ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

From that article:
Four different measuring systems concluded that 2014 was hottest year on record on Earth's surface. However, because of margins of error, there's a chance it could only be second hottest.
Click to expand...

Not even true. 2014 may have been the hottest year in *recorded* history, but longer term records show us that it has been 4 times hotter than that during natural heat cycles in the past.

However, Antarctic sea ice hit record high levels for the third straight year; different factors aside from temperature have been a cause, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.
Click to expand...

This is true. The levels are way above the norm. It is funny that the NOAA will tell you this, yet there are many doomsday cult members telling you that it's melting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-10679088
If this keeps up, Argentina will be land-bridged to ice eventually. They are already having very extreme winters.

AR_curr.p.gnum.gif


What i find interesting is NOAA's weather station distribution for that part of south America. There are very few weather stations in one of the coldest parts of the world there. I wonder how they calculate the average temperature of the world. Do they give some stations extra weight due to their sparseness?

weather_chart.png


Here is a global weather distribution map. How do agencies that report global temperatures adjust for this extreme discrepancy?
 
http://flinklabs.com/projects/climatedata/

This visualization also does show the huge discrepancy over time of distribution of weather stations.
The met office's data that they released in 2009 is the data source.

If you did not weigh the discrepancies in distribution properly, you'd definitely see a global temperature rise as more stations were added to the equator, while ~5% of climate stations exist in the lower 2 southern latitude areas, yet 40% of the world's stations exist in the upper 2 northern latitude areas.
 
Ok, I think I get where you're going with all of this, but I'm not sure what the concern is with the minutia of DIY temperature trend hypothesis - climate research already does all this with far better modeling, statistical methodology, and biosphere impact assessment probabilities than you or I could ever hope for. I think slaying sensational, over-hyped media reports is a noble goal, I'm just not sure why you want to extend that to hasty interpretation of trend charts and heat maps in isolation. Unless you're trying to refute the findings of accepted published research, in which case this kind of speckled data in a non-peer reviewed setting isn't more than speculation and self-punditry itself - which is what I thought we were trying to get away from?
 
I'm simply being skeptical of all these claims that keep occurring. Most of these claims about the end of the world are made with incomplete or misleading data. I have pointed out some BS articles on this thread already.

I have listened to both sides of the debate over many years, even saw 'an inconvenient truth' when i was young and impressionable and believed it. Then i heard some stuff that made me realize i wasn't fully analyzing 'an inconvenient truth' and was taking it as authoritative fact. I have seen some denier information, believed it for a moment, and then realized that they were using faulty data as well.

I see both sides pushing a lot of false data overall to exaggerate their point, so i remain skeptical of the impact of co2 on temperatures. I have found enough plot holes in the environmentalist's arguments to make me doubt them. The only difference is that these plot holes are often better hidden than some dumb shit you get from fox news or alex jones - which is why they are particularly dangerous - because people of a higher intellect are more likely to soak those things up and believe them as fact without any further questioning. ( thanks, cognitive bias! ) This is how many lies are successfully sold to the American public.

I have found many times in my life, that authoritative facts can often be misleading. Consensus can tell you the opposite of the truth many times too. We have been veritably lied to about defense, diet, oil supply ( remember peak oil? ), monetary issues, tobacco, economics, war, pharmaceutical drugs, medical practices, et cetera by authoritative groups with a consensus opinion who dominated the discussion.

So I do not automatically accept what people have to say who appear smarter than me and recommend you do the same. I require proof that they are smarter and well versed on the subject and can deflect valid questions and criticisms. So far on talking to people about AGW, a lot of people accept a consensus without understanding it and just get mad when a valid objection is raised, or move the goalposts and misrepresent my argument until they get tired of dodging the question.

..which is the same treatment i get when questioning religious folks from an atheist's perspective.

If we want to discover the truth about anything, heavy skepticism and debate are required. Don't rule it out.

kd8cgo said:
Ok, I think I get where you're going with all of this, but I'm not sure what the concern is with the minutia of DIY temperature trend hypothesis - climate research already does all this with far better modeling, statistical methodology, and biosphere impact assessment probabilities than you or I could ever hope for. I think slaying sensational, over-hyped media reports is a noble goal, I'm just not sure why you want to extend that to hasty interpretation of trend charts and heat maps in isolation. Unless you're trying to refute the findings of accepted published research, in which case this kind of speckled data in a non-peer reviewed setting isn't more than speculation and self-punditry itself - which is what I thought we were trying to get away from?
Click to expand...
 
Let me challenge y'all on this one alone:

weather_chart.png


Currently, ~5% of climate stations exist in the lower 2 southern latitude areas, yet 40% of the world's stations exist in the upper 2 northern latitude areas.
Over time, hotter mid-latitude weather stations have been added.
If you averaged all this data out, this would show a warming trend all by itself due to lack of adjustment.

What is the methodology for correcting for this that the top climate authorities use? Is it even corrected?
 
I think I agree Neptronix. There appears to be too much halfassed data, coupled with info of previous climate resets to blame any real large picture climate change/potential human destruction on ourselves. Just doesn't make much sense we are that big of a deal when you take the whole solar system and factor in our highly limited knowledge against it.
The biggest common sense thing I take away from the typical global warming deal is sustainability, which usually leads to seeing us funding corporations to slowly deplete resources that are not very 'green'. It's a shame.
 
neptronix said:
so i remain skeptical of the impact of co2 on temperatures.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I didn't realize you were skeptical of the scientific consensus on this point. I treat environmental and earth science the same way I treat life and physical sciences, as I see no reason to differentiate as the methodology and peer systems work in an identical fashion. They are not fool-proof but they have been proven to be overall the most successful model to learn about the systems and structures around us.

neptronix said:
What is the methodology for correcting for this that the top climate authorities use? Is it even corrected?
Click to expand...

I do not know why you are even consulting these distributions or charts at all if you do not know the answer to this. You can't draw meaningful conclusions about the scientific conclusions if you don't even understand, let alone know the methods used! And using the phrase " top climate authorities" is just silly, it's just a scientific field - there are hundreds, maybe thousands of researchers - some prominent for studies published amongst their peer group I'm sure, but beyond that I find that phrasing inapplicable to scientific pursuits in general.

It took me awhile to dig up the name, but I see this method referenced on science forums on reddit, etc, and explained in some ELI5 threads over the years. One method I see discussed is called "Spatial interpolation of temperature using residual kriging" - have no real idea of how that works beyond the basics that I've read. I have no skill with which to check this methodology - that's why we have scientists who do this, every single day. Here is a paper on it that I found, if you want to delve in: Spatial interpolation of temperature in the United States using residual kriging.

The only thing someone at my skill level can do, is read the published abstracts and papers on the subject and see what they've concluded. Beyond that, it is far, far beyond my specialization. If there is some massive science conspiracy around this topic, I don't see it as the most harmful thing that could be done. Understanding or limiting human impact doesn't strike me as the worst thing we could do on this planet.
 
I did a little analysis on that question and came up with something:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/

Most if not all ways of calculating global temperatures are improperly weighted!
When you are using gridding or slicing you have an problem of extremely unequal distribution at the southern parts. Some stations are located a thousand miles away from each other or more. Then you head north to Chile or Brasil, you'll see stations commonly clustered in 10 mile increments or less.
Station per area covered weighting doesn't appear to be part of any of these models.
Most of these models are being calculated on a grid basis or a 3 or 5 hemisphere slice basis. Both of these ideas have problems.

I am not sure if these calculations also take account for time vs. changes in weather station distribution that would favor higher temps if not adjusted either.
When you add or remove data points every year, and do not account for that, you're gonna have questionable results over time.
 
neptronix said:
I did a little analysis on that question and came up with something:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/

Most if not all ways of calculating global temperatures are improperly weighted!
When you are using gridding or slicing you have an problem of extremely unequal distribution at the southern parts. Some stations are located a thousand miles away from each other or more. Then you head north to Chile or Brasil, you'll see stations commonly clustered in 10 mile increments or less.
Station per area covered weighting doesn't appear to be part of any of these models.
Most of these models are being calculated on a grid basis or a 3 or 5 hemisphere slice basis. Both of these ideas have problems.

I am not sure if these calculations also take account for time vs. changes in weather station distribution that would favor higher temps if not adjusted either.
When you add or remove data points every year, and do not account for that, you're gonna have questionable results over time.
Click to expand...

You're siting a non-peer reviewed source of skepticisms that have not been levied in the only way any skepticism can be against a scientific finding - by publishing and having reviewed the competing finding - which if found to be accurate and sound then supplant the consensus opinion of field researchers. This has not been done - the "source material" for that blog post, is more blog posts, and a PDF "Review" that has its own website, solely for the publication of that one single pdf file. You can joust with windmills in the court of public opinion all you want, but to refute science, requires... science.
 
kd8cgo said:
Ahh, I didn't realize you were skeptical of the scientific consensus on this point. I treat environmental and earth science the same way I treat life and physical sciences, as I see no reason to differentiate as the methodology and peer systems work in an identical fashion. They are not fool-proof but they have been proven to be overall the most successful model to learn about the systems and structures around us.
Click to expand...

Peer systems are not perfect. I have done a lot of research on health and diet primarily and often find broken methodology and diet studies whose entire premise that is designed to produce a result that they want. What Ancel Keys purported and eventually became consensus is a famous example of this. It has taken 50 years to finally chip away at his lies. Governments around the world are finally figuring out that he was wrong.

Yes, consensus is usually best, but human beings are imperfect and have alternative motives and willingness to lie sometimes. Do not trust authority just because they say they are authority. Do not assert anything to be the truth either unless you fully understand it.

You're telling me that i can't draw meaningful conclusions about the skepticism of the official data, so that's why i'm asking about the methodology.
Many people accept the official story without understanding the methodology.

Boy, that paper about residual Kriging is above my head. It seems like it requires knowledge of statistics crunching software to understand. Distribution of stations in the drying west looks particularly bad - just 5 stations for Nevada. I hope someone can explain this to a layman.

The only thing someone at my skill level can do, is read the published abstracts and papers on the subject and see what they've concluded. Beyond that, it is far, far beyond my specialization. If there is some massive science conspiracy around this topic, I don't see it as the most harmful thing that could be done. Understanding or limiting human impact doesn't strike me as the worst thing we could do on this planet.
Click to expand...

That's what most people do - they read the conclusion. When i understand the subject at hand, i read the methodology and parameters. I have became very skeptical about scientific papers because i have found so many studies designed to produce one effect. Sometimes, the researchers don't understand what they are studying in the first place.

Weather might be as difficult as studying human and animal biology. Too many variables and complex interactions for a layman to understand. The communicators of these sciences don't understand the material either and often end up misleading the public as a result.

I agree about a 'scientific conspiracy' to end fossil fuels is not a bad thing at all. There are hundreds of reasons why we need to stop extracting and burning the stuff. I just have this nagging feeling that i may be being mislead by people who ARE smarter than me, but are leaving some things out.
 
kd8cgo said:
You're siting a non-peer reviewed source of skepticisms that have not been levied in the only way any skepticism can be against a scientific finding - by publishing and having reviewed the competing finding - which if found to be accurate and sound then supplant the consensus opinion of field researchers. This has not been done - the "source material" for that blog post, is more blog posts, and a PDF "Review" that has its own website, solely for the publication of that one single pdf file. You can joust with windmills in the court of public opinion all you want, but to refute science, requires... science.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the only source i could find for how models are calculated that was written in layman's terms. I'm again asking for methodology in layman's terms.
You must have not read the conclusion at the end. In the last sentence, they say that there is a clear warming trend :)

Show me some alternate data on methodology, because i'm having trouble finding it.
 
I've never kept a log or journal of the "layman breakdown's" over the years that I've read. I mean, I already know I don't have the skill set to fully analyze or refute these findings, so my interest is cursory.

I totally agree with you about trusting authority, but I also find that I have no rational basis with which to refute published science given the tools I have to work with (my brain.) The fact that you or I can't really understand the complex methods used in probabilistic sciences are just something we have to live with, or invest the time to become much more intimately involved in the field - the best way would be to become a scientist in the field if that sort of thing interests you deeply.

I admit to only giving the article a cursory glance, because they were drawing and making conclusions. This is not possible for a blogger to do unless they 1. cite supporting primary source material or 2. Are the publisher or research team member of a reviewed study, and are explaining their results further. The conclusions they draw, even if at the end they say there is a "clear warming trend", are of no practical use to me - I can get that data from a real primary source, or a news article linking to one and explaining it in layman's terms.
 
That's a very reasonable reply.
Their end conclusion was that warming is happening since 1800, for certain - no matter what model was used.
They did not say that all models are flawed. That's my speculation based on the fact that there are potential major holes in calculating global temperature which i have never seen addressed or fully discussed.

I understand that WUWT is a pretty biased site. But they are good at busting people's balls when they lie. I haven't seen an obviously wrong whopper from them yet ( surely i could hunt one down ), but i don't like their bias.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is probably their best opposition. They spend a lot of time debunking stupid myths created by tea partiers and republicans though and do not delve deep enough into the science. They are also a little too heavy into 'information authoritarianism' for my taste.

I feel like the WUWT guys are just more intelligent though. A few of them even went through all the trouble to reproduce climate models themselves in that article. Most of their commenters are retarded though :lol:
 
For me, how could all the pollution we are spitting out into the air, not have an effect on climate and biology.
Offhand hearing about the ozone layer depleting from aerosols etc.

The most sensitive areas of our world, would be the poles.
 
There's no doubt that we're doing some accidental geoengineering here :/
If the smog from China can blow all the way to Colorado, USA, we're having some kind of effect for sure.

I read something about sulfur balancing out co2 to create global dimming, which counters whatever effects that co2 is purported to have. So basically our pollution must be balanced correctly.. :lol:
 
Not unusual to see snow at a ~13,000 ft. elevation point. Low temps for the area range from 26 to 31 degrees F. Yearly temperature variation is like 10 degrees since it's much closer to the equator line than the lower 48 states. Hawaii has little rains frequently all year. It takes just a few degrees difference in what drops out of the sky for it to turn to snow.

Here's an article about skiing in Hawaii.
http://www.hawaiisnowskiclub.com/Mk/index.htm

Here's an article from a fellow who is saying that less snow since the 1800's is an indicator of climate change.
http://www.mauna-a-wakea.info/maunakea/D2_tracking.html

I love how the lower 48 state climate experts in the facebook comments are blaming republicans, global warming, chemtrails, etc.
I googled around, found tea partiers blaming geoengineering and saying that this is proof of global cooling.

But anyway, let's forget that snow at a 13,000 ft. elevation point is a normal pattern.. let's blame government or oil companies for any weather we don't expect, as usual, eh?
Because that is the modern equivalent of assuming that god is punishing or rewarding some group of people for good/bad behavior by changing the weather :lol:
 
The problem, Neptronix, is you are second-guessing a decade of research by thousands of clever scientists. You also want all of that distilled into a comprehensive but brief "idiot's guide".

That's just not realistic. Accept a scientific consensus when one exists. Consensus is not based on flawed experiment methodology or statistical analysis where someone forgot to correct for something obvious.
 
Punx0r said:
The problem, Neptronix, is you are second-guessing a decade of research by thousands of clever scientists. You also want all of that distilled into a comprehensive but brief "idiot's guide".

That's just not realistic. Accept a scientific consensus when one exists. Consensus is not based on flawed experiment methodology or statistical analysis where someone forgot to correct for something obvious.
Click to expand...

That sounds like fundamentalist religious thinking, punx0r.
In order to automatically accept consensus without understanding it, you have to suspend your intellectual capacity and rely on faith while also completely ignoring the past. It sounds like you believe something without understanding it because enough people told it to you again and again, without questioning it.

The mormon missionaries who like to visit my door a few times a month also like to think of me as unrealistic to reject what they believe, because they have consensus amongst ~90% of the populace in their area, plus this really sweet book that i need to read. It's inconceivable that i don't agree. These people believe what they are told without and ignore past information about the LDS church as well.

Am i a crazy person because i don't follow the majority?

Sorry, i'm an atheist. I believe stuff when the case is clear.
Especially when it comes to a fallible, continually changing thing called science. Just a few 2 back, top scientific groups had predicted and modeled the earth burning up now, failing to account for sulfate emissions causing global dimming. Oops.

Even agencies in our federal government and the European governments frequently release information, then go back later and revise it. Sometimes they notify the public about this, other times they do not, and then the denier sites point it out.

Examples:
Remember the pause in global warming, that is no longer a pause?
Remember when NASA told us that we had a hottest month last year, then decided it wasn't actually the hottest month?
How about the recent report of global temperatures being the highest on record - ignoring the fact that all ice core and sediment cores indicate that temps have globally been up to around 4 times higher. Are those not records of temperature? because many scientists would say that they are.
Remember when NASA's group said that the summers in the arctic would be ice free by 2013, when in fact, from 2013-2015, we have seen arctic ice making a return in total volume..?
Remember when NASA said that 1998 was the hottest year on record, then admitted that they were wrong, and blamed the Y2K bug.. yet all their predictions were based on this faulty data for many years? :lol:

..but the science is settled, right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm <-- 'arcitc summers ice free by 2013'
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=global+temperature+revised&t=ffsb <-- big list of articles on temperature revision.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=global+warming+pause&t=ffsb&ia=news <-- various links from many official sources disputing or supporting the global warming pause.
http://www.sott.net/article/137987-...ure-data-1998-no-longer-the-warmest-on-record <-- nasa's 'y2k bug'

Funny that my theory on weather station distribution x time x proportion not being modeled correctly into global climate data still goes uncontested on this thread. I was really hoping that someone would bust my balls on that.
 
Um, mixing religious zealots with good science is anything but logical! There are shifts in global temps happening. Most sensible science has shown we are having events that mimic and even mirror natural catastrophes logged in ice. And yet we've not had any of those natural occurring events. Nearly every subject, these days, can be befuddled by searching news stories. However often times reading the actual studies reveals far more cohesive conclusions. I get denying the various dieties, but there is enough conclusive science to indicate that something is going south. The only argument ought to be what is driving it. I suspect of all you meat eaters and all the bullshit. <wink>
 
Religion is fun! Lots of gods to choose from. "Christians" like to squabble a lot among themselves though. Pretty architecture. Looks pretty expensive maybe.
 
PS, did you know that aerosol forcing models are still up for debate today and thus the projected effect of substances that cool the earth has to be majorly revised now, because it appears that the IPCC was significantly incorrect in their understanding of this?

http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/19/...y-of-bjorn-stevens-new-aerosol-forcing-paper/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-misinterpret-climate-change-research/

About 10 years ago, scientists did not know whether clouds were warming or cooling the planet. Now, they have more insights into their behavior.

Similarly, with many independent analyses coming out, scientists will narrow the range of aerosol's cooling effects in the next few years, Dessler said.
Click to expand...

The science of global climate effects is not settled in the slightest! the climate models on co2 keep changing and being revised downward, and there are still many models for co2's effects, the worst case scenarios are of course, typically the ones that the environmentalist death cult likes to favor. Then, conservative groups are using papers like this to try to claim that global warming is not happening.

Which source of misinformation do you prefer?
 
I have been involved in local atheist groups here in Utah. Many atheists exhibit religious thinking in regards to science and technology unfortunately, *especially* those who left religions - the pattern of thought remains. Arguing with many of these atheists on non-religious scientific topics can reveal the same kind of willful ignorance and closed-mindedness that highly religious people exhibit. I would really like to believe that atheists on a whole are more intelligent than the highly superstitious, but both religious credos and atheist credos have been a huge disappointment to me in real world practice.

I have heard atheists push bad science as absolute truth and out you as an illogical person ( the biggest sin in atheism ) if you disagree. Other atheists do not step in to correct their error. It's the modern version of heresy. If you spent any time in atheist circles, you'd eventually see that this is a direct analog of religious thinking.

Climate is obviously changing, that's a constant. But ice and sediment records do not just record catastrophes, they also show major and minor shifts over short and long periods of time.
The limited data ( 150 years? ) of instrument-observed temperature change does not show anything unprecedented in ice core and sediment records, nor is it indexed to a nominal temperature within them.
Half of a degree C rise in 100 years is nothing compared to swings of 1-2C that aren't always linked to major natural events.

Meat eating.. ha. You may be surprised to find out that cows are not the only source of meat and modern agriculture for veggies is a petrochemical, herbicidal, fungicidal, and pesticidal nightmare. petroleum-based fertilizer runoff is one of the biggest factors in creating apoxic dead zones on the coasts.. Our entire industrial food system needs to go. Cow methane emissions are bad... what is never discussed among vegan or vegetarian types is why they occur though. My suspicion is that most cows are fed a diet that they do not tolerate as easily as their native diet. ( gut bacteria dysblanance ). People who eat a poor, carby diet also tend to be methane emitters..

There are so many ways that we are destroying the environment. It would take another couple threads to address all of them.

tomjasz said:
Um, mixing religious zealots with good science is anything but logical! There are shifts in global temps happening. Most sensible science has shown we are having events that mimic and even mirror natural catastrophes logged in ice. And yet we've not had any of those natural occurring events. Nearly every subject, these days, can be befuddled by searching news stories. However often times reading the actual studies reveals far more cohesive conclusions. I get denying the various dieties, but there is enough conclusive science to indicate that something is going south. The only argument ought to be what is driving it. I suspect of all you meat eaters and all the bullshit. <wink>
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top