Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
159 online now:
Aussie, CosmicChimp, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 153 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,502 Year: 7,250/23,288 Month: 1,156/1,214 Week: 168/303 Day: 8/36 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1 of 711 (749318)
02-03-2015 4:51 PM


and shows that it is man-made global climate change.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...s_Wrong_on_Climate_Change

quote:

Richard Muller founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project after declaring himself skeptical about climate change. He was funded in part by the Koch Brothers.
He found out what other scientists have known for decades. The Earth is warming, and we’re doing it.


This is how you do science: if you disagree with another scientific conclusion you set out to show that it is wrong, you test the details and eliminate the possibilities and then whatever you are left with, no matter how much it goes against your initial beliefs, is what is valid -- and you report it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2015 9:24 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 02-04-2015 3:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 11:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 6 of 711 (749396)
02-04-2015 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by marc9000
02-03-2015 9:24 PM


Hello Razd! Who is "we"?

The human race as an aggregate whole, in spite of the efforts of some to decrease it. When you drive a car or ride a bus you are contributing.

What is it that global warming believers want?

There are no believers when the facts show warming -- belief is for people without evidence.

What global warming scientists -- including this former denier -- want is for people to accept the science and the facts.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2015 9:24 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by marc9000, posted 02-04-2015 10:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 256 by foreveryoung, posted 08-04-2016 9:47 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 20 of 711 (749691)
02-07-2015 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by marc9000
02-06-2015 9:26 PM


Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
marc9000 writes:

I suspect Razd is working on some lengthy comparisons for me,

And here they are! But WAIT, Razd lost interest in this thread at exactly the same time as someone else with very identical views and posting style jumped right in, supporting Razd's links perfectly! It's a scientific miracle!

Or the knowledge of global warming is so pervasive that just about anyone can answer your concerns, probably even high school kids that haven't had an education handicapped by institutional ignorance (like creationist schools) ...

So I'll just touch on one of your more willfully ignorant comments ... and go long on that:

http://townhall.com/...ing-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

quote:
There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

First I wonder if you know what small scale variations around a long term trend actually show ... which is small scale variations that don't significantly alter the long term trend ...

Second I wonder if you know that this purported pause in global warming was just based on atmospheric data not the total system data ...

Third I wonder if you know that most of the global warming is going into the ocean ...

Fourth I wonder if you know that the global records of surface warming used at the time (for that claim) were not complete ...

Fifth I wonder if you know that global warming is not consistent around the globe (some areas are actually cooling because of changing climate patterns) ... and those patterns are also changing ...

Curiously I did a google on global warming pause debunked and got over two million results, the top of the list was:

quote:
Yeah, About That Global Warming “Pause” …

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the ongoing noise about global warming, then you’ve heard of the so-called pause. This is the idea that the planet hasn’t actually been warming for the past 15 years or so.

However, this is baloney. First off, the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, most of that heat is going into deep ocean waters.

Second, if you look at temperatures historically, we see ups and down like this every few decades; you have to look at the overall multidecade trend and not focus on some short (and cherry-picked) time frame.

And now we have something else to add to that list: The “pause” may not exist at all.

A new study shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. The problem, say the authors, is that the global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.

The graph above shows their results. It’s what’s called a “temperature anomaly” plot, which shows how temperatures deviate away from an average over a period of time. The usual plot you see is in black—what’s called the HadCRUT4 data, derived from ground measurements—and you can spot the “pause” in the more recent temperatures. The green line is from a more detailed mathematical analysis of the data, and the blue line includes satellite data that can fill in much of the missing temperature records from the poles and Africa. (You can get more details on this in an excellent article in the Guardian by John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli.)

Clearly, these new techniques show that the pause has gone away. When you include better coverage and analyze the data more carefully, the Earth’s surface is warming right along with everything else. As the authors themselves say:

The existence of bias in recent global mean temperature estimates has been confirmed by multiple means. This bias leads to an underestimation of recent temperature trends.

By the numbers, far from pausing, overall the Earth is warming 2.5 times faster since 1997 than the previous figures indicate. To be clear, warming over the past few years has slowed a bit compared with a few years before but not nearly as much as has been previously claimed, and we know that most of that heat is going into the oceans anyway.

In other words, global warming hasn’t stopped.


So what we can say is that different parts are affected to different degrees (pun intended of course) ... and that when the warming trend shifted to the polar regions it went unnoticed, not that it went away.

The warming at the poles are part of a threshold pattern, that when a certain level of warming has been reached that the conditions change on how much is reflected back into space vs what is absorbed in/on the surface.

Do you know that a 2°F change in ocean surface temperature can be the difference between a small hurricane and a big one?

Another variation pattern is important is where atmospheric temperatures rises and more net heat is put into the surface water, and then into the deep oceans via upwelling (that brings up colder water) and sinking currents (which takes warmer surface water down into the depths). One of these sinking currents is at the northern end of the Gulf Stream as part of the global conveyor belt pattern of global currents.

quote:

Surprising Depth to Global Warming's Effects

The oceans are the flywheel of the climate system. As atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the Earth system is warming, and over 90 percent of that increase in heat goes into the ocean. Knowing how much heat the ocean absorbs is vital to understanding sea level rise (the oceans expand as they warm), and predicting how much, and how fast, the atmosphere will warm.

Most estimates of ocean warming have been limited to the upper 700 meters of water, owing to the limited availability of ocean-temperature data below that depth. Since about the turn of the millennium, the Argo array, an international system of robotic profiling floats, has massively increased ocean sampling to 2,000 meters, and allowed scientists to show conclusively that ocean warming extends below 700 meters.

However, the ocean is also warming near the bottom, in the coldest waters of the abyssal zones. Oceanographers measure the abyssal ocean to depths of 6,000 meters by lowering accurate recording thermometers and other instruments to the ocean floor on long cables from research vessels. During the 1980s and 1990s, an international program called the World Ocean Circulation Experiment collected thousands of such profiles around the globe.

During the 2000s, we and our fellow oceanographers returned and re-measured ocean properties at many of those sites. We detected a consistent warming signal in the abyssal ocean around the globe. The strongest warming is occurring in the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, at a rate of approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade. [Warming in Deep Southern Ocean Linked to Sea-Level Rise]

Further north, abyssal ocean waters are also warming, but at a rate of about one tenth of what we see in the deep Southern Ocean. Even though the temperature increases are small, because they are spread over huge ocean basins in layers a few kilometers thick, they quickly add up.


Note that most of the global warming is sequestered in the deep ocean and does not show in surface temperature records. This deep ocean warming can affect the deep ocean currents the same way that atmospheric climate patterns have been affected changing the weather patterns and the way they distribute energy around the globe.

So even if there were a "pause" in atmospheric warming trends, that is only 10% of the total systematic heating of the globe, and heating has continued in the ocean.

And if you are really worried about methane then you should be very worried about warming in the arctic, but that is another issue for another day.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2015 9:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 22 of 711 (749708)
02-07-2015 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by glowby
02-07-2015 6:15 PM


Usable? Well, you could certainly use it to plan a European vacation using a time machine. You could avoid the "year without a summer" in 1816.

Curiously, I wonder why they did not compare data to the dendroclimate data, especially what is shown by the three long dendrochronology that extend back over 8,000 years and which show frost rings for the "year without a summer" and other volcanic influences on global climate.

Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions (abstract)(1)

quote:
Frost damage to the wood of mature trees is a rare phenomenon caused by temperatures well below freezing at some time during the growing season, when secondary wall thickening and Iignification of immature xylem cells in the annual ring is not yet complete. Freezing promotes extracellular ice formation and dehydration which result in crushing of the outermost zone of weaker cells, leaving a permanent, anatomically distinctive record in the wood [8]. ...

Frost-damage zones have been produced in the annual rings of subalpine bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva D. K. Bailey and P. aristata Engel.) at intervals of a few decades to a few hundred years for at least the past 4,000 yr. They are observed at localities ranging from California to Colorado, a distance of some 1,300 km. In the course of tree-ring chronology development, the presence and type of frost damage in dated annual rings from living trees [10-12] and sub-fossil wood [13,14] was routinely noted. ...

... Wexler's basic premise seems to be supported by Lamb's observation [21] of southward displacement of the sub-polar low-pressure zone in the North Atlantic sector in the first July following a great eruption, and continuing in some cases for 3 - 4 yr. ...

... Synoptic situations more typical of winter may be expected to occur in late spring and in early autumn. Such a scenario seems to have been followed in the frost-ring year of 1884, ...


  1. LaMarche, V.C. Jr., Hirschboek, K.K., Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126 abstract http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v307/n5947/abs/307121a0.html

We can see the evidence of frost-rings for 1817 (following the "year with no summer"), and for 1884, after the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. There are several other notable events shown going back to 1601 CE, however there was no frost-ring for 1785 when one of the highest DVI's was recorded.

The thicknesses of the rings record the temperature variations from year to year, and these rings are well studied and documented.

There is also evidence of significantly wider rings in the Bristlecone Pines in modern years showing significant warming of their environment:

quote:
Abstract

Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) at 3 sites in western North America near the upper elevation limit of tree growth showed ring growth in the second half of the 20th century that was greater than during any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. The accelerated growth is suggestive of an environmental change unprecedented in millennia. The high growth is not overestimated because of standardization techniques, and it is unlikely that it is a result of a change in tree growth form or that it is predominantly caused by CO2 fertilization. The growth surge has occurred only in a limited elevational band within ≈150 m of upper treeline, regardless of treeline elevation. Both an independent proxy record of temperature and high-elevation meteorological temperature data are positively and significantly correlated with upper-treeline ring width both before and during the high-growth interval. Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites.


  1. Salzer, M.W., Hughes, M.K., Bunn, A.G., Kipfmueller, K.F., Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Biological Sciences - Environmental Sciences, PNAS 2009 106 (48) 20348-20353; published ahead of print November 16, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0903029106 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full

The full paper is available at the link, and I have other information on tree rings and climate markers.

They necessarily focus on the past few centuries because that's how long we've been recording things like temperatures, sunspots, and volcanoes. Some of the relevant data can be pushed back a few thousand more years using ice cores. Other info, like Milankovitch cycles, have been calculated back to 500,000,000 years BP.

However, given what we know of natural cycles, anything older that about 10,000 years is mostly irrelevant. At that time scale, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age virtually disappear into mere blips. Are you keen to deny that these periods represented climate change as well? With time scales of millions of years, Earth's temperatures are virtually flat. Always.

Again the dendro-chonology record not only measures time accurately, but it measures carbon content -- with special attention of course to 14C, but 13C as well.

See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for some additional links on dendrochronology and other annual layer age measurements and their correlations.

Enjoy

ps -- peek to see how I made a white background:

Edited by RAZD, : ps


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by glowby, posted 02-07-2015 6:15 PM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by glowby, posted 02-07-2015 9:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 33 of 711 (749835)
02-09-2015 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by marc9000
02-08-2015 8:42 PM


Re: Sorry, there was no "pause" in global warming ...
Except for 31,000 scientists ?

quote:
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

And how many of them are climate scientists?

quote:
Qualifications of Signers

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

So, only 39 are climatologists ... Surprised they don't list astrologists ...

So let me correct that for you:

Except for 31,000 people that claim to have some scientific background?

The card signed is an example: PhD in Physics ... which does not automatically make him any kind of expert in climate science ... IF the science in question is NOT in the field that a scientist has studied and worked in, then he is no more knowledgeable than the average person.

This is the same logical fallacy of appeal to authority that AIG or the Discover Institute makes in their list of "scientists" who deny evolution.

I wonder how many climate scientists name Steve are convinced that global warming is occurring ...

quote:
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.


The number of climate scientists on record as dissenting or skeptical of global climate change is on the order of 3% of scientists working in the field.

Notice the wickedly precise and cogent reason for the denial ...

... The global warming scare is only a few decades old, unlike evolution, which has had about 100 years to politically strengthen itself. Evolution is pretty advanced in finding ways to rationalize its failures. Global warming advocates have a long way to go to rationalize their failures.

Your paranoid conspiracy delusion is showing again. The science is strengthened by facts supporting it and a failure on the part of skeptics, deniers and disbelievers to demonstrate that the science is wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/...%20-findings-arctic-ice-increase

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...ce-coverage-up-50-percent

More cherry-picking of a temporary variation on a long term trend ...

quote:
Arctic Sea Ice

Arctic sea ice extent was the third lowest for the month of January. Ice extent remained lower than average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, while ice in the Barents Sea was near average. Antarctic sea ice extent declined rapidly in late January, but remains high.

This below-average Arctic extent is mainly a result of lower-than-average extent in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. On the Atlantic side, Barents Sea ice extent is near average. This is in sharp contrast to the general pattern seen since 2004 of below average extent in this region, but above average extent in the Bering Sea. Ice extent is also near average in the East Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea.

January 2015 compared to previous years

Figure 3. Monthly January ice extent for
1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 3.2% per
decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

Arctic sea ice extent for January was the third lowest in the satellite record. Through 2015, the linear rate of decline for January extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade.


Also see https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=588398287963435
for a video showing time lapse satellite data.

Climate change is not constant for any single area on the globe, the pattern or areas affected change from year to year because ... it is climate, a variable system.

You have to look at the long term trends for any specific area, rather than pick out a recent variation on that trend, as that is like quote mining of what people are saying, misrepresenting the actual trend.

The other problem with sea ice is that it is heavily influenced by the amount of fresh water on the surface near the poles. It isn't glacial ice, but the fresh water can result from melting glacial ice, and as fresh water floats on salt water more sea ice could be result from more summer melting of the glacial ice.

Additionally, the tundra is thawing to unprecedented levels, which also means ancient CO2 and methane are being released into the atmosphere.


Study Says Melting Permafrost Emitting More Carbon Than Tundra Can Offset

Frozen Alaska
Arctic Tundra is Being Lost As Far North Quickly Warms

Note some of this is old news ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 02-08-2015 8:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 46 of 711 (750123)
02-11-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by frako
02-11-2015 6:11 AM


From BEST/Muller (http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org)

From NASA http://climatecrocks.com/...ack-with-bogus-temperature-story

Which also debunks the "The old reliable “fudging the data” canard ... The latest incarnation is splashed all over the usual toxic vectors – in fact, it’s the “Biggest Science Scandal Ever”!" ... in detail.

More good reading is Why climate scientists are right about how hot the planet is going to get ... looking at CO2 data from foraminifera. Love those guys.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 02-11-2015 6:11 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 62 of 711 (750300)
02-13-2015 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
02-12-2015 7:37 PM


going down that road again
How does data (possibly fudged) "debunk" any claims about data being fudged?

Two basic ways marc9000 ...

1. A review and adjustment of the calibration of scientific instruments is standard operating procedure for ALL scientific instruments to ensure accurate and precise results. If an instrument is out of calibration the data is adjusted so that the readings match from pre-adjustment to post-adjustment ... you do agree that the temperature should be the same at the calibration point in time don't you? Say the adjustment is 1° and the last calibration was a year ago -- you know it was accurate a year ago and you know it is accurate now, and you know that over the year it became 1° so you can prorate that difference over the year to improve the accuracy of the intermediate readings. Without such adjustment there is a discontinuity in the data.

Often instruments are upgraded with new instruments that are more accurate and precise -- which also results in a discontinuity in the data from one instrument to the next. Adjusting the historical data so that it matches the new instrument at the same time and same place is not fudging the data but calibrating the old equipment to the new equipment.

Data on such calibrations show that the data is not "fudged" but calibrated and by how much and why.

2. By ignoring the calibrations and adjustments of the data and using it raw. The discontinuities cause small point variation in the data but do not using the raw data still shows the overall trend. The raw data is still precise it is just slightly less accurate but that difference in accuracy is systemic: if the discontinuity is 1° hotter then all the data post discontinuity will be 1° hotter ... and you will still see the long term trend.

glowby addresses other reasons for making adjustments to data in Message 52.

Let me make an analogy:

I am going to survey the elevations of a road over a 10 mile length. I start with a single point -- a survey marker with a known elevation(1). I set up my level, take a reading on the marker and record how much higher the instrument is than the marker. This is my delta. I then take several readings along one side of the road and subtract the delta from those readings to arrive at their elevations benchmarked to the marker. At some point I need to move the instrument (I can't see 10 miles), so I take a reading on a temporary survey marker that is set in solid ground. I move to the other side of this temporary marker and take a second reading on it from the new location. From the difference in readings on the same temporary marker I adjust my delta and continue as before. When I reach the end of the 10 mile stretch I am half done, because the survey has to be closed to ensure accuracy. This is done by repeating the process back down the road using different temporary markers to adjust the delta. When I get back to the start I take a final reading on the original survey marker.

Now I think you will agree that

  • the elevation of the temporary markers doesn't change when I move the instrument from one side of it to the other, so I am not fudging the data by changing the delta that I use to calculate the elevation of each data point based on the original survey marker elevation.

  • the elevation of the original survey marker doesn't change when I go 10 miles away down the road and then return, so any difference in reading between the start and the end of the survey is due to small accumulated errors every time the instrument was moved, errors that could just be the limits of the equipment to measure elevations accurately.

  • thus, if say, the difference in reading the elevation of the original marker is 1" higher at the end I can divide 1" by the number of instrument moves and apportion that out to each temporary marker, and again I am not fudging the data but calibrating it.

  • this results in a adjustment at the turning points that then needs to be pro-rated to the data between them to improve the accuracy of their readings.

Now I can plot the elevation data versus length along the road both with the adjusted and calibrated data (which accurately and precisely shows the overall trend of elevation vs distance) and I can plot the uncalibrated data (which shows the same overall trend with slightly less accuracy and precision).

And I can even ignore the adjustments made in the delta for each turning point and plot the data as a series of discontinuous lines for each setup ... and each of those lines will still show the overall trend in change in elevation over the length of data taken at each setup.

Plus I can point out that it is irrational to think there are sudden jumps or drops in the elevation of the road at each turning point for data taken for the same point (the temporary markers) from different sides when the data from the return trip, using different turning points does not show a jump or drop at that location -- I can use the data from the return trip to adjust the first run data even without knowing what the difference in delta was at the turning point discontinuity. This also would not be fudging the data but adjusting it by cross-referencing it to other data in the same region.

Now a naive and ignorant person who wants to believe that the end of the road is only 1 ft higher than the start of the road, instead of the 5 ft higher as measured by the survey, can yell and scream about fudging the data to make it come out 5 ft higher, but that wouldn't be a realistic argument about the actual level of the road would it?

This is the kind of process engineers and scientists use when collecting data to ensure that it is as accurate and precise as possible within the limitations of the equipment.

Enjoy

(1) - the US Geological Survey sets these markers, originally by doing surveys similar to what I outlined and by integrating the data into a web. They now use satellite data to confirm (and adjust) those elevations, and this new data can show that some markers are rising and some are sinking from tectonic activity. Old surveys made from the markers can be updated to adjust for those changes ...

Edited by RAZD, : footnote


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 7:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 65 of 711 (750330)
02-13-2015 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
02-13-2015 12:06 PM


Moving forward
Yeah, we have safety testing every year and emissions are part of that.

Any byproduct - such as cleaner running engines is bonus.

But I can do more to reduce my carbon footprint by using alternative energy at home -- solar panels and wind generators. With a surplus I can put energy back into the grid and reduce consumption of fossil fuels at generator plants.

I am also working on a solar water heating system to augment or replace the hot water heater and boiler and thus reducing fuel use.

My house is already rated "more efficient than your efficient neighbors" by the power company.

And I am working to get my town to install solar panels to reduce their costs. Most work done in town offices is during the day, so little battery storage should be needed.

We are also embarking on having solar powered street lights that store solar pv energy in a battery at each light to run at night ... ensuring street lights work during power outages.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 12:06 PM frako has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 75 of 711 (750444)
02-15-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by marc9000
02-15-2015 9:08 PM


quote:
•The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

And there's only one thing worse, the search for a superior moral justification to give other people orders, to rule over them, and not be accountable for it if it doesn't work out. History is full of examples.

You're confused -- that is still the conservative (GOP) program.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2015 9:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 78 of 711 (750452)
02-16-2015 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by foreveryoung
02-15-2015 11:07 PM


... miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.

Data?
References?

How hot it is going to get due to co2 greenhouse forcing?....miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.

Which fails to explain the continued trend to hottest years on record -- 15 of the last 16?

If the earth is still warming and the cloud cover is less than before then energy available for warming is greater than the cooling effect of reflected energy that was lost due to cloud cover changes ... yes?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2015 11:07 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 86 of 711 (750519)
02-17-2015 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 2:10 PM


Data and references later as time permits.

And I can wait.

If less low level cloud cover caused the temperature increase from 1970 to 1998, why could it not also explain the warming of the last 16 years which was puny in comparison to the aforementioned years?

You are aware that the purported "pause" in global warming has been shown to be an artifact of incomplete data aren't you?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=global+warming+pause+debunke...

First hit:

quote:
Yeah, About That Global Warming “Pause” …

... First off, the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, most of that heat is going into deep ocean waters.

Second, if you look at temperatures historically, we see ups and down like this every few decades; you have to look at the overall multidecade trend and not focus on some short (and cherry-picked) time frame.

A new study shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. The problem, say the authors, is that the global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.


Variations do not refute the long term trend.

See how reference to actual science and data strengthens an argument?

You mean greater shortwave radiation available for later entrapment by the greenhouse effect? Yes, but I'm not sure that is what you meant. If so, then that only strengthens my point. I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration. The amplification of the energy from extra sunlight without the clouds is neglible compared to the extra energy being amplified.

Baseless conjectures are not how science is done, nor is it how science is refuted. You need evidence, such as what is found in references and actual data.

So, again I wait for a real argument.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 88 of 711 (750557)
02-18-2015 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 2:10 PM


More climate change data references
Here is some additional information on the status of climate change science

quote:
Jury in on climate change, so stop using arguments of convenience and listen to experts

As a Nobel Prize winner, I travel the world meeting all kinds of people.

Most of the policy, business and political leaders I meet immediately apologise for their lack of knowledge of science.

Except when it comes to climate science. Whenever this subject comes up, it never ceases to amaze me how each person I meet suddenly becomes an expert.

Facts are then bandied to fit an argument for or against climate change, and on all sides, misconceptions abound.

The confusion is not surprising – climate science is a very broad and complicated subject with experts working on different aspects of it worldwide.

No single person knows everything about climate change. And for the average punter, it's hard to keep up with all the latest research and what it means.

More surprising is the supreme confidence that non-experts (scientists and non-scientists alike) have in their own understanding of the subject.


Dunning–Kruger effect anyone?

quote:
I am a full-time scientist whose area of expertise intersects with certain aspects of climate science. I, too, am not an expert on climate science.

But I do understand how science works. I understand that the current consensus has been reached by thousands of scientists working for decades. And I understand that the vast majority of scientists and scientific bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, have reached broadly the same conclusions.

The academy's "The science of climate change: questions and answers" report – a document written and reviewed by Australia's most expert climate scientists – explains what we know, what we don't know and how we might mediate future changes.

These are the real experts on climate change and this is what they're saying:

  • Earth's climate has changed over the past century. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, and glaciers and ice sheets have decreased in size.
  • The best available evidence indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause.
  • Continuing increases in greenhouse gases will produce further warming and other changes in Earth's physical environment and ecosystems.

My own scientific opinions in my areas of expertise are consistent with their conclusions.

The body of evidence on climate change is not contained in one paper, one set of observations, or by one person – rather it encompasses thousands of people's ideas and observations.

This is why it is so important for the country's pre-eminent scientific body to write this document, synthesising all of this disparate information into a coherent assessment of the science.

Having this information in one place means that the nation's decision-makers have the best scientific opinion on the subject, so that they can stop arguing about the science, and instead focus on their job, which is figuring out the most appropriate policy response to climate change, given the best available knowledge.

The evidence is clear: human activities are changing the Earth's climate, and what we do now and into the future will strongly influence the world's weather in the decades and centuries to come.


So unless you look at all the data from all the fields of study you are

  • not looking at all the evidence
  • cherry picking singular bits of evidence
  • not competent to criticize the whole picture

An example is the so-called pause in atmospheric temperatures, which ignores the arctic zones and the ocean temperatures.

quote:
Australian scientists make fresh attempt at explaining climate change

Australia's leading science body has reissued its climate change booklet in a bid to improve public understanding of the contentious subject.

The Australian Academy of Science was prompted to update the information based on new research and public questions since its original release in 2010.

Most available material is either too technical for the lay reader and usually omits some of the basics, such as how scientists know humans are causing global warming and what future projections are based on, said Steven Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of NSW.

"There is so much misinformation or confusing information out there, that we thought it would be nice to gather in one place an accessible explanation," Professor Sherwood said.

About 97 per cent of scientists who study the climate accept that humans are having an impact, with carbon dioxide – mostly emitted from humans burning fossil fuels – the primary driver.

"Even though carbon dioxide is not the only influence on climate, over the long term it will have such a large effect, it has to be brought under control no matter what else we do," Professor Sherwood said.

The academy report notes global carbon dioxide emissions rose at an average annual rate of 3.2 per cent between 2000 and 2012, at the top end of previous projections. These emissions, though, will have to start falling at a pace between 5.5 and 8 per cent for the planet to have a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature increases to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels.

World leaders will gather in Paris in December to thrash out a global climate treaty aimed at reducing carbon emissions beyond 2020. Countries, including Australia, are expected to announce their targets by the end of next month.

The heads of Britain's three main political parties agreed at the weekend to phase out all coal-fired power plants unless their emissions can be captured.


Americans should be ashamed that Australia and England are taking steps when the US is bogged down by ignorance and the GOP war on science and education.

quote:
The academy report notes average surface warming had slowed since 2001 despite rising carbon emissions but said decadal variability in how oceans and the atmosphere exchange heat meant extra warmth had been absorbed by the seas. Other changes such as the increasing incidence of heat extremes, shrinking Arctic sea ice – its thickness dropping 30 per cent in 30 years – and rising sea levels had all continued unabated.

It is well known that the greenhouse effect is important for sustaining life on Earth – temperatures would be 33 degrees cooler without it. Perhaps less well known is the role rising temperatures have on concentrations of water vapour, a key greenhouse gas.

"When global average atmospheric temperatures rise, global water vapour concentrations increase, amplifying the initial warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect," the report says. "[T]his feedback approximately doubles the sensitivity of climate to human activities."

"For Australia, a warmer future will likely mean that extreme precipitation is more intense and more frequent, interspersed with longer dry spells," the report says.


Sounds exactly like what is happening out west.

quote:
While societies and nations will face varying challenges to cope with climate change, many natural ecosystems are likely to face extinction.

Native animals that depend on cooler mountain habitats, for instance, will be particularly vulnerable. Scientists examining the fate of 50 species in the Wet Tropics bioregion in north Queensland found they would be all but wiped out with a 5-degree temperature increase.


And I would expect numerous speciation events to occur -- macroevolution -- as ecological niches are opened up.

Whether the human race is one of the species to survive depends on how much it can adapt to the changing environment.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 92 of 711 (750650)
02-19-2015 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
02-19-2015 8:49 PM


They have a reason to lie, the oldest reason in the world. Power and money.

Looks like you and a bunch of other denialists got scammed

http://www.resolutewealth.com/

Gotta love those conspiracy theorists and their patsies.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:49 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by glowby, posted 02-20-2015 1:58 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 7:23 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 111 of 711 (750746)
02-21-2015 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by marc9000
02-20-2015 7:23 PM


They have a reason to lie, the oldest reason in the world. Power and money.

Looks like you and a bunch of other denialists got scammed

http://www.resolutewealth.com/

Gotta love those conspiracy theorists and their patsies.

What in the world does this investment guru's advertising have to do with this thread?

Don't you even read and investigate your own sources? This site:

... Power and money.

Is your "investment guru's" page of falsehoods about climate change ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 02-20-2015 7:23 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 9:20 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 116 of 711 (750796)
02-22-2015 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
02-22-2015 12:34 PM


Re: Personal lifestyle changes
Let your dog lick the plates clean, rinse and let dry.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 02-22-2015 12:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 02-22-2015 5:17 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020