Climate Change Banter

[WxUSAF]

JB is so hilariously ignorant

 

Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi

 · 5h5 hours ago

Amazing how Mars has climate change with atmosphere about the same %co2 as Venus,but much less dense. Isnt that special?

[HailMan06]

Isn't there a thread discussing this topic Jonger?

[HailMan06]

Start from this post here and continue reading.

I put this together after it was pointed out on a few "Denier Sites"

I'm really trying to figure how they came to this maps conclusions. This type of map will end up as a media release, completely glossing over and basically removing an otherwise COLD February.

Ashville, NC for February +0.1 = Above Average.

Hartford, CT -5 for February = Near Average.

Just disgusting.

Bias.jpg

[HailMan06]

The link below discusses the adjustments NOAA/NCDC has used between the older and newer datasets.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

[Jonger]

The link below discusses the adjustments NOAA/NCDC has used between the older and newer datasets.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

Are we discussing the 1998 change here? I'm discussing something that's popped up just recently. Can you highlight the reason why all sites were beefed up again just recently? My 2000-2010 period just increased more than 1880 to 1990 did previously.

[A-L-E-K]

it's a conspiracy, jon

[Jonger]

it's a conspiracy, jon

I'm not going that far... but sh-t man, I just had to come to terms with the previous adjustment, this one is 3x as steep. I have run decade averages and always came up with the 0.20 figure, where is this new 0.60 upward adjustent coming from? I just want to see the numbers.

[Jonger]

Flash forward to 2020.

"Man, I just came to terms with the 0.60 adjustment, now they are dropping a 1.0F anomaly for 2000-2010"

Quote my for future timestamp validation, please!

[Jonger]

In 20 years from now I'll be looking at pics of my snowmobiling from 2005 and the snow will melt away like Marty McFlys family.

[HailMan06]

Flash forward to 2020.

"Man, I just came to terms with the 0.60 adjustment, now they are dropping a 1.0F anomaly for 2000-2010"

Quote my for future timestamp validation, please!

Bookmarked.

[HailMan06]

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

[HailMan06]

Any questions you have about the data you can visit NOAA's contact page and ask them directly:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/contact

[Jonger]

Any questions you have about the data you can visit NOAA's contact page and ask them directly:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/contact

I'm going to keep my raw data and draw my own opinions from there. The NCDC is turning into an opinion based data set. I'm glad I have the ability and insight to quality control my own data.

[HailMan06]

I'm going to keep my raw data and draw my own opinions from there. The NCDC is turning into an opinion based data set. I'm glad I have the ability and insight to quality control my own data.

So it is a conspiracy!

[HailMan06]

Ask them how and why they made the adjustment, it's a lot easier than one of us finding the answer for you.

[Jonger]

So it is a conspiracy!

You got an open messagebox?

[ORH_wxman]

I feel like we've been over this about a hundred times in this forum...we explain the TOBS adjustments, the station movement bias, MMT temp sensor bias, and any other residual issues the raw temperature data has...and then months later, it comes up again as if it was never explained previously.

 

 

NCDC upgraded their dataset from an outdated version called "Drd964x" to "nClimDiv" on the "Climate at a Glance" portion of their webstie, which many hardcore skeptics all b**ched about. But what they failed to understand was the old Drd964x dataset was not adjusted with all the necessary adjustments because it was daily data...they only adjusted monthly data previously. The new nClimDiv dataset has been adjusted to the daily level. I've never heard any of these complainers give a good reason on why the newer dataset was more inaccurate.

 

There's parts of the temp record that can be nitpicked...but this isn't one of them.

[Jonger]

I feel like we've been over this about a hundred times in this forum...we explain the TOBS adjustments, the station movement bias, MMT temp sensor bias, and any other residual issues the raw temperature data has...and then months later, it comes up again as if it was never explained previously.

NCDC upgraded their dataset from an outdated version called "Drd964x" to "nClimDiv" on the "Climate at a Glance" portion of their webstie, which many hardcore skeptics all b**ched about. But what they failed to understand was the old Drd964x dataset was not adjusted with all the necessary adjustments because it was daily data...they only adjusted monthly data previously. The new nClimDiv dataset has been adjusted to the daily level. I've never heard any of these complainers give a good reason on why the newer dataset was more inaccurate.

There's parts of the temp record that can be nitpicked...but this isn't one of them.

If we rehash the same adjustments, that's revisiting the same topic over and over... not the case here. I have more on my plate than just staring at NCDC maps, I didn't chime in on the July 2014 changes previously.

If they adjust the same data upward 5 years fron now, can I remark on it... or are we good now, can we call it enough or keep warming the same data?

[ORH_wxman]

If we rehash the same adjustments, that's revisiting the same topic over and over... not the case here. I have more on my plate than just staring at NCDC maps, I didn't chime in on the July 2014 changes previously.

If they adjust the same data upward 5 years fron now, can I remark on it... or are we good now, can we call it enough or keep warming the same data?

 

It depends what the adjustment 5 years from now was based on...the data didn't change for the 2000-2010 period, it was the dataset that was archiac. It hadn't been properly adjusted.

 

There's always going to be adjustments as coops either move or change equipement or their observation time. The adjustments should be getting smaller since a lot of that is accounted for now, but they will never fully go away.

 

If you really are nervous about adjustments, just use the USCRN dataset from here on out. It is a netowk of 114 stations across the U.S. that was specifically introduced to avoid adjustments. They are placed in pristine siting locations in areas that are unlikely to be affected by developement/urbinzation in the coming decades. They have redundant temperature sensors (3 of them) to make sure that malfunctioning data is unlikely to affect any trends. The only problem is that they have only been recording data since 2004, so it's usefulness will only really be in the decades to come, not the past.

[Jonger]

It depends what the adjustment 5 years from now was based on...the data didn't change for the 2000-2010 period, it was the dataset that was archiac. It hadn't been properly adjusted.

There's always going to be adjustments as coops either move or change equipement or their observation time. The adjustments should be getting smaller since a lot of that is accounted for now, but they will never fully go away.

If you really are nervous about adjustments, just use the USCRN dataset from here on out. It is a netowk of 114 stations across the U.S. that was specifically introduced to avoid adjustments. They are placed in pristine siting locations in areas that are unlikely to be affected by developement/urbinzation in the coming decades. They have redundant temperature sensors (3 of them) to make sure that malfunctioning data is unlikely to affect any trends. The only problem is that they have only been recording data since 2004, so it's usefulness will only really be in the decades to come, not the past.

I'll keep a keen eye on unadjusted USCRN data.

[Bhs1975]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150126-blizzard-weather-climate-northeast-science/

I definitely notice this here but mainly rain as snow is rare especially this year. The soil has been soggy for months it seems.

[Jonger]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150126-blizzard-weather-climate-northeast-science/

I definitely notice this here but mainly rain as snow is rare especially this year. The soil has been soggy for months it seems.

 

Considering AGW affects all weather, it's a claim that can't be refuted and that's kind of weak. The heavy precipitation claim has been disputed successfully before, when using stream bank gauges.

[AvantHiatus]

Considering AGW affects all weather, it's a claim that can't be refuted and that's kind of weak. The heavy precipitation claim has been disputed successfully before, when using stream bank gauges.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere during Greenhouse Earth conditions is exponentially greater than the profile of Icehouse Earth.

 

This latest blizzard really tapped into the enhanced latent heat of the Gulf Stream. It seems obvious, almost self-evident and is impossible to deny unless you are mentally disabled.

[vortex95]

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere during Greenhouse Earth conditions is exponentially greater than the profile of Icehouse Earth.

 

This latest blizzard really tapped into the enhanced latent heat of the Gulf Stream. It seems obvious, almost self-evident and is impossible to deny unless you are mentally disabled.

Just about all coastal storms that move out over the Atlantic E of the Delmarva and S of New England tap into the latent

heat of the Gulf Stream in some way.  This current storm is no different.  Total liquid QPF was not excessive in the Northeast

for this storm.  Fluff factor resulted in the high snow totals.  When you are talking about snow, it is the liquid equivalent that

really matters not how many frozen inches fell if you want to reference to how much water vapor is available.

You had a strong high pressure positioned N of New England, which often is just as important as the low pressure itself as it

provide a strong easterly moist flow off the Atlantic.  Nothing about this blizzard in the big picture was anything that hasn't

been seen before in the Northeast, whether it be wind, snowfall, or coastal flooding.

[AvantHiatus]

Just about all coastal storms that move out over the Atlantic E of the Delmarva and S of New England tap into the latent

heat of the Gulf Stream in some way.  This current storm is no different.  Total liquid QPF was not excessive in the Northeast

for this storm.  Fluff factor resulted in the high snow totals.  When you are talking about snow, it is the liquid equivalent that

really matters not how many frozen inches fell if you want to reference to how much water vapor is available.

You had a strong high pressure positioned N of New England, which often is just as important as the low pressure itself as it

provide a strong easterly moist flow off the Atlantic.  Nothing about this blizzard in the big picture was anything that hasn't

been seen before in the Northeast, whether it be wind, snowfall, or coastal flooding.

Pretty much, it followed on the heels of other storms in the 2000s which were enhanced by AGW.

[vortex95]

Pretty much, it followed on the heels of other storms in the 2000s which were enhanced by AGW.

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/what-does-the-peer-reviewed-literature-say-about-trends-in-east-coast-winter-storms/

[AvantHiatus]

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/what-does-the-peer-reviewed-literature-say-about-trends-in-east-coast-winter-storms/

There is no way to determine if a natural signal is undermining the trend without a wider visionary baseline. Regardless if there is a correlation, ocean temperatures are running warmer than the mid Holocene baseline. Additionally, his blog seems dedicated to downplaying AGW whenever possible over minor details.

 

Especially trends that have been shadey, such as hurricane tendency. Hurricanes and Extraptropical system tendency are not related as both retain divergent internal dynamics.

 

http://earthsky.org/earth/this-summers-ocean-temperatures-warmest-on-record

Study suggests 2014 ocean surface temps warmest on record

[vortex95]

There is no way to determine if a natural signal is undermining the trend. Regardless if there is a correlation, ocean temperatures are running warmer than the mid Holocene baseline. Additionally, his blog seems dedicated to downplaying AGW whenever possible over minor details.

 

Especially trends that have been shadey, such as hurricane tendency. Hurricanes and Extraptropical system tendency are not related as both retain divergent internal dynamics.

 

http://earthsky.org/earth/this-summers-ocean-temperatures-warmest-on-record

True, there is no way to 100% for sure determine natural vs. anthropogenic changes/affects.  We don't have a control Earth

that is uninhabited by humans to compare.  However, the way the scientific method works is that you start with the null

hypothesis, and work up.  You don't assume something is occurring/exists, and then work backwards.  That's not proof, that's

propaganda.  We know for sure that storms, big and small, are part of the normal climatic variation, and natural forces drive

them overwhelmingly.  That's a pretty solid foundation and not subject to debate.  Then you have natural variance in climate

over time, which adds another layer of uncertainty as to our true impact, up or down.  Again, we do know the climate varies

naturally over time and that is not subject to debate either.  So to talk in absolutes as if we are severely affecting climate

overall now when natural forces orders of magnitude larger than anything humans are capable of are at work?  That is not

good science.  Our effects are certainly not zero either, but the Earth in its history has endured much worse than the human

race, and for billions of years, life has not only existed, but flourished and evolved.  That's a track record one can't ignore. 

[AvantHiatus]

True, there is no way to 100% for sure determine natural vs. anthropogenic changes/affects.  We don't have a control Earth

that is uninhabited by humans to compare.  However, the way the scientific method works is that you start with the null

hypothesis, and work up.  You don't assume something is occurring/exists, and then work backwards.  That's not proof, that's

propaganda.  We know for sure that storms, big and small, are part of the normal climatic variation, and natural forces drive

them overwhelmingly.  That's a pretty solid foundation and not subject to debate.  Then you have natural variance in climate

over time, which adds another layer of uncertainty as to our true impact, up or down.  Again, we do know the climate varies

naturally over time and that is not subject to debate either.  So to talk in absolutes as if we are severely affecting climate

overall now when natural forces orders of magnitude larger than anything humans are capable of are at work?  That is not

good science.  Our effects are certainly not zero either, but the Earth in its history has endured much worse than the human

race, and for billions of years, life has not only existed, but flourished and evolved.  That's a track record one can't ignore. 

Good point, I want to add that it would be more efficient to be on the inside looking out when discussing AGW. Nobody questions us when we tell them cigarettes are bad.

 

This will reduce incorrect assumptions and the lapse in time between policy and implementation. Remember, even though people claim AGW aversion policy is anti-humanistic and anti-economic, it is very much an egotistical approach and beneficial in the long-run.

 

We would prefer to sustain holocene conditions because that is the natural environment of homo sapien, rather than this era being optimal for the entire biosphere.

[WEATHER53]

Compelling information about manipulation of temperature values.

Chicago to Boston historic snows which means that's global warming and if they were having a snow drought it would be global warming.