No wonder it's the warmest year on record, in Michigan it was 600°F! we're screwed

[Paul98]

Correction, it WAS getting warmer.

How about instead of looking at 10 years, you look at the graph starting at 1895.

from the same website
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
But put in far more years, so how does this trend look?

 

[Jaskalas]

and it's cute how you left 2010 out, which clearly isn't supporting your 'cooling trend' either

You cite 2007 as if that makes the trend for the entire decade. Then you cite 2010, again your argument comes in the form of single years. That is no argument against a decade long trend.

2010 will be warm, El'Nino does that. 2011 will make up for this and so forth.

 

[Jaskalas]

How about instead of looking at 10 years, you look at the graph starting at 1895.

from the same website
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
But put in far more years, so how does this trend look?

A warming trend, for certain. Notice it leveling off quite nicely these past 10 years. The PDO and AMO cycles indicate a strengthening cooling trend for the next 20 years.

Wonder how that factors into this trend, when it's all said and done? Perhaps the claims of unprecedented rate fly out the window.

 

[Paul98]

A warming trend, for certain. Notice it leveling off quite nicely these past 10 years. The PDO and AMO cycles indicate a strengthening cooling trend for the next 20 years.

Wonder how that factors into this trend, when it's all said and done? Perhaps the claims of unprecedented rate fly out the window.

Notice that the last 10 years every temperature is higher than the average. Most of them are way above average. Even the lower temperatures from last two years are above the average.

 

[Paul98]

So yes there will be short term trends of cooling, people aren't saying there wont be. But overall we will continue to trend upwards unless something changes.

 

[Lemon law]

A warming trend, for certain. Notice it leveling off quite nicely these past 10 years. The PDO and AMO cycles indicate a strengthening cooling trend for the next 20 years.

Wonder how that factors into this trend, when it's all said and done? Perhaps the claims of unprecedented rate fly out the window.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Jaskalas is not factoring is that the last number of years has seen a marked decrease in the number of sunspots. And the effect of that should be global cooling.

But the larger problem still somewhat baffles scientists and climate modelers, because while the effects of global warming, if it actually exists, is minor at the lower latitudes,
but is disproportionally larger at both poles.

To some extent global warming deniers will accept nothing less than a signed affidavit from God before they will do anything, but the other worry is that instead we will reach some major irreversible tipping point, and the climate will go off on a totally new tangent. Something like the gulf stream stopping its flow may not be as good as an affidavit from God, but will just as convincing.

IMHO, the evidence for global warming is overwhelming, but in terms of scientific understanding leading to better prediction, that is clearly decades away even if we greatly increase research funding into global warming.

 

[monovillage]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Jaskalas is not factoring is that the last number of years has seen a marked decrease in the number of sunspots. And the effect of that should be global cooling.

But the larger problem still somewhat baffles scientists and climate modelers, because while the effects of global warming, if it actually exists, is minor at the lower latitudes,
but is disproportionally larger at both poles.

To some extent global warming deniers will accept nothing less than a signed affidavit from God before they will do anything, but the other worry is that instead we will reach some major irreversible tipping point, and the climate will go off on a totally new tangent. Something like the gulf stream stopping its flow may not be as good as an affidavit from God, but will just as convincing.

IMHO, the evidence for global warming is overwhelming, but in terms of scientific understanding leading to better prediction, that is clearly decades away even if we greatly increase research funding into global warming.

Talking about baffling the Climate Modelers how about this peer reviewed paper that shows 6 of the IPCC's Climate Models off 200% to 400% from observed data.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/

or how about this peer reviewed paper which shows the huge errors in Mann et al. 2008 hockey stick statistical use.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...akes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/

 

[Jaskalas]

But the larger problem still somewhat baffles scientists and climate modelers, because while the effects of global warming, if it actually exists, is minor at the lower latitudes,
but is disproportionally larger at both poles.

Both poles? Do explain the growing Antarctic Sea Ice then.

 

[Lemon law]

Both poles? Do explain the growing Antarctic Sea Ice then.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple, more moisture can equal more snow which becomes ice in the antarctic.
Even while average antarctic temperatures continue to rise.

But if antarctic temps get a to a certain point more moisture will equal rain instead of snow.

 

[DrPizza]

that's the problem. you don't know what information is 100% correct or truthful.


I wish that people would put out the data, the experiments etc. Everything without messing with it so we know what the fuck is going on.

right now there is so much bullshit going on the avarage joe has little to actually believe (well besides IT IS getting warmer and this summer has sucked!)

Look again at what this entire thread is about: it's about the RAW data. So, now, the raw data is flawed. But, when scientists work to eliminate errors in data (see other threads), the data is cooked.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Jaskalas is not factoring is that the last number of years has seen a marked decrease in the number of sunspots. And the effect of that should be global cooling.

But the larger problem still somewhat baffles scientists and climate modelers, because while the effects of global warming, if it actually exists, is minor at the lower latitudes,
but is disproportionally larger at both poles.

To some extent global warming deniers will accept nothing less than a signed affidavit from God before they will do anything, but the other worry is that instead we will reach some major irreversible tipping point, and the climate will go off on a totally new tangent. Something like the gulf stream stopping its flow may not be as good as an affidavit from God, but will just as convincing.

IMHO, the evidence for global warming is overwhelming, but in terms of scientific understanding leading to better prediction, that is clearly decades away even if we greatly increase research funding into global warming.

It's probably been 10 years or so since I was reading about it, but it was expected that the effects at the poles would be greater. This phenomenon isn't something unexpected at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple, more moisture can equal more snow which becomes ice in the antarctic.
Even while average antarctic temperatures continue to rise.

But if antarctic temps get a to a certain point more moisture will equal rain instead of snow.

Jaskalas probably can't comprehend how we can get a shit-ton of snow here in western NY when the temperature is in the mid 20's, but once it gets really cold, the snow decreases significantly (usually.)

 

[Hacp]

Look again at what this entire thread is about: it's about the RAW data. So, now, the raw data is flawed. But, when scientists work to eliminate errors in data (see other threads), the data is cooked.



It's probably been 10 years or so since I was reading about it, but it was expected that the effects at the poles would be greater. This phenomenon isn't something unexpected at all.




Jaskalas probably can't comprehend how we can get a shit-ton of snow here in western NY when the temperature is in the mid 20's, but once it gets really cold, the snow decreases significantly (usually.)

The RAW data is flawed exactly because scientists modify it. Raw data is supposed to be raw, as in not modified. Give us the data before you made all those "adjustments" to it. Not the processed data.

 

[monovillage]

DrPizza

"It's probably been 10 years or so since I was reading about it, but it was expected that the effects at the poles would be greater. This phenomenon isn't something unexpected at all. "

You really need to keep up. This is the coldest summer on record so far north of 80N.

 

[Lemon law]

The RAW data is flawed exactly because scientists modify it. Raw data is supposed to be raw, as in not modified. Give us the data before you made all those "adjustments" to it. Not the processed data.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
That Hacp was exactly the thesis of global warming deniers over some celebrated faked emails some months back. Later more through reviews found that contention to be baseless.

But of course raw date is sometimes flawed, bad instruments reporting wrong readings, typo's, but you are way way short of even demonstrating the raw data is faked, not to mention unprecedented results that have not been repeated in a 100-200 thousand year past in earths history. We have ice cores, sediment cores of diatoms that are essentially fossilized thermometers, just so many hard records to look at saying exactly the same things.

Hacp, you are just trying to cherry pick a few anomalies without doing the hard work required to even make a prima facia case that they are deliberately faked.

But for what its worth there are some scientist who I can respect that make somewhat of a case that this could be part of some normal climate cycle, but at least the support their case with hard data even if they may have to reach back more than 300, 000 years into earth's history.

 

[Paul98]

The RAW data is flawed exactly because scientists modify it. Raw data is supposed to be raw, as in not modified. Give us the data before you made all those "adjustments" to it. Not the processed data.

So are you going to do all the adjustments, and figure out where all the errors are in the raw data so that you are using a good data set? I would MUCH rather see the data that is adjusted and error free than data that has a bunch of errors in it that I would have to go through and find those errors and remove them. Or adjust them so that I am getting the most accurate data I can get.

 

[Paul98]

DrPizza

"It's probably been 10 years or so since I was reading about it, but it was expected that the effects at the poles would be greater. This phenomenon isn't something unexpected at all. "

You really need to keep up. This is the coldest summer on record so far north of 80N.

And yet so far 2010 is the hottest year on record.

 

[NeoV]

Jesus F'ing Christ - are we back to 'why is the Artic sea ice increasing?' again as some proof that this stuff isn't happening?

READ YOU MORON!

With the longer time series, a statistically significant trend now emerges. Not only is Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2 (in other words, every year, the rate of ice loss is increasing by 26 Gigatonnes per year) It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass (Chen 2009). This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought.

This is significant because East Antarctica contains much more ice than West Antarctica. East Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 50 to 60 metres while West Antarctica would contribute around 6 to 7 metres. The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.

Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.



If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.


How about other large sheets of ice on the planet? Greenland anyone?

What's new about this study is that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast, with this acceleration likely starting in late 2005.

"The changes on the Greenland ice sheet are happening fast, and we are definitely losing more ice mass than we had anticipated," says study co-author Isabella Velicogna of the University of California-Irvine. "We also are seeing this trend in Antarctica, a sign that warming temperatures really are having an effect on ice in Earth's cold regions."

Air temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have increased by about 4 degrees since 1991, which most scientists attribute to a buildup of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

"This is a phenomenon that was undocumented before this study," study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado says. "Our speculation is that some of the big glaciers in this region are sliding downhill faster and dumping more ice in the ocean."

Scientists used a combination of satellite and GPS measurements to document the ice loss.

The mass loss is equivalent to about 0.02 inch of global sea-level rise per year. If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, which is not predicted, scientists estimate that global sea levels would rise about 20 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The Greenland ice sheet covers most of the island, and is about 656,000 square miles in size, roughly three times the size of Texas.

The paper was published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

At this point it's beyond hopeless to try and educate the likes of Jaskalas - if Al Gore said the sky is blue, we'd have to listen to his drivel about 'I'm telling you, these colors are not accurate, you'll see over the next period of time as the true color emerges' - or something idiotic along those lines.

It's getting hotter - period. This really isn't open for debate. The debate should be what can or should we do about it.

 

[monovillage]

Lemon law says "celebrated faked emails some months back"

Hadley/CRU, Phil Jones etc. all admitted the e-mails were theirs. Why lie about something that's so easy to check?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...imate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked

http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/cru-director-admits-hacked-files-genuine

 

[Hacp]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
That Hacp was exactly the thesis of global warming deniers over some celebrated faked emails some months back. Later more through reviews found that contention to be baseless.

But of course raw date is sometimes flawed, bad instruments reporting wrong readings, typo's, but you are way way short of even demonstrating the raw data is faked, not to mention unprecedented results that have not been repeated in a 100-200 thousand year past in earths history. We have ice cores, sediment cores of diatoms that are essentially fossilized thermometers, just so many hard records to look at saying exactly the same things.

Hacp, you are just trying to cherry pick a few anomalies without doing the hard work required to even make a prima facia case that they are deliberately faked.

But for what its worth there are some scientist who I can respect that make somewhat of a case that this could be part of some normal climate cycle, but at least the support their case with hard data even if they may have to reach back more than 300, 000 years into earth's history.

%
The flaw is that the data scientists provide to the public is not raw! It has been modified and adjusted by scientists for whatever reason, maybe for legitimate reasons maybe not. Then, it was recompiled and presented as raw. People actually want the unaltered raw data that hasn't been adjusted. It has even been stated by the guys at CRU(an actual CRU spokesguy) that 5% of the raw data(the data that was likely adjusted) is now completely gone. Deleted from all history. All we have is the adjusted data.

 

[Jaskalas]

Jaskalas probably can't comprehend how we can get a shit-ton of snow here in western NY when the temperature is in the mid 20's, but once it gets really cold, the snow decreases significantly (usually.)

More sea ice, less sea ice, we're supposed to believe that every scenario is proof positive that you're correct.

 

[CycloWizard]

How about instead of looking at 10 years, you look at the graph starting at 1895.

from the same website
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
But put in far more years, so how does this trend look?

Why are you fitting a line to a trend which is obviously nonlinear? Even more basically, did you test for significance in that trend? Is the increase significantly different from a line with zero slope? Internet scientists FTL. Science is about a lot more than pretty pictures, which most people on both sides seem to be able to understand.

 

[Lemon law]

More sea ice, less sea ice, we're supposed to believe that every scenario is proof positive that you're correct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly Jaskalass, you are supposed to believe the preponderance of evidence, and not just your own ill founded and ill supported doubts.

We have all come a long way baby since Al Gore said Global warming is only about Carbon, now we have methane which is 17 X more potent as a greenhouse gas evaporating out of thawing permafrosts. And pardon me Jaskalas, you may be willing to play Russian roulette with all of our human survival, but its my human survival too. And I say oh no you don't have that right to play Russian roulette with MY survival.

 

[Paul98]

Why are you fitting a line to a trend which is obviously nonlinear? Even more basically, did you test for significance in that trend? Is the increase significantly different from a line with zero slope? Internet scientists FTL. Science is about a lot more than pretty pictures, which most people on both sides seem to be able to understand.

Did you bother to look at the website? I simply used all years instead of 1 year I didn't go and make this graph or something. I was showing how ridiculous his graph using the same website was because he only used 10 years. I obviously didn't do any analysis on that data set.

 

[Pulsar]

Alright so let me get this straight.
-their raw data has a value that is totally fucked, 600 degrees
-they want to Q test this value out, which would LOWER the temperature
-you claim that their lowering the temperature through statistical fuckery is a conspiracy to increase the temperature?

Would you rather them leave the outlier in there so the reported average is waaaay higher? Or do you want them to "change the raw data deliberately" which would lower the average and increase the precision of their numbers?

This temperature data will not follow a gaussian or bell curve. There would have to be an incredibly persuasive argument to remove almost half the data in any data set I dealt with. In fact, that calls the entire system into question.

Throwing out 5 percent of the data is one thing. Throwing out 50 percent tells me that something more base is wrong, and that the remaining data will not represent a valid result.

 

[CycloWizard]

Did you bother to look at the website? I simply used all years instead of 1 year I didn't go and make this graph or something. I was showing how ridiculous his graph using the same website was because he only used 10 years. I obviously didn't do any analysis on that data set.

I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of your post. A linear fit is usually a good approximation for a very small dataset, but rarely is for larger ones (such as the one you posted). I'm telling you that the "trend" you cite in your data is bunk. So is any apparent trend in the other guy's data. Step away from the keyboard and quit posting ignorant crap and I'll be happy to leave you alone.

 

[CycloWizard]

This temperature data will not follow a gaussian or bell curve. There would have to be an incredibly persuasive argument to remove almost half the data in any data set I dealt with. In fact, that calls the entire system into question.

Throwing out 5 percent of the data is one thing. Throwing out 50 percent tells me that something more base is wrong, and that the remaining data will not represent a valid result.

This. Pierce's criterion offers a mathematically rigorous way to discard outliers. However, it will not find outliers when every data point is an outlier due to systematic fail like we're seeing here.