Climate Change - Is the Tide Turning?

No global warming (oops, I mean climate change) in Europe this December with snow predicted over 80% of the continent in the next 2 weeks. Then again, the model they used to predict the weather might have been written by the CRU, so I'm not getting my hopes up of a white Christmas.

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-dem ... n%20Europe
 
smithy said:
No global warming (oops, I mean climate change) in Europe this December with snow predicted over 80% of the continent in the next 2 weeks. Then again, the model they used to predict the weather might have been written by the CRU, so I'm not getting my hopes up of a white Christmas.
Click to expand...
Colder European winters are one predicted path of Global Warming. Here is one reference from a few years ago. LINK A bit of internet searching one could find more.
 
faethor said:
smithy said:
No global warming (oops, I mean climate change) in Europe this December with snow predicted over 80% of the continent in the next 2 weeks. Then again, the model they used to predict the weather might have been written by the CRU, so I'm not getting my hopes up of a white Christmas.
Click to expand...
Colder European winters are one predicted path of Global Warming. Here is one reference from a few years ago. LINK A bit of internet searching one could find more.
Click to expand...

This was just the usual sensationalist bad-science that has become so typical of the greenlobby. Even climate-change scientists don't believe this any more. Columbia Uni did a "detailed study", see the abstract at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/.
 
Smithy thanks for the article. Always good for one's to keep updating their knowledge. Certainly we've learned lots in the last 2-3 decades of climate research and we'll learn more in the coming.


GROUP --
AP finds pettiness not fraud in the stolen communications.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
Indeed.
Despite all this fuss, has anyone actually found any evidence of deliberate lying in a published paper?

If so, I've yet to see it.
Click to expand...
You haven't been looking very hard now have you? Destroyed data, fudging numbers into a complete fantasy not good enough?
Click to expand...
Due to "Climategate" they have been forced to release their "value added data" that they had been hiding

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
This has the effect of turning what is a negative trend in the HadCRUT3 data into a positive trend in the GISTemp version
Click to expand...

Make your own "value added data set" using CRU data and statistics
How to Make Your Own Hockey Stick


Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale
the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website.
 
faethor said:
Smithy thanks for the article. Always good for one's to keep updating their knowledge. Certainly we've learned lots in the last 2-3 decades of climate research and we'll learn more in the coming.


GROUP --
AP finds pettiness not fraud in the stolen communications.
Click to expand...
I was about to post a link to that.

I love how the 'religious' kooks think that they should take seriously private (and STOLEN emails) as factual but don't bother taking seriously the gravitas of research presented in science journals. as someone who actually went to grad school for science I can tell you that if you don't present and discuss your experiment in the mandated and PRECISE manner your paper is REJECTED for publication. published articles are not gossip, contrary to what some people may think.

and science will self correct over time.

unlike gossip

the people who need to be prosecuted are those who stole private property - the emails. we know THAT is illegal.
 
One of the things we see is the GW Denialists say 'it's cold here - therefore it's not warming'. Of course the problem is they don't understand that GW does not mean every point on the globe must be warmer at the extact same time. Instead it's the overal net change for the planet is in a positive direction. There will be cooler areas.

The USA for the past year, at least here in the heartland, is in one of those cooler periods. NASA has a good tool which overlays temp changes on a graph of the world. LINK It provides a representation of what is occuring over each continent.
 
smithy said:
No global warming (oops, I mean climate change) in Europe this December
Click to expand...

Really? So one month of colder data bucks the trend?


with snow predicted over 80% of the continent in the next 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

Nice one. Might get to use the board this year.
 
faethor said:
One of the things we see is the GW Denialists say 'it's cold here - therefore it's not warming'. Of course the problem is they don't understand that GW does not mean every point on the globe must be warmer at the extact same time. Instead it's the overal net change for the planet is in a positive direction.
Click to expand...

Comparing more the accurate satellite (UAH MSU LT) measurements versus error prone land-based (HadCRUT3) data for the eighties and nineties gives HadCRUT3 a warming trend of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade while lower tropospheric satellite data show no warming at all. Satellite measurements of midtropospheric temperature show a long-term cooling effect for this period.
 
metalman said:
Comparing more the accurate satellite (UAH MSU LT) measurements versus error prone land-based (HadCRUT3) data for the eighties and nineties gives HadCRUT3 a warming trend of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade while lower tropospheric satellite data show no warming at all. Satellite measurements of midtropospheric temperature show a long-term cooling effect for this period.
Click to expand...
Is your 'accurate' satellites which measure the atmosphere and not the surface level temps before or after they were corrected for drift? Turns out satellites weren't accurately measuring the same spot at the same time. When one adjusts to reflect the position and time of the satellite the result is in very near alignment to the changes reflected by ground based temps.

Seems the 'accurate' satellites forgot that it may be important to measure the same place at the same time. The result of this inaccuracy is being handled by being adjusted after the measure has occurred to account for the issues.
 
faethor said:
Is your 'accurate' satellites which measure the atmosphere and not the surface level temps before or after they were corrected for drift? Turns out satellites weren't accurately measuring the same spot at the same time. When one adjusts to reflect the position and time of the satellite the result is in very near alignment to the changes reflected by ground based temps.

Seems the 'accurate' satellites forgot that it may be important to measure the same place at the same time. The result of this inaccuracy is being handled by being adjusted after the measure has occurred to account for the issues.
Click to expand...
The National Weather Service says this is where you need to place your thermometer to get an accurate reading:

- It must be in a shaded, well-ventilated and open area, 5 feet above ground, give or take a foot.
- Away from sprinkler systems
- No closer than four times the height of any obstruction. For example, if a building is 10 feet tall, it needs to be no closer than 40 feet from that building.
- Located over natural ground such as grass, dirt or sod.
- At least 100 feet from road or concrete.

How not to measure temperature

Detroit_lakes_USHCN.jpg

Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C units.

Tucson1.jpg

Tucson U of Arizona USHCN climate station of record
Tucson has the greatest positive temperature trend for any USHCN station
 
metalman said:
faethor said:
Is your 'accurate' satellites which measure the atmosphere and not the surface level temps before or after they were corrected for drift? Turns out satellites weren't accurately measuring the same spot at the same time. When one adjusts to reflect the position and time of the satellite the result is in very near alignment to the changes reflected by ground based temps.

Seems the 'accurate' satellites forgot that it may be important to measure the same place at the same time. The result of this inaccuracy is being handled by being adjusted after the measure has occurred to account for the issues.
Click to expand...
The National Weather Service says this is where you need to place your thermometer to get an accurate reading:
Click to expand...
The failure here is you stated satellites are accurate then provide exactly ZERO information about how they match your assertion.

Your point is there is a urban heat effect on some sites due to their positioning. This has been studied. LINK Denialists choose not to read or find the studies and that the results are no statistical significant impact. Problems are noted and are normalized. LINK Then the response from the denialist crowd is they are fudging the data. If you need further reading Wikipedia is a fairly good source.

Previously you posted an article that stated there's a large problem in the homogenization of such data. The net result of that article was that Climatologists should use the data unchanged. So which is it? Do they unchanged data which, as you posted, which might have a heat island effect? Or do they use homogenized data in order to deal with some of the issues?

Again, still none of this proved your accurate satellites comment. They too have data which is manipulated. The data is satistically massaged to off-set time of day and height of measurement differences.
 
Robert said:
smithy said:
No global warming (oops, I mean climate change) in Europe this December
Click to expand...

Really? So one month of colder data bucks the trend?
Click to expand...

No I was trying to show that it shows it isn't bucking the trend. After all the noughties decade has been one of no-change in temperatures according to the Met Office data (despite all those zillions of tonnes of CO2) and snow in December in Europe typifies that.
 
smithy said:
No I was trying to show that it shows it isn't bucking the trend. After all the noughties decade has been one of no-change in temperatures according to the Met Office data (despite all those zillions of tonnes of CO2) and snow in December in Europe typifies that.
Click to expand...
Met Office says:"The first decade of this century is by far the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization."
 
faethor said:
smithy said:
No I was trying to show that it shows it isn't bucking the trend. After all the noughties decade has been one of no-change in temperatures according to the Met Office data (despite all those zillions of tonnes of CO2) and snow in December in Europe typifies that.
Click to expand...
Met Office says:"The first decade of this century is by far the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization."
Click to expand...

Yes - that's how it's been reported but the key message has been greenwashed away! According to their data the 90s decade saw warming. The noughties decade saw no warming however. Their PR is technically true, but essentially misleading. The Met Office data shows no correlation with CO2 levels, which we know hasn't been stagnant for 10 years.

It's a bit like a company whose profits have flatlined for 10 years bragging about "highest ever profits" because they are higher than they were 11 years ago.
 
smithy said:
Yes - that's how it's been reported but the key message has been greenwashed away! According to their data the 90s decade saw warming. The noughties decade saw no warming however. Their PR is technically true, but essentially misleading. The Met Office data shows no correlation with CO2 levels, which we know hasn't been stagnant for 10 years.
Click to expand...
I'd have to check the UK Met Office but the generally accepted list of warmest 10 years since 1880 falls out as...
1) 1998
2) 2005
3) 2003
4) 2002
5) 2009 (Current estimated place)
6) 2004
7) 2006
8) 2007
9) 2001
10) 2008

Having 9 out of the top 10 warmest years in 00's means it's not the hottest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top