Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skierinvermont

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Littleton, CO

Recent Profile Visitors

2,028 profile views
  1. Mount Agung volcano

    Sounds like it was borderline significant for the climate? But if it was, it won't be much (well under .1C)? Big difference between 20,000 feet and 50,000 feet ash clouds.
  2. long term 5 yrs+

    I can certainly agree with all that. I'm just wary of using reanalysis like ERA and CFSR to measure global temperature for a few reasons. I've never seen them used in that way in climate studies to measure long-term global temperature. I've seen them used to study regional temperature or short term variability, but not as a measure of long-term temp. From what I remember the CFSR trend is very different (warmer) but that may have been corrected or maybe my memory is mistaken. For another, it's not incorporating more data it's just using the same data sources and combining and interpolating which could lead to sources of error. And finally, in the paper you posted there is a note that the old version of ERA showed less warming because it used a fixed level of CO2. If the model requires increasing CO2 level to "measure" the global temperature accurately it's not really measuring or observing anymore and some deniers could accuse the science of circular reasoning.
  3. long term 5 yrs+

    You're not identifying what additional data is being assimilated. Without additional data the only improvement is to use the modelling capability to interpolate between observations. That can improve the accuracy of short term variability, but won't improve the accuracy of long-term trends relative to conventional datasets. I skimmed through most of your link and didn't find anything to say it's more accurate.. just that it interpolates and is released faster.
  4. long term 5 yrs+

    From what I understand, CFSR and ERA are not considered appropriate tools for assessing long-term temperature trends. They both utilize the same data found in surface and satellite data sets of global temperature (GISS, BEST, HadCRUT, RSS etc.) but without careful quality control to maintain continuity of the record (say when one satellite is replaced with another with slightly different calibration, satellite drift etc.). Overall, they show very similar results to these other observational sources because they are based on the same data. But they contain potential errors without incorporating any additional data or quality control. In other words, they can only be more error prone and in no way could the be less error prone. They can be useful to predict (model) surface temperature where observational data is not available. But that doesn't improve the long-term quality or reliability. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8cb9/de0babe76f4bbd498dbcf6ded7dfa3b597f0.pdf See section 4 on long term trends in reanalysis products "Because of the addition or removal of observational platforms as the assimilation progresses, a reanalysis product may contain spurious trends or discontinuities that are not physical in nature and are an artifact of the assimilation system alone."
  5. long term 5 yrs+

    I suggest you follow your own advice and read the 1974 referenced NOAA article. It's quite clear that there is a lot of uncertainty and some climate scientists were predicting cooling and others warming. The quotes that were posted are cherrypicked misrepresentations of the article. In short, they are a lie. A disgusting, deceitful, hateful and pathetic lie. Reading the full article you will find quotes like the ones below. Also, the article is mostly about food supply and appears to be written by somebody without a lot of expertise in the area. For example the writing style somewhat blurs millenial scale slow changes in climate from glacial to interglacial and smaller more abrupt changes like the little ice age in the late 19th century and the warming in the early 20th century. They quote Murray Mitchell predicting warming, but neglect to mention that that prediction was based on human emissions of Greenhouse Gases. The author mentions the prediction but sort of glosses over it, even though Mitchell was a leading expert and most scientists already realized that human emissions of greenhouse gases would warm the climate (it had been known for decades already that greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor are a principle control of the earth's climate). "Many other scientists disagree. J Murray Mitchell of the EDS a world authority on climate change comments "We observe these trends and we know they are real. But we can't know the central tendency, we can't know how long they will last." Mitchell himself suspects the warming trend will reverse itself rather soon." "In summary, the current cooling trend may be but a temporary climate variation, it may lead to another Little Ice Age (a brief cold period around in the late 19th century) or it may spell the end of the current interglacial. We do not know. We may never know." "It would take thousands of years to develop a full fledged ice age." https://web.archive.org/web/20160630234737/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf So are you going to be part of this despicable cherry picked lie? Or are you going to take your own advice, read, and learn how scientists were already predicting warming in the 70s based on human CO2 emissions? There was more uncertainty in the 70s and especially prior to the 70s it is true. Part of this is a lack of awareness and communication between scientists. They all had different theories based on different climate factors but the science just wasn't that good. Also, one of the biggest differences is if you go back prior to the 70s human CO2 emissions just weren't that significant yet. It was conceivable at the time that other factors would be more important. By the 70s the consensus and awareness of the problem was developing and by the 80s it was a well established theory. I would also suggest actually reading the full AMS article (not just the abstract): https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 I and others actually have read extensively on the topic from peer reviewed journal articles past and present and it really is a despicable lie to say that there was a consensus of cooling in the 70s. There was more uncertainty than today. There was some bad science. Some science that wasn't looking at the big picture yet. But it was known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and many if not most leading experts were predicting a warming world based off human CO2 emissions.
  6. 2018 Temperatures

    Maybe read up a bit more from some scientific sources that discuss and explain the contents of that article in detail before posting misinformation
  7. HAARP

    So do I and about 10,000 other people smarter than us who who do this for a living. But you're the one genius that "sees the pattern." Weather happens bro. Take off the tin hat. You just exemplified the worst quality of conspiracy theorists. It's all about them vs the world. "You don't understand" "I've done xyz" "I have this special skill (meditation in your case apparently)"
  8. HAARP

    "conscious awareness"? Is that like telepathy? "enough majority" what does that even mean? This isn't even conspiracy theory stuff... it's just thinking you can **** verbiage and it will be genius ... some form of extreme mental arrogance combined with some level of mental illness/decay
  9. HAARP

    Wow.. this is why I no longer post in this forum. A HAARP thread? Seriously?
  10. Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

    No, the 2007 IPCC report (the definitive scientific consensus on climate change at the time) predicted that near ice free conditions would not occur until the end of the 21st century. The projection was largely based on a modeling study by Zhang and Walsh who are two of the top sea ice researchers (you see their names a lot). That projection has since been moved up to the 2030s in some recent studies based on the unexpectedly fast rate of sea ice volume losses from 2007-2012. Maybe some bloggers and people on this forum predicted sooner, but it is generally better to form one's opinions from peer-reviewed scientific and journalistic sources.
  11. January 4-6 Coastal Bomb Observations/Nowcast

    I haven't been following the obs, but judging from the radar am I wrong in thinking totals from NYC through western CT and the Berkshires may rival or exceed SE MA? Great banding and possibly better ratios?
  12. January 4-6 Coastal Bomb Observations/Nowcast

    Thanks.. I see now that Plymouth and New Bedford are all snow too. So the line is around the canal as expected?
  13. January 4-6 Coastal Bomb Observations/Nowcast

    Just checking in for the first time this morning. Is Taunton mixing? Latest report says freezing fog. That would be a major bust as they are forecast for 12-18"
  14. Jan 4-6 Coastal Bomb

    Wow... in the 35 year period of record, all of them occurred in the final 15 years of the record. Statistically the odds of that are about 1 in 5,000 by chance. That says something about our climate.
  15. Jan 4-6 Coastal Bomb

    Call me a weenie but I'm actually expecting something more like the hi-res NAM below.. fast moving broad precip shield penetrating inland w/o the huge jackpot in in eastern Mass/RI. Widespread 8-15"