I wish "you guys" would stop presenting data from known corrupt orgs as real.
Also, I note you completely ignored my comment about data manipulation.
Hide the decline!
If you go get the raw data and plot it out you will still get something pretty close what the "manipulated data" shows. In fact since about 1940 it's difficult to tell the difference between the two.
Not even close. Climate models are based on actual physics. The temperature rise we've seen is still within the 95% uncertainty boundaries of the models projected temperature rise.
No, several feet of sea level rise was not predicted by 2010. The IPCC Second Archive report in 1995 projected a rise of around 5 cm (2 inches) by 2010 (just from eyeballing the graphs). Subsequent IPCC reports have raised that a bit but none of them predicted even a half foot of SLR by 2010.
I live in Houston. I watched the "models" for Harvey. I saw the mass of spaghetti squirm and shift daily, and even hourly. So, no, I do not blindly trust the models.
Tell me exactly how climate models and hurricane models are related again? Climate models aren't trying to predict the temperature an hour from now or 12 hours from now 5 days from now. They're trying to predict how the average temperature will change over a 30 year period or more.
They have been wrong for the last 20 and it didn't falsify it then...
How have they been wrong specifically? Even during the so called "pause" there was no statistically significant* change in the increasing temperature trend and the oceans where over 90% of the heat goes continued to get warmer.
It always surprises me that smart guys like most scientists are think they can get away with stuff like that. After all sooner or later some one else is likely going to try and use their results and discover their fraud especially it it appears to be ground breaking research.
Also it's true that sometimes retractions are a result of honest mistakes that weren't caught by peer review rather than by attempted fraud.
>"In a Cashless World, You'd Better Pray the Power Never Goes Out"
Or malware. Or a network problem. Or ID theft puts a freeze on your accounts. Or someone maliciously attacks your records. Or your device/card/whatever dies for some reason. Or you need to transact with someone who just doesn't have the necessary technology.
In a cashless world, you also give up every last bit of privacy left, because you can neither sell nor buy without the mark of the b..... I mean, without the tools and permission of the government and big business. Everything you buy and sell will be recorded and available for review immediately and any time in the future- revealing not only what you buy, but from whom, when, and where you have been. It also makes it easier for someone to tamper with those records to assist in framing you.
Don't be quick to give allow cash to disappear, you might regret it and there will be no going back.
That's one of the reasons I use cash for nearly all of my smaller transactions. The only thing I use my cards for is to buy gas and for big ticket items (> $500).
One thing I see when I look at faked research and retractions of papers is that it often is in biology and medical research or things like sociology. In the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, meteorology and dare I say it climatology it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often. Maybe it's harder to fake the data in those sciences or maybe there's just more variability open to interpretation in the results from biology/medicine.
So the raw data is available. Why hasn't anyone posted graphs based on that? The answer is because they still show warming. In fact if you go back 100 years the raw data shows a higher rate of warming than the adjusted data (mainly because of the way sea surface temperatures were measured before WW II with buckets thrown over the side that cooled some before they got them on deck to measure the temperature).
And Miami Beach is expecting to spend close to $500 million to combat the effects of rising sea level. That might buy them and extra 30-50 years before they have to abandon the city since sea level will continue rising for several hundred years at least.
"Tokyo's $2 billion underground anti-flood system that consists of tunnels that divert water away" You mean like storm water drains/sewers? Like most of the cities in the world has? I know it's useless to complain, but why does everything have to be hyped up!?
But they're "Library of Congress" sized storm drains.
I'm amazed about the willingness of people to believe fake news such as global warming. Scientists have yet to present credible evidence that humans are causing global warming. The propagandists continue to promote their message that humans are responsible, but without hard evidence, we shouldn't believe that humans are causing the Earth to get warmer. There may well be legitimate reasons to prepare for possible dosasters, especially in an area that experiences powerful typhoons. But that isn't a reason to invoke the myth that humans are causing global warming.
Just because you're too stupid to recognize credible evidence about global warming doesn't mean that there isn't any. I'll start believing that global warming is fake news once people like you start producing credible evidence that the warming is natural.
IIRC is web shorthand for "If I Recall Correctly". As for the other two if you don't understand what they are then you're not informed enough to be in on this conversation.
Rising sea levels ? We're talking millimeters here caused by the sinking of continents due to their weight, and erosion. Surges are meters. More evaporation from warmer oceans ? Negligible, because the heat of condensation of water is orders of magnitude larger than it's specific heat capacity times dT, where dT is a few Kelvin at most, even in the most alarmist scenarios.
You know they're measuring sea level from satellites now. They don't measure sea level in reference to the land surface but rather from the center of the Earth. Since they went up in the early 1990s the rate of sea level rise has been over 3 mm/year which is well over an inch per decade. It has nothing to do with sinking continents.
As far as evaporation it has more to do with the fact that a warmer atmosphere is able to carry more water vapor (over 6% more per degree Celcius IIRC). It is impossible for evaporation to force more water vapor into the atmosphere than it can carry because it will quickly precipitate out.
If climate science or people did not even exist I would still bet on warming.
Temperatures hit a peak around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Since then there's been a slow cooling trend as we would expect from an examination of Milankovitch Cycles. This would eventually lead to a new glacial period. I think you would lose that bet.
... Except that nobody ever made money saying "everything is all right, nothing to see here". To make money, real money, you need an emergency, an incoming cataclysm, a "the end of the world is nigh" coupled with "and I am one of the few that can do something about it... for a proper compensation, of course".
Are you saying that without the threat of AGW we wouldn't bother studying climate? Don't you think it's worthwhile to study climate regardless of what's happening. Most of the money spent on climate research would be spent regardless of the situation.
They didn't throw anything out. All the raw data is still available. They merely adjusted the buoy data to match it up with the ship intake readings which makes it easier to compare to other studies of sea surface temperatures which came out before the buoy data became available in the mid-2000s.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish "you guys" would stop presenting data from known corrupt orgs as real.
Also, I note you completely ignored my comment about data manipulation.
Hide the decline!
If you go get the raw data and plot it out you will still get something pretty close what the "manipulated data" shows. In fact since about 1940 it's difficult to tell the difference between the two.
How data adjustments affect global temperature records
Not even close. Climate models are based on actual physics. The temperature rise we've seen is still within the 95% uncertainty boundaries of the models projected temperature rise.
No, several feet of sea level rise was not predicted by 2010. The IPCC Second Archive report in 1995 projected a rise of around 5 cm (2 inches) by 2010 (just from eyeballing the graphs). Subsequent IPCC reports have raised that a bit but none of them predicted even a half foot of SLR by 2010.
IPCC Second Archive Report - Working Group 1 (It's a big PDF (51 MB) but the chapter on sea level starts on page 359.)
Those are testable predictions.
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
Of course it would be wrong to expect it to happen every other year like clockwork but to expect it to be the average over a 15 or 20 year period
I wish you guys would stop with this "deleting raw data" thing. It hasn't happened. Here's some of it.
I live in Houston. I watched the "models" for Harvey. I saw the mass of spaghetti squirm and shift daily, and even hourly. So, no, I do not blindly trust the models.
Tell me exactly how climate models and hurricane models are related again? Climate models aren't trying to predict the temperature an hour from now or 12 hours from now 5 days from now. They're trying to predict how the average temperature will change over a 30 year period or more.
They have been wrong for the last 20 and it didn't falsify it then...
How have they been wrong specifically? Even during the so called "pause" there was no statistically significant* change in the increasing temperature trend and the oceans where over 90% of the heat goes continued to get warmer.
* Statistical analysis of temperature trends
And the current year, 2017 is set up to be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record despite no El Nino.
I graduated to engineering tablets in junior high school.
Big deal, I had a tablet when I was 8 years old (57 years ago) too. It had 64 pages of lined paper and I put it to good use. Now get off my lawn!
It always surprises me that smart guys like most scientists are think they can get away with stuff like that. After all sooner or later some one else is likely going to try and use their results and discover their fraud especially it it appears to be ground breaking research.
Also it's true that sometimes retractions are a result of honest mistakes that weren't caught by peer review rather than by attempted fraud.
>"In a Cashless World, You'd Better Pray the Power Never Goes Out"
Or malware. Or a network problem. Or ID theft puts a freeze on your accounts. Or someone maliciously attacks your records. Or your device/card/whatever dies for some reason. Or you need to transact with someone who just doesn't have the necessary technology.
In a cashless world, you also give up every last bit of privacy left, because you can neither sell nor buy without the mark of the b..... I mean, without the tools and permission of the government and big business. Everything you buy and sell will be recorded and available for review immediately and any time in the future- revealing not only what you buy, but from whom, when, and where you have been. It also makes it easier for someone to tamper with those records to assist in framing you.
Don't be quick to give allow cash to disappear, you might regret it and there will be no going back.
That's one of the reasons I use cash for nearly all of my smaller transactions. The only thing I use my cards for is to buy gas and for big ticket items (> $500).
One thing I see when I look at faked research and retractions of papers is that it often is in biology and medical research or things like sociology. In the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, meteorology and dare I say it climatology it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often. Maybe it's harder to fake the data in those sciences or maybe there's just more variability open to interpretation in the results from biology/medicine.
So the raw data is available. Why hasn't anyone posted graphs based on that? The answer is because they still show warming. In fact if you go back 100 years the raw data shows a higher rate of warming than the adjusted data (mainly because of the way sea surface temperatures were measured before WW II with buckets thrown over the side that cooled some before they got them on deck to measure the temperature).
And Miami Beach is expecting to spend close to $500 million to combat the effects of rising sea level. That might buy them and extra 30-50 years before they have to abandon the city since sea level will continue rising for several hundred years at least.
"Tokyo's $2 billion underground anti-flood system that consists of tunnels that divert water away"
You mean like storm water drains/sewers? Like most of the cities in the world has? I know it's useless to complain, but why does everything have to be hyped up!?
But they're "Library of Congress" sized storm drains.
I'm amazed about the willingness of people to believe fake news such as global warming. Scientists have yet to present credible evidence that humans are causing global warming. The propagandists continue to promote their message that humans are responsible, but without hard evidence, we shouldn't believe that humans are causing the Earth to get warmer. There may well be legitimate reasons to prepare for possible dosasters, especially in an area that experiences powerful typhoons. But that isn't a reason to invoke the myth that humans are causing global warming.
Just because you're too stupid to recognize credible evidence about global warming doesn't mean that there isn't any. I'll start believing that global warming is fake news once people like you start producing credible evidence that the warming is natural.
I don't know. You could probably generate a lot of power with a bunch of kittens on a treadmill and a laser pointer.
That's no way to talk about the Floridians :-)
Besides there are practically no hills in Florida to go down anyway.
IIRC is web shorthand for "If I Recall Correctly". As for the other two if you don't understand what they are then you're not informed enough to be in on this conversation.
Rising sea levels ? We're talking millimeters here caused by the sinking of continents due to their weight, and erosion. Surges are meters. More evaporation from warmer oceans ? Negligible, because the heat of condensation of water is orders of magnitude larger than it's specific heat capacity times dT, where dT is a few Kelvin at most, even in the most alarmist scenarios.
You know they're measuring sea level from satellites now. They don't measure sea level in reference to the land surface but rather from the center of the Earth. Since they went up in the early 1990s the rate of sea level rise has been over 3 mm/year which is well over an inch per decade. It has nothing to do with sinking continents.
As far as evaporation it has more to do with the fact that a warmer atmosphere is able to carry more water vapor (over 6% more per degree Celcius IIRC). It is impossible for evaporation to force more water vapor into the atmosphere than it can carry because it will quickly precipitate out.
It's an interglacial.
If climate science or people did not even exist I would still bet on warming.
Temperatures hit a peak around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Since then there's been a slow cooling trend as we would expect from an examination of Milankovitch Cycles. This would eventually lead to a new glacial period. I think you would lose that bet.
Are you saying that without the threat of AGW we wouldn't bother studying climate? Don't you think it's worthwhile to study climate regardless of what's happening. Most of the money spent on climate research would be spent regardless of the situation.
Now that's funny. :)
They didn't throw anything out. All the raw data is still available. They merely adjusted the buoy data to match it up with the ship intake readings which makes it easier to compare to other studies of sea surface temperatures which came out before the buoy data became available in the mid-2000s.