Climate Change Indicators in the United States

[RollingThunder]

Steig is the author of that paper that made the front page of Nature. After the blogosphere demolished it on the web Gavin Schmidt challenged them to write their own paper, so they did. Contrary to ethics the journal put Stteig and other Team members on the review list. Various improprieties ensued but the paper was finally published to rebut Steig's methods and results.

This hasbeen discussed on this board so Old Rocks knows about it.

"Blogosphere" blather doesn't count unless you can cite something real.

Nor is the evidence for the human connection to the current abrupt warming trend dependent on a single paper.

Did you mean the "Abrupt" 8 degree warming trend that started 14,000 years ago?

Well no, CrazyFruitcake, 'cause nobody but an utter retard would mean that. Please come back after you grow a brain.

 

[Trakar]

I'll counter with this....

Archive 4. carbon dioxide | America's Uncommon Sense
(...)
CO2 has a short residence time

I don't do blog science, cite the published science or argue your beliefs with published science supporting references and citations.

The mainstream science does not support your confused ramblings, as illustrated in the valid science references I've provided.

 

[IanC]

Steig is the author of that paper that made the front page of Nature. After the blogosphere demolished it on the web Gavin Schmidt challenged them to write their own paper, so they did. Contrary to ethics the journal put Stteig and other Team members on the review list. Various improprieties ensued but the paper was finally published to rebut Steig's methods and results.

This hasbeen discussed on this board so Old Rocks knows about it.

"Blogosphere" blather doesn't count unless you can cite something real.

Nor is the evidence for the human connection to the current abrupt warming trend dependent on a single paper.

single paper? it seems that just about every climate science paper has exaggerations and faulty methodology. but only in the direction of catastrophic conclusions.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation–maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include the following: (i) improper calibration of satellite data; (ii) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (iii) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. This study proposes two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, the authors find warming over the period of 1957–2006 to be concentrated in the peninsula (≈0.35°C decade−1). This study also shows average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though the authors find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude and find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. This study also finds differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the peninsula.

do you want me to find the old thread that described the travesty of peer review in this case?

 

[Trakar]

single paper? it seems that just about every climate science paper has exaggerations and faulty methodology. but only in the direction of catastrophic conclusions.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Nothing in the referenced paper seems to find or even indicates your above assertion as likely, yet alone confirming or even supporting such an assertion.

 

[RollingThunder]

single paper? it seems that just about every climate science paper has exaggerations and faulty methodology. but only in the direction of catastrophic conclusions.

Of course, it only seems like that to you because you're a gullible, scientifically ignorant, brainwashed dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign of misinformation and lies. To the hundreds of thousands of actual scientists around the world who read and cite the papers on climate science that appear in the major science journals, no such problems exist. So, are all of those scientists blind fools or could it be that you are the blind fool who falls for the pseudo-science and hokum being peddled by the ones with a huge financial interest in selling the carbon emitting fossil fuels that are causing the problem that the real scientists are warning us about? It is really too bad that you're too stupid to see the obvious answer to that one.

do you want me to find the old thread that described the travesty of peer review in this case?

Your puppet masters have sold you the idiotic notion that the peer review process is biased against you supposed 'brave skeptics who know the truth about the AGW hoax' but the reality is that the peer review process is successful in doing what it is supposed to do in the way of spotting and refusing to publish the pseudo-science garbage that oil corp stooges try to pass off as real science. And that infuriates the real hoaxers who pull your strings. You can use that drivel they push to fool the other ignorant rightwingnuts, but it doesn't pass muster with anyone who actually knows anything. And that's why you've been taught to denigrate 'peer review'.

 

[Dubya]

More horse crap from the mentally deficient. I love the section where they claim that CO2 can remain for thousands of years. Provable and laughably wrong. Typical of a propagandist organisation that no longer cares about its original remit.

That's interesting, because the sources of CO2 can be traced by the isotope ratio.

Tell us about it!

 

[IanC]

single paper? it seems that just about every climate science paper has exaggerations and faulty methodology. but only in the direction of catastrophic conclusions.

Of course, it only seems like that to you because you're a gullible, scientifically ignorant, brainwashed dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign of misinformation and lies. To the hundreds of thousands of actual scientists around the world who read and cite the papers on climate science that appear in the major science journals, no such problems exist. So, are all of those scientists blind fools or could it be that you are the blind fool who falls for the pseudo-science and hokum being peddled by the ones with a huge financial interest in selling the carbon emitting fossil fuels that are causing the problem that the real scientists are warning us about? It is really too bad that you're too stupid to see the obvious answer to that one.

do you want me to find the old thread that described the travesty of peer review in this case?

Your puppet masters have sold you the idiotic notion that the peer review process is biased against you supposed 'brave skeptics who know the truth about the AGW hoax' but the reality is that the peer review process is successful in doing what it is supposed to do in the way of spotting and refusing to publish the pseudo-science garbage that oil corp stooges try to pass off as real science. And that infuriates the real hoaxers who pull your strings. You can use that drivel they push to fool the other ignorant rightwingnuts, but it doesn't pass muster with anyone who actually knows anything. And that's why you've been taught to denigrate 'peer review'.

why would you consider me a gullible, ignorant, brainwashed dupe? I have obviously pissed off the extremists of both sides of the argument. I obviously synthesize conclusions from evidence rather than just accept the conclusions of others. you do not need to be an expert in a field to recognize obvious simple errors and there are many errors in climate science of both simple and complex nature.

 

[Dubya]

Climate change is an evolutionary phenomenon, it has been occurring for billions of years ,will continue to happen for billions of more years, regardless if humans are present or not. Some of you worship the scientific community as if they are some kind of God when in fact they are only trying to explain the course of natural events, well at least some, others, well there are nut cases everywhere.

During the Pliocene about 3.5 million years ago, the entire world's thermohaline circulation changed because North and South America collided. The Earth was already cooling and getting drier. Glaciers started forming on Greenland like they did in the past over Antarctic, which had a circumpolar current deveop after South America, Austraila and India leave the area around 50 million years ago. What I'm talking about in the Pliocene was the Isthmus of Panama connecting North and South America, stopping a mostly circum-equitoral current that existed for around 150 million years, since the Cretaceous. It essentially made our modern world and Gulf Steam, so our world was drastically changed.

Other major things were happened too, like Africa isolated the Mediterranean Sea causing it to dry up and the arctic ice cap appeared.

When major changes are happening to a planet, how can we measure the sensitivity of a planet to changes, based on it's past, when they are totally different planets? It doesn't make a difference if the past world has changed, because we are talking about us changing our present world and a world can change quicker than we are smart enough to figure it out.

I believe once the modern Gulf Steam was created and with present CO2 levels, our planet became sensitive to Milankovich Cycles, when it wasn't that sensitive before, so any model that doesn't take exact thermohaline circulation into account is meaningless and it's hard to even know what the thermohaline circulation of a past world was. CO2 was declining with the Himalayas removing it, so eventually with a world having a large isolated mass of land at one pole and a nearly isolated ocean at the other, the Atlantic cooling during it's isolation because it could get more warm water from the tropics, there was a major shift, but the oceans buffered it until now and now means humans building cities, doing business and speading since the Plioncene (talk about a run on sentence).

I only know what I know when it comes to the world and I have tried to study the facts, but just like any scientists, I don't want to go out on a limb and look like a fool.

My personal opinion is this world will change faster than these scientists say it will, so I just contadicted myself and what else is new. The problem I've had in life, is I'm right nearly all the time and it must be that Cherokee blood.

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientists that people were calling alarmists because of their dire predictions concerning the state of the Arctic Ice and extreme weather events for 2100 were wrong. We are seeing what they predicted for that time happening right now.

This is the odd thing on this board. The denialists are all yapping about computer models, yet most of the evidence cited here is from present articles concerning what we see happening right now. But when one of their goofballs posts some statistical abstraction stating that what we are seeing is really happening, they post it innumerable times. Reality doesn't seem to be of any consequence to them.