bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Actually I believe that lots of info is being collected around the world. Very useful info!!! However, the Earth is at least several billions of years old. And the info is only accurately retroactive for 2-3 decades. Not enough info to make an determination/diagnosis.... I agree...planet Earth has warmed and cooled many times and will continue to do so regardless of "anthropogenic" influences. Sea ice is only one small aspect of "climate change", and also one of the most dynamic due to completely natural causes. Some of these alarmists think that sea ice and glaciers always existed, unchanged until I started burning gasoline in my Ford Falcon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 If you do not understand the point I'm making, then you are a true trooper in the front line alarmist militia! Never questioning the data that you are trying to drive into everyone, and only labeling those whom doubt the credibility as "deniers". Oh and by the way, do you have multiple independent source info? Or is it all NASA info? And from decades ago? How about centuries? WWWTT no - you put forward a post that speaks to an uncertainty as 0.45mm. In the context of melting ice-sheets at the magnitude of meters, again... just what is your point? if you have an issue with NASA/JPL methodology/processing/data/analysis, by all means... put something forward other than links to the renowned denier blog WTFIUWT! Decades ago... centuries ago??? If you're questioning the time period of interest of melting ice (sea-ice or ice-sheets) in relation to the relatively recent warming (say within the last 6 decades, or so), why would you question looking at related data associated with that period? Now, if you have a point to make relative to other periods of time, and the data associated with your focus on other periods of time... and you'd like to make/draw comparative analysis between the two (i.e., between data within the last 6 decades, or so... and your alternate focus period of time), please do so. Make your point in that regard. Again, just what is your point in that regard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Why should he? YOU are the one that is making the claim that the climate is warming due to CO2 created by humans! Burden of proof is upon YOU! WWWTT it's a simple request. Either support/substantiate a statement/claim made by putting forward interpretation of sourced material (and cite it), or don't... your call! That claim you seem to have difficulty with is the prevailing consensus science; you can certainly choose to deny it or you could champion your denial and speak to your interpretation of an alternate principal causal tie for that warming; one other than anthropogenic sources. Of course, you will be asked to support any statements/claims you make in that regard by providing the basis and foundation for your statements/claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Actually I believe that lots of info is being collected around the world. Very useful info!!! However, the Earth is at least several billions of years old. And the info is only accurately retroactive for 2-3 decades. Not enough info to make an determination/diagnosis. The fact that alarmists claim they know exactly what's going on (ailment and cure) with so little history of accurate global data really makes them "quacks" in the scientific community! If you want to believe in "quacks", be my guest! But as far as I'm concerned, most alarmists are just that, QUACKS! WWWTT just what is an "alarmist" to you? Can you provide some sample names of your recognized "alarmists" within the scientific community? Alternatively, can you provide some sample names of scientists within the scientific community you don't recognize and label as "alarmists"... and why so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 I agree...planet Earth has warmed and cooled many times and will continue to do so regardless of "anthropogenic" influences. Sea ice is only one small aspect of "climate change", and also one of the most dynamic due to completely natural causes. Some of these alarmists think that sea ice and glaciers always existed, unchanged until I started burning gasoline in my Ford Falcon. don't hesitate to provide your referenced "completely natural causes" as principal causal ties associated with the relatively recent melting of respective and global profiled areas of sea-ice, ice-sheets, glaciers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 no - you put forward a post that speaks to an uncertainty as 0.45mm. In the context of melting ice-sheets at the magnitude of meters, again... just what is your point? I thought I put forward a link that questioned the benchmark being used in measuring the claimed amount of ice melting/melted. The intent is to question the credibility of the data when the providers of data that you are quoting are always literally moving the bench mark/goal posts. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 it's a simple request. Either support/substantiate a statement/claim made by putting forward interpretation of sourced material (and cite it), or don't... your call! That claim you seem to have difficulty with is the prevailing consensus science; you can certainly choose to deny it or you could champion your denial and speak to your interpretation of an alternate principal causal tie for that warming; one other than anthropogenic sources. Of course, you will be asked to support any statements/claims you make in that regard by providing the basis and foundation for your statements/claims. IF that was the claim Shady was making. What is consensus science? Why are there scientists that dispute your claim? Seems to be an contradiction that you have resolved in your own mind by just calling anyone whom disputes as a denier. Why do alarmists always use data that is difficult to verify independently? and very vague? Always from locations far away and isolated? Why do alarmists always label those not convinced? Why do alarmists never question their own sources? Where's the smoking gun? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 just what is an "alarmist" to you? Can you provide some sample names of your recognized "alarmists" within the scientific community? Alternatively, can you provide some sample names of scientists within the scientific community you don't recognize and label as "alarmists"... and why so? "Quack" is actually an recognized term I believe. I just transposed it to fit the alleged "global warming" science due to man made CO2 and the resolving of such claimed ailment. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 don't hesitate to provide your referenced "completely natural causes" as principal causal ties associated with the relatively recent melting of respective and global profiled areas of sea-ice, ice-sheets, glaciers... Alberta tar sands for one is an excellent example! It is well known/believed that the geographical area of Alberta had a much warmer climate. Just north of where I live in Brampton, in Caledon there is much limestone (used in building Queen's park buildings among other buildings) that originally grew in tropical coral reefs. Are you suggesting that there was intelligent life on Earth millions of years ago that un naturally changed the climate???? Or that millions of years ago, life forms found now in tropical climates thrived in colder climates where their fossils and forms of are now found? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 "Quack" is actually an recognized term I believe. I just transposed it to fit the alleged "global warming" science due to man made CO2 and the resolving of such claimed ailment. WWWTT Oooopps almost forgot! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Thought I would contribute a rough calculation of sea level rise due to thermal expansion. Average global temperature is ~15 C. Volumetric expansion coefficient of water at 15 C is 0.000151/K. Average ocean depth is 3.7 km. Thus equilibrium sea level rise due to increasing global temperature by 1 C is approximately 3*0.000151/K*3700m = 1.68 m. Edit: 15 C is average surface temperature. Most of the Earth's water is well below the surface. If I use the expansion coefficient at 10 C (0.000088/K), then equilibrium sea level rise due to thermal expansion is 0.98 m/C. Edited June 10, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The intent is to question the credibility of the data when the providers of data that you are quoting are always literally moving the bench mark/goal posts. WWWTT Along the same lines, if the general public were asked "How many States have registered their highest temperature since 1998", chances are pretty good John Q. Public would say 20 - maybe 30. And they would be horribly wrong. The answer to that question is.....wait for it.......NONE (although 3 were tied with earlier records). Any idea how that could be? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Along the same lines, if the general public were asked "How many States have registered their highest temperature since 1998", chances are pretty good John Q. Public would say 20 - maybe 30. And they would be horribly wrong. The answer to that question is.....wait for it.......NONE (although 3 were tied with earlier records). Any idea how that could be? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes note to moderator: albeit directly off-topic to this thread, I will presume to leverage member Simple's "along the same lines" attachment/caveat: Simple, as I've done for you several times in the past, I will once again give you a recycling attaboy... you have a similar post in 2012. Notwithstanding the contiguous U.S. is but 1.5% of the earth's surface, a more pertinent/relevant way to look at temperature is to look at annual average temperature records for a single year or a target period of multiple years. In that previous case of yours, I presented you this following NOAA graphic where every one of the contiguous U.S. states experienced an average annual temperature in 2012 that was higher than the 20th century average for that state. Nineteen U.S. states had their highest annual average temperatures on record; 26 others had years that ranked in the top-10 hottest ever: of course, in terms of the earth proper, in regards to annual land and ocean temperature anomalies (with respect to the 20th century average), the following plot available per interactive selection criteria within a NOAA subset 'climate at a glance' page: and Simple, FWIW, per your NONE reference : South Carolina All-Time Maximum Temperature 113 degrees F June 29, 2012 South Dakota All-Time Maximum Temperature 120 degrees F July 15, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I thought I put forward a link that questioned the benchmark being used in measuring the claimed amount of ice melting/melted. again, your reference was to an uncertainty in millimeters (specifically, 0.45mm) for something (ice-sheet melting) being measured well beyond the uncertainty you "put forward"; typically, meters. How many times does this need to be stated to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 What is consensus science? waldo: prevailing within the active/participating scientific community, within relevant fields of study Why are there scientists that dispute your claim? waldo: scientific consensus implies collective judgement/agreement, though not necessarily unanimity Seems to be an contradiction that you have resolved in your own mind by just calling anyone whom disputes as a denier. waldo: genuine skeptics legitimately question; fake-skeptics/deniers deny... occasionally denial for denial's sake. Why do alarmists always use data that is difficult to verify independently? and very vague? Always from locations far away and isolated? waldo: I've answered a few of your questions... how about you, hey! You refused to answer my questions asking you to define your use of the label "alarmist", to give examples of scientists you label accordingly and to give examples of scientists you don't attach the label to (any why). Waiting on your answers... waiting, waiting, waiting..... Why do alarmists always label those not convinced? waldo: is this you... labeling? What's your "alarmist" definition again? Again, the label 'denier' is not a pejorative; it's simply an identifier that speaks to someone denying particular recognized/accepted facets of GW/AGW/CC Why do alarmists never question their own sources? waldo: I've answered a few of your questions... how about you, hey! You refused to answer my questions asking you to define your use of the label "alarmist", to give examples of scientists you label accordingly and to give examples of scientists you don't attach the label to (any why). Waiting on your answers... waiting, waiting, waiting..... Where's the smoking gun? waldo: I see you were so emboldened as to put this same question forward within the status updates section; specifically in regard to, as you stated, "global warming". As I replied to your status update: "there are many lines of empirical evidence... one of: from theory & lab to direct measurement --- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm"(of course, within the context and balance of your precipitous "smoking gun", science/scientific finding includes assessments of error and uncertainty) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Alberta tar sands for one is an excellent example! It is well known/believed that the geographical area of Alberta had a much warmer climate. Just north of where I live in Brampton, in Caledon there is much limestone (used in building Queen's park buildings among other buildings) that originally grew in tropical coral reefs. Are you suggesting that there was intelligent life on Earth millions of years ago that un naturally changed the climate???? Or that millions of years ago, life forms found now in tropical climates thrived in colder climates where their fossils and forms of are now found? WWWTT without qualification you're simply projecting the past/distant past attributions (presumed or otherwise) to today's relatively recent warming and changing climate. As you were previously challenged to provide your (cited) interpretation on, if you presume to principally attribute this GW/CC to your described "natural causes", rather than anthropogenic sources, simply identify said natural causes (forces) and/or internal variability... and qualify your interpretation with cited reference(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 note to moderator: albeit directly off-topic to this thread, I will presume to leverage member Simple's "along the same lines" attachment/caveat: Simple, as I've done for you several times in the past, I will once again give you a recycling attaboy... you have a similar post in 2012. Notwithstanding the contiguous U.S. is but 1.5% of the earth's surface, a more pertinent/relevant way to look at temperature is to look at annual average temperature records for a single year or a target period of multiple years. I posted the State records on maximums because they do away with all the "homogenization" and "adjustments" that are common in the rolled-up temperature averages - which often seem to adjust historical temperatures downwards and more recent ones upwards (a separate argument). Individual readings from single sources are difficult to manipulate. Don't you find it odd that with your own graphical presentation of how the US has gotten so much hotter - that not even one new State record has been set? One would think there would be quite a few over the last 20 years - those years that are the "warmest on record"? So what's with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) I posted the State records on maximums because they do away with all the "homogenization" and "adjustments"The adjustments are a problem but not for the reason you state because many of the adjustments do have real theoretical justification. For example, it is not hard to show that time-of-day (TOBS) adjustment can be justified. The problem with the adjustments is the estimation of their magnitude is completely arbitrary and gives politically motivated scientists lots of room to create fake data that suits their prejudices. The net result is we can can have reasonable confidence in the direction of the trend (i.e. it is warming) but we have no information on how much warming is actually occurring. That said it is reasonable to assume that whatever the truth is it is most likely less than what alarmist scientists claim given the repeated attempts to adjust the dataset in ways that amplify the reported warming. Edited June 11, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The adjustments are a problem but not for the reason you state because many of the adjustments do have real theoretical justification. For example, it is not hard to show that time-of-day (TOBS) adjustment can be justified. The problem with the adjustments is the estimation of their magnitude is completely arbitrary and gives politically motivated scientists lots of room to create fake data that suits their prejudices. The net result is we can can have reasonable confidence in the direction of the trend (i.e. it is warming) but we have no information on how much warming is actually occurring. That said it is reasonable to assume that whatever the truth is it is most likely less than what alarmist scientists claim given the repeated attempts to adjust the dataset in ways that amplify the reported warming. So you are saying NOAA is staffed by politically motivated scientists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I would only trust authentic Canadian sea ice data...if I could find some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I would only trust authentic Canadian sea ice data...if I could find some. is this you adding value to the thread? Care to add something relevant? Why is it you're so adamant in attempting to pump your (claimed) USA tires at each and every opportunity? Do you think no one but an American can source American provided information? Do you perceive a Canadian drawing reference to, for example, NOAA data... is a slight to NOAA in particular and the U.S. in general? You've done this type of thing now for years... year upon year upon year - when will your mission be accomplished? As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. NSIDC has no problem taking and using Canadian related ice data from Environment Canada/Canadian Meteorological Center. https://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice https://www.polardata.ca/ https://www.ccin.ca/home/about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) I posted the State records on maximums because they do away with all the "homogenization" and "adjustments" that are common in the rolled-up temperature averages - which often seem to adjust historical temperatures downwards and more recent ones upwards (a separate argument). Individual readings from single sources are difficult to manipulate. yes... that maximum temperature data you're fixated on is "raw", sans adjustments for both TOBS (re: the time of day readings were taken) and changing station instrumentation (e.g. from LiG thermometers to MMTS sensors)... both of which have introduced cooling bias into the data. And you believe ignoring those cooling biases is warranted? . Don't you find it odd that with your own graphical presentation of how the US has gotten so much hotter - that not even one new State record has been set? One would think there would be quite a few over the last 20 years - those years that are the "warmest on record"? So what's with that? that graphical presentation was for a single year, 2012... showing U.S. state annual averages for that year. Perhaps re-read your own questioning that focuses on "years" versus your singular focus on "a day's (maximum extreme)". What part of my highlighting that the contiguous U.S. makes up only 1.5% of the earth's surface did you ignore... all of it? I thought adding the plot of global temperature anomalies (land and ocean) would have given you your missing perspective! In any case, per the EPA (citing sourced surface data from NOAA and sourced satellite data from UAH & RSS), temperature anomalies (1901-2000 baseline) in the contiguous U.S. states, 1901-2013: again, for what its worth... I gave you 2 states with maximum's post 1998 (your earlier start reference)... you're now going back 20 years. Say including 1994... we're now up to 7 Note: many of the U.S. state max temps reflect upon that 30s period shown in the graph above... if you were inclined you could make your case for what caused the warming during that period of time. Oh wait... we've already gone down that path, right? How did that work our for you, hey? Edited June 11, 2015 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 The problem with the adjustments is the estimation of their magnitude is completely arbitrary and gives politically motivated scientists lots of room to create fake data that suits their prejudices. examples of political motivation/politically motivated scientists in that regard, s'il vous plaît Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 examples of political motivation/politically motivated scientists in that regard, s'il vous plaît Mann et al. Hide the decline! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Mann et al. Hide the decline! the context was... is... temperature adjustments/homogenization. In any case, your perpetuation of the denier 'hide the decline' meme is noted. You've already had a 'new one' carved out for you in the past over this nonsense... you should resurrect the related thread for shytes&giggles (at your expense)! Edited June 11, 2015 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.