Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[turbobloke]

There are various sources of error in near-surface global mean temperature measures derived from gridded data.


Station Error - the uncertainty of individual station anomalies

Sampling Error - the uncertainty in a gridbox mean caused by estimating the mean from a small number of point values

Bias Error - the uncertainty in large-scale temperatures caused by systematic changes in measurement methods

Blending Data - for coastal areas, using arbitrary coefficients for LAT and SST (not a major issue, in context)

Additional Sources of uncertainty - unknown, so as yet not quantified


For any particular dataset, the source(s) and the processing used to produce it can have an overall uncertainty as low as +/- 0.07 deg C at the 95% confidence level in terms of measurements taken in recent decades, further back in time the uncertainty is greater.

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Your logic fails me, you think we can measure temperature for the world to 0.03 degree ? and then attribute that small amount to a single factor, really there is no hope for you.

...aaand we're back to the linear trend since August 1997 again

In case you don't know I was merely correcting Diderot's mis-reporting (I think) of a much discussed take on a single slice of data from a single dataset stemming from a daily mail article that I don't regard as very meaningful.

More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012...

but a linear trend of what? Most of the earth's surface is covered in water with limited temperature probes, you really think we can take the earths temperature with the limited inputs, and variable factors acting on each of the temperature sensors that has any meaning ? Sorry OT

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

Do you really think the earth's global mean temperature is rising? CO2 certainly is!

Yes

confidence level: more likely than not.

Interesting,
Do you think the temperature is rising as fast as (for instance) Michael Mann/Phil Jones etc. said it would?
Do you think we are still 'in danger' from global warming, and if so what form will this danger take? (i.e. drought, heat etc)

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

Interesting,
Do you think the temperature is rising as fast as (for instance) Michael Mann/Phil Jones etc. said it would?
Do you think we are still 'in danger' from global warming, and if so what form will this danger take? (i.e. drought, heat etc)

Do those two do modelling? I don't think they do, but anyway if we're just going on the GMT data, over the last few years they've tracked towards the low end of model forecasts (see the real climate link) but I don't take a great deal of comfort from that so yes most certainly still 'in danger' and we've had a good taste recently of the type of jeapordy we're in from disruptive weather in the form of floods, droughts etc leading to poor harvests, rising food prices, damage to infrastructure, adaptation costs etc...

I could go on but I won't!

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

ut a linear trend of what? Most of the earth's surface is covered in water with limited temperature probes, you really think we can take the earths temperature with the limited inputs, and variable factors acting on each of the temperature sensors that has any meaning ? Sorry OT

Yes or they wouldn't bother doing it.

/layman's wisdom.

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

ut a linear trend of what? Most of the earth's surface is covered in water with limited temperature probes, you really think we can take the earths temperature with the limited inputs, and variable factors acting on each of the temperature sensors that has any meaning ? Sorry OT

Yes or they wouldn't bother doing it.

/layman's wisdom.

There is a big difference in doing something because you can and proving that what you do has any meaning.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

There is a big difference in doing something because you can and proving that what you do has any meaning.

Well what you'd expect is for studies to be done to establish margins of error accuracy etc Are you saying those haven't been done? If so how do they arrive at the error bars they quote?

[odyssey2200]

is 0.03 degrees within a margin of error?

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

There is a big difference in doing something because you can and proving that what you do has any meaning.

Well what you'd expect is for studies to be done to establish margins of error accuracy etc Are you saying those haven't been done? If so how do they arrive at the error bars they quote?

But in this case do error bars serve any purpose?
What is recorded has variables in it is it cloudy ? The direction of the wind, all have an affect on the reading,
How do error bars work when there is more than one variable....... where's Guam when you need him

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

There is a big difference in doing something because you can and proving that what you do has any meaning.

Well what you'd expect is for studies to be done to establish margins of error accuracy etc Are you saying those haven't been done? If so how do they arrive at the error bars they quote?

But in this case do error bars serve any purpose?
What is recorded has variables in it is it cloudy ? The direction of the wind, all have an affect on the reading,
How do error bars work when there is more than one variable....... where's Guam when you need him

struth - whole lotta reading to do if you want answers to these questions!

[Kinky]

Guys,

A polite, friendly, but serious note. Please stop the personal abuse aimed at fellow PHers.

The PH posting rules are pretty clear: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm

So keep the thread vaguely on topic, or just don't bother posting. The alternative is simple - a permanent ban from PH, which has already been actioned to a few people.

So please get back on topic.

[deeps]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

Interesting,
Do you think the temperature is rising as fast as (for instance) Michael Mann/Phil Jones etc. said it would?
Do you think we are still 'in danger' from global warming, and if so what form will this danger take? (i.e. drought, heat etc)

Do those two do modelling? I don't think they do, but anyway if we're just going on the GMT data, over the last few years they've tracked towards the low end of model forecasts (see the real climate link) but I don't take a great deal of comfort from that so yes most certainly still 'in danger' and we've had a good taste recently of the type of jeapordy we're in from disruptive weather in the form of floods, droughts etc leading to poor harvests, rising food prices, damage to infrastructure, adaptation costs etc...

I could go on but I won't!

My bold. Apart from the fact that that's a completely unreasonable assumption, a warming climate is actually the best we can hope for, a cooling climate would bring food, transport, energy problems and premature deaths on a far greater scale.

Don't fear natural global warming Kerplunk, the alternative is far worse.

[kerplunk]

My first ever use of the report button - thanks for the prompt response kinky. I'm very impressed!

right... pub

[don4l]

Kinky said:

Guys,

A polite, friendly, but serious note. Please stop the personal abuse aimed at fellow PHers.

The PH posting rules are pretty clear: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm

So keep the thread vaguely on topic, or just don't bother posting. The alternative is simple - a permanent ban from PH, which has already been actioned to a few people.

So please get back on topic.

Kinky,

Did you really delete Pointmans replys?

Don
--

[Globs]

Lets keep it civil guys.

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

Interesting,
Do you think the temperature is rising as fast as (for instance) Michael Mann/Phil Jones etc. said it would?
Do you think we are still 'in danger' from global warming, and if so what form will this danger take? (i.e. drought, heat etc)

Do those two do modelling? I don't think they do, but anyway if we're just going on the GMT data, over the last few years they've tracked towards the low end of model forecasts (see the real climate link) but I don't take a great deal of comfort from that so yes most certainly still 'in danger' and we've had a good taste recently of the type of jeapordy we're in from disruptive weather in the form of floods, droughts etc leading to poor harvests, rising food prices, damage to infrastructure, adaptation costs etc...

I could go on but I won't!

I think Mann just uses trees as thermometers (not a good idea because trees grow faster with more CO2 and water!), Jones I think does some modelling but not the Trenberth style simulations I think. Mann has been widely discredited (and is now subject to legal processes), The problem with Jones is that getting the 'raw' data he uses and his methods was pretty tough. Briffa (the climategate mole IIRC) has recently published a paper that shows 'not really any warming' in the graphs so I'd say the 'big names' in climate are switching from the global warming 'hockey stick' to the 'climate chaos' weather alarmism.

Which interestingly is where we seem to be now.

It's a clever switch, just as global warming looked like being 'global staying the same' it was rebranded to 'climate change' but with the 'big names' still pushing the 'warming' as that's what their fame/infamy was based upon. I.e. if you say the weather is warming, you can be wrong if it cools. Connecting it with weather was a move of genius because we've always had and always will have big storms and natural disasters, and they _will_ get worse because of the growing populations, even if they get less frequent (hurricanes down to half normal amount this year).

As for Hurricane Sandy, it was a big storm but it did coincide with a very high tide - look at New Orleans (katrina) and I'd have to say that was worse, but for the reasons I stated: bigger populations = more to damage.

[odyssey2200]

don4l said:

Kinky said:

Guys,

A polite, friendly, but serious note. Please stop the personal abuse aimed at fellow PHers.

The PH posting rules are pretty clear: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm

So keep the thread vaguely on topic, or just don't bother posting. The alternative is simple - a permanent ban from PH, which has already been actioned to a few people.

So please get back on topic.

Kinky,

Did you really delete Pointmans replys?

Don
--

can you please apply the anti trolling rules too?

Too many posts deliberately designed to proveoke an arguement and then not address the questions posted back.

[kerplunk]

don4l said:

Kinky,

Did you really delete Pointmans replys?

Don
--

yes he did and rightly so - pretty vile stuff. Not that I would call them 'replys' really. He seemed to be having a conversation with himself (about me).

[Kinky]

don4l said:

Kinky,

Did you really delete Pointmans replys?

Don
--

Good evening to you Sir. Long time no see

Yes, I did delete some of his replies - only those that broke PH posting rules in the past 24 hours or so, of which there were quite a few.

But this is not the time/place for PH posting rules and modding discussion. So probably best to move on

[Jasandjules]

Globs said:

It's a clever switch, just as global warming looked like being 'global staying the same' it was rebranded to 'climate change' but with the 'big names' still pushing the 'warming' as that's what their fame/infamy was based upon. I.e. if you say the weather is warming, you can be wrong if it cools. Connecting it with weather was a move of genius because we've always had and always will have big storms and natural disasters, and they _will_ get worse because of the growing populations, even if they get less frequent (hurricanes down to half normal amount this year).

Sure but that is why EVERY time someone says "Climate Change" I say, no you mean Global Warming......

I refuse to allow them to get away with this bull**t and I for one would vote for the party who put some of these people up against the wall when the time comes, for they will be directly responsible for thousands of deaths over winters as fewer and fewer people can afford to adequately heat their homes, a matter amplified when the temperatures are lower.

[Lost_BMW]

turbobloke said:

Diderot said:

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

so last century?

Like the warming then.

Stop teasing the poor chap, he's still looking for it. (and still trying to distract everyone from discussing where it might have gone).

But...but...I've already pointed out that the missing warming ran off with the hidden energy and both are now lurking in a jar under the missing sink.

The best person kerplunk could ask for directions is the Tooth Fairy or, in a few months, the Easter Bunny.

Failing all else, there's the Mayor of New York city.

Or Santa Claus surely?

My kids have juts learned at school that children may not get presents this year, or they might be deprived, as the warming has hurt the reindeer (dietary issues, presumably, or foot rot?) and the melting ice has made it harder for hom and the sleigh to get here.

Ask for green and energy efficient presents, ones not relying on electricity, is the solution they've been asked parents for...