REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

YAY HUMANS !!!! (Yes, that's snark.)

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Saturday, February 21, 2015 01:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3095
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, how does a future in the Southwest and Central Plains feel? Apparently, very, very dry. An 80% chance of a ‘megadrought’ is forecast. And could this have anything to do with global warming? Why, yes, they think it does. And despite that fact that global warming has been forecast, and debated-over for, literally, decades, and is already changing our lives, has anything been accomplished that has realistically put off the catastrophe-to-come? Why, no, of course not. People are still agonizing over their little plot of political territory, because "There is no one country that wants to be left behind by an agreement that will have an impact on their future". And where are we now? Past thinking about prevention, they say. “The idea was once considered fringe — to purposely re-engineer the planet's climate as a last ditch effort to battle global warming with an artificial cloud. No longer.” Because, if not you, then who?

Megadrought’ Forecasted for Western U.S.
UN Announces Draft of Climate Deal
Time to Examine Purposely Cooling the Planet?


http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/02/megadrought-forecasted
-western-us?et_cid=4414982&et_rid=366206770&type=headline

Megadrought’ Forecasted for Western U.S.

Fri, 02/13/2015 - 3:00pm
Associated Press, Seth Borenstein

In this Feb. 4 2014 file photo, a warning buoy sits on the dry, cracked bed of Lake Mendocino near Ukiah, Calif. Image: AP Photo, Rich Pedroncelli, File

As bad as recent droughts in California, the Southwest and the Midwest have been, scientists say far worse "megadroughts" are coming — and they're bound to last for decades. "Unprecedented drought conditions" — the worst in more than 1,000 years — are likely to come to the Southwest and Central Plains after 2050 and stick around because of global warming, according to a new study in the journal Science Advances. There's more than an 80 percent chance that much of the central and western United States will have a 35-year-or-longer "megadrought" later this century, said study co-author Toby Ault of Cornell Univ., adding that "water in the Southwest is going to become more precious than it already is." Megadroughts last for decades instead of just a few years. The 1930s Dust Bowl went on for more than 35 years, Ault said.

"Nearly every year is going to be dry toward the end of the 21st century compared to what we think of as normal conditions now," said study lead author Benjamin Cook, a NASA atmospheric scientist. "We're going to have to think about a much drier future in western North America." The study is based on current increasing rate of rising emissions of carbon dioxide and complex simulations run by 17 different computer models, which generally agreed on the outcome, Cook said.

The regions Cook looked at include California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, northern Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, most of Iowa, southern Minnesota, western Missouri, western Arkansas and northwestern Louisiana. Looking back in records trapped in tree ring and other data, there were megadroughts in the Southwest and Central Plains in the 1100s and 1200s that lasted several decades, but these will be worse, Cook said. Those were natural and not caused by climate change, unlike those forecast for the future, Cook said. Because of changes in the climate, the Southwest will see less rain. But for both regions the biggest problem will be the heat, which will increase evaporation and dry out the soil. The result is a vicious cycle: the air grows even drier, and hotter, Cook said.

Scientists had already figured that climate change would increase the odds of worse droughts in the future, but this study makes it look worse and adds to a chorus of strong research, said Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the Univ. of Arizona. "These results are not surprising, but are eye-opening nonetheless," said Overpeck, who wasn't part of the research, in email.



http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/02/un-announces-draft-cli
mate-deal?et_cid=4414982&et_rid=366206770&location=top


UN Announces Draft of Climate Deal

Fri, 02/13/2015 - 3:00pm
Associated Press, Karl Ritter

In this Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015, file photo a plume of smoke billows from the coal-fired Merrimack Station in Bow, N.H. Image: AP Photo, Jim Cole, File
Image: AP Photo, Jim Cole, File

Today, UN negotiators produced an early draft of what eventually should become a landmark climate deal in Paris next December, piling on suggestions to make sure the document reflected every country's wishes. Instead of shrinking to a more manageable size, the 38-page text from a previous climate change meeting swelled to 86 pages during the weeklong negotiating session in Geneva.

"We were hoping to see a more concise text," said Ilze Pruse, a delegate from the European Union.

Others said the key thing was to ensure that all countries felt their views were reflected — something many developing countries have insisted on since a 2009 attempt to forge a global deal crashed in Copenhagen.

"After years of false starts and broken promises, restoring ownership and trust in the process is no small achievement. And I think we have come a long way toward doing that," said Ahmed Sareer, a Maldives delegate who represents an alliance of island nations.

The Paris agreement isn't expected to stop climate change but it would be the first time that all countries have agreed to do something about it. Previously only rich countries have committed to limit their emissions of global warming gases, primarily carbon dioxide, from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

Negotiators now have 10 months to deal with key issues like how to share the emissions cuts that scientists say are needed to make sure climate change doesn't reach dangerous levels. Changes in climate are already occurring and could get worse, leading to flooding of coastal areas, disruptions to agriculture and drinking water and the spread of diseases. Greenpeace climate expert Martin Kaiser said, "countries failed to grab the bull by the horns." But many environmental activists were upbeat, since the bloated text meant their own ideas survived, including long-term goals for phasing out the emissions from fossil fuels.

Most of today's emissions come from developing countries, led by China, but historically, the majority of emissions have come from the West, which industrialized earlier. Each side thinks the other should do more, and that was reflected in the Geneva draft. The U.S. and other rich countries added text stressing the need for all countries to pitch in, while developing countries introduced demands for financial help to deal with climate change.

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres acknowledged that the range of options and sub-options in the draft means that governments have a lot of work ahead. But she said it was important to kick off the negotiations with a text that covered everyone's concerns. "There is no one country that wants to be left behind by an agreement that will have an impact on their future," she said.



http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2015/02/time-examine-purposely
-cooling-planet?et_cid=4414194&et_rid=366206770&type=headline


Time to Examine Purposely Cooling the Planet?

Thu, 02/12/2015 - 2:37pm
Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

A first-of-its-kind National Academy of Sciences report said that injecting sulfur pollution high in the air to reflect the sun's heat should be studied and perhaps tested outdoors in small projects. Courtesy of Robert Simmon and Marit Jentoft-Nilsen, based on MODIS data

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's time to study and maybe even test the idea of cooling the Earth by injecting sulfur pollution high in the air to reflect the sun's heat, a first-of-its-kind federal science report said on February 10, 2015. The idea was once considered fringe — to purposely re-engineer the planet's climate as a last ditch effort to battle global warming with an artificial cloud. No longer.

In a nuanced, two-volume report, the National Academy of Sciences said that the concept should not be acted upon immediately because it is too risky, but it should be studied and perhaps tested outdoors in small projects. It could be a relatively cheap, effective and quick way to cool the planet by mimicking the natural effects on climate of large volcanic eruptions, but scientists concede there could be dramatic and dangerous side effects that they don't know about.

Because warming has worsened and some countries might act unilaterally, scientists said research is needed to calculate the consequences.

Panel chairwoman Marcia McNutt, editor of the journal Science and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said in an interview that the public should read this report "and say, 'This is downright scary.' And they should say, 'If this is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.'"

This is the first time a government-associated science panel talked about the controlled small scale outdoor tests of the artificial cloud concept, called solar radiation management or SRM. But, even then, panelists downplayed the idea and said it would require some kind of government or other oversight before it is done. "Yes, small scale outdoor tests might be allowed, but it wouldn't just be in the hands of scientists to decide what's allowable and what's not allowable," McNutt said. "Civil society needs to engage in these discussions where the line is to be drawn."

Some scientists worry that research itself it will make this type of planet hacking more likely to occur. "This creates a bit of what we call a moral hazard," said Waleed Abdalati, a University of Colorado ice scientist and former NASA chief scientist who co-authored the report. "There will likely come a time we're going to want to know the ramifications of that kind of action. ... You're talking about potentially changing weather and climate. You don't want to do that without as good an understanding as you can possibly have." And the committee scientists said once you start this type of tinkering, it would be difficult to stop because warming would come back with such a force. So, a decision to spray particles into the air would have to continue for more than 1,000 years.

The report was requested by U.S. intelligence agencies, academy president Ralph J. Ciccerone said. Because the world is not reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, scientists have been forced "to at least consider what is known as geoengineering," he said.

The panel did favor technology to suck carbon dioxide from the air and bury it underground. But, unlike the artificial cloud concept, it would be costly and take decades to cool the planet. The panel wrote a separate volume on this method with the idea of distancing the concept from the idea of the artificial cloud, which McNutt described as a political hot potato.

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the burning of coal, oil and gas. Removing it from the air treats the cause of man-made global warming, while deflecting the sun with an artificial cloud only treats the symptoms and does nothing about ocean acidification, the report said.

A leading climate engineering scientist, David Keith of Harvard, hailed the report, but said it could have gone further. With backing from billionaire Bill Gates, Keith has proposed an experiment involving putting about two pounds (1 kilogram) of a sulfur solution in the air to see what happens. Rutgers University scientist Alan Robock said it would be interesting to spray a small sulfur dioxide into a cloud, and use a blimp or drone to measure what happens. But that should only be done with proper oversight, he said.

Other climate scientists are adamantly against injecting sulphates into the air, even as a last ditch effort. Such an idea "could do far more harm than good" and scientists should treat the Earth like doctors do their patients, abiding by the rule "first, do no harm," said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. But, he favors increased study of the issue "if only for one purpose: to expose just how dangerous many of these schemes might be."

While the artificial cloud idea is a much worse option that carbon dioxide removal, it is more attractive to some people because "we could probably do it right now," said Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor Andrew Dessler. "There's really very little that's technologically standing in our way."

National Academy of Science: http://www.nas.edu/



Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Cray-cray

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:18 AM

WHOZIT


Here in the north east it's been very cold for several weeks and it won't stop snowing, please shut the fuck up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:39 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

The study is based on current increasing rate of rising emissions of carbon dioxide and complex simulations run by 17 different computer models, which generally agreed on the outcome, Cook said.
Climate change deniers will not change their minds until these computer models become more persuasive. The computer models need to demonstrate that there can still be winter blizzards in the same years as droughts and summer heat waves. The computer models need to simulate the past weather accurately in great detail before the deniers will believe the computer model's future predictions.

I don't think scientists have done that work. I don't think climate scientists are even aware they have not done the desperately needed work. The scientists think they have already done enough to make their case with 17 computer models that kinda-sorta approximate reality, all in competition with one another. The world needs at least one model that really works well and really works very soon, like in the next 5 years, the length of WWII.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Because WHOZIT and RAPPY both suffer from the same problem (are an in fact probably the same person): They mistake their own backyard for "the world".

Quote:
The computer models need to demonstrate that there can still be winter blizzards in the same years as droughts and summer heat waves.
But they do.

Some people will NEVER be convinced by facts! Never, ever, ever. There seems to be an exceptionally high number of those on this board.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:55 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Because WHOZIT and RAPPY both suffer from the same problem (are an in fact probably the same person): They mistake their own backyard for "the world".

Quote:
The computer models need to demonstrate that there can still be winter blizzards in the same years as droughts and summer heat waves.
But they do.

Some people will NEVER be convinced by facts! Never, ever, ever. There seems to be an exceptionally high number of those on this board.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
I know many Texans who are similar to Whozit and AURaptor. I know the history of what they have accomplished in their lives. It's like I have a model of their behavior, but my model is not good enough to predict in precise detail what asinine things they will write in the future, but it will be something grandly stupid. Climate models are in the same state as my model of Whozit and AURaptor -- something bad will happen, but I cannot make predictions about how many feet of snow will fall in Boston or how much rain will fall in California or how many typhoons hit Asia over the next 5 years because of climate change.

Until there are solid predictions in enormous detail from computer models that climate scientists will stake their careers on, politicians will not stake their careers on climate change. Whozit and AURaptor are nobodies and their opinions of climate change are not in the equations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"The computer models need to demonstrate that there can still be winter blizzards in the same years as droughts and summer heat waves."

As Signy said - they do.

But the major reality people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that you can have blizzard events in an area - and still have an average year because those events are compensated for in the average by weeks of slightly higher than average temperatures that no one remarks on. And you can have cooler weather in one area and have that cooler weather more than compensated for by very very hot weather elsewhere - say Australia - that no one notices. And despite those very local, temporary events like blizzards you can still end up with the hottest GLOBAL year on record to date.

Things like 'highest global average temperature to date' are facts, not models, that people deny. And when people deny facts, what do you do then?

Models only take facts and try to forecast the future. Facts are tangible - but people like rappy and the zit (and probably the people you know in Texas) don't accept them. That's an insurmountable barrier to rationality.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:09 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The computer models need to demonstrate that there can still be winter blizzards in the same years as droughts and summer heat waves."

As Signy said - they do.

But the major reality people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that you can have blizzard events in an area - and still have an average year because those events are compensated for in the average by weeks of slightly higher than average temperatures that no one remarks on. And you can have cooler weather in one area and have that cooler weather more than compensated for by very very hot weather elsewhere - say Australia - that no one notices. And despite those very local, temporary events like blizzards you can still end up with the hottest GLOBAL year on record to date.

Things like 'highest global average temperature to date' are facts, not models, that people deny. And when people deny facts, what do you do then?

Models only take facts and try to forecast the future. Facts are tangible - but people like rappy and the zit (and probably the people you know in Texas) don't accept them. That's an insurmountable barrier to rationality.
I say you are as wrong as you can possibly be without knowing you are wrong. Nobody but a scientist or engineer or you gives a damn about 2 degrees Celsius increase in average global temperatures. They will care about a decrease of 0.75 meter in annual rainfall. Or a typhoon. Degrees Celsius will not motivate politicians. Actually, nobody who can do anything about the problem will be motivated. Until there is a convincing climate model that makes detailed predictions (that means convincing to people who are not climate modeling scientists) you will be completely disappointed by humanity's response.

Whozit and AURaptor have much in common with Suzy Q. She's an old dog, but she has accomplished as much as them, having raised her children and sent them out into the world. When cats walk along the top of the fence, Suzy Q will bark at them. She will never be able to get to that height so she can bite them. The barking and the biting her enemies reminds me of AURaptor and Whozit. Keep dreaming of biting your enemies, you old dogs past your prime years.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, what you're saying is that someone has to be able to be in the role of infallible priest - and make some god-awful prediction about a major disaster like a monthlong outbreak of F5 tornadoes in Minnesota, a hurricane which takes out Miami, or a year of zero rainfall in Dallas and temperatures over 100F for spring, summer and winter - which then comes true - for people to 'believe'.

Well, I have a couple of things to say about that. If we really do get those kinds of extreme - even apocalyptic - events we're already past the point of doing something about it. And you're also saying that people are so immune to salient facts they really ARE irrational. That they will take their beliefs and worldview over reality any day. You made my point for me.

YAY HUMANS !!!!

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Because WHOZIT and RAPPY both suffer from the same problem (are an in fact probably the same person): They mistake their own backyard for "the world".

Quote:
The computer models need to demonstrate that there can still be winter blizzards in the same years as droughts and summer heat waves.
But they do.

Some people will NEVER be convinced by facts! Never, ever, ever. There seems to be an exceptionally high number of those on this board.


Yeah, blizzards in one part of the country while droughts are in the other, it's called WEATHER !

How is the SW some how a show of world climate, but the NE and SE are just our " backyards " ???

I never case to enjoy poking holes in the Warm Monger's goofy cultist views.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:10 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


HMMM - let's see ... California drought worst in over 1200 years ... blizzard not even a record breaker ... one is extensive and truly exceptional and changes long-term averages, the other, merely inconvenient for some people.

But I'm sure you'll make a point of pretending to not know which is which. Right rappy?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 3:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


1200 yrs ago there weren't millions of humans using all that water for drinking, crops, manufacturing washing , etc...

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 5:42 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And? Does that change the extent or depth of the drought? Or are you such a numbnuts you can't understand that the measure of the drought is irrespective of how many people are affected by it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:30 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Just pay off that old Robber Baron Murdoch to get his corrupt network to change its stance on climate change and the simpletons of this world who can't understand basic science will come around.

Easy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And? Does that change the extent or depth of the drought? Or are you such a numbnuts you can't understand that the measure of the drought is irrespective of how many people are affected by it?





It changes EVERYTHING.

You see, when you USE vast quantities of resources, like water, and then a drought happens, which has always occurred in the natural history of the planet, there's less water available to take the impact of a naturally occurring event.


Much like how when you over use the land in middle America,and then a drought happens, the top soil is all used up, winds come, and blows massive dust storms all the way to NYC.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, you're saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it - it didn't happen. If a major drought happens, and it doesn't affect people - it didn't happen.

I guess you ARE a numbnuts!

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 7:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I said nothing of the sorts, but I suppose, any guy around you would have numb nuts.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 8:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I said nothing of the sorts, but I suppose, any guy around you would have numb nuts.

To tell you the truth, rappy, I can't figure out what you're saying, and I read it a few times already.

The measure of a drought is the amount of rain or snow that falls, not the number of people who use water. It's measured over long timespans by such things as tree rings, sediment deposition from water flow, changes in the distribution of biota, and other natural markers, irrespective of whether human civilizations were wiped out (even tho we know such events occurred).

Natural event. Non-human markers.

So, what ARE you saying?

----------

Oh, I get it. You're saying that mega-droughts are natural events and not indicative of global climate change, since they've occurred in the past.

So, because at one point in the past, the earth was much warmer than today and that warming had a non-human cause, that means that TODAY'S warming isn't related to humans either?

Apparently, you don't think "cause and effect" is a real process? That global warming might have more than one cause, and that the cause of today's warming might be different than PREVIOUS events?

Yanno, this is the same magical thinking as got you in trouble with Saddam's WMD: failure to take in the evidence and failure to reach rational conclusions.
-------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 8:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



For what it's worth, I don't think many humans are all that either.

But of course, there's this...


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/113955
16/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 11:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I tracked this information back as far as the links would let me, which -unfortunately- isn't back to any sort explanation of the original data or how (or why) it was adjusted.

But looking at the actual charts, the first thing I can see is that the charts don't indicate "temperature" but "annual anomalies" ... in other words, DIFFERENCES. And now the question becomes.... differences relative to what?

And what kinds of adjustments might make the anomalies head off in one direction versus another?

Well, there are a number of adjustments I can think of that make the data MORE representative, rather than less.

One of the adjustments is to make sure that regions are geographically equally-represented by the data. For example, in some urban areas, there may be dozens of weather stations, while in rural areas of greater extent, there may only be one station. It wouldn't be an accurate representation to just raw-average all of the data, because the rural area's data (one reading) would be swamped by the urban data (many readings). So one of the challenges of global or regional averaging is to make sure that all geographic regions are geographically equally represented, and that none are "oversampled" or "under-represented".

The other problem is trying to make sure that all of the data is of equal quality. For example, wide areas of the Pacific might be represented by bouy and satellite data, while land-locations might have actual ground-level thermometers.

Also, you have to weed out flawed data ... broken gages, bad readings, poor placement (thermometers in direct sun over an asphalt parking lot) etc. It's tricky to understand what constitutes "bad data" but eliminating data "for cause" (ie a demonstrated equipment problem) is always safe.

Ok, back to THIS data.

Since the three stations involved are ALL rural stations, and the graphs themselves represent ANOMALIES (ie. differences relative to other data) I suspect there was an adjustment to OTHER data (ie urban data) ... possibly a consolidation of urban data in order to keep it from being "overrepresented" in the final data set.

IF that is the case, then the urban data set would show an adjustment in the opposite (lower) direction. However, we never get to figure this out, as the person who "discovered" this flaw never tells us the rest of the story.

Since this person is making a case based on a very limited data set (without presenting all relevant data) on the idea that YOU will assume that ALL data was adjusted in the same direction, and also not discussing the nature or reasoning behind the adjustment, I think they are playing a crooked data game.

Needs more investigation.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 11:25 AM

REAVERFAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Just pay off that old Robber Baron Murdoch to get his corrupt network to change its stance on climate change and the simpletons of this world who can't understand basic science will come around.

Easy.
This.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 12:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Reasons for adjustments of temperature data, from NOAA, which applies only to USA data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html


Quote:
A quality control procedure is performed that uses trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations). Until recently these suspects and outliers were hand-verified with the original records. However, with the development at the NCDC of more sophisticated QC procedures this has been found to be unnecessary.
Yes, readings can throw out spurious results, but if you automatically trim out the highs and lows, you may miss important observations. For example, a spectacularly strong El Nino was not detected because software automatically trimmed valid data from a number of buoy readings across a wide swath of the Pacific because it was too far from expected (temperature gages were assumed to have failed). This automatic trimming was corrected, but other errors may still occur.

Quote:
Next, the temperature data are adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986) which occurs when observing times are changed from midnight to some time earlier in the day.
Makes sense.

Quote:
Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS (Quayle, et al. 1991). The TOB debiased data are input into the MMTS program and is the second adjustment. The MMTS program debiases the data obtained from stations with MMTS sensors. The NWS has replaced a majority of the liquid-in-glass thermometers in wooden Cotton-Region shelters with thermistor based maximum-minimum temperature systems (MMTS) housed in smaller plastic shelters.
Makes sense. When long-term procedures change, they produce long-term changes in data. Usually this change is accounted for by running both methods in parallel for a long period of time to account for bias.

Quote:
The homogeneity adjustment scheme described in Karl and Williams (1987) is performed using the station history metadata file to account for time series discontinuities due to random station moves and other station changes.
I had a hard time wrapping my head around this one, and so do others. http://euanmearns.com/the-horrors-of-homogenization/ I can see adjusting for documented station moves, but not just randomly forcing data to be closer together.

However, even though this adjustment looks suspect and apparently introduces a bias, the author of this critical analysis of homogeneity concludes

Quote:
First, how much difference does the manufactured warming in the Southern Hemisphere make? As a practical matter, not very much. The impact on global land air temperature series like CRUTEM4 is muted by the fact that less than a third of the Earth’s land area is in the Southern Hemisphere, so the impact on the global land surface temperature record would be only in the 0.1X degrees C range even if the amount of warming over the Southern Hemisphere landmasses had been artificially doubled. And the impact on “surface temperature” series like HadCRUT4, which are about 70% based on SSTs, would be down in the 0.0X degrees C range. So removing the homogeneity adjustments doesn’t make global warming go away.


Quote:
Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in the homogeneity adjustment scheme in step three.
Missing data is a "fill in the gap" procedure. Use with caution.

Quote:
The final adjustment is for an urban warming bias which uses the regression approach outlined in Karl, et al. (1988). The result of this adjustment is the "final" version of the data.
Data in urban areas will show higher temperatures, the "urban heat island" is a well-known effect. Not sure of the nature and purpose of this adjustment ... higher temperatures are higher temperatures, are they not?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 3:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"For example, a spectacularly strong El Nino was not detected because software automatically trimmed valid data from a number of buoy readings across a wide swath of the Pacific because it was too far from expected (temperature gages were assumed to have failed)."

FWIW the ozone hole was also 'trimmed' out of available data. The satellites were showing extremely low ozone levels, but that was programmed to be automatically deleted as instrument malfunction because - hey - ozone levels could never be THAT low, right?

In my labwork - and in all the quality control/ quality assurance measures promulgated for environmental measurements - all data is assumed good unless you can find a specific reason that shows it's bad. You're not allowed to throw it out 'just because' it's unexpected. Which, btw, leads people to sweat over perhaps 10 measurements in 3000 trying to determine if it's valid or not, by looking over all other available data - other thermocouple readings, instrument condition read-outs, altitude, other readings in other places, weather patterns at the time, anomalous events like wildfires ... etc.

However, adjustments for demonstrated cause, like the ones you cited above, are allowable.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2015 5:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So to get back to the question of what would it take for people to give credit to the idea of global warming ...

Second posits it would take better models.

But as I pointed out above, people don't even accept the data, which are facts, based on measurements, and (theoretically) not subject to ideology.

To say that the 10 highest global temperatures* ever recorded have occurred since 1998 is a fact. To say that global temperatures have risen roughly 1.3degC (2.3degF) since 1850 is a fact. To say that the earth is now warmer than it's been in the last 11,300 years is a fact. These facts alone should cause people to understand that the earth is warming.

So, why not?

I think that even if you are not like rappy and so heavily propagandized you can't distinguish reality from opinion, and even if you accept these facts, the problem is a lack of existing mental context for these facts. They don't have a home to reside in, and the mind spits out a ... and, so what?

It casts back to existing context like personal experience ... maybe it has been a little warmer than I remember. It casts back to daily routine ... my life hasn't changed all that much. It evaluates social norms ... nobody I know seems too worried. And checks out the societal conversation ... it's not like it's in the news all that much.

It would take a powerful experience, like the apocalyptic scenarios Second seems to have implied, to break people's cognition out of the routine, for them to grasp that things are now very different from a long-held context, and that global warming is a fact.

But, aside from catastrophe, these generally held ideas can also be altered over time by a concerted reiteration of facts. People now for the most part accept that smoking causes harm. However, reducing the propagandist disinformation, and a focus on the facts of global warming isn't going to happen here is the US, though it has happened pretty much everywhere else.

* Just a word about measuring temperature. I think people assume that so-called 'proxy' measurements like tree rings, ice cores, isotope abundance and others aren't 'real' measurements, and that the only 'real' measurement of temperature comes from a thermometer.

But thermometers are also proxy measurements - they don't measure temperature either. They measure the expansion of a liquid - usually mercury or alcohol - in a tube (liquid in glass thermometers). Or they measure the flex of a bimetallic strip (thermostat), or the generation of a small voltage when a test and reference temperature are different (thermocouple), or the infrared emission from a surface (the scanning ear thermometer works that way, as do satellites), or the internal rearrangement of liquid crystals (temperature strips), or indeed any other system that uses some proxy property to indicate temperature. And each system has its own assumptions, calculations, technology, benefits and drawbacks. They are all measures of temperature by different proxy means, yes, even including thermometers.


SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 16, 2015 12:20 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So to get back to the question of what would it take for people to give credit to the idea of global warming ...

Second posits it would take better models.
I got a story where software could have saved the world, but didn't. Story's from http://www.wired.com/2015/02/on-the-joy-of-mastery/?mbid=synd_slate
Quote:
Before the 2007 crash, I consulted for a company that made software that helped banks analyze risk. I can hear your hollow laughter right now. Bank risk software guy, you had one job. Actually, the software did work really well. The problem was, nobody bought it. It seemed like a no brainer; at the time, heads of risk in banks simply waited for their counterparts around the world to email them a spreadsheet, then stitched them together. The process took hours, and the information was a day or more out of date. Our product oversaw every deal made by every trader and gave a real-time assessment of the dangers involved.

In spite of its brilliance, nobody was interested. When we talked to the heads of risk at investment banks, we found out why. They’d spent years learning how to glue all the data together, and had developed a lot of secret Excel wizardry to do so. They were dammed if they were going to give it all up for a dashboard that any fool could read.
The banks took a risk and it blew-up the banks. Banks survived their stupidity because governments saved them from death. Maybe it is the fault of the banks' risk takers not paying attention to banks' analyzers of risk. We're in a much similar situation with climate to risky banking. The risk assessing climatologists are not believed by the risk takers – coal, oil, gas industries. Lucky for us, climate can't be hidden like secretive bank deals. On the other hand, climate modeling is much harder than bank risk modeling.

So, what's it going to be? Will coal, oil, and natural gas industries be able to claim that the risks are acceptably insignificant? The banking industry has been down that road and got away with acting irresponsible.

If the bank risk software had been free and anybody owning stock in a bank could have used it, there would not have been a banking disaster. If climate risk software is free AND PERFECTED and anybody who does not own a coal mine or gas well can use it, there might not be a climate disaster.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I pointed out above, people don't even accept the data, which are facts, based on measurements, and (theoretically) not subject to ideology.
As far as I know AURaptor and Whozit are in love with petroleum, smearing it all over their bodies. Forget about convincing those two. But there are others who have enough mind that they can change it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 16, 2015 3:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"If climate risk software is free AND PERFECTED and anybody who does not own a coal mine or gas well can use it, there might not be a climate disaster."

AFAIK, once perfected, the cost of using such software would be having a supercomputer in your home. :( That would still put the results in the hands of universities and other institutions - and who trusts THEM, eh?

But to say that people need to trust the models ... is to say that they don't actually trust the data.

Because the data is clear, the planet is warming. In addition, there are very simple physical facts anyone can verify on their own with some minor experiments - one is that CO2 absorbs heat. And the more CO2 is in the air, the more heat the atmosphere will absorb. When the atmosphere absorbs more heat, the planet gets hotter.

The fact of global warming is simple and data-driven, no elaborate models and supercomputers are required. Models and supercomputers are just there to figure out where this is all going, not what is happening now.

If people don't accept the tangible data that exists, I suspect no models will convince them either.


SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by second: As far as I know AURaptor and Whozit are in love with petroleum, smearing it all over their bodies. Forget about convincing those two. But there are others who have enough mind that they can change it.


Don't forget the MOUNTAINS of money I make from it too. I can't speak for Whozit, but man, I do love me some big oil $$$ !!!!

As far as you know.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rappy can't seem to decide if there is "no" global warming, or -if there is- that it's not man-made.

Clearly, the conclusion that is driving him is the vast concern that something "might be done" which affects his lifestyle, his pocketbook, or both, because he really has no interest in the evidence or the logic (or the lack) on how he reaches his pre-determined conclusion.

"His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts."

An old saying from even before when I was a kid, which just goes to show that belief-based people have existed for a long time!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Or YAY CHINA!!!!

They're generating 27+% of the world's carbon emissions. They've doubled their carbon emissions between 2003 and 2012. Add in India and its around 33.5 Plus, China's and India's emissions are increasing at 7% or 8% a year. Everywhere else is increasing slower or actually reducing carbon emissions.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:59 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"They're generating 27+% of the world's carbon emissions."

If they didn't, we would. We, and a lot of the rest of the western world, have offloaded our carbon emissions to China along with our manufacturing base.

And, unlike the US, at least China has a plan to actively address global warming. http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/china

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 20, 2015 1:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yeah, I was thinking about places like Costa Rica which has an exceptionally low carbon emission rate:

It's a small nation
With a a moderate climate
And NO MANUFACTURING

It makes its money from ecotourism. If it had to be self-sufficient, its per capita carbon emissions would go up. Same with the USA.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 20, 2015 2:38 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And, unlike the US, at least China has a plan to actively address global warming. http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/china


Unfortunately, most of their "reductions" are reductions in relation to GDP, not actual reductions in the amount of carbon produced.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 20, 2015 4:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy can't seem to decide if there is "no" global warming, or -if there is- that it's not man-made.


No, the one confused here is you. Climate Change, AGW, what ever you want to call it is a phony, made up " CRISIS" which actually isn't a crisis, what so ever.

Quote:

Clearly, the conclusion that is driving him is the vast concern that something "might be done" which affects his lifestyle, his pocketbook, or both, because he really has no interest in the evidence or the logic (or the lack) on how he reaches his pre-determined conclusion.


Nothing needs to be done. It's a phony issue. Period.

Quote:


"His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts."

An old saying from even before when I was a kid, which just goes to show that belief-based people have existed for a long time!


The facts have lead me to making up my mind, and yet the Warm Mongers insist on trying to control MY life, and the lives of every other human on the gorram planet.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:17 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Unfortunately, most of their "reductions" are reductions in relation to GDP, not actual reductions in the amount of carbon produced."

We could always stop buying stuff 'Made in China'. That would solve a lot of their horrible selfish carbon emissions.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL