Global Geological Climate Change... Conference

[tevake]

We'll it's been an interesting conversation. A good snapshot of our national conversation.
Many bewildering "facts" presented only serve to add to the confusion.

Sometimes I envy others that have clear opinions about these large complicated issues. But this does not seem to bring them much comfort or peace.

To our neighbors to the north joining in here. This is truly a world wide issue that affects everyone. But as you can see we in the U S are bogged down in a conflict of strong opinions, and are little able to hear or at least think about what others have to say.

Aloha for now, I'll join you all in other threads.

Cheers Richard

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by jcl

I don't think that that is a good example of timing. That is an article from February, almost 10 months ago. But there is an upside to the passage of time in this case.

The article was very widely criticized for false information.

Do you know why the temperature records were adjusted? Only to be able to compare them. Some weather stations used temperatures sampled in the mornings. Some in the afternoons. Different types of thermometers. Standardizing the readings is a form of calibration to better be able to compare across sites and over time. Calibration is generally considered a good thing, as owners of torque wrenches and gun sights (among others) will tell us. It produces more consistent results. If you object to calibration when you know that a measurement device has a repeatable offset, you are choosing to go with a wrong number.

The largest adjustments were in the high Arctic. The location where the Telegraph article drew a link to warmer temperatures (claiming they weren't reliable because the readings were adjusted upward. But those adjustments were downwards. That is what some would call an inconvenient truth. The author ignored that detail, claiming the opposite.

The adjustments occurred primarily in the pre 1960s, which is not the period when we are tracking the greatest warming effect.

There is a graph in the link below showing the temperatures with and without the correction. Take a look at the difference. The Telegraph didn't.

The Telegraph article is selling a viewpoint based on headlines. The link below explains the changes, but also gives you the actual weather station data so that you can decide for yourself. This takes us back to the need for critical thinking.

But most telling to me is what happened when it was pointed out to the Telegraph (publication standards) that the article was misleading. They wrote, and I quote:

"This is clearly an opinion article and identifiable as such. Against the background described above, readers can be expected to understand that any evidence offered is almost certainly contestable"

What they are saying is that they know it isn't right, but that readers will understand that it isn't a scientific article, that the numbers are not correct. In other words, that nobody should take it seriously.

All they want to do is sell newspapers. And ten months after they published this opinion piece, as they call it, it appears to be working because people are linking to it thinking that the numbers in it mean something.

If you want to look at scientific data, look to published papers.

For a list of many papers that discuss the subject, and more details on the above, see this link:

Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments

If you don't like that site (John Cook is an award winning climate science communicator) then there are many others. Lots of links available.




The above is very unfortunate for those "many" who are saying that.

So what you are saying is that any data prior to 1960 is suspect and should be discounted. You don't calibrate a measuring device after you take the readings. That just isn't how science works. Data is data and you use it or you don't. You can include it with caveats or throw it out, but you don't change it. Manipulating it for any reason smacks of an agenda and posting a link to an obvious Pro AGW site to "debunk" a "opinion piece" is disingenuous. The problem those that believe in AGW have is that they have been caught manipulating, fabricating and ignoring data to push their agenda. When these same people say that it's "Settled Science", "Critical Thinking" demands that we should look upon these "conclusions" with extreme skepticism. Like J Morgan, I am waiting for an explanation of how a trace gas (CO2) in concentrations of .04% can have such a great effect on global temperatures.

In the Navy, there was a saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brains, baffle them with BS" and right now the AGW folks are doing the latter.

[MacPDX]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.


The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.


According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses


What's it mean? Anybody's guess, but this shows that the "science" is far from absolute.

[McDave]

I'm not a scientist, so don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on human assisted global warming. However, it doesn't seem rational that so many well respected scientists would be motivated to throw their ethics out the window to make a political point, so I don't buy that. However, I do accept the idea that they could all simply be wrong. So to me, it comes down to this kind of a choice: You're standing in front of two doors, and you have to go through one of them. If you go through the first door, you accept a unknown chance somewhere between zero and 100% that your choice will doom the human race to either extinction or the end of civilization as we know it. If you go through the second door, your choice will mean an unknown but certain decline in our standard of living for a long time into the future. Which door would you choose?


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[rostam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Tuco

So what you are saying is that any data prior to 1960 is suspect and should be discounted. You don't calibrate a measuring device after you take the readings. That just isn't how science works. Data is data and you use it or you don't. You can include it with caveats or throw it out, but you don't change it. Manipulating it for any reason smacks of an agenda and posting a link to an obvious Pro AGW site to "debunk" a "opinion piece" is disingenuous. The problem those that believe in AGW have is that they have been caught manipulating, fabricating and ignoring data to push their agenda. When these same people say that it's "Settled Science", "Critical Thinking" demands that we should look upon these "conclusions" with extreme skepticism. Like J Morgan, I am waiting for an explanation of how a trace gas (CO2) in concentrations of .04% can have such a great effect on global temperatures.

I am not saying that data prior 1960 is suspect, I am saying that if you want to compare a reading from that time period to a modern reading in the same general location, it is worth understanding how the measurement was taken back then. This doesn't change the absolute number that was recorded back then, but it does allow us to make better comparisons between then and now.

Example: Thermometers at weather stations used to be put in direct sunlight. Maybe it was easier to read them that way. Around 1850, they started getting shields so the thermometers weren't in the direct sun. That introduced a systemic change in the readings. Analysis showed that it was a different type of shift depending on whether it was summer or winter. So, with a lot of confirming data and analysis, it was determined what the offset would have to be, and when it should be applied, to make an old reading directly comparable to a modern reading. That isn't fiddling the data, the data still exists. It is including an adjustment. And the process by which it is done is widely studied, and published openly. Nothing nefarious.

I even provided a link, above, explaining this. It has links to other sites showing what the adjustments were, why they were applied, and so on. Some went up, some went down. It doesn't change what the measured temperature was on some day in 1917, but it does allow us to better compare that reading to a modern reading. Once we know about an error in a record, it seems to me that ignoring it is dishonest. Using the best information available is the most honest approach.

Let's say you are cooking a turkey according to your grandmother's recipe (it being near to Thanksgiving and all, at least for those in the US) Her turkey was always great. Yours is dried out. Everything else is the same. In frustration, you visit her house and check her oven. Turns out when her oven is set to 325, as per her recipe, the oven is actually cooler. As a result, her turkey didn't dry out. Now, faced with this information, you could continue to eat dry turkey, or you could adjust her recipe. It doesn't change the fact that at her house she uses a certain oven setting. You aren't telling her to change, or fiddling her recipe. You are adapting the reading to correct a bias in her oven thermometer, so that you can use her recipe in your oven.

You can claim that "the temperature is the temperature" similar to your claim that "the data is the data" but then you would have to keep eating dry turkey.

How about an Airstream example? Imagine you weigh your truck and trailer at a local scale. You are right on the GVWR limit. OK, you carry on. Next week, the scale has a notice up. They had set the tare wrong, and so the old measurements weren't accurate. They know by how much. Doubtful, you weigh your rig again. Sure enough, you are now over the GVWR by the amount of the adjustment. And they have provided confirmation of which reading is correct for the scale now, using third party calibration. Secure in your belief that data is data, you can rely on the old record and take your chances, or adjust your cargo weight. Your choice. Myself, I would want to use the best data available. Your call for your rig. But in the face of better information, stubbornly sticking to an old reading seems risky.

You seem to think that some of us are pro AGW. Not true in my case. I wish it wasn't warming. I am not pro AGW, I am pro science. It isn't a religion, it is science. Nonsensical clailms gets sorted out through the application of the scientific process.

Skeptical Science is not pro AGW. It is, similarly, pro science. As compared to tabloid newspapers, however, it provides sources and links to reviewed papers. That way people can sort out for themselves. I would much rather trust a source using that approach than one (like the Telegraph) which writes that no one should believe their data because they are publishing opinions,

[jcl]

Originally Posted by MacPDX

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

....What's it mean? Anybody's guess, but this shows that the "science" is far from absolute.

Good discussion of the Zwally et al paper here:

So what's really happening in Antarctica?

It is a repost from Real Climate if some would prefer to read it there.

[MacPDX]

Originally Posted by jcl

Good discussion of the Zwally et al paper here:

So what's really happening in Antarctica?

It is a repost from Real Climate if some would prefer to read it there.

From your source:

"So what is really happening? One thing that Zwally’s study does highlight is how difficult it is to nail what is happening in East Antarctica because the signal is small and contaminated by unwanted effects that are as large or even larger. Zwally et al get a different result from previous studies because they make a different set of assumptions."

This makes my point. Nobody really knows. So, we assign probabilities.

Assumptions are being made to support the method of measurement. What density of ice do we use? Simple, the one that best fits our model or the variables as we perceive them.

Just like the temperature data being "adjusted" to normalize the readings. This is based on assumptions as well; how much effect did the sun have on the thermometer forty years ago. Unless the reading was taken in the sun and with a shade installed, it is an educated guess.

How high is Mt Everest? For years, it was reported to be 29,028 feet as established by the Indian Government. It has also been report to be 29,017 and 29,023 by other governments. As of 1999, it is widely accepted to be 29,035 based on new and improved measuring methods that did not exist earlier.

We only know what our current technology and assumptions allow us to know. And, we are often proved incorrect in hindsight.

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by rostam

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- We must thank Thomas Jefferson for this. I don't think ANY religious law, whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc is going to be passed without violating this clause. Your worries are unwarranted, unless the constitution changes, and the chances of that happening is 0. We might as well worry about a meteor hitting the earth and ending life.

There already are cities changing local ordinances to accommodate Muslims, allowing some variances. Remember this is how it started in Europe, where now there are areas of some cities populated by Muslim majorities where local police do not go. As far as changing the constitution, our current administration is circumventing it daily. The Supreme Court will have the final say, and we know how that will go. So don't sweat the climate change.

[Ray Eklund]

Originally Posted by rostam

*****

I think that the point has been made and the problem solved.

Thank you.

When Stephen Hawking has solved the Cosmic Puzzle... Information Paradox that every major physicist is closely involved... they can take ten minutes of their time and solve the Global Warming debate, once and for all. Be patient. If a formula written onto a blackboard will explain the Universe, George Carlin saved the Earth in nine minutes of dialogue.

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by cameront120

Stop watching Fox news.

Don't watch Fox News. I don't have cable or satellite.

[Gene]

I just got back from the future—exactly 100 years from now. Here's the news from the endless summer of 2115: Most of Fla. is under water and hungry, angry retired people are rioting in Ga. The seawall around NYC is leaking and Wall St. has fled to the top of the Palisades. Wars all over the world as displaced people invade the higher regions. Thirsty Californians invaded Utah and turned it into a liberal mecca, but they took over the Colorado River and drank it dry; now moving northeast to drink Lake Superior.

It seems the 97% of scientists who agreed global warming was real and dangerous were not participating in a gigantic conspiracy to lie to everyone; it was the oil, gas and coal companies and the party they bought who were lying.

Gene

[xrvr]

Neither one of us will be here to see how wrong you are.

[MacPDX]

Originally Posted by Gene

I just got back from the future—exactly 100 years from now. Here's the news from the endless summer of 2115: Most of Fla. is under water and hungry, angry retired people are rioting in Ga. The seawall around NYC is leaking and Wall St. has fled to the top of the Palisades. Wars all over the world as displaced people invade the higher regions. Thirsty Californians invaded Utah and turned it into a liberal mecca, but they took over the Colorado River and drank it dry; now moving northeast to drink Lake Superior.

It seems the 97% of scientists who agreed global warming was real and dangerous were not participating in a gigantic conspiracy to lie to everyone; it was the oil, gas and coal companies and the party they bought who were lying.

Gene

Why does one side or the other have to be lying? Maybe both sides have legitimate arguments given the current facts and technology available. We can't tell the weather more than a day ahead of time (here in the PW) with any certainty; what makes people believe that these "models" represent an absolute, whether for or against.

So let's call it what it is, an educated guess as to a future outcome. The more in the future, the less certain the outcome. What is the path of the latest hurricane? Where will that tornado travel? After years and years of study, we still can't predict either with certainty or its resulting outcome.

Do our actions change the environment? Absolutely. Would the same effect happen with or without our existence? Maybe. Should we attempt to mitigate our effect on the environment? Absolutely. Should we be in panic mode? Probably not.

[paiceman]

Just in from European Climate Researchers:

Far from “global warming,” scientists are predicting a decade-long ice age in 15 years. European researchers have come out with a model that shows the Earth will experience a “mini-ice age” between 2030 and 2040 due to decreased solar activity.
Likely to enrage environmentalists who insist man-made climate change will make the planet an uninhabitable hotbox, their model shows solar activity like flares and sunspots dropping by 60 percent, leading to a massive “cooling.”
The last similar “mini-ice age,” The Express reports, was from 1645 to 1715 when the Thames River in London completely froze over.

The researchers have now developed a “double dynamo “model that can better predict when the next freeze will be.
Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

[xrvr]

Yea, baby!

[J. Morgan]

For many, the gain of Antarctic ice is meaningless since such gains do not support the common narrative.


Brevi tempore!

[Ray Eklund]

Paiceman #155... interesting.
More chaos will develop from a COOLING than a WARMING period.

I can dress and adapt easier to warming. Crops with water sources can handle heat more than cold. Cold is not our ally. There are "sweet spots" for human habitation. But some of these areas have had climate change over thousands of years, forcing migration to find better habitat.

The great migration out of Africa was due to the warming of the northern latitudes and arid changes of the northern African continent. Not from cooling. The Ice Age prevented migration because man is more adapted to warmer climates. The Sahara Desert is a "victim" of this warming at the end of the Pleistocene "Ice Age". The beginning of this current Interglacial warm spell was an opportunity for Man. It was good timing, considering that with our four major advances of North American glaciers and inter glacial warm spells... we are currently at the END of this inter glacial warm spell. A cold period would be more probable considering these well documented cold and warm spells.

Yes... I know that Eskimo's are shorter and stockier that manage colder climates. We have evolved over time to the climate over long periods of time. I had a book full of hundreds of photographs of men and women from all parts of the world that showed the various "races of man"... but of course, that is racist and not correct PR. This copy was being purged by a public Museum in Denver. Not put into their book sale.. but I pulled it out of the trash. Too obscene for the public. I think the title was The Story of Man or Races of Man... ?

There are some excellent books on these Glaciations. Written before Global Warming and Global Change support.

The oceans are also creating warm and cold climates. Warm water is lighter and colder water flows at the bottoms of the ocean floors. These currents cool San Diego and Europe is warmer than you would expect by how these flow along the continents. Melting ice at the poles create heavier more dense Cold Fresh Water which flow like rivers at the bottom of the oceans... It is all more complicated than CO2 and Carbon emissions. Check it out.

The debate about Ice Ages are not that they occur, but how much time does it take to make this change. It is not something I follow, but it is all at your local University library.

Research the native Clovis Culture of North America, European or Asian?. Look where the most ancient sites are located. It is an eye opener. They followed the Mammoth and Mastodon as a food source. Nobody can know everything, but just a little of everything does help.

Do not take my word for it. Research some of this. It is all very interesting and it takes more than two poorly written sentences to cover this subject or a poorly written editorial that I offer.

[xrvr]

Watch this. If the gw people can't disprove this, then they will attack the scientists individually. This is actually not a new thing. Scientists have been predicting the sun cycle for quite a while, but of course they were ignored by the press and govts.

[PaulnGina]

Originally Posted by Ray Eklund

*****

I think that the point has been made and the problem solved.

Thank you.

When Stephen Hawking has solved the Cosmic Puzzle... Information Paradox that every major physicist is closely involved... they can take ten minutes of their time and solve the Global Warming debate, once and for all. Be patient. If a formula written onto a blackboard will explain the Universe, George Carlin saved the Earth in nine minutes of dialogue.

Brother George can also save us from golf!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4w7H48tBS8

PaulnGina
1987 Avion 34W
1995 Ford F250 7.3L PowerStroke