Page 30 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080130 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #291
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    your inability to even on a basic level understand a graph is truly frightening.
    The graph shows a recent Grand Max event in solar activity (edit, as figured by proxy of sun spots). What is there not to understand? Please, educate me.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-01-2017 at 11:53 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    The Skeptical Science temperature graph uses the GHCN v3.2 dataset. The GHCN dataset doesn't correlate with satellite, raw GHCN, Rural GHNC, weatherballoon, or any other dataset.

    The past 20 years falls off, and is in 'Pause':





    I have shown the problem with the GHCN surface stations before in this. The Rural GHNC also track with the UAH and RSS datasets:



    But the GHCN v3.2 adjusted dataset shows warming for that period.

    It is the only one that shows that level of warming, and also it is the only one that doesn't track with TSI.
    there has been no "pause"







    how many do you need?
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #293
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    There in lies the rub.

    There are 2 real stories on the final data.

    One shows warming for the last 20 years, one doesn't.

    Like I said, and showed, the Surface Stations are in really poor shape.

    And the Adjusted GHCN Database is adjusted to show cooling in the past and warming now. A large portion is homogenized data that shows warming where there isn't even any stations.

    Here is where another bit of the argument is, and I said this in my first post.

    HENCE, why Santer even works with the Satellite dataset, not GHCN.

    This will not be solved until better Surface stations are constructed in far more locations, and better auditing of the GHCN database is done, and more satellite data points are put out there.

    This is the point that can't be figured out with current science. Or I should say, with the state the science currently is done.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #294
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Here are some adjustments, and some text on what they did for part of it in the past. These are NOAA graphs also, just overlaid:



    Let see if these gifs makes it:







    And a bit on the adjustments and such.



    Just took out a bit, since it was inconvenient in 2009.

    Fantastic.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-01-2017 at 12:37 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #295
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...nolds_2002.pdf

    "Because of changes in SST sampling methods in the 1940s and earlier, there are biases in the earlier period
    SSTs relative to the most recent 50 years. Published results from the Met Office have shown the need for historic
    bias correction and have developed several correction techniques. An independent bias-correction method is
    developed here from an analysis using nighttime marine air temperatures and SST observations from the Comprehensive
    Ocean?Atmosphere Data Set (COADS). Because this method is independent from methods proposed
    by the Met Office, the differences indicate uncertainties and similarities indicate where users may have more
    confidence in the bias correction.
    The new method gives results that are broadly consistent with the latest Met Office bias estimates. However,
    this bias estimate has a stronger annual cycle of bias in the Northern Hemisphere in comparison with the Met
    Office estimate. Both estimates have midlatitude annual cycles, with the greatest bias in the cold season, and
    both have a small annual cycle in the Tropics. From the 1850s into the early twentieth century both bias estimates
    increase with time, although this estimate increases slightly less than the Met Office estimate over that period.
    Near-global average temperatures are not greatly affected by the choice of bias correction. However, the need
    for a bias correction in some periods may introduce greater uncertainty in the global averages. Differences in
    the bias corrections suggest that this bias-induced uncertainty in the near-global average may be 0.18C in the
    nineteenth century, with less uncertainty in the early twentieth century."

    EDIT: A point here I'm trying to make, is that this information isn't hidden or under the table. When it was ready to publish, adjusting the 1940's temperatures were published in a journal and are now cited. Josh hasn't come out and explicitly said it, but he seems to have strong beliefs about which authorities are making statements as relates to the statements truthfulness or impact. That's a very political position to take, and I should not forget that we're int he Politics OT thread. However, I think he and we all would agree that the science should carry the weight and is true whether we believe it or not. The fact that this stuff is getting published and only gets replaced when we publish better information should give strength to the Manns, Wigleys, Hansens, etc. Instead, Josh sees it that these people had less information in the past and therefore they aren't trustworthy now. And further, a small subset of people have convinced a large group of scientists not to publish against them. The Christys and Spencers are still at the table publishing, and often being involved in IPCC reports that Josh is critical of.

    I've said it before and I will say it again, the victory is not in publishing more scientific papers that confirm the existing body of knowledge - it's in refining, or better yet overturning, the established scientific basis. If someone could prove that carbon wasn't linked to temperature and that temperature wasn't increasing from anthropogenic means, that would make for a lifetime achievement publication. And it's just not happening.
    Last edited by Unfated33; 12-01-2017 at 02:32 PM.

  6. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Here are some adjustments, and some text on what they did for part of it in the past. These are NOAA graphs also, just overlaid:



    Let see if these gifs makes it:







    And a bit on the adjustments and such.



    Just took out a bit, since it was inconvenient in 2009.

    Fantastic.
    copying a WATTS post isn't an argument.

    there has been no pause. the TSI has not increased.

    its carbon stupid.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #297
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    A bit from Chris Mathews on Hillary:

    During his speech before the book signing, Matthews mentioned Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment on the presidential campaign trail as part of the reason she lost to Trump.

    “You can’t talk down to people,” he said. “The white working class is not in the Democratic Party anymore because they’ve been pissed on so long by the Democratic elite that they got the message.”
    Which is basically what I said. Huh.
    _____________________________

    Gordon: Ad Hom fallacy. And it isn't from Watts. You can't discredit what I showed simply by saying you dislike the source. You need some sort of counter.

    For the 1999 graph, here is the Hansen paper. Look at figure 6. I am not making that up, and neither is Watts. Because that is James Hansen's graph. They all are. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999...n_ha03200f.pdf

    If I make some time this weekend I will show you the dataset issues. It is still up on NOAA's website. Even recent ones. You can see where they changed it.

    If you want, here is one of the line of code from the FORTRAN. This is direct copied text from the Harry_readme.txt file:

    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    ;
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
    Which results in this graph.



    So, call me whatever you want, but these guys cooked the books.

    If you want a bit from Watts, here is Lord Christofor Monkton's graph he made showing the difference between well sited GISS locations, from Watts et al paper on the USHCN database.



    Interestingly, NOAA is the highest, followed by the poorly sited USHCN sites, followed by the UAH, then the Rural USHCN data. NOAA adjusted ABOVE the actual sites that rated the highest amount. It should be tracking in the MIDDLE of the two datasets. That is does means something is fishy.

    A decent difference in the rates of warming. Which brings up this interesting bit. The rates of warming slowed down...



    From HadCRUT. Huh.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-01-2017 at 04:13 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #298

  9. #299
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    I think we may have touched on this topic before, but the reason that Gordon, Steve, and Josh can't come to an agreement probably has nothing to do with the science or what they think the facts are. 538 did a good surface skim of the issue, though it doesn't get to far into actual climate discussion. Remember back to the hacked emails, where pro-economic groups found red meat in the statement about "hiding the decline" even as scientists argued that hiding the decline was the most accurate way to present data that had problems. I'm sure we could even bring that debate here in the same form as Josh's taking issue with the 1940's blip.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...sound-science/

    "These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence."

  10. #300
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    UnF: That was a basic tenet of my first position. That "the science" wasn't very good.

    Partially because of the quality of the data, but also how we can have so many datasets that show agreement, and then we can have a different one that doesn't and we go and used that one. The issue of openness comes back around to items like the problems in the Hockey Stick graph, and the related issue that resulted in the climategate email being leaked. A fairly balanced read of what they contained was here:

    http://www.free-the-memes.net/writin...mateGate2.html

    It really is a worthy read on a review of the topic. Of that case, there is enough results that a surface reader and pull what they want to support their belief. Whither that belief is for warming we are all going to die, or that they want to be in total denial. I pretty much put my pole in the ground for my beliefs about a decade ago, and argued a bit here and there and kept up on it, but lately there has been some pretty solid backing evidence to support my position. The Fall et al. paper, the model runs vs weatherballoon and satellite data, and not the Santer et al paper with Mann. They all fall within what I was expecting. Arctic ice, with Greenland, has shown a return, with Greenland having exceptional ice mass growth this year.

    Supporting evidence from the IPCC VP who wrote the 2007 report:

    From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch , Peter Whetton Subject: On "what to do?" Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 ???(MET DST)
    ...First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.

    I suspect in 5-10 years we will have things fairly sorted.

    I do have a bit of a write up on a reply. A bit more thoughtful, but I am at 5 pages without hitting much meat yet.

    A quick bit in reply to the "Flat line" has to do with playing with the scaling. In one case using an absolute value for TSI, but not using the absolute value for Temperature. Here is a small bit:

    TSI and Temperature: Let’s get Absolutely correct.

    As proposed by Gordon and Steve, the TSI, or Total Solar Activity is ‘Flat’ and hence, has no effect on temperature. In the replies there was a consistent comment on “Here is the TSI, it only wavers a few wm^2 out of 1365 wm^2 average., which is less than a percent.”

    In initial replies I linked to several papers that showed a correlation of solar activity and temperature in proxy events in the past. I also supplied graphs from these papers, showing a link. The reply is that TSI has dropped off (where a small voice wants to speak up and say…wait, I thought it was flat? Which is it?) whereas temperature hasn’t. To address this, I need to show two things. First, that TSI is just as flat as temperature. Secondly, to show the temperature record used was an adjusted one that only came from the surface station (6’ high) record, is strongly influenced by poor station siting, and the NOAA adjusted results is not an average of both stations that are cited with extra warming and well cited stations, but also exceeds both sets, meaning there is extra adjustment that is not in the database. That will happen in the later chapters. First is the TSI and Temperature flatness.

    Taking TSI as an absolute allows us to take temperature as an absolute also. Let’s makes this as apples to apples as we can. And since without the Sun, we would be sitting at about 3 Kelvin, let’s use the full range of temperature in the same manner. Which leaves us with this graph:



    If you want to talk flat lines, well, temperature is a flat line also. If you want to give TSI a full range absolute values to make your argument then you have to realize that temperature has changed in a similar amount if you look at full range absolute values also.

    5mw^2 out of 1365wm^2 is only .3% - It is fairly insignificant, right? Which is the point of viewing it that way. To try and make it insignificant.

    What is problematic is when you look at temperature the same way, you end up with the same result.

    Warming since 1979 has been .324K – by the highest dataset, NOAA. It has been .319K for the Class 3-5 GISS units, .227K on the UAH dataset, and .204K on the Class 1-2 high quality GISS units.

    Out of a 288K current temperature, that is a .1% change ( .324/288 = .0011)

    For the highest trend dataset for warming, from 1906 till 2005, they are showing .74K of warming. That is a .26% of change (.74/288 = .002569) .

    In BOTH cases, the absolute TSI and Absolute Temperature have shown a very teenie, tiny change. Absolutely tiny, to pun it up.

    So, if you want to say TSI is flat, well guys, Temperature is flat also. And the change in the last few decades is insignificant, and we shouldn’t be worried.

    But taking one dataset, giving it a range of a couple degrees, and saying it is changing wildly and we should all be afraid when you are looking at a .25% change in 100 years, and then taking a correlating dataset but using an absolute value for it and saying the change is insignificant and a straight line because you want to use absolutes for that one is hypocritical.

    I shouldn’t need to explain it to you. Using a reduced range of only a couple degrees results in a huge variation – so dismissing it for TSI is just lying. It is an invalid point Gordon, and it is dumb. You said it so many times, that you really can’t say anything else. Your position is wrong, and only looks right if you allow for one to have a range of 2 degrees Kelvin – out of a range of 300. So what is wrong with looking at a change of 3-5wm^2 out of 1365? Nothing. You have no point because you are miss-representing ranges by a factor of hundreds.

    To be clear – you are absolutely wrong on this. (yuk yuk yuk)

    In addition, there is no way to really refute this. Using the same values, we get a similar small shift in temperature and solar output.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-06-2017 at 03:22 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •