Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on August 07, 2010, 12:38:40 PM
-
I just had to post these even though the GW hysteria is not as bad as it use to be, but they are still around, just not as loud.
Argentina Has Colder Winter Than Antarctica, Spurring Record Power Use...
Argentina is importing record amounts of energy as the coldest winter in 40 years drives up demand and causes natural-gas shortages, prompting Dow Chemical Co. and steelmaker Siderar SAIC to scale back production.
Continued at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html
1 Million Fish Dead in Bolivian Ecological Disaster
(3 Aug. 2010 - Update: The number of dead fish and other water-dependent wildlife has increased to about 6 million.)
Over 1 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles, dolphins and other river wildlife are floating dead in numerous Bolivian rivers in the three eastern/southern departments of Santa Cruz, Beni and Tarija. The extreme cold front that hit Bolivia in mid-July caused water temperatures to dip below the minimum temperatures river life can tolerate. As a consequence, rivers, lakes, lagoons and fisheries are brimming with decomposing fish and other creatures.
Continued at:
http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.html
-
Instances of record cold weather in particular locations is not evidence of long-term global warming or cooling trends. Is it possible not to give [anthropogenic] global warming groupies evidence that skeptics are scientific illiterates?
Is it really newsworthy that a few places had cold weather recently?
-
Is it really newsworthy that a few places had cold weather recently?
Considering that whenever some place has very hot weather, it gets reported as evidence of global warming? Yes.
-
Considering that whenever some place has very hot weather, it gets reported as evidence of global warming? Yes.
This. I agree that an unusually cold winter or hot summer is meaningless as far as long-term climate change, but the fact is every time there's a heat spell the liberal sites/forums I occasionally lurk start foaming about Global Warming.
-
Considering that whenever some place has very hot weather, it gets reported as evidence of global warming? Yes.
This is just as useless for proving global warming as some place having a cold day is for disproving it.
-
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
-
What I really love are certain people that will use articles about cold weather on the southern hemisphere as evidence of warming on the northern hemisphere - someone actually tried to "explain" to me that since they're on the opposite side of the globe, their weather is opposite of ours, so that when it's cold THERE, that proves that it's too warm here. :D :D :D
-
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Real temperature data are not that smooth. I see the sources for those data are allegedly two books. How about something peer-reviewed?
-
Real temperature data are not that smooth. I see the sources for those data are allegedly two books. How about something peer-reviewed?
Well thre's this, that's peer reviewed:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Fgistemp%2F2005%2F2005cal_fig1.gif&hash=0a8135c052e00694f3bebadd91449257fcc072c5)
Problem is, you see, everyone that peer reviewed that was in on a global conspiracy to bring the planet closer to one-world government under the UN, socialism, communism, etc.
-
Hmmmm.....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecy.wa.gov%2Fclimatechange%2Fimages%2FGlobal_Temps_08.gif&hash=c38454c9fad946efe76caef1874051c140ae90ea)
.... 125 years....
.... Hmmmmm....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreedomkeys.com%2Fglobal_temp2.jpg&hash=3f88a3cd8f73ff145938cb4cc9ea0ce54b68d925)
.... 425,000 years....
......Hmmmmm.
Terry, 230RN
-
Well thre's this, that's peer reviewed:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Fgistemp%2F2005%2F2005cal_fig1.gif&hash=0a8135c052e00694f3bebadd91449257fcc072c5)
Problem is, you see, everyone that peer reviewed that was in on a global conspiracy to bring the planet closer to one-world government under the UN, socialism, communism, etc.
Yep, too bad, that.
Were I to use gov't money to commit fraud and falsify my results, my company would be investigated by federale LEOs and liable for meagbucks in fines and I could face jail time in federal "pound mein the *expletive deleted*ss prison.". When academics do it to spin tales of GW and progressive gov't, they get investigated by their buddies and face no fines & jail time.
Oh, and let us not forget that they deliberately destroyed the recored raw data.
-
Well thre's this, that's peer reviewed:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Fgistemp%2F2005%2F2005cal_fig1.gif&hash=0a8135c052e00694f3bebadd91449257fcc072c5)
Problem is, you see, everyone that peer reviewed that was in on a global conspiracy to bring the planet closer to one-world government under the UN, socialism, communism, etc.
The graphs do not contain error bars. I have yet to see any error estimation on temperature data used by AGW believers. I would be willing to concede that the modern data has a low inaccuracy, because it is safe to assume that the temperature is being recorded using a RTD, thermistor, thermocouple, etc.
However, the data from <1920's was probably recorded using a thermometer. This is a different ballgame. What was the thermometer calibrated to? What were the increments of measure? I would not be surprised if the error of that reading is more than 0.2 degrees.
Even if the graphs are correct, and the data unbiased, these graphs indicate absolutely no reason why the temperature is increasing. Maybe cutting CO2 emissions would help, maybe it would make things worse.
Data that is peer reviewed is possibly more reliable than otherwise. However, if the reviewers are incompetent, biased, or both, then the peer review is meaningless.
I have seen a few peer reviewed articles that were blatantly incorrect and opinionated.
That said, I agree that individual temperatures are meaningless in either proving or refuting AGW.
-
"Peer reviewing" does not lead to Truth when all the "peers" involved are in lockstep with current "scientific fashion" and whose livelihoods depend on promotion of their version of Truth.
I've seen the "error bars" (error bands) on the 425,000 year graph, and even with the large potential error bands superimposed you can still see the cyclic nature of the temperatures.
These cycles have been generally accepted (even given the error bands) in the scientific community for many decades before "global warming" became the panic of the day.
-
"Peer reviewing" does not lead to Truth when all the "peers" involved are in lockstep with current "scientific fashion" and whose livelihoods depend on promotion of their version of Truth.
So you'd rather rely on garbage like (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.longrangeweather.com%2Fimages%2FGTEMPS.gif&hash=7f6643d323b0a95bbefe8d5fc695f588388b922c)
trying to imply that temperature changes smoothly over time when we know it does not? That is not good science. Good science does not assure good accuracy, but we have much less hope of good accuracy without good science.
Peer review is not a panacea, but one thing it does do is keep graphs like that from being taken seriously. My guess is that data came from low-resolution ice core samples and then someone generously overlayed a nice gentle curve on the sparse data. That is bad science no matter what you think of AGW.
The clearly cyclic graph of the last 425k years... I don't see any data source cited on the webpage it's from, either.
-
So you'd rather rely on garbage like http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
trying to imply that temperature changes smoothly over time when we know it does not? That is not good science. Good science does not assure good accuracy, but we have much less hope of good accuracy without good science.
Peer review is not a panacea, but one thing it does do is keep graphs like that from being taken seriously. My guess is that data came from low-resolution ice core samples and then someone generously overlayed a nice gentle curve on the sparse data. That is bad science no matter what you think of AGW.
The clearly cyclic graph of the last 425k years... I don't see any data source cited on the webpage it's from, either.
I don't see a data source on the hockey-stick graph, either. (And no one will since it's been "lost")
This is my problem with AGW proponents. Our data is too sparse and suspect to claim the kind of certainty they claim.
I also have doubts about economists' claims of inflation in the Roman Empire. Again, the data is pretty sparse to make any definitive claims.
The economists don't suggest we return to Roman technology in order to save us, though.
-
So you'd rather rely on garbage like (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.longrangeweather.com%2Fimages%2FGTEMPS.gif&hash=7f6643d323b0a95bbefe8d5fc695f588388b922c)
trying to imply that temperature changes smoothly over time when we know it does not? That is not good science. Good science does not assure good accuracy, but we have much less hope of good accuracy without good science.
Peer review is not a panacea, but one thing it does do is keep graphs like that from being taken seriously. My guess is that data came from low-resolution ice core samples and then someone generously overlayed a nice gentle curve on the sparse data. That is bad science no matter what you think of AGW.
The clearly cyclic graph of the last 425k years... I don't see any data source cited on the webpage it's from, either.
So not trusting the peer review process when it comes to global warming means that we must believe that other graph? Nice logical leap. I'm sure you can do better than that.
-
Curve-smoothing is done all the time. I remember being taught to do it with French Curves in High School. I just pulled that graph from google imaging. You can always right click on it, you know. I would agree that that little exclamation mark means that someone had an axe to grind on that "popularized" smoothed graph.
"So not trusting the peer review process when it comes to global warming means that we must believe that other graph? Nice logical leap. I'm sure you can do better than that."
Don't put words in my mouth, Suh, and don't make illogical leaps. The 125-year data is undoubtedly pretty accurate, since we had actual instruments in the air and water. Reviewing one set of data does not imply rejection of the other data. I'm sure you can do better than that. As I see it, the "illogical leap" being made is that from this tiny 125-year sample of a very long period of climate changes, we can do any doom-predicting. We may in fact be doomed, but it's hard to tell from the data thus far.
The main premise I was trying to convey was: "Hmmmmm...."
And speaking of curve-smoothing, I wonder how many "hockey sticks" could be found in the long-term data if we had more precise direct information. It was admittedly derived by imputation from other phenomena, but, as I said, the cyclic nature has been accepted for many decades before global warming became an environmental issue.
I have no axe to grind either way, however, whence the "Hmmmmm..."
Terry, 230RN
-
Don't put words in my mouth, Suh, and don't make illogical leaps.
I didn't quote you. I quoted tyme.
-
Is it possible not to give [anthropogenic] global warming groupies evidence that skeptics are scientific illiterates?
Does this not presuppose that anthropogenic global warming groupies are not scientific illiterates themselves? PTK once pointed out to me that a group stating the world would flood should the polar ice caps melt had listed the film Waterworld as part of their scientific investigation. That should tell you something right there.
-
The graphs do not contain error bars. I have yet to see any error estimation on temperature data used by AGW believers. I would be willing to concede that the modern data has a low inaccuracy, because it is safe to assume that the temperature is being recorded using a RTD, thermistor, thermocouple, etc.
However, the data from <1920's was probably recorded using a thermometer. This is a different ballgame. What was the thermometer calibrated to? What were the increments of measure? I would not be surprised if the error of that reading is more than 0.2 degrees.
Don't assume that modern weather station data is correct. While it's true that modern temperature sensors can be quite accurate, sensor accuracy isn't the prime source of error in any weather station. Installation quality has a much bigger influence on the quality and reliability of the data than do the sensors themselves.
These guys (http://www.surfacestations.org/) are trying to perform an audit of each of the US's surface weather stations reporting historical climate data. So far they've put eyes on some 80% of the weather stations out there, and about 90% fail basic quality standards. Most of those that fail, fail in such a way that they over-report the ambient temperature.
=|
-
That is a coincidence, of course. :D
-
That is a coincidence, of course. :D
So is the fact that a large percentage (large majority, IIRC) of surface temperature stations are now enveloped by "heat islands" which boost readings well above what the ACTUAL area average temp is. When, instead of the field they were originally in the middle of, your sensor is now surrounded by AN ASPHALT PARKING LOT, your readings are going to be... skewed. Since most of the planet is not (yet) composed of parking lots, it would seem to this layman to be, oh, let's say "questionable" to advocate that readings from those devices, and from others in similar circumstances, are legitimate.
-
The heat island effect is well understood and taken into account with the global climate data.
A paper written (and peer reviewed) in 2003 looked at exactly this, and figured the urban heat island effect was overstated.
(Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found"; J climate; Peterson; 2003)
-
The heat island effect is well understood and taken into account with the global climate data.
That is a matter of opinion.
-
Hmmmm.....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecy.wa.gov%2Fclimatechange%2Fimages%2FGlobal_Temps_08.gif&hash=c38454c9fad946efe76caef1874051c140ae90ea)
.... 125 years....
.... Hmmmmm....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreedomkeys.com%2Fglobal_temp2.jpg&hash=3f88a3cd8f73ff145938cb4cc9ea0ce54b68d925)
.... 425,000 years....
......Hmmmmm.
Terry, 230RN
Where did this data come from? I can't find it anywhere.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fpaleo%2Fglobalwarming%2Fimages%2Flast2000-large.jpg&hash=b0f36ec84eed909c4285f9a3f19506364ac47b4c)
HEre's what I have, with references.
-
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/about/measuring.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4uhi
-
That is a matter of opinion.
No, it' really not.
Urban Heat Island effect was understood 200 years ago. I suppose you can still say "it's a matter of opinion" like you could say about relativity (http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity) too, if you really wanted. My opinion states that the sky is blue, and that opinion is backed by countless observations, as well as explanations of the phenomena that have withstood the test of time.
Besides, if warming was primarily caused by an urban heat island effect, I'd expect to see warming primarily in urban areas. I don't. Look how much warming you see in the north pole, and across much of Asia and the middle of Africa.
-
It's not that heat island effect isn't understood, it's that it isn't properly addressed and accounted for.
Rural stations have their own host of problems, too, having nothing at all to do with heat island effects.
I'd get fired if any of my data acquisition installations had the kinds of problems that are norm among US surface stations. And I'd wager that overseas stations are on balance even worse than ours. So pardon me if I don't have any sympathy for the "eh, these problems are no big deal" and the "meh, we can just adjust the data to correct the errors" arguments.
Yes, these problems are a big deal.
No, you can't correctly correct the data.
-
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4uhi
Update (2008):
A paper by Chinese scientists, Ren, G., Zhou, Y., Chu, Z., Zhou, J., Zhang, A., Guo, J. and Liu, X. (2008) Urbanization effects on observed surface air temperature trends in north China. Journal of Climate 21: 1333-1348, has now shown conclusively that the IPCC's claim that the UHI is negligible is false. Ren et al did the obvious thing to check for the UHI effect: compare trends from rural stations with those from urban ones. They found that the trend (degrees C per decade) was 0.18 for rural stations, 0.25 in small cities and 0.34 in large cities, with an overall trend of 0.29. They estimate that the UHI effect is responsible for a trend of about 0.11 degrees per decade in China; that is almost 20 times as great as the IPCC's claim.
oops!
-
Nitrogen:
I wouldn't take Briffa, Jones, and Mann at face value. Their data sets, when portions of them are made public, don't withstand scrutiny. Neither does their methodology. The Jones & Mann hockey stick chart has been shown to be hinkey^2.
I won't reply the entire CRU data dump and I won't rehash the posts I have made over time WRT data, methodology, and transparency in my profession. I will, however, write that if I did what Briffa, Jones, Mann, etc. did and presented it to a customer, I'd be lucky if I were only fired.
-
It's quite a coincidence that we are going on the third cool and wet summer in a row in Montana. Last winter was long and cold.
I don't think that it's been over 95 yet here this summer.
Raining here the last couple days; it feels like summer is over already.
-
We haven't had too many really hot weeks down here on the Gulf Coast. We've had a lot of rain and clouds come in due to various tropical storm activity and such. Nothing to do with any trends. It is still hot and humid like most summers.
-
Help me here, how do we know how warm it was in 1200 AD correct to one-tenth of a degree?
-
Help me here, how do we know how warm it was in 1200 AD correct to one-tenth of a degree?
One method is to evaluate tree ring data and compare it to tree ring data from modern times from when we have a good corresponding record of temperature data.
When the ancient tree ring data doesn't produce the results we want, we apply a correction factor to make it fit.
-
One method is to evaluate tree ring data and compare it to tree ring data from modern times from when we have a good corresponding record of temperature data.
When the ancient tree ring data doesn't produce the results we want, we apply a correction factor to make it fit.
Actually, no. That's not how it's done.
We compare it to modern data because we believe there is a correlation and throw out the modern tree ring data when it no longer correlates to observed temperatures.
-
Nope, we all get together in a giant conspiracy to steal your SUV.
Then we point out that discussion of cold in Argentina in 2010 is as meaningless as discussing record highs in 17 other countries in 2010:
Record temperatures in 2010:
Belarus, 7 August, 38.9C (102F) at Gomel
Ukraine, 1 August, 41.3C (106.3F), Lukhansk, Voznesensk
Cyprus, 1 August, 46.6C (115.9F), Lefconica
Finland, 29 July, 37.2C (99F), Joensuu
Qatar, 14 July, 50.4C (122.7F), Doha airport
Russia, 11 July, 44.0C (111.2F), Yashkul
Sudan, 25 June, 49.6C (121.3F), Dongola
Niger, 22 June, 47.1C (116.8F), Bilma
Saudi Arabia, 22 June, 52.0C (125.6F), Jeddah
Chad, 22 June, 47.6C (117.7F), Faya
Kuwait, 15 June, 52.6C (126.7F), Abdaly
Iraq, 14 June, 52.0C (125.6F), Basra
Pakistan, 26 May, 53.5C (128.3F), Mohenjo-daro
Burma, 12 May, 47C (116.6F), Myinmu
Ascension Island, 25 March, 34.9C (94.8F), Georgetown
Solomon Islands, 1 February, 36.1C (97F), Lata Nendo
Colombia, 24 January, 42.3C (108F), Puerto Salgar
Only one country (not Argentina, but Guinea) has had a cold record.
-
Record temperatures in 2010:
. . . Gomel . . . Voznesensk . . . Lefconica . . . Joensuu . . . Doha airport . . . Yashkul . . . Dongola . . . Bilma . . . Jeddah . . . Faya . . . Abdaly . . . Basra . . . Mohenjo-daro . . . Myinmu . . . Georgetown . . . Lata Nendo . . . Puerto Salgar . . .
Wonder how long some of these places have been keeping accurate records . . . or of they even are now.
-
It's been hotter in Mohenjo-daro.