Topic: The Warming Climate

[waiukuweather]

mattk, are you trying to argue that there is no current warming trend?
(by putting up links about the fiddling of data (yes some data records have been changed, but the reasoning for those changes is made public at the time)
(if you are , then I think you might be the only one on this thread who is)

[Mattk]

The question was re fiddling data, I know some want to offset and change the subject away from the fiddling facts with pseudo anti-claims etc  So do the whistle-blowers have it wrong, has everybody that doesn't agree with some here have it wrong, and the question was if the data doesn't back up the claims then why do some want to fiddle and make it appear to fit the claims, like if the data stood by itself (and it apparently does not) then there would be no need to fiddle it, would there?

[saratogaWX]

You seem to be obsessed with 'fiddling with the data'.  Perhaps you've seen http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/ which explains what happened and why it's not the issue you may think it is.
I prefer to get my data from the professionals as in https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en and the http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml which documents the international findings.  Using Breitbart (alt-news) and personal blogs as sources may make fun reading, but hardly ones subjected to scientific peer-review like those from the IPCC or NOAA which have much more scientific consensus and credibility.

[Jáchym]

The IPCC 5th report is divided into 4 books, each almost thousand pages and about third of that is sources and thousands of scientists who contributed. Now compare with an article by a journalist specializing in EU politics

[Mattk]

So would anybody expect NOAA is going to highlight one of there own (ex) chiefs like Dr John Bates who blew the whistle on NOAA, of course not, so is Mr Bates not a creditable witness now One just can't brush details like this aside because of the info source.

So is Mr Bates now not creditable being an ex NOAA data chief? 

[Jáchym]

Read this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Obviously it is going to take you some time, but you might get a better idea. I read it all and even helped creating it. I dare to say I have a lot more information and Ive read articles about the data manipulation as well and I know about it, but based on everything I know Im very clear about what I believe.

[WheatonRon]

Read this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

...  but based on everything I know Im very clear about what I believe.

You and Al Gore, who has made millions of dollars (a politician no less) promoting a bunch of ....

[Jáchym]

Read this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

...  but based on everything I know Im very clear about what I believe.

You and Al Gore, who has made millions of dollars (a politician no less) promoting a bunch of ....

Thanks for highly informative and invaluable post

[hankster]

So would anybody expect NOAA is going to highlight one of there own (ex) chiefs like Dr John Bates who blew the whistle on NOAA, of course not, so is Mr Bates not a creditable witness now One just can't brush details like this aside because of the info source.

So is Mr Bates now not creditable being an ex NOAA data chief?

Might want to read more than Republican press release. Try this

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

[hankster]

Here is some tempurature info from the last 100+ years for the USA

[waiukuweather]

interesting article link Hankster
the take home message is other studies, eg by the UK Met office, using different data sets, comes to the same conclusions as the noaa studies that mattk has an issue with

[waiukuweather]

this sums it up, re the link above:

To top it off, Karl and his co-authors point out that “it is also clear that the long-term trend would be significantly higher … without corrections” to the raw data. In other words, compared with the raw data, the adjusted data show less warming over the long-term.
Why? Because ocean surface temperature data greatly impacts the overall global warming trend and a lot of 20th century ocean data comes from ships, which are systematically too warm. As a result, scientists have to actually adjust the long-term trend downward to accommodate for this bias.
As Hausfather said when we spoke to him over the phone, “If scientists are cooking the books, they’re cooking them in the wrong direction.”

[halifax]

Read this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Obviously it is going to take you some time, but you might get a better idea. I read it all and even helped creating it. I dare to say I have a lot more information and Ive read articles about the data manipulation as well and I know about it, but based on everything I know Im very clear about what I believe.

Thank you, Jáchym, for your well-written, evidence-based posts. As a practicing ecologist working in a peer-reviewed world, I appreciate your work and how you came to understand the nature of the problem. I also appreciate your willingness to try to transfer scientific knowledge in this public forum.

[hankster]

The earliest East Pacific storm on record formed today, meet Adrian.

[Jáchym]

Read this: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

Obviously it is going to take you some time, but you might get a better idea. I read it all and even helped creating it. I dare to say I have a lot more information and Ive read articles about the data manipulation as well and I know about it, but based on everything I know Im very clear about what I believe.

Thank you, Jáchym, for your well-written, evidence-based posts. As a practicing ecologist working in a peer-reviewed world, I appreciate your work and how you came to understand the nature of the problem. I also appreciate your willingness to try to transfer scientific knowledge in this public forum.

Thanks, I also enjoy this joint effort where thousands of people work together on something.

Im also aware of the fact that no matter what I post here, those who want to believe something different will still do so and no matter what you say they will try to find reasons why you are wrong no matter how absurd these reasons might be.

It is more like I can never resist posting something when I read something that I myself consider total **

[waiukuweather]

re earliest east pacific cyclone, the south pacific has just had its strongest recorded late season cyclone (Cat 5, season ended last month), due to warmer than normal ocean temperatures right across the pacific ocean

[Dko]

I know this is a very polarising argument, but what if the scientists are right? What if the effects are much worse than predicted? Will the deniers continue to deny? If the CO2 levels continue to rise, the permafrost melts and Methane joins in the party, and temperature rises accelerate? Is there a point where the deniers will say 'whoops, you were right', or will they continue to deny despite overwhelming evidence?

[Jáchym]

I know this is a very polarising argument, but what if the scientists are right? What if the effects are much worse than predicted? Will the deniers continue to deny? If the CO2 levels continue to rise, the permafrost melts and Methane joins in the party, and temperature rises accelerate? Is there a point where the deniers will say 'whoops, you were right', or will they continue to deny despite overwhelming evidence?

Simple answer - no, they will look for counter arguments no matter how absurd they would be Primarily because it would not be in their "economic" benefit.

[Dko]

I know you are right, they'll continue to concoct complex reasons why anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist, when the simple explanation will eventually be obvious and undeniable to any level-headed thinker. Climate change is real. We don't need thermometers to prove it, nature does that and will continue as glaciers melt, sea levels rise at accelerated rates and islands cease to be islands.

[halifax]

The problem with deniers is their simplistic view of humanity and their us vs. them mentality. Everything is seen through their monochromatic lens of politics. When confronted with new facts that challenge or destroy their paradigm, they stay firmly wedded to their original beliefs.

The best test of scientific validity for the layman is Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. So what's simpler: the idea that thousands of independent researchers worldwide, representing 95+% of the climate science field, are engaged in a conspiracy (or that they are all idiots), or that the right-wing echo chamber led primarily by one TV news network with an overriding political agenda is engaged in a conspiracy?

[Dko]

Rate of change is the killer. Similar temperatures have been seen in the past, but the rate of change currently being observed is unprecedented. It's quicker than the descent into the Younger Dryas and the exit from it. Natural cycles such as the Milankovic don't explain the acceleration of change without overlaying an increasing anthroprogenic component on top. Neither does the fact that we're still coming out of the last ice age. The rate of change we are seeing isn't natural based on the historic record.

[waiukuweather]

what he said 

[WheatonRon]

See post 401 above. Enough said!

[weatherc]

I would say you guys forget one point, thanks god there are deniers and those who reads this stuffs critically. Else could the yes-side write whatever and all should "trust ist as truth". Any thing have (at least) 2 sides.
No, i'm not a denier, nor i'm on the yes-side either. Instead, things should lie on facts and real data, not guesses. Do we have that data? We just guess as we do not know better, yet.

Just FYI, The Arctic icecover what whole yes-side all the time says will melt away, are even at the moment almost at normal longtime extent, well inside its 2% standard deviations:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Sure, it may younger ice "than normal" but at least the extent are pretty normal.

[Jáchym]

See post 401 above. Enough said!

I dont see why we should stop discussing this, if you are not interested just ignore this thread.