• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About skierinvermont

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Littleton, CO

Recent Profile Visitors

2,570 profile views
  1. How about frequency of 100F days in Chicago? Or 102F? Whatever the threshold for "extreme" is. You've made the threshold so extreme (one in 20, 50, 100 yr events) you've made it difficult to verify. There are also lots of events that are clearly 1 in 1000 year events that happened only 10 or 20 years ago. To expect them to recur in 10 or 20 years is unrealistic. We could test the frequency of 20" or 24" snowstorms in NYC. (Rather than using the record snowfall of ~30" or whatever it might be). We could test the frequency of 3" rainfalls in 24 hour periods in Kansas City.
  2. How about we leave physics to physicists? As was already pointed out, the absorption spectrum of CO2 is not all or nothing. There are portions of the absorption spectrum that are only partially saturated. This can be seen in the image below. Second, if you go high enough in the atmosphere concentrations of CO2 are low enough that not all of the IR light is absorbed, thus allowing some light to be emitted to space. As concentrations increase at these higher altitudes, IR light less easily escapes to space. These two facts have been studied, tested and modeled endlessly by physicists. If you think you have unearthed some secret flaw in physicists understanding of the CO2 effect, you're just uninformed.
  3. People write their conclusions into studies so that other people can read and debate whether the data in the study supports the conclusions of the study. Otherwise there would be no means of communicating and debating conclusions through the written word. Almost all peer-reviewed studies will be formatted with Intro, Method, Data, and then Conclusion/Discussion sections or something similar. Formats similar to this for scientific work are taught at a young age to middle school school and high school students (I was a middle school science teacher for a couple of years, I also paid attention in middle school and high school).
  4. No the earth won't be *fine* unless your only standard for *fine* is that some form of life persists until the sun explodes. What total nonsense. Fatalistic nihilistic nonsense. The earth already isn't *fine*. Also humans absolutely have the power to control the climate and prevent ice ages by emitting CO2. Likewise we could cause cooling by capturing CO2 which would be more expensive but feasible. We've already drastically altered the planet in almost every way imaginable including the climate. The idea that we don't have the power to affect climate is un-scientific garbage.
  5. This is just taking a stupid fatalistic view to justify trashing the planet today. I for one don't want to live or have my children live on a planet with all the ecological stress and loss of biodiversity that took 100s of millions of years to evolve. Which is what climate change is already doing to the planet today. I enjoy skiing and the new england lobster industry which also supports a lot of families economically. Just two tiny examples of the many many things threatened by climate change. You know what? Let's just pave over it and turn the whole planet into a parking lot, full of traffic and landfills and smog. The bugs will survive so when we inevitably die off, they can repopulate the planet. Sounds great.
  6. People in cities produce less carbon dioxide per person than in the country. There's just infinitely more people in cities. As someone who has lived in both rural and urban places, I didn't just stop using resources when I moved to a city because there were so many other people around me that our collective actions are actually visible (smog) whereas in some rural areas smog is not a problem. You still have a collective action problem in rural places and cities. People still need to get to to work etc.
  7. I don't understand most of what you are trying to say here but the odds of multi-meter sea level rise in a decade is near-zero.
  8. Don't know how Will is so patient with comments like above. But take a look at the company you keep... scientists have a conspiracy to pretend the ice is gone (easily disproven by satellite picture, airplane and boat traffic) .... and prescription drugs make people more sick... there you have it people... the paranoid American far-right
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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. 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."
  13. 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." 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): 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.
  14. Maybe read up a bit more from some scientific sources that discuss and explain the contents of that article in detail before posting misinformation
  15. 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)"