EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 154
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Simple point: The measured acceleration in temperature increase is unprecedented in the known climate history. It is the sharp and sustained rise which creates the hockey stick end and which is the concern.


However this sharp rise may only look sharp in comparison with other warming periods due to our more detailed picture of it.

Also it may not be that sharp;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/n ... enization/

Also of course the world temperature has not increased since 1998. The rise from 1970 to 98 is thus about twice the time that it has now been steady for.

The IPCC does not expect the world temperature to increase by more than 3.2 c(by 2100). Have you anything which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the trouble?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Exactly

So this responce is spot on;
Quote:
Translation; The present rate of temperature gain is unprecidented. the fear is that this will continue and will result in dangerous unprecidentedly high temperatures
nope... again, my point is that the actual temperature is not the issue (regarding it possibly being warmer in the MWP then it is today). High temperatures in the future are NOT what is going to cause catastrophe for humans, animals, and plants. What is going to cause all the problems is how quickly the weather is changing and how slow it is for life to adapt. We might be at war and have drastic loss of diversity of species long before matching the MWP's temperature norms simply due to the change in weather patterns. We only have a few months worth of food that is not eaten yet so massive drought or flood damage to crops in several parts of the world in one year span means massive starvation in the following year (until people realize they CAN eat grass and tree leaves). You also mentioned that present data is more accurate so changes look more drastic which is true but when you see the same hockey stick in the graphs where they show the area of uncertainty (no matter which side of the range of uncertainty you try to draw a straighter, less-hockey-stick-like line with), the same conclusions can be drawn... there has been a jerk and jounce to the system (even if it is not human-caused) that spells disaster. Now I will agree with you that trying to stop CO2 is a waste of money but for a different reason. You see no catastrophe and I see extreme catastrophe. In my opinion, we need to protect the economy so people can afford to survive weather changes and crop failures and land value changes and home heating and cooling bills. This can only happen if we are energy and food self-sufficient. Going solar has nothing to do with CO2 for me and everything with surviving power outages and severe economic depression and inflation. A greenhouse is not to look like a hippie or to go organic but rather to survive when there is no food left to buy at any price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Simple point: The measured acceleration in temperature increase is unprecedented in the known climate history. It is the sharp and sustained rise which creates the hockey stick end and which is the concern.


However this sharp rise may only look sharp in comparison with other warming periods due to our more detailed picture of it.


Not at all. The more detailed picture would only show the small ups and downs while the general trend would show the same sharp rise.

Quote:


Right, the same old song that only makes sense to those who need a straw to grasp. The differential analysis of those US sites which were claimed to be badly sited compared to those confirmed to be well sited showed the well sited set had a higher increase than the others.

Quote:
Also of course the world temperature has not increased since 1998. The rise from 1970 to 98 is thus about twice the time that it has now been steady for.


Which is only visible due to the more detailed picture and means nothing in relation to the warming trend.

Quote:
The IPCC does not expect the world temperature to increase by more than 3.2 c(by 2100). Have you anything which suggests that the IPCC has underestimated the trouble?


Why does it matter in the discussion of the documented historical trend?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:54 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Tim the Plumber wrote:
However this sharp rise may only look sharp in comparison with other warming periods due to our more detailed picture of it.

Also it may not be that sharp;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/new-paper-blames-about-half-of-global-warming-on-weather-station-data-homgenization/
so... recent data is LESS accurate now? something smells fishy with your arguments (fishy as in flopping around when caught)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:14 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 154
Quote:
Right, the same old song that only makes sense to those who need a straw to grasp. The differential analysis of those US sites which were claimed to be badly sited compared to those confirmed to be well sited showed the well sited set had a higher increase than the others.

1 I disagree, the good ones showed less warming.

2 Nope, this is in addittion to that potential contamination of the data.

Quote:
so... recent data is LESS accurate now? something smells fishy with your arguments (fishy as in flopping around when caught)


Recent data is more accurate but it is also more detailed which will make changes look more dramatic when compaire to the same changes in the past because the data for the past temperatures has been smoothed out by less fidelity in the way it has been measured.

If you measure the temperature with the best million dollar equipment today to get superb results you must be extreemly careful about how you compair these results with the historic data which was collected by a college professor in his spair time. The old data may be from the same actual temperature conditions but has lower figure just because the professor was in class when the temperature hit maximum.

For the record, I think it has got a bit warmer recently. If this is unusual is a different question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Right, the same old song that only makes sense to those who need a straw to grasp. The differential analysis of those US sites which were claimed to be badly sited compared to those confirmed to be well sited showed the well sited set had a higher increase than the others.

1 I disagree, the good ones showed less warming.


Not according to the NOAA reviews.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/papers ... tpfree.pdf

3. RESULTS

The average anomaly time series for the last 40
years from the two stations with good exposure and the
three stations with poor exposure are shown in Figure 1
for raw data and Figure 2 for homogeneity adjusted
data. Examination of the linear trends from 1965 to
2004, which are also shown, reveals that the stations
with good siting show significantly more temperature
increase than the stations with poor siting in the raw
data but the trends are not significantly different in the
adjusted data. However, if one analyzes different
periods one can find times when the difference in trends
in the adjusted data is significant and when the sign of
the trend in the difference series is positive or negative.
If the analysis had included the incompletely
homogenized data from Holly, the results would have
indicated that with homogeneity adjusted data the
stations with good siting were warming significantly
more than the stations with poor siting

2 Nope, this is in addittion to that potential contamination of the data.

Quote:
Quote:
so... recent data is LESS accurate now? something smells fishy with your arguments (fishy as in flopping around when caught)


Recent data is more accurate but it is also more detailed which will make changes look more dramatic when compaire to the same changes in the past because the data for the past temperatures has been smoothed out by less fidelity in the way it has been measured.


The rise over time will be the same regardless of the detail. The modern data will be more jagged, but that does not impact the rise over time.

Quote:
If you measure the temperature with the best million dollar equipment today to get superb results you must be extreemly careful about how you compair these results with the historic data which was collected by a college professor in his spair time. The old data may be from the same actual temperature conditions but has lower figure just because the professor was in class when the temperature hit maximum.


This is why there are min/max termometers and why there are adjustments for time of day measurements using standard thermometers.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group