Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Weather Data Not Always Accurate—Effect on Climate Change Data?

Weather Data Not Always Accurate—Effect on Climate Change Data? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2008, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
This is nonsense and the typical Orwellian propaganda we have seen for a number of years now that the majority of the public just yawn at.

There are many thousands of scientists and economists who don't see any alarm in the small amount of global warming we have seen and can't find any evidence that manmade carbon dioxide emissions have a dangerous effect on the world's climate systems.

Unfortunately the media reports otherwise. The media only serves the the wealthiest now. Government and media organisations who all go with a begging bowl to the major central bankers will not dissent. The bankers see a major market for trading in carbon emissions so the media and politicians overwhelmingly state that the planet is in peril and that global warming is already destroying the world.
You do realize that the conspiracy theory you described is *just as" Orwellian?
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2008, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You do realize that the conspiracy theory you described is *just as" Orwellian?
Hardly a conspiracy when it's damn obvious! That quote in my sig ahem. One of many I'll be presenting as promised when I finish "the list".
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:42 AM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2008, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Hardly a conspiracy when it's damn obvious! That quote in my sig ahem. One of many I'll be presenting as promised when I finish "the list".
Those arguing that the climate is changing as a result of human influence would say *exactly" the same thing; that "it's damn obvious". You sound exactly like them, just arguing the other side of the coin.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2008, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Those arguing that the climate is changing as a result of human influence would say *exactly" the same thing; that "it's damn obvious". You sound exactly like them, just arguing the other side of the coin.
You could see it like that if you want. Nothing wrong with it, that's the nature of debating. The science is what matters at the end of the day and the alarmists present less real data than they do religious and alarmist language. The same language we find in the story of Noah and other apocalyptic prophecies. That's not scientific.

If we look at the environmentalist movement it is a religion. The structure and creed of it borrows quite heavily from traditional organised religion.

It has its priesthood (scientists who concur), its god in the form of the Earth/Gaia, its prophets (Gore, Di Caprio, Hansen), its political stances and attacks against industry (the Tower of Babylon story, etc), it's romanticised vision of returning to nature (Eco-towns = Eden), its view that mankind has fallen from paradise by seeking knowledge, the idea of salvation (saving the planet), paying to sin in the form of carbon credits (a modern form of Indulgences), intolerance to dissenters, oppression of dissenters, its backing of a messianic figure (Obama) who they call The One, and a large uaccountable undemocratic organisation to back it in the form of the UN, which is behaving like it is a New Age Vatican.

What we're seeing is that as so many people have fallen from traditional religions, they have felt a void open up in their lives which has led to a guilt complex. They fill that void by creating a new religion for themselves, which they now try to spread in the name of "saving the planet".
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:42 AM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2008, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
You could see it like that if you want. Nothing wrong with it, that's the nature of debating. The science is what matters at the end of the day and the alarmists present less real data than they do religious and alarmist language. The same language we find in the story of Noah and other apocalyptic prophecies. That's not scientific.

If we look at the environmentalist movement it is a religion. The structure and creed of it borrows quite heavily from traditional organised religion.

It has its priesthood (scientists who concur), its god in the form of the Earth/Gaia, its prophets (Gore, Di Caprio, Hansen), its political stances and attacks against industry (the Tower of Babylon story, etc), it's romanticised vision of returning to nature (Eco-towns = Eden), its view that mankind has fallen from paradise by seeking knowledge, the idea of salvation (saving the planet), paying to sin in the form of carbon credits (a modern form of Indulgences), intolerance to dissenters, oppression of dissenters, its backing of a messianic figure (Obama) who they call The One, and a large uaccountable undemocratic organisation to back it in the form of the UN, which is behaving like it is a New Age Vatican.

What we're seeing is that as so many people have fallen from traditional religions, they have felt a void open up in their lives which has led to a guilt complex. They fill that void by creating a new religion for themselves, which they now try to spread in the name of "saving the planet".
Again, swapping a few words, and the exact same thing has been said about the "no human-caused climate change" crowd. Seriously, *both* sides claim that the other is lacking in data behind their arguments and both sides claim that the other side believe the arguments of their prophets on faith. You are no different from those you are fighting against; you just *believe* the exact opposite.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Again, swapping a few words, and the exact same thing has been said about the "no human-caused climate change" crowd.
In this case it can't. If it could I would do it right now, or maybe you would like to try.

And I forgot to add the idea of a Holy War/crusade/jihad has also been adopted by eco-activists in their Direct Action campaigns.The concept of transcendentalism too finds a home with the eco crowd in their popular almost ritual use of marijuana and other drugs.

It's not surprising that environmentalists are never seen to take a hard stand against the tobacco and narcotics industry which does more harm to nature, society, freedom and human health than any of the things they do fight against. They live off of tobacco and drugs. It's their ritualised witch doctor medicine.

The concept of heresy and a devil/satanic forces also occurs in Green ideology and the global warming debate. Scientists, economists and journalists who disagree with the idea of catastrophic manmade global warming are ostracised and condemned as heretics. Some are accused of being in the pay of oil companies (the eco crowd's idea of satanic forces). One alarmist scientist went as far as saying that the skeptics are equal to Holocaust deniers and should be jailed. I don't have to go into detail about how grotesque that analogy is. It's one step below what the Church used to do when they jailed and tortured heretics and unbelievers.

It's fairly safe to conclude that alarmist Environmentalism and the global warming movement is religion mixed with Malthusian and Marxist philosophy, not scientific or productive.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:42 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Yes, I was wishy-washy, mainly because I didn't want to formulate a detailed response if I could get away with a couple of examples instead.
I had the impression that you tried to be wishy-washy, because you knew what I was getting at and the chain of arguments that I'd bring. I'm pretty sure you knew that I did not want a couple of examples (and you should have known I wouldn't let you get away with it ).
[QUOTE=ghporter;3778685]Obviously I didn't make my point so here goes: I implied that weather forecasts are not "reliable" in the sense that I have yet to see any forecast that gives the expected margin of error or (more important, I think) the location at which the expected temperature and precipitation would be most likely. As in "high tomorrow 56˚and cloudy with a 30% chance of rain" rather than "at the airport, the high should be 56˚±5 and most of the area should be cloudy; chances are there will be measurable rain in about 30% of our area at some time today".

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Precision measurements have a given range of measurement tolerance, ±0.04mm or ±3°F, so leaving out the expected uncertainty of a prediction based on precise measurements makes those predictions look like absolutes, thus undermining the perceived accuracy of the prediction.
Weather forecasts at airports (which I assume is where you have gotten familiar with the subject, feel free to correct me on that, though) are a completely different matter. Ditto for weather forecasts if you want to do mountaineering. For average people, they don't need to know whether it will rain at 2 pm, 4 pm or 5 pm, a general `light showers in the afternoon' will suffice. For mountaineering, for instance, you need more fine-grained information. If it rains at 2, half of your tour will be in crappy weather. If it rains at 5, you're probably already back and enjoying a warm tea or so. Ditto for airports: you need even more up to date (and local) information to make sure planes can land and take off safely. It's not so much about prediction (what will the weather be tomorrow?), but rather about a good and accurate measurement of local weather conditions within the next minutes or hour or so. Such long and accurate information will be very impractical. Average people aren't interested in the hourly difference of weather or minute differences in temperature between two neighboring suburbs (which is information you can get online if you are interested, though).

Different purpose, different tool, different ways to work.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Here's the issue, which I have managed to not really state explicitly but is what seems to be the root of what bugs me about the whole issue. I, myself understand and accept the whole list above, with the caveat that I believe #2 requires a few assumptions that may not be warranted (as in "how accurate COULD local forecasts be if all local observations were made up of exceptionally "clean" data without any biasing phenomena involved in its collection?). I have not, I think, even suggested that I, personally, don't accept the validity of either weather forecasts or climatological forecasts.
#2 does not require any assumptions, whether weather forecasts work or not is something measurable. Which means you can decide objectively how accurate predictions are. I've linked to pdf files that give explicit numbers on this. This is a purely statistical argument and it doesn't matter whether people use super computers or chicken bones to make predictions of tomorrow's weather.

This is, I think, where a fundamental misunderstanding of yours comes into play: you think that you need to make `assumptions' on the data whereas you can simply test the accuracy of your methods, whatever they may be.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
What I do see and have tried to express is that the common layman with an abysmal level of science education in public schools, has NO BACKGROUND from which to view the prima facie predictions of meteorologists or climatologists with as anything but black magic.
This selective scrutiny thing just reminds me of the discussion of Evolution -- which is also mostly a discussion within America. People who are opposed to the conclusion (not necessarily you, personally) try to enter a scientific discussion with little to no scientific background. They then come up with very simple reasons why `this all can't work,' in this discussion one claim is usually `Oooh, they have forgotten effect X and that's the high-and-mighty `scientists' prediction can't possibly be correct.' Of course, these simpletons forget that if there were a simple solution like that, it had been discovered 30 years ago already. And that the world simply isn't as simple as we'd like it to be. It's usually not easy or even impossible to explain rather simple things by a cause-and-effect picture.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I had the impression that you tried to be wishy-washy, because you knew what I was getting at and the chain of arguments that I'd bring. I'm pretty sure you knew that I did not want a couple of examples (and you should have known I wouldn't let you get away with it ).
I was more at a loss for wording what was bothering me than actually evading.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Weather forecasts at airports (which I assume is where you have gotten familiar with the subject, feel free to correct me on that, though) are a completely different matter. Ditto for weather forecasts if you want to do mountaineering. For average people, they don't need to know whether it will rain at 2 pm, 4 pm or 5 pm, a general `light showers in the afternoon' will suffice. For mountaineering, for instance, you need more fine-grained information. If it rains at 2, half of your tour will be in crappy weather. If it rains at 5, you're probably already back and enjoying a warm tea or so. Ditto for airports: you need even more up to date (and local) information to make sure planes can land and take off safely. It's not so much about prediction (what will the weather be tomorrow?), but rather about a good and accurate measurement of local weather conditions within the next minutes or hour or so. Such long and accurate information will be very impractical. Average people aren't interested in the hourly difference of weather or minute differences in temperature between two neighboring suburbs (which is information you can get online if you are interested, though).

Different purpose, different tool, different ways to work.
I work and interact with "the average person" a lot, and what I see is people who don't know why it's a bad idea to use that big pipe wrench to drive a nail. These folks are not what you'd call "knowledgeable" at much outside their own, very narrow focus of work, eat, sleep, repeat. They obviously don't understand friction and inertia, as evidenced by the way they drive. And they have a really odd sense of what causes what. I may be getting a skewed impression of this sort of people because of where I live, but I had the same impression of the folks around me where I grew up, half way across the country. Most people don't look too deeply at anything, and if they see a "weather forecast" they expect it to refer to their own block (and follow them along on the way to work and back home again). Understanding that there is a different type of forecast for aviation, a different type for watercraft, a different type for hiking, climbing, etc., is truly beyond them. And when they see that all these nifty tools that TV stations have give them what appears to be no better idea of how warm or cool THEY will feel, they chalk it up to all of weather forecasting being black magic or guesses.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
#2 does not require any assumptions, whether weather forecasts work or not is something measurable. Which means you can decide objectively how accurate predictions are. I've linked to pdf files that give explicit numbers on this. This is a purely statistical argument and it doesn't matter whether people use super computers or chicken bones to make predictions of tomorrow's weather.

This is, I think, where a fundamental misunderstanding of yours comes into play: you think that you need to make `assumptions' on the data whereas you can simply test the accuracy of your methods, whatever they may be.
On the contrary. I understand using data and testing the results as being a very good method of examining the quality of that data. But I see what appear to be assumptions being made because there's little evidence in the common press that there is some rigor being applied to the use of data that has been called into question, while at the same time, the common press seems to spend a lot of effort pointing out potential problems, which gives our Joe Layman just enough information to distrust that which he already doesn't understand. As I said before, I'm no longer sure whether I'm concerned about how this particular issue is handled, or despairing at how badly people today have been educated, especially in the sciences.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This selective scrutiny thing just reminds me of the discussion of Evolution -- which is also mostly a discussion within America. People who are opposed to the conclusion (not necessarily you, personally) try to enter a scientific discussion with little to no scientific background. They then come up with very simple reasons why `this all can't work,' in this discussion one claim is usually `Oooh, they have forgotten effect X and that's the high-and-mighty `scientists' prediction can't possibly be correct.' Of course, these simpletons forget that if there were a simple solution like that, it had been discovered 30 years ago already. And that the world simply isn't as simple as we'd like it to be. It's usually not easy or even impossible to explain rather simple things by a cause-and-effect picture.
This is an excellent example. "People Of Authority" speak up and mention this or that trivial and inconsequential issue or non-issue, and scientists, instead of showing the information that discredits these trivialities, either ignore the "People Of Authority" or treat them like idiots. They're not idiots, but rather very cunning and probably quite well educated, and instead of treating them like idiots, scientists in general should attack their reasoning with vigor and logic. I personally think that using a Creationist's own logic against him works quite well. Their argument is basically that they cannot imagine the processes through which evolution took place, so they cannot imagine their idea of God having those powers. That sounds a whole lot like saying "I can't imagine it, so God can't have done it."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I work and interact with "the average person" a lot, and what I see is people who don't know why it's a bad idea to use that big pipe wrench to drive a nail. These folks are not what you'd call "knowledgeable" at much outside their own, very narrow focus of work, eat, sleep, repeat. They obviously don't understand friction and inertia, as evidenced by the way they drive. And they have a really odd sense of what causes what. I may be getting a skewed impression of this sort of people because of where I live, but I had the same impression of the folks around me where I grew up, half way across the country. Most people don't look too deeply at anything, and if they see a "weather forecast" they expect it to refer to their own block (and follow them along on the way to work and back home again). Understanding that there is a different type of forecast for aviation, a different type for watercraft, a different type for hiking, climbing, etc., is truly beyond them. And when they see that all these nifty tools that TV stations have give them what appears to be no better idea of how warm or cool THEY will feel, they chalk it up to all of weather forecasting being black magic or guesses.
I think it may just be San Antonio It's been a while since I've seen a TV Weather Forecast, but don't they usually mention where the temperatures are being taken? For instance, 'right now we have 62° at the airport and 59° here at your local tv station'.

I looked back at the weather station listed in the Climate Change and Fear thread, which I presume is the basis of this thread:
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Since it seems to be "experts" VS "laypeople", I thought I'd give the other junior detectives this forum a glimpse of what this "expertise" is founded on;


Yeah, you guessed it. This sensor sight is surrounded by asphalt. Friggin' brilliant! These experts are a cut above. Next?


Wait! Is that a 65Watt light bulb?!? I know, I shouldn't have to ask. We're on hallowed, expert ground. The instructions on "setting the thermometers" you can see in this pic is obviously for laypeople.


Say it isn't so!! A little fireside sensor reading?!? Interestingly, the tennis court and condos (out of pic to the right, there are more pics including the condos) were built in the early 80's. Here are some highly-precise, SuperExpert™ readings from that sensor sight;



We're all DOOMED!!! Oh wait, Louie could you put that fire out please?
First off, I'm not convinced that the first weather station in the first and second picture is the same as the third (lack of fence) and likewise don't know which, if any, of the two stations the graphed data originates from.

Firstly, not only is the weather station "surrounded" by road, it sits on grass and is also surrounded by trees. This is exactly the kind of weather station linked to in that study I posted earlier that show cooler temps than the rural areas around it. Also, for the second and third photos, they mention that the tennis courts/condos were built later. One of the tenants of a good scientific measurement is to limit the number of variables as much as possible. Moving the station would create a gap on this time-temp time series. Human sprawl is also a form of climate change - if a newly built development raises the temperature, that temperature would be recorded as such. It is what it is.

Secondly, a lightbulb! Which I'll point out is not on. Did someone turn it off just for the photo? Does somebody come by everyday and turn it on/off? Is it left on? Developing photographs requires a light free environment. I don't think people know, i mean really understand, how stupid photographers are. They have lightbulbs in their 'dark' rooms!

Thirdly, a trash burning barrel. Is that thing going 24/7? Is it even used in it's present location? These are questions that we don't know.

Lastly, the graph is supposed to show us something? It looks like a standard temp-time series with variability. The trend of the graph does mimic the global temp record - local high around the 40's with cooling through the 70's and then the upward trend that we've been in (again corroborated by urban, rural surface, ocean surface temps and satellite data, arctic sea-ice decreases)

Are we supposed to believe that the lightbulb is the reason for the rise in temperature? I mean did the slowly amp up to that 65W bulb? Was it a 60W bulb a few years earlier? A 40W bulb in the '70's? Are they slowly adding more and more fuel to all the fires they are burning in that fuel drum? Is the increase due to the two combined?

This anecdotal type of put two and two together ( again note the two, possibly three, incongruencies in the presented info ) is perfect for people who don't/won't delve into what is being presented - which is sadly a bunch of people.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
First off, I'm not convinced that the first weather station in the first and second picture is the same as the third (lack of fence) and likewise don't know which, if any, of the two stations the graphed data originates from.

Firstly, not only is the weather station "surrounded" by road,

Secondly, a lightbulb! Which I'll point out is not on. Did someone turn it off just for the photo?

blah blah blah
You are making some lameduck excuses to defend the Urban Heat Island effect.

Temperature monitors should not be within city limits at all.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:42 AM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 01:48 PM
 
My post in the Climate Change and Fear thread
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Here is a website that is surveying US Historical Climate Network station across the US
Home
here is one in Tucson

About
What is the purpose of this website?

This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
My post in the Climate Change and Fear thread
It gets worse. In Phoenix there's a temperature monitor at the airport next to a runway where the temperature is up to 10C higher than the inner city, let alone outside the city. There's a lot more like that all over the world.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:42 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
You are making some lameduck excuses to defend the Urban Heat Island effect.
Defend? I defend the Urban Heat Island like I defend photosynthesis, redox reactions, or gravity. It exists.
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Temperature monitors should not be within city limits at all.
Obviously!
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
It gets worse. In Phoenix there's a temperature monitor at the airport next to a runway where the temperature is up to 10C higher than the inner city, let alone outside the city. There's a lot more like that all over the world.
So, when anyone wants to look at man-made/anthropogenic warming, the first thing that people complain about is that man-made structures are skewing the temperatures higher! Point, set and match.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
So, when anyone wants to look at man-made/anthropogenic warming, the first thing that people complain about is that man-made structures are skewing the temperatures higher! Point, set and match.
Do you have anything useful to add to any debate except acting like one of those ridiculous teenagers with a Che Guevara T-shirt who go around on various forums pretending to be an educated adult?
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Do you have anything useful to add to any debate except acting like one of those ridiculous teenagers with a Che Guevara T-shirt who go around on various forums pretending to be an educated adult?
Sorry PaperNotes! I can't keep up with all the relevant information you keeping piling on in this debate.

I will add to my previous statement, that I can see why you would want to erase man-made Urban Heat Island effects if you wanted to look at the effects of a single variable in global warming, like CO2. But as long as the blanket, non-specific 'anthropogenic' label is used, any and all human-caused effects should be taken into account.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post

I will add to my previous statement, that I can see why you would want to erase man-made Urban Heat Island effects
OK I'll treat you seriously for a moment and answer respectfully. Yes we need to remove Urban Heat Island effects from all temperature records, but it can only be done with current and future temperature recording. There isn't a scientist in the world who could figure out how to remove it from the historical record.

Likewise, out of the 0.8C increase over the last 150 years there isn't a scientist in existence who can tell you how much of that is from manmade carbon dioxide emissions. On paper it makes sense that carbon dioxide emissions should cause temperature increases, but in reality we're not seeing what physicists expect. That's mostly because they have always failed to take into account the size of the planet compared to manmade emissions and earth's tendency to rebalance itself.

Also, there isn't a computer model in the world that can model climate accurately or predict future climate too, so forget everything the New Age Prophets of Doom like Hansen, Gore and Di Caprio have to say. All of James Hansen's computer modelled predictions have failed to come true:

( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
All of James Hansen's computer modelled predictions have failed to come true:
Looking at the graph begs the question - Why put "Scenario A" on the graph if there is no B, or C?

Oh, wait! There is!


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful.

Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen's predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear ...
'Hansen has been wrong before'
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
OK I'll treat you seriously for a moment and answer respectfully. Yes we need to remove Urban Heat Island effects from all temperature records, but it can only be done with current and future temperature recording. There isn't a scientist in the world who could figure out how to remove it from the historical record.
Still don't understand why human impacts need to be deliberately factored out. If humans' are responsible for temperature increases due to surface composition and albedo, then it is a physical change which will have a small, but present, change on the whole of the earth.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Likewise, out of the 0.8C increase over the last 150 years there isn't a scientist in existence who can tell you how much of that is from manmade carbon dioxide emissions. On paper it makes sense that carbon dioxide emissions should cause temperature increases, but in reality we're not seeing what physicists expect. That's mostly because they have always failed to take into account the size of the planet compared to manmade emissions and earth's tendency to rebalance itself.
I find it a little insulting that you think climate physicists don't take into account the size of the earth. The earth does rebalance itself. In fact the ocean has been busy gobbling up CO2 that we are putting out, and changing the ocean's chemistry. If it weren't for the oceans, the CO2 would be close to 500ppm rather than 380ppm. The current value is 100ppm greater than any other local maxima over the past million years.

Scientists do have an idea of what contributions are made to the temperature record. This image is the first one that I've found that factors in all the major constituents of climate change, observed and modeled:


File:Climate Change Attribution.png
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2008, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
All of James Hansen's computer modelled predictions have failed to come true:

Hahaha, oh man. So hilarious. To think how many times this argument has been brought up, and to think how many times "you people" haven't stopped to think whether there might be lines other than "Scenario A". PaperNotes=0, Reading Comprehension=1 meellion dollars.

I suppose, given what Warren Pease has posted, that you'll now admit that James Hansen's computer modeled predictions seem to have been reasonably accurate, right?

.......

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Looking at the graph begs the question - Why put "Scenario A" on the graph if there is no B, or C?
Because Hansen is a radical alarmist who always lends weight to scenario A. Having a scenario B, C, D, ad infinitum is a lameduck excuse for scoring a Fail when your main prediction fails to materialise.

And whenever the predictions fail to materialise, Hansen outputs yet another scary scenario for the future, which again fails to materialise. They just make this **** up as they go along.

You do notice that your graph lacks up to date actual observed temperatures that are lower than all of Hansen's scenarios don't you? The temperatures we see today are far lower than what Hansen's scenario C has.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:40 AM. )
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I suppose, given what Warren Pease has posted, that you'll now admit that James Hansen's computer modeled predictions seem to have been reasonably accurate, right?

.......

greg
No, because the actual observed temperatures have fallen below even scenario B and C. The graph posted by WarrenPease is so old that actual observed temperatures end in the late 90s. The temperatures we see today are far lower than what Hansen's scenario C has.

You can have your stick back.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:40 AM. )
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
I find it a little insulting that you think climate physicists don't take into account the size of the earth.
Barely. Their models are only as good as the data they put in. This is what their models lack:

1. The ability to tell what the weather is going to be like in a week from now, let alone in years to come. They can't accurately predict rainfall coming a week from now for example. No meteorologist has been able to do so consistently.
2. They do not have an accurate picture of the volume of the earth's atmosphere because it is always fluctuating.
3. They have no map of the way carbon dioxide distributes itself. This is supposed to be remedied by an upcoming satellite launch that will finally map carbon dioxide.
4. The models lack the ability to predict accurate solar activity.
5. The models will never be able to model incoming cosmic radiation which influences cloud formation. A model can't do that because it would have to model ever star in the galaxy.
6. The models can't predict human activity, which includes population movement, population distribution, new more efficient technologies, human consumption patterns, birth rates, death rates, construction, etc
7. The models do not include growth and destruction of plants and vegetation. Neither do they include the possibility that plants can adapt to a richer amounts of carbon dioxide by absorbing more of it which spurs their growth.
8. The models do not include the natural contraction and expansion of the world's ice sheets and glaciers.
9. The models do not include and cannot predict natural carbon dioxide emissions from organic decay or volcanoes, etc.

And there are so many more variables that I would have to stay here all day listing them.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
No, because the actual observed temperatures have fallen below even scenario B and C. The graph posted by WarrenPease is so old that actual observed temperatures end in the late 90s. The temperatures we see today are far lower than what Hansen's scenario C has.

Here's a more current look. Pretty accurate, no? Especially for a 20-year old model.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 02:14 PM
 
There ya go again. You have to much faith in your religious prophets.

GISS's data is skewed by the Urban Heat Island and they are collected by Hansen, not a reliable witness considering he is an apocalyptic maniac. He was famously caught red-handed skewing temperature data for October 2008 and then putting out an alarmist press release. It was quickly found out by independent observers that GISS had copied and pasted September data into Octobers figures without change!.

Hansen is a looney.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 02:21 PM
 
More....

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

Dr. Will Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
More....
Cambrian? It took about 150 million years (give or take) of that before life existed on the Earth's surface, outside of the oceans.

It was during the Carboniferous that CO2 was sequestered from the atmosphere into forests, allowing a foothold for life to flourish on the earth. Much of the coal we are now burning was formed (by being buried underground) during that time.

What was your point again?
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Cambrian? It took about 150 million years (give or take) of that before life existed on the Earth's surface, outside of the oceans.

It was during the Carboniferous that CO2 was sequestered from the atmosphere into forests, allowing a foothold for life to flourish on the earth. Much of the coal we are now burning was formed (by being buried underground) during that time.

What was your point again?
Are you challenging a top Princeton physicist now?

Read what he said carefully.

And admit it. You're a 15 year old kid with a Che Guevara T-shirt and you carry around a copy of An Inconvenient Truth like it's the Bible while smoking a reefer. You can't debate environmentalism or science, so please stop pretending to be an adult or interested in science. You do more harm to environmentalism than you think. It's bad enough that Greenpeace, Al Gore, Hansen and other maniacs have given the environmentalism a bad name.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
There ya go again. You have to much faith in your religious prophets.

GISS's data is skewed by the Urban Heat Island and they are collected by Hansen, not a reliable witness considering he is an apocalyptic maniac. He was famously caught red-handed skewing temperature data for October 2008 and then putting out an alarmist press release. It was quickly found out by independent observers that GISS had copied and pasted September data into Octobers figures without change!.

Hansen is a looney.
There you go again.

You do know that much of the observed warming occurs in the high northern latitudes, Right? Remember? You didn't post for a week after that.
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
You do know that much of the observed warming occurs in the high northern latitudes, Right?
What are you talking about? I mentioned how GISS took September's figures and pasted them right over Octobers (well know fact) and you start talking about northern altitudes.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/...ng-absurd.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/1...ber-2008-data/

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...han-september/

http://globalwarmingquestions.googlepages.com/giss



About being away for a week, I have to work. Please, come back in 15 years when you hit 30, are no longer smoking pot and have to deal with the real world like holding down a job instead of living off your parents.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:41 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Are you challenging a top Princeton physicist now?

Read what he said carefully.
I don't disagree with anything he said. Sorta wished it was a Princeton geologist rather than a physicist, but what can you do?

CO2 levels were that high or higher then - there just wasn't anything living on the earth's surface until about 150 million years later. I still don't understand what point you were trying to make with the quote though. You haven't cleared that up. (Could you?)
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2008, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
What are you talking about? I mentioned how GISS took September's figures and pasted them right over Octobers (well know fact) and you start talking about northern altitudes.
You also mentioned this:
GISS's data is skewed by the Urban Heat Island
Which is odd since most of the warming occurs where no Urban Heat Island exists.

Anyway, the October GISS numbers were corrected within 24 hours. If that's the most damning evidence you have, by all means, work it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,