Slashdot Mirror

We have a federal agency to study dirt and rocks - the United States Geological Survey (USGS). They claim to be "a science organization that provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information."

We have a federal agency to study the atmosphere and the oceans - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They claim their mission is "Science, Service, and Stewardship. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. "

BOTH claim to study the Earth and its climate. NEITHER claims to advance aviation of spaceflight or exploration beyond the Earth

We HAD an agency to study and advance aviation - the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) whose mission was "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions." After Russia launched Sputnik, the US government went into panic mode and in 1958 transformed the agency into a new organization which we now have called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The 1958 law that created NASA gave it the following duties: (which I will quote directly)

"(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;"

"(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;"

"(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;"

"(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes."

"(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere."

"(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;"

"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and"

"(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment."

NASA's study of the Earth and its atmosphere was ONLY for the purpose of advancing flight in, out of, and back into, the atmosphere. In the 1970s as the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations were messing NASA up and trying to appeal to voters they tainted NASA with eco-related tasks that actually belong at NOAA and USGS (and other agencies) and over time various entrenched interests (like the earth-sciences employees at Goddard who SHOULD apply for jobs at NOAA) have made the problem worse. NASA spent more money studying climate change in 2014 than it spent launching men into space (NASA

Have they been good at predicting things, or are the things predicted being 'adjusted' to better match the predictions?

"Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed âoeits hottest March since records began in 1880â. This year, according to âoeUS government scientistsâ, already bids to outrank 2014 as âoethe hottest everâ. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the worldâ(TM)s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAAâ(TM)s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as âoethe hottest year everâ.

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were âoeClimategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warmingâ and âoeThe fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandalâ.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAAâ(TM)s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been âoeadjustedâ, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com...

Difference between raw and final data sets (this is an official graph from NOAA):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/c...

References

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5 (the 5th AR is published)

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl... anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...

http://science.nasa.gov/headli... 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice....

National Snow and Ice Data Center

World Glacier Monitoring Service

One weekend, I came home and he showed me the radio-fax kit he'd bought. Say what??? It was a receiver that plugged into the headphone jack of a shortwave radio on one side and the serial port of the computer on the other side. The software would record and decode faxes of weather maps that were broadcast over shortwave then print them on the DeskJet 500c. But, when this kind of thing became widely available on the internet, he wouldn't switch until either they stopped broadcasting or the software didn't survive an OS upgrade. I forget which.

The geek needs to take a closer look at analog systems and HF radio.

Rafiofax is over ninety years old and still very much alive. NOAA RADIOFAX If you think terrestrial satellite data services are expensive and limited try pricing off-shore marine.

WR-G33EM Marine Receiver

Because global warming is a lie and the GOP are going to call out the dems on this.

No it's not, and youre an idiot for saying it is.

The overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists and not engaged in a global conspiracy for some god ony knows reason.

If global warming is only true because of secret data then it probably isn't true.

Then today is your lucky day.
Because There is no secret data.
It's a myth.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

Well then you're in luck!
Because it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

No, it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

The point is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.

Here, let me google that for you .

Oh there it is, on the very first page:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

This funding will complete the purchase of a Doppler Radar system for Southwest Washington and provide for the land and installation costs associated with the system.

The cost of the "expensive" earthquake early warning system is around the cost of 5 Doppler systems. As of 2013 the National Weather service has access to 159 Doppler installations.

In addition to the 122 NWS-owned radars, the full nationwide radar network includes another 37 radar sites owned by the FAA and Defense Department, which will be completely upgraded to dual-pol technology this summer. NOAA’s NEXRAD radar program is a tri-agency effort with NOAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the United States Air Force.

Note that the national radar network is being upgraded to high end Doppler for tornado and severe storm detection. So why do those in the Midwest, Gulf Coast and East Coast deserve early warning on tornadoes and California gets peanuts ($5,000,000) for the inevitable large earthquake? Politics.

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) can't explain why more money wasn't approved.

"It's inexplicable given how much we have at stake here. Obviously these have been very tough budgetary times, but if you're going to invest in something that is significant down the road, this is about the best investment you can make," he said.

Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Mongolia already have similar systems in place.

So they can afford this in Mongolia and it's too much for California? Really?

Leftist market manipulation won't solve the problem. Lake Superior levels look healthy to me. Better to use the resource and put Mother Nature to work. If you drew down Great Bear Lake 10m, nobody would possibly no the difference. Lakes differ from puddles in that lakes are defined by contours where ground water level intersect topography, puddles are temporary accumulations of rain water.

Several sources have suggested that Four Corners is the site of a large meteor strike. A circular image at that location sometimes appears on: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/w...

They apparently didn't have the power to check space weather either.

http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/...

"Y"-connected three-phase transformers? Watch the current in that ground leg, and don't use current transformers to do it. Those don't have the near-DC response needed.

Unexamined life? Physician, heal thyself first.

From your link: "
It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"

And, on a related note - http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s...

Another exacerbating factor it would seem, although the researchers are not yet certain if this is cyclical or not.

you can say the drought was exacerbated by record high temperatures

You can say it -- the question is, can you show it? Take a look at the actual data and you will see that although the average is running a little warm, all of 2012, 2013, 2014 and what we've had thus far of 2015 are just about devoid of record temperature excursions.

My understanding is that it is lack of precipitation -- not high temperatures -- that account for California's current problems. Which you can also see on that same page on the bottom graph. The span from March through October is devoid of precipitation. In the background in the darker color, you can see the "normal" (the average) for the region.

Dustbowl, anyone? Much, much worse than California's problems -- and definitely not attributable to "global warming" in any significant way.

you can say the drought was exacerbated by record high temperatures

You can say it -- the question is, can you show it? Take a look at the actual data and you will see that although the average is running a little warm, all of 2012, 2013, 2014 and what we've had thus far of 2015 are just about devoid of record temperature excursions.

My understanding is that it is lack of precipitation -- not high temperatures -- that account for California's current problems. Which you can also see on that same page on the bottom graph. The span from March through October is devoid of precipitation. In the background in the darker color, you can see the "normal" (the average) for the region.

Dustbowl, anyone? Much, much worse than California's problems -- and definitely not attributable to "global warming" in any significant way.

Thanks to this page I can tell you your friend was in at most a 2.4 PSI overpressure situation, which is more than adequate to break bricks (2-3 PSI), without causing eardrum rupture ( > 2.4PSI). So there's your "Hydrogen Explosion" overpressure.

RDX, which is a real explosive, detonates at 25 times the speed of sound, or about 8500 m/s. It devolves about 900 liters of gas per kilogram during detonation, creating overpressures close to the detonation center that can exceed 3000PSI, which will reduce concrete to dust and melt metal to slag through compression heating.

This versus the H2 + 2O2 --> 2H2O reaction where three liters of gas at STP become 2 liters of gas, which expand to about 200 liters because of heating to 2800C (100:1 expansion). The flame speed of hydrogen/oxygen is about 50 m/s maximum. The expansion of the gas pressures the container until something breaks (a few bricks in the wall, some windows, or in the case of Fukushima Daishi, the failure of some corrugated metal siding and roofing materials.) Then the pressure escapes into the environment, and no further damage is done.

This is the difference between something burning, like a HydrOx reaction, and something exploding. This is what you can't seem to grasp here. There was an "explosion" in the colloquial sense that a surrounding building was rapidly disassembled. But in the pure physics sense, there was a contained burn that ruptured its container. The H/O reaction may seem fast in our everyday experience, but in the realm of explosives and explosions, it's moving at a snail's pace.

The BWR3/4 reactors were designed for operation in excess of 1000PSI operating pressures - in fact, the primary coolant loop in the U.S. PWRs typically runs at 2250PSI. Meaning that your "EXPLOSIONS" (caps doesn't make it true) wouldn't have had the slightest effect on the reactor or the coolant loops.

Additionally, the corrugated steel outer walls would have failed at a 2 PSI overpressure, which they did. Again, because this is a burn (deflagration) and not an explosion (detonation) there would be no point in the process where the reactor would have been exposed to a higher pressure than 2-3PSI in the containment building.

Much like putting a garbage bag filled with hydrogen/oxygen on a bank vault inside a glass building, you blew out all the windows, but you're no closer to the money.

So, again, there might be someone out of their depth in their conversation, but it's not me.

telling NASA they should turn a blind eye to the environment of our own planet is insanity.

Why? That's what NOAA is supposed to be doing. If I were elected philosopher-king of NASA, I'd be more then happy to tell the climatologists to take their politics next door. We'll be more then happy to put a satellite up for you. But that's about the extent of it.

And then there's the USGS. And a bunch of other agencies all poking and prodding the planet. It's really starting to look like everyone is having their funding held up pending the publication of a pro-AGW study. And that's a part of what makes the associated politics stink like hell.

This [google.com] study shows the best sensor tested had an accuracy of 30ppm plus 2% of the reading.

Atmospheric CO2 measurements do not use simple commercial CO2 sensors like this. Here's a description of the process used in the Mauna Loa observatory.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...

Accuracy is typically better than 0.2 ppm.

Nobody asked me how many trees I cut down to feed the fireplace this winter.

Compared to massive production of coal, oil and gas, a few trees aren't going to make a noticeable difference.

The weather didn't change when we moved to oil/coal power.

AHEM! http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/...

At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for.

I am not a particularly involved student of this field, so my links would be of the popular kind, for which I apologize in advance. But here it is:

1. In 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". It is now 2015 and there has not been a snow-free winter in the UK since. Some were particularly snowy: 2014-15, 20122010-11.
2. In 2004 there was a prediction, that "Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years". We are now half-way through that prediction, so it might still come to pass. But in 2014 Scotland had its snowiest winter in 69 years and the skiing industry is striving.
3. In 2007 BBC published a prediction of ice-free Arctic on or before 2013 by an American climate scientist stating (repeated by Al Gore in 2008). 2013 came and went, but there has not been a single ice-free summer in the Arctic ocean.

Now, I'm not prepared to argue the validity of the above claims — all you asked for were samples of what I'm looking for.

Of course, your samples would have to be valid — because you want me (and the rest of humanity) to change our way of life. The burden of proof is thus on you.

This study is interesting in light of the fact that a recent NOAA study found that the current California drought is not caused by climate change. In fact, under climate change California winters are supposed to get wetter, if also hotter. See http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s... .

I'm going to do something very foolish and imagine that you actually believe what you're saying, that you're not just being a troll, and that you actually think the data supports your conclusions. And now I'm going to explain why you're wrong, indulging in the fantasy that you'll listen with an open mind and, once you realize your mistake, freely acknowledge it. Prove me right. Or wrong. Your choice.

Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years,

Three years? Three years is random noise. The climate consists of steady, long term trends with lots of short term fluctuations superimposed on top of them. Take artic ice, for example. It shrinks every summer and grows every winter. There are lots of factors that affect the summer minimum: wind patterns, ocean currents, etc. A few years ago, lots of factors converged to give an exceptionally low minimum. It hasn't matched that since; but it's come close, and has remained far below anything seen until just a decade ago.

Here's a graph showing sea ice for almost 40 years: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i.... Yes, it fluctuates up and down from year to year. But look at that and tell me it shows anything other than fluctuations around a steady decreasing trend that remains upbroken.

Let's look at something even more convincing: world wide temperatures. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist.... Look at those graphs, and then tell me they show anything other than short term fluctuations on a long term warming trending that has been in place for the last century.

Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country.

Wrong! There has not been record cold "around the country". Believe me, the whole western half of the country has been getting record heat, as has most of the planet. Here's a map showing it: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/.... Those are the difference between Jan. 2015 temperatures and historical (1981-2010) average temperatures. The red areas are hotter than average. The blue areas are colder than average. Yes, there's a small blue patch over the eastern US. But overall there's a lot more red than blue.

This is why scientists tend to prefer the term "climate change" to "global warming". Yes, the globe is warming up, but that doesn't mean everything is exactly the same, just uniformly warmer. Some times and places are a lot warmer. Others are only a little warmer. Others are actually cooler. Wind patterns are changing. Ocean currents are changing. Precipitation patterns are changing. Sea level is rising. Permafrost it melting. The climate is changing.

And if you want to know precisely how global warming is causing unusually cold weather in the eastern US, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....

Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010

Sorry, but that is just BS. You linking to a story about how fungi help to hold onto carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere, and somehow translated that into "NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis". No. I don't know what you think that article actually meant, but I can assure you that isn't what it meant. (OK, I see you also linked to that Register piece that totally misrepresented the conclusions of that study. The Register is a notorious denialist website. Believe me, the scientists who actually did the work would not agree with the conclusions they're trying to draw from it.)

No one has "falsified the CO2 hypothesis". In fact, it was recently proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, by actually directly measuring the incoming and outgoing radiation, showing that the CO2 abso

The original paper http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... does not seem to make a big deal about Winter so TFA may be adding that owing to this Winter's weather which has had record warmth this Winter. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

People get excited about the hottest year but it makes more sense from a climate perspective to look at it in terms of decadal temperature trends. This graph does that. From it you can see that the 2000s were about 0.15 degrees C above the 1990s and so far the 2010s are about 0.05 above the 2000s.

Because news organizations think the error bars are too confusing for regular people. They're probably right. But the probabilities of 2014 being the hottest year were mentioned prominently in the joint NOAA/NASA press conference on the subject. Here are the graphics from that press conference. See page 5.

Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.

As opposed to those near freezing - at the Arctic Circle? There is a reason why "Global" is capitalized. Here's a nice world map how temperatures where compared to the average for Jan. 2015: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Final thought... comparisons are to rebuilding today's infrastructure as if it wasn't constantly changing already. We have decades and perhaps centuries to adjust - ever hear of constant improvement?

We are decades behind fixing our infrastructure already - do you really want to drag that out even longer?

Most hams (including myself) are interested in HF (and others are interested in SWL and the new below-AM BCB ham frequencies.)

50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes. Many of these upper bands are almost dead -- I've not heard anyone on 2 meters or 70 cm around here in the last year -- but 10 through 160 meters (28 MHz through 1.8 MHz) are busy as heck, and of course all the SW spectrum in between.

Worse, we're almost certain to be about to slide down the sunspot curve, making the already mostly dead-by-choice bands completely dead-by-nature, propagation-wise.

RFSPACE's upcoming new unit is .009 (9khz) through 50 MHz. That's a lot more attractive to me. Both to use, and to support.

Then there's funcube dongle pro plus... 50 khz through 1.8 GHz, albeit without adequate filtering up front. But it's reasonably cheap, so there's that. (and I already supported it, PITA though it was, so it's not subject to the no-more-USB-devices rule.)

Well, whatever they end up with, I sure hope it's ethernet-connected and uses the standard SDR protocol as do Andrus, AFEDRI and RFSPACE. I've supported my last black sheep USB device (every darned OS has radically different USB interfacing and requirements... building my free cross-platform SDR software is most tricky with regard to USB issues. Ethernet, by comparison, is almost identical on all platforms -- the same SDR protocol / interfacing code works fine across linux, Windows and OS X.)

though sometimes you do hear ocean acidification raised as a possibility

it's not just a possibility it's a basic chemical reality based on partial pressures. the acidity of the oceans has already increased by 30% since the start of the industrial revolution.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/s...

http://www.wunderground.com/cl...

Children have a greater chance of getting stuck by lightning than catching measles.

Kinda makes sense that people who commonly do risk assessment would choose not to vaccinate.

Especially when the majority of polio cases in the united states are caused by vaccinations than any other sources combined.

PS:Iâ(TM)ve had both vaccinations.

The risk of getting struck by lightning is pretty low, but I'm still not going to stand in an open field with a metal rod during a thunderstorm.

Children have a greater chance of getting stuck by lightning than catching measles.

Kinda makes sense that people who commonly do risk assessment would choose not to vaccinate.

Especially when the majority of polio cases in the united states are caused by vaccinations than any other sources combined.

PS:Iâ(TM)ve had both vaccinations.

The rare bear metaphor stands on its own merit.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

The report is a little big, heading toward 46 Megabytes, but I'm certain there is a typo in there that will allow you to refute the whole concept of AGW.

Have at it.

But wait! There's more!

Climate data online

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-w...

Paleoclimatology data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

Probably what people are referring to in trying to say there has been no warming recently is the Monckton analysis:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

He's an interesting character, for those who like to talk about Mann's irascibility. He wants scientists to be Christian, (or other appropriate religion) and wants climate change supporters to wear Swastikas in order to identify them.

I only put that in here because deniers like to talk about Mann's personality, yet one of deniers biggest hero's is a hoot in his own right. But if he were correct, it doen't matter. Science is not right or wrong based on personality.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

But he's pretty well been debunked now.

http://transitionculture.org/2...

The online presentation is the link you want.

Here is a response to the movie "The Great global Warming Swindle" a movie about how global warming isn't. It's a little sarcastic and snarky, but you might understand that.

http://www.durangobill.com/Swi...

The first instance is telling. Altered graphics and ommission of data thatat doesn't agree with a conclusion. Omitting the last 20 years temperature data is plain and simple - fraud in the name of denialism.

Anyhow, these are sources you can readily access via the internet. If you need more, I can find them for you. But you have an exercise first. Just one, taken from the last link. Explain how omitting the 20 years of data to prove the average global temperature is not increasing is ethical and honest, and adequate proof or disproof of anything. Might as well just drop all of the high temps, re-average, and claim it's getting colder. Yet it is the deniers "trump card".

And this is why deniers bear a strong relation to creationists. The Monckhaven analysis is brought up time and again despite it being proven false. Not a whole lot unlike creationists continuing to cite the "humans walking with dinosaurs" fossil, or "the eye is so complex" arguments or polonium halos or variable speed of light, or even the grandaddy of them all "Humans did not evolve from Monkeys or Apes", which is true enough, but only because humans and apes and monkees evolved from some common ancestor a long long time ago.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

The report is a little big, heading toward 46 Megabytes, but I'm certain there is a typo in there that will allow you to refute the whole concept of AGW.

Have at it.

But wait! There's more!

Climate data online

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-w...

Paleoclimatology data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

Probably what people are referring to in trying to say there has been no warming recently is the Monckton analysis:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

He's an interesting character, for those who like to talk about Mann's irascibility. He wants scientists to be Christian, (or other appropriate religion) and wants climate change supporters to wear Swastikas in order to identify them.

I only put that in here because deniers like to talk about Mann's personality, yet one of deniers biggest hero's is a hoot in his own right. But if he were correct, it doen't matter. Science is not right or wrong based on personality.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

But he's pretty well been debunked now.

http://transitionculture.org/2...

The online presentation is the link you want.

Here is a response to the movie "The Great global Warming Swindle" a movie about how global warming isn't. It's a little sarcastic and snarky, but you might understand that.

http://www.durangobill.com/Swi...

The first instance is telling. Altered graphics and ommission of data thatat doesn't agree with a conclusion. Omitting the last 20 years temperature data is plain and simple - fraud in the name of denialism.

Anyhow, these are sources you can readily access via the internet. If you need more, I can find them for you. But you have an exercise first. Just one, taken from the last link. Explain how omitting the 20 years of data to prove the average global temperature is not increasing is ethical and honest, and adequate proof or disproof of anything. Might as well just drop all of the high temps, re-average, and claim it's getting colder. Yet it is the deniers "trump card".

And this is why deniers bear a strong relation to creationists. The Monckhaven analysis is brought up time and again despite it being proven false. Not a whole lot unlike creationists continuing to cite the "humans walking with dinosaurs" fossil, or "the eye is so complex" arguments or polonium halos or variable speed of light, or even the grandaddy of them all "Humans did not evolve from Monkeys or Apes", which is true enough, but only because humans and apes and monkees evolved from some common ancestor a long long time ago.

Um. That dozen years was the hottest dozen in history. Much more clearly than any individual year was the hottest. You might wave away one year as inaccuracy. But not 10 or more. See the NOAA data here.

The NOAA data says there has been no hiatus and the 10 hottest individual years have all been since 1998.

It will be my pleasure to edumicate you sir.
Error Bar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

This is from the NOAA Global Analysis - Annual 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

In the above, there is a section called TOP 10 Warmest Years (1988 to 2014).

The anomaly is the divergence from the 20th century average, which is how they compare the global mean temps for one year to each other.

2014 is warmer by 0.04c compared to 2010 and 2005.

If you look further down, it shows the global mean temp for 2014, January to December.
It shows the anomaly in C (+0.69) and next to it you will see a + and - indication, that is the ERROR BAR. The error bar is 0.09C.

So to recap. 2014 is the WARMIEST of all the super duper warm years. By 0.04C. But the error can be + or - 0.09C. You see, 0.04C gets wiped right out by the error bar.

Your bank account is NOT a good comparison example. Because it is hard currency, there is no error bar. The bank will never say, you havea 1000$ in your savings account, + or - 50$.

Now, if you pay close attention to the anomalies for top 10 warmest years, you will find that they all, from 10 to 1 fall within the error bars of the empirical data.

The reason for error bars is, there is no way to be sure with 100% certainty down to a hundredth of a degree C what the global mean temp is. Its scientifically impossible with current technologies and measurements.

Now, one last thing. And probably the most important.

Hidden in the supplemental information, found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

The NOAA's NCDC states that the change of 2014 being the warmest year on record is 48%.

48% in NCDC speak means "MORE UNLIKELY THAN LIKELY".

Meaning, "we honestly believe, it was NOT the warmest year on record".
That should have been the first thing on the front page of the report. However, they preferred their report to mislead, so as to get alarmist headlines in the news.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

It will be my pleasure to edumicate you sir.
Error Bar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

This is from the NOAA Global Analysis - Annual 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

In the above, there is a section called TOP 10 Warmest Years (1988 to 2014).

The anomaly is the divergence from the 20th century average, which is how they compare the global mean temps for one year to each other.

2014 is warmer by 0.04c compared to 2010 and 2005.

If you look further down, it shows the global mean temp for 2014, January to December.
It shows the anomaly in C (+0.69) and next to it you will see a + and - indication, that is the ERROR BAR. The error bar is 0.09C.

So to recap. 2014 is the WARMIEST of all the super duper warm years. By 0.04C. But the error can be + or - 0.09C. You see, 0.04C gets wiped right out by the error bar.

Your bank account is NOT a good comparison example. Because it is hard currency, there is no error bar. The bank will never say, you havea 1000$ in your savings account, + or - 50$.

Now, if you pay close attention to the anomalies for top 10 warmest years, you will find that they all, from 10 to 1 fall within the error bars of the empirical data.

The reason for error bars is, there is no way to be sure with 100% certainty down to a hundredth of a degree C what the global mean temp is. Its scientifically impossible with current technologies and measurements.

Now, one last thing. And probably the most important.

Hidden in the supplemental information, found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

The NOAA's NCDC states that the change of 2014 being the warmest year on record is 48%.

48% in NCDC speak means "MORE UNLIKELY THAN LIKELY".

Meaning, "we honestly believe, it was NOT the warmest year on record".
That should have been the first thing on the front page of the report. However, they preferred their report to mislead, so as to get alarmist headlines in the news.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

It will be my pleasure to edumicate you sir.
Error Bar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

This is from the NOAA Global Analysis - Annual 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

In the above, there is a section called TOP 10 Warmest Years (1988 to 2014).

The anomaly is the divergence from the 20th century average, which is how they compare the global mean temps for one year to each other.

2014 is warmer by 0.04c compared to 2010 and 2005.

If you look further down, it shows the global mean temp for 2014, January to December.
It shows the anomaly in C (+0.69) and next to it you will see a + and - indication, that is the ERROR BAR. The error bar is 0.09C.

So to recap. 2014 is the WARMIEST of all the super duper warm years. By 0.04C. But the error can be + or - 0.09C. You see, 0.04C gets wiped right out by the error bar.

Your bank account is NOT a good comparison example. Because it is hard currency, there is no error bar. The bank will never say, you havea 1000$ in your savings account, + or - 50$.

Now, if you pay close attention to the anomalies for top 10 warmest years, you will find that they all, from 10 to 1 fall within the error bars of the empirical data.

The reason for error bars is, there is no way to be sure with 100% certainty down to a hundredth of a degree C what the global mean temp is. Its scientifically impossible with current technologies and measurements.

Now, one last thing. And probably the most important.

Hidden in the supplemental information, found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

The NOAA's NCDC states that the change of 2014 being the warmest year on record is 48%.

48% in NCDC speak means "MORE UNLIKELY THAN LIKELY".

Meaning, "we honestly believe, it was NOT the warmest year on record".
That should have been the first thing on the front page of the report. However, they preferred their report to mislead, so as to get alarmist headlines in the news.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

NOAA and NASA use SATTELITES to get the SURFACE TEMPERATURE?

No, troposphere.

See Spencer RW, Christy JR. Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science 1990 for an early discourse which suggests preferring satellite measurements over ground based thermometer networks for global climate studies. The idea that a few precise instruments with truly global coverage will give the most accurate picture of global change over time. It's a no brainer really. Even if there is a discrepancy with actual temperatures, one adjustment would be necessary and relative anomaly over time would remain spot-on. A better tool.

"[Spencer] Global temperatures have generally been estimated from surface temperature records, but there has been much debate regarding, for example, whether these data provide evidence of recent greenhouse warming. The primary source of uncertainty is the relatively sparse distribution of thermometers over the surface of the earth. [...] Our data suggest that high-precision atmospheric temperature monitoring is possible from satellite microwave radiometers. Because of their demonstrated stability and the global coverage they provide, these radiometers should be made the standard for the monitoring of global atmospheric temperature anomalies since 1979. Their use will allow relatively precise monthly determinations of the locations and magnitudes of temperature change events. The resulting data should provide a greater focus of scientific debate on why temperature anomalies occur rather than whether they occur."

Also, Tropospheric temperature trends:history of an ongoing controversy (Peter W. Thorne et. al.) 2010 which revisits the debate, gives a nice introduction to various homogeneity adjustments ('retroactive' adjustments that attempt to reconcile instrument and site to reality) applied to both satellite and ground datasets. They basically 'punt' in the end, saying in effect that global temperature measurement is a Big Tent and there's room enough for everybody, we'll all just massage it a bit here and there until it's perfect.

Why would NASA jump into that Big Tent, join with NOAA and others to incorporate surface measurements into a final product that they use to issue statements like "2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record" by an amount that is within the range of statistical error, when their own satellite data shows otherwise?

Here is where I become openly bitter and say flat out: there is a hysteria party going on and anything that doesn't fit the narrative gets tossed into the margins. Perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with accurately measuring tropo temps by high resolution satellite. If there is, it hasn't 'surfaced' yet. In fact, everyone agrees that they are in almost perfect concordance with other sources. Almost. And what form does this almost take?

The satellites say no warming over the last 18 years. I believe the satellites.

I have a more difficult time believing the aggregate result of the Big Tent, which puts a heavy weight on dozens of disparate instrument types placed in thousands of places, where is the instrument's own drift, local weather variables, with a product that is subject to a raft of adjustments, (take no prisoners: ON) presented by a group of people who seem to be (unscientifically) personally and emotionally vested in selling anthropogenic catastrophe. What is the aggregate error of the Big Tent? Enough that announcing a temperature record by 0.02C is an irresponsible and disingenuous thing to do?

THAT is why even here on Slashdot, the brief snipe dissing Judith Curry get modded +I INSIGHTFUL and my comment pointing out the existence of statistical error is awarded -1 TROLL

It's shameful. Frankly, I'm amazed that the folks here on Slas

"They" (both NOAA and Berkley Earth independently) have done that. Berkley Earth found no significant difference when using only the best locations (but then their automated method is designed to compensate spurious jumps in temperature) (here) and NOAA found a slight low bias for badly sited stations (here). IIRC, there also is a similar NASA study coming to the same results, but I don't remember the authors or title.

I find you quite arrogant and condescending.

So, basically, you consider it condescending that I insist that you should actually look at data. Real data. Not blog posts.

And you complain that I only gave you a link to one source of data. OK, here are data from four continents:

Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.org/
Hadley Center Climate Research Unit: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d...
Goddard Institute for Space Studies: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
Japanese Meteorological Agency: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t...
Australian Meteorological Agency: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of...
NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t...

In the first place 18 years is not long enough to invalidate a climate model

According to climate scientists it is.

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

- http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/...

“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Science == If data doesn't support your hypothesis, it's in error.
CAGW supporters == If data doesn't support the hypothesis, change the data. Or the quotes. And call everyone else "deniers".

Temperature Data Adjustments
Graph of NCDC temperature data adjustments (degrees F) by year (note: only goes up to 1999)
Difference Between RAW and FINAL USHCN Data Sets
Compare this to:
Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index graph (note: goes up to 2013; baseline period 1951-1980)
Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (up to 2013)
Or Compare to:
Global Temperature [Anomaly] (meteorological stations) graph (note: goes up to 2013; baseline period 1951-1980)
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)
Conclusion: if you add temperature corrections, that monotonically increase from 0.0 to +0.5 F from 1960-1990, to the raw temperature data, you see a trend in the adjusted data rising +0.5 F in the period 1960 - 1999.

The Pause The data adjustments graph shows the adjustments leveling out at 1990 and being relatively flat at about +0.5 F from 1990 - 1999. If that continued from 2000 - 2014, that could explain the "pause." Note to a prior poster: the "pause" is not determined by cherry-picking some point in the past. You determine the pause by starting with the latest data point and moving backwards to determine the length of time the data shows no trend. One can analyze time series both forwards and backwards. Now, if you see reference to 1998, that is a red flag - 1998 is an outlier, and everyone agrees it is an outlier. It should be tossed out for most analyses.

I actually wasn't referring to the WatsUpWithThat blog, although it does have an interesting analysis of the U.S. Climate Reference Network data, which is what I was referring to, and the raw data, which is also what I'm referring to.

As I said in my first comment, I'm just curious why some data is used, and other data is ignored.

As to that last comment...in general, if there's adjustment happening to something like research data, it has to be disclosed in findings reports. Eg, "I adjusted the weight readings by 10.5 grams, because I forgot to tare my scale with the crucible on it". I don't think that all unadjusted data is better. I think that if data is adjusted, the reasons for doing so and the method should also be fully disclosed.

Here is a more up to date graph of ocean heat content. The recent data shows increased warming: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3...

I'd love to see references or articles how temperature is measured to this degree of accuracy then how they are aggregated to a single number

Happy to oblige:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monit...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...

Most of it has been due to CO2, not just some, but the majority. That is not in debate.
All of that CO2, or other GH gases, comes from humans. That also is not in debate: humans add more than 1300x as much CO2 on a yearly basis than the natural world does. The single largest uncompensated CO2 source of the natural world is volcanoes, which produce an average of 0.3 billion tons of CO2 per year. By contrast humans emit more than 40 billion tons per year, and the number is only increasing.

You simply cannot expect to add that much energy to the atmosphere and not expect a change.
Temperatures have been rising, continuously. Oceanic and atmospheric energy is increasing.

Oh, and yes, while JUST hurricanes may have been decreasing, "hurricanes" only occur in the north atlantic and only hit the US.
but cyclonic oceanic systems as a whole (which includes all such systems worldwide) have been increasing: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/...

Droughts: maybe you havent been paying attention, but the rate of droughts in the US has been increasing steadily. its also been increasing in europe and the mediterranean. its been increasing in central asia. and africa.

The ice cap: yes its still cold, but that hardly proves anything. Know what does prove something? that 76% of the ice that was there in 1979, no longer is. The arctic polar ice has lost more than 75% of its mass since 1979.

In antarctica sea ice is slightly increasing....but that would be expected if the salinity of the seawater is decreasign due to an influx of fresh water, that can freeze at higher temperatures.

and where is that fresh water coing from? from Antacrtic land ice, which is melting at a rate many times larger than the rate of increasign sea ice. Imagine a block of ice....the size of Manhattan...and 3 miles thick. Thats how much ice is melting from Antarctica each year.

as for predictions, the earth is actually right in between the two most likely scenarios predicted.

Blown predictions?
Buddy, they havent been wrong yet.
You however havent posted a single correct thing yet.

Today, 10 years since that discussion, we are living through a 30 year low hurricane-frequency.

Well, that's certainly a reliable source. I'm surprised they didn't try to blame it on Obama...

But OK, so hurricane frequency is at a 30 year low in America. World-wide, hurricanes, cyclones, & similar category 3+ storms are at a 40+ year high.

Hurricane INTENSITY is projected to increase

Touche!

That has nothing to do with hurricane FREQUENCY

Oh, it has quite a bit to do with frequency — if there are no hurricanes to begin with, for example, you can claim they have any intensity — such is one of the funkier properties of the empty set.

More seriously, here is a scientific write-up, which has the following to say about the 2004 study:

Furthermore, the idealized study of Knutson and Tuleya (2004) assumed the existence of hurricanes [emphasis mine] and then simulated how intense they would become. Thus, that study could not address the important question of the frequency of intense hurricanes.

If I assume the existence of unicorns, I too may be able to predict global warming's impact on the length of their horns...

that didn't prevent climate researchers from claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency

No, that's the exact opposite from what climate researchers have been claiming. To repeat myself, "[w]ithin the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled." The models at least, seem to suggest a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.).