 16/12/2009 23:53 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
LOL
The "global warming' is already under 10 feet by me . And more I read and hear about it is getting deeper. As was mentioned in the other thread Copenhagen is not about warming or cooling . Is about over population and problems with it . If we know ( on WZ)there is so many problems with past temps . Then there is no way , that those scientists who created loony graphs wouldnt know what they are doing. That is coz a highest government order to them to make it look like the Earth is warming to scare the population and accept a tax on it . And I go as far with a claim , that there is no warming at all

I like famous , never forgetable lines from great films . Dumb and dumber .... That town is that way , lol . That suits , what they are telling us

Top
#806244 - 17/12/2009 07:40 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Ben Sandilands]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2248
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
Two things I don't think should be fudged are the arctic and antarctic sea ice levels which are closing on the lower traces set in 2007 in both hemispheres even in opposite seasons.
sea ice coverage

We see the southern ice falling below the record anomaly of the previous season and the northern ice reaching parity with the record low of 2007 for this time of year.

Why misquote them?

Another concern is the remorseless rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in recent decades irrespective of which way the shorter temperate trend lines can be drawn. You could almost conclude that something was pumping it into the atmosphere faster than it could be removed.

What could that be?



I wont go on too much about sea ice as there is a seperate thread for that, but antarctic sea ice is still well above average, and the 2007 trace for the northern hemisphere by this time of year was no longer at record low levels. In fact by the time it reached its maximum sea ice extent for the season it was almost average due to the accelerated freeze following the massive summer melt.

Its still well below average atm but it seems each year it recovers a little more than the previous year.

Top
#806362 - 17/12/2009 14:07 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Cimexus Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 19/11/2003
Posts: 485
Loc: Madison WI (USA) and Canberra ...
Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands

Another concern is the remorseless rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in recent decades irrespective of which way the shorter temperate trend lines can be drawn. You could almost conclude that something was pumping it into the atmosphere faster than it could be removed.

What could that be?


This is why I don't understand why climate 'skeptics' seem to be against taking action to reduce carbon emissions. Whether you do or don't believe that the world is warming, whether you do or don't believe that the warming is primarily anthropogenic ... it doesn't matter!

Because, one thing that can't be argued against is that CO2 levels (as well as levels of methane and other greenhouse gases) are increasing year upon year, and for CO2 at least, are in higher concentrations now than they have been for close to 1 million years. And increasing at a rate that on a climatic/geological timescale, might as well be almost instantaneous.

CO2 concentrations have been higher in earth's history, to be sure. But not during human existance. And even rapid past climate/atmospheric shifts have occurred over thousands of years, not decades or centuries. The fact that the level of these gases in our atmosphere is increasing at an unsustainable rate should be enough evidence to take action. Warming, cooling or whatever may or may not be a side effect ... but that is kinda irrelevant IMO.


Edited by Cimexus (17/12/2009 14:08)
_________________________
Madison WI, USA (330 m ASL)
Canberra ACT, Australia (600 m ASL)

Top
#806401 - 17/12/2009 15:42 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Cimexus]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
That past climate shifts have taken thousands of years to occur is one of the great fallacies that most people seem to believe.
Here is a one article of a number of very rapid climate shifts, some possibly on no more than a continental scale although no climate shift of this size can possibly occur without severe climate effects elsewhere.
The global covering Younger Dryas climate shift took place possibly in less than a decade and after 1300 years of extremely cold global temperatures temperatures recovered in less than 5 years.
And these climate shifts had absolutely nothing to do with any green house gases such as CO2.
These short term climate shifts appear to be a completely natural and irregular re-occurring feature of the global climate since the last great Ice Age.
There has not yet been any satisfactory explanations put forward as to the possibly multiple causes of these abrupt climate shifts.
Their causes and the mechanisms involved to trigger such abrupt climate shifts is still a mystery let alone being forecastable within the present state of knowledge.

And; http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986

Another paper from a USGRCP seminar is below.;

Quote:

Abrupt Climate Changes Revisited: How Serious and How Likely?

INTRODUCTION:

Dr. Herman Zimmerman
Director of the Paleoclimate Program, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA

SPEAKERS:

Dr. Richard B. Alley
Professor, Earth System Science Center and Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Dr. Peter B. deMenocal
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY

Overview

Widespread climate changes in the distant past were larger and more rapid than those experienced during more recent historical times. For example, the cooling of the climate leading into the last "ice age," the peak of which occurred roughly 21,000 years ago, and the subsequent climate transition to a warmer, more modern world were punctuated by abrupt climate changes that were one-third to one-half as large as the change from an "ice age" to a warm climate [i.e., the roughly 11-13ºF (6-7ºC) transition from an "ice-age" to a warm climate, globally]. Paleoclimate records further indicate that during these abrupt shifts many aspects of the climate in many regions changed precipitously in the time span of a few years to as little as a single year.

Moreover, the current warm period since the peak of the last ice age (21,000 years ago) was previously thought to be very stable with none of the large climate shifts that so characterized "ice ages." Contrary to this once widely held notion, new evidence from deep-sea sediments and ice cores shows that this warm period was interrupted by a series of abrupt cooling events, each lasting several hundred years. One of the most prominent of these events occurred roughly 12,800 years ago, after Greenland had warmed to near-present conditions. Another smaller but significant abrupt cooling event occurred roughly 8,200 years ago when temperatures in Greenland were slightly above present-day temperatures. These and other recent, abrupt cooling events have been detected from Scandinavia to Africa, some of which occurred within a human lifetime. One such notable event 4,200 years ago (2200 BC) is shown to be synchronous with the collapse of the world's first human empire in Mesopotamia.

Thus, the paleoclimate record suggests that the climate system can respond to various climate forcings in a non-linear manner. In fact, these results document significant and consequential climate shifts during the time of human civilization, and highlight the characteristically abrupt aspects of climate change and their potential consequences. This raises the possibility that if humans alter the Earth's atmosphere rapidly enough, resulting in a global warming, an abrupt climate shift might be induced, with significant social and ecological consequences.


Abrupt Climate Changes and the "Younger Dryas" Event


Approximately 12,800 years ago, as the climate was warming following the Earth's last glacial maximum ("ice age"), an abrupt transition to cold conditions occurred, during which the surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere dropped precipitously [nearly 27ºF (15ºC) in Greenland, for example] in a series of abrupt, decadal-scale jumps, some of which involved temperature changes on the order of 5ºF (3ºC). This abrupt climate cooling is known as the "Younger Dryas" event. Once the abrupt transition to a colder climate had occurred, the Northern Hemisphere, especially Europe and Greenland, experienced considerably colder conditions lasting about 1,300 years. Other parts of the world were affected as well. The termination of this cold event around 11,500 years ago occurred as an even more abrupt warming, most of which took place in a single 5-year period. The entire transition to a warmer, more modern climate took no more than 40 years. During this transition, snow accumulation in Greenland doubled in a single 3-year period, with 90% of that increase occurring in a single year. This abrupt transition to a warmer world led to a three-fold drop in wind-blown sea salt, a seven-fold drop in wind-blown dust, and a climate warming of 9-18ºF (5-10ºC) in Greenland, all in less than a decade.


Edited by ROM (17/12/2009 16:06)

Top
#806463 - 17/12/2009 17:22 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
There are suggestions that the Younger Dryas cooling was VERY fast - like months not years...

New Scientist
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#806560 - 17/12/2009 21:48 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Arnost]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
But lets just take a second to think about who claims alot of this geological evidence is reliable...the same people who cannot explain nearly every mass extinction event in history....who rely on time scales which are inaccurate to a massive degree...and cant even tell us about the earths core, especially anything sub-plate level. Temperature proxies are extremely inaccurate and are due as much if not more scepticism as temperature records...ice cores and other long term records are subject to signficant innaccuracies associated with discontinuites and non-linear time records due to melt-through.

All science has its flaws...just be careful what you consider to be gospel...especially with talking in any sort of confidence about the geological record.
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#806602 - 17/12/2009 23:41 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Severely Tall]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Geologists are a damn sight more honest and conservative than most climate researchers.
If a geologists attempts to twist the facts in the slightest he will be on the street quick smart and virtually unemployable as it is on the geologists say so and his / her knowledge of geology that mining and resource companies will spend hundreds of millions of their investor's dollars.
And if that geologists tries to be a smart arse and prove how good he is by dressing up the facts a little and the company blows a few hundred million on a dry hole and the hard questions are then asked of the geologist, that keeps any geologist on the straight and narrow.
And dry holes happen all the time in mining and oil well drilling despite some of the best and most gifted geologists in the world, the ones with an unexplained innate gift for finding ore bodies or oil or gas, working on the projects.

Geologists collectively are amongst the most skeptical of all professions about global warming.
They see and analyse the changes in the epochs of the global climate on an everyday basis locked up in the very rocks which they study and which rocks are changed, altered, modified and formed by the earth's ever changing climate.
The changes wrought by the Earth's climate on the earth itself is the very heart of geology.

And you are talking about the actual climate happenings of the ages past where there are fixed identifiable examples of the global climate which are there to be actually interpreted not some airy fairy model that tries to predict climate a hundred years ahead and now known to be using grossly corrupted and altered data as the main inputs.
Furthermore there is written recorded history in both Europe and particularly China with it's 3000 years plus of civilisation, sparse perhaps but recorded nonetheless, of these warm and cold periods in the global climate to back up the recent geological type records.

How different that is to predicting the future even only a hundred years ahead based only on some very dodgy climate models using the supposed warming effects of a very minor atmospheric gas which in turn relies on large still relatively unknown feedbacks for it's supposed effect to try to predict the future of the global climate.
Models that in a few short years are already way off in their predictions and which it is even admitted by their creators that there is a hell of a lot of stuff that affects climate but is not included in the model because the modelers find it too hard to put in.
They can't even model the effects of clouds or even hurricanes on the global climate as a hurricane is small enough to fit inside of the 100 or 500 km global grids that they use and as such can't be modeled for the effects on the climate.

Which would you prefer to spend your money on and put your trust in, a geologists who has a good chance of finding a valuable resource within 10 years or a climate modeler and his model who might give you a big clue on where to put your money in a possibly lucrative weather / climate related venture that may eventuate in a decade's time?
Anyway Al Gore and all the big bankers have beaten you to that one!

Top
#806727 - 18/12/2009 12:36 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
Dr Odious Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 04/08/2006
Posts: 209
Loc: Canberra
>>Geologists are a damn sight more honest and conservative than most climate researchers.>>

I think its hilarious that climate sceptics/deniers can feel that its OK to write this sort of thing in blogs etc while decrying the content in personal (hacked) emails of a few climate scientists. Is it too much to ask for a least a minimal effort to be impartial?

On the topic of rates of temperature change, its a different world to that of the Younger Dryas and other such periods. Today species live in highly modified fragmented landscapes with (in many cases) much lower populations. Their ability to adapt by moving ain't what it used to be. Once again the devil is in the (often overlooked) details.


Edited by Dr Odious (18/12/2009 12:39)
Edit Reason: accidental post

Top
#806748 - 18/12/2009 14:45 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Dr Odious]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm here is a list of all the things so far attributed to Global Warming.

Make of it what you will.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#806759 - 18/12/2009 15:37 Re: Temperature trends [Re: SBT]
Dr Odious Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 04/08/2006
Posts: 209
Loc: Canberra
I make of it that many poeple out there don't have a good understanding of the impacts of climate change, or exaggerate them. This does not invalidate AGW theory.

Top
#806859 - 18/12/2009 21:38 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Dr Odious]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Dr O, I have great understanding of the impacts of CC. Humans cause it all so now it is time to cull the great threat? Allow the Government in their infinite wisdom to select those that create the least positive influence on the planet to be culled, save all those that use more, and execute those that are more reliant on the planet because they are killing us all, the poor. Wake up to yourself!!

Top
#806889 - 18/12/2009 22:45 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Simmosturf]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Simmosturf...thats a shame you think that way...that just because you dont agree with the evidence that we are the paranoid ones? Tell me...who are the ones suggesting GCMs and hence computing is not reliable in any way shape or form...despite evidence to the contrary.

He's not suggesting that...hes suggesting population control via control of birth rates...similar to the birth rate controls which have been semi-effective in China. In the end the over-population of this planet will sort itself out...starvation, and mass-death will result...particularly during droughts. Its not the government culling people...its trying to ensure sufficient resources exist to support populations. What you describe is a paranoid conspiracy theory. I smell a 9/11 conspiracy aspect to the posts coming out here.
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#806914 - 19/12/2009 00:09 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Severely Tall]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
Ok here is the impact of one child policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104378.html

Its all catch 22

Top
#806983 - 19/12/2009 06:34 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Vlasta]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
What evidence?? I see heaps of proof that this is all cyclical, its all happened before and will happen again. The evidence your talking about ST is political and media spun drivel. Just watch the news for 5 min and you can almost see the presenter writing their own lines to dramatise even a small bushfire or storm event or even a cold story that is all caused by Global Warming!!!! What a load of bullshite

Top
#807122 - 19/12/2009 14:37 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Simmosturf]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
SS. See Arnost's discussion on proof...or the lack thereof in science. There is no incontrivertable evidence to what you suggest.

Simmo...I only wish I could introduce you to the people on the ground...then you might understand what you are actually talking about...the evidence is there...certain people need to stop denying just because they are too technologically inept to believe a computer simulations (which is ironic given they make posts on here...and based on thousands of simulations...together with records)...the cyclical proof is circumstancial...based on limited and dodgy statistical methods...as I have pointed out to almost despair. Once again you miscontrue the science with the misinformed media (who need to be regulated to not sensationalise), against climate scientists (who emphatically and repeditively acknowledge that individual events are not attributable to climate change...just look at every interview by David Karoly)...stop trying to apply a discrediting brush to slander science...attack the idea not the scientists. Its another ironic thought that you talk about political and media spun drivel when every post you make trys to make use of the same drivel to your own designs. If I hadn't seen the actual figures...and wasnt able to play with the data myself I might also question it...if there is a fault to the scientists its attempting to disseminate results to the public via the unreliable and incompetent media.

The temperature trend is positive...even your own sites agree that it is what may seem a relatively small rate of change will have a big impact in half a century...certain parties have vested interests to deny the evidence of any warming (which some claim to be natural) at every opportunity...whether because they fall into a certain age bracket that is mistrusting of technology...or their own interests suit this purpose. Attribution studies suggest that in some part at least we contribute to global warming...hence the argument shouldnt be the blame game...but an action...which the ETS is not a good approach in an Australian context.

So before you continue on your media using bash...how about we get back to actual scientific verifiable evidence.
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#807139 - 19/12/2009 15:10 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Severely Tall]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Show us the proof that positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks and thereby hugely increase global temps, as CO2 will not do it on its own...everyone knows how much CO2 will heat the globe up from now on it's own...very little. Face the facts ST you have no proof at all, just theoretical unproven heresay!
The vast majority of folk that do not believe the computer simulations,are sane researching common sense people (generally caring environmentaly friendly nice folk) who can see that the science far from proven and can see so many other influences (solar, magnetic, albedo, cloud cover, volcanoes, ocean currents, ocean atmosphere interchanges, land use changes, etc,etc) that affect global temps....Very few have any agenda but to find the real science about climate change, and not have it thrown at them as sensationalist interviews and climate chanmge funded studies and end of the world headlines...many of these have large funded agendas to follow it seems to me.


Edited by Bucketing Down(BD) (19/12/2009 15:12)

Top
#807198 - 19/12/2009 16:43 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
And yet we have yet to see any evidence suggest lunar evidence...id go as far to say you have no reliable evidence and are just speculating.

The utterly unrealistic material located on your own 'statistical model' http://www.holtonweather.com/global.htm what that proves is that poorly designed models produce poor and unrealistic results.

For instance the lack of references here: "Apart from the above opinion on the effects of CO2 on Global Mean Temperature, I strongly believe (and much available science literature will back me up on this), that most, if not all, IPCC used Global Mean Temperature Forecating Models, do not allow sufficiently in their formulation for any Solar-Magnetic and AMO/PDO Ocean changes...And it is these latter mentioned 3 climatic variables, which are in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), the 3 strongest climatic influences on Mean Global Temperature trends." Where is the available literature? I agree that long term ocean changes we need to simulate better...but I (and clearly other members of the scientific community...see below) dont believe the relation to sunspots and solar-magnetics is well founded, for instance:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

In fact consider how unrealistic your own prediction looks:
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/ianholton/GLOBALSLTEMPS2009PTLJC.jpg
The model clearly cannot handle interannual-variation, is overly smoothed and from the apparent outputs is unrealistically simple in its prediction of climate impacts, ignoring smaller scale and feedback cycles.

You are suggesting a massive deviation from the trends identified in the recent past, and from every operational climate model...I wonder. I suspect you will probably claim to be too busy...but thats ok...the world will keep on spinning...and the evidence will continue to stack up.

Oh...and if you suggest its all theoretical...try attribution studies:
http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2006/nicholls_hres.pdf

Or how about the number of papers talking about feedbacks..just to sample a few.
http://climatechange.pbworks.com/f/Posit...er+Cox+2005.pdf
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&l...2otqZAmM0Gve0ZY
http://www.knmi.nl/~hurkvd/docs/Friedlingstein.pdf
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/theses_archive/2005/haifee/haifee.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf
http://www.uvm.edu/~bbeckage/Teaching/GlobalChangeEcology/AssignedPapers/Kump.ModelUncertainty.Nature.2002.pdf

As I have spent significant time addressing. Volcanics cannot be attributed to be the cause, land use changes are part of the AGW argument (obviously...if we are changing the use of land...take for instance the effect of the mining on Naru (which has changed the convective environment markedly)). The other effects are implemented as much as possible in models...and much work is being dedicated towards adding these effects in....between assessment reports scientists do not just sit around between these reports...which have evolved over time. Scientific funding is hard to come by...the results of the climate work are not predetermined...the goal of the funding is to determine what the causes are...and what the end results of these causes are on our climate...it doesnt actually matter for the scientists...we get funded either the result...and it doesnt promote further funding...for instance if the evidence was for cooling this would be our advisement. Just have a look at grant proposals before you make such assertions.

Maybe you need to come and have a public debate or presentation at a University so we can hear about your interpretation instead of this debate....and so you can ask questions you wish of someone eminent in the other side?

Does weatherzone need a public debate?







Edited by Severely Tall (19/12/2009 16:47)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
Page 5 of 117 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 116 117 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 46 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
chejian, Dusty Dervish, pogonantha, scott12
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529247 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image