Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[Roy]

It seems you are not conversant with the facts. I posted this in another thread:

It seems you are still pooping on the chess-board.

Not only is there no support there for "the last 17-years which has exhibited a slight cooling trend" but you've actually undermined your own claim - if the temperature record is corrupted, how in Hyrrokkin's name can it possibly be evidence for cooling???

Can you provide any actual evidence for a "slight cooling trend" over the last 17 years, or not? Note that the 1998 temperature high was more than 17 years ago, and you explicitly referred to the temperature shift after 2000, so even citing the blatantly lying-with-statistics 1998-2014 data won't help you here.

[carpedm9587]

It seems you are still pooping on the chess-board.

Not only is there no support there for "the last 17-years which has exhibited a slight cooling trend" but you've actually undermined your own claim - if the temperature record is corrupted, how in Hyrrokkin's name can it possibly be evidence for cooling???

Can you provide any actual evidence for a "slight cooling trend" over the last 17 years, or not? Note that the 1998 temperature high was more than 17 years ago, and you explicitly referred to the temperature shift after 2000, so even citing the blatantly lying-with-statistics 1998-2014 data won't help you here.

You can see what he is doing by looking at the graph in this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post505351

Those who deny global warming simply take an outlier peak year, and then include in their sample set all of the following years, as long as they are lower. They stop when they get to a sample that is higher. The trick is based on arbitrarily choosing an outllier high year and using it as the baseline.

Which I suspect you already know...but I'm just sayin'

[Mountain Man]

It seems you are still pooping on the chess-board.

"Pooping on the chess board", also known as proving Roy wrong.

No, but feel free to continue ignoring the ample proof that NASA and NOAA have actively and deceptively destroyed the historic temperature data to support the global warming/communist agenda.

Meanwhile, I'm working with a guy in Florida who had to scrape ice off his windshield for the first time in decades!

[carpedm9587]

"Popping on the chess board", also known as proving Roy wrong.

No, but feel free to continue ignoring the ample proof that NASA and NOAA have actively and deceptively destroyed the historic temperature data to support the global warming/communist agenda.

Meanwhile, I'm working with a guy in Florida who has to scrape ice off his windshield for the first time in decades!

So - setting aside NASA data (since the methodology of data adjustment is, at least for you, in dispute), and out of sheer morbid curiosity, what do you do with the raw satellite data from 1978-2017 in the chart I depicted below: unadjusted (i.e., not ground-level), 40-year window, and based on global averages?

[Mountain Man]

So - setting aside NASA data (since the methodology of data adjustment is, at least for you, in dispute), and out of sheer morbid curiosity, what do you do with the raw satellite data from 1978-2017 in the chart I depicted below: unadjusted (i.e., not ground-level), 40-year window, and based on global averages?

Where is that data coming from? How can you verify that it is unadjusted? Because remember, NASA et al. don't admit their "adjustments".

[carpedm9587]

Where is that data coming from? How can you verify that it is unadjusted? Because remember, NASA et al. don't admit their "adjustments".

It is from a series of reports that comes out every month. The raw data is stored in files that are publicly available. The data includes satellite measurements from ground to about 8 miles up. The graph is from the troposphere measurements.

However, never mind. I just realized that the satellites were shown to be in a slight decaying orbit, which skewed the data. It was adjusted to factor in the shifting elevation of the satellites, and you have apparently already decided that such adjustments are "improper," so you will likely reject this data.

It would be helpful, MM, if you knew a bit more about how science is done. Raw data is pretty much ALWAYS analyzed in light of the circumstances of its collection. If a temperature sensor is replaced, the new sensor is likely more sensitive and more accurate than the old one. The difference is modeled, and then the old data adjusted based on the measured difference between the two sensors. This is just common sense. If you keep a daily record of the 7:00 AM temperature outside your house, and then you install a new thermometer, you're likely to try to run the two side by side for a bit. If they show a consistent 2 degree difference in temperature, and your new thermometer is better, you are fully justified in assuming your old thermometer's 2-degree error was consistent and you can safely go back and "adjust" your data 2 degrees to bring it in line with the new thermometer. If you don't, you will show a sudden 2-degree shift that does not reflect what happened in your yard, but rather reflects the replacement of the thermometer. Likewise, if you relocate your thermometer as part of a home improvement activity, and it goes from a sunny location to a shady one, it will register cooler. You will model the difference between the two locations and adjust your old data to allow for the sunny conditions (ambient temperature is better measured in shady locations).

Scientists have to factor in range of error associated with instrumentation and local conditions to arrive at meaningful numbers about what is actually going on in the world. These "adjustments" are not illicit, nor do they corrupt the information. But they are being jumped on big time by those not familiar with the process of science because it just sounds so good:

Those nasty scientists "adjusted" their data to prove their point! Bad scientists!!

The reality is - this is just science as usual. It's not a conspiracy. It's not illicit. It is done according to a documented and peer-reviewed methodology. It actually improves the accuracy of the data. To simply toss out the outcomes because the raw data was "adjusted" just betrays a lack of understanding in basic science. The real question is, were the adjustments made justified, reviewed, consistent, and repeatable? THAT is what science looks for...

As the T-shirt my wife gave me says, "Science is NOT a liberal conspiracy"


P.S. Ironically, this is the exact data set that climate deniers point to so as to show an 18-year slow-down from 1998-2015. Apparently, the data is good enough to prove a slow down, but not good enough to show an overall trend...?

[seer]

OK - I see where the author accused them of it - but I'm missing where they actually did this. Can you be more specific about where this was actually done?

Sheesh, did you actually read it: From "Hypocrites United" on.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/why...limate-change/

[Sparko]

You AGW guys are all like Chicken Little complaining about the end of the world! Relax!!! take a beat!

It is all self-correcting. When the ice caps melt and the coasts flood enough, it will put Washington DC under water and drown all of the politicians.

That is the major source of the world's hot air right there! Problem solved.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh, did you actually read it: From "Hypocrites United" on.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/why...limate-change/

I read it. I wrote a response. I'm in a hotel and my laptop "lost" my response when I went to "submit" and Chrome went to a "sign-on" page. I have no desire to rewrite. So, briefly:

• It doesn't say what you think it says (or what she thinks it says).
• It deals with modeling average weather differences based on climate change predictions - specifically for extreme events.
• The mantra "cold proves climate change, and hot proves climate change" is an effective (if inaccurate) mantra, but only for those who have not taken the time to understand the science.

Maybe more later.

[carpedm9587]

You AGW guys are all like Chicken Little complaining about the end of the world! Relax!!! take a beat!

It is all self-correcting. When the ice caps melt and the coasts flood enough, it will put Washington DC under water and drown all of the politicians.

That is the major source of the world's hot air right there! Problem solved.

A silver lining to every cloud

[Adrift]

I read it. I wrote a response. I'm in a hotel and my laptop "lost" my response when I went to "submit" and Chrome went to a "sign-on" page.

If you're using Chrome install Lazarus Form Recovery. If you're using the new Firefox use the Textarea add-on. Lazarus works better than Texteria, but it isn't compatible with the latest Firefox. Basically what these add-ons do is save your recently typed pages in cached memory so that if the page crashes, you can simply click a button (Lazarus, the ankh in the field you're typing in, Texteria, a drop-down near your address bar), and it will restore what you wrote.

[Juvenal]

Doesn't look much like a heat wave out West, either (looking at you, toastie).

It's called global warming. So if we widen our view just a tad...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25792[/ATTACH]

You cannot refute "global" warming with local stats (even if they are climate-related, even if they span a whole continent) or stats that do not incorporate the entire measurement window.

Absolutely. I've stated a time or two in this thread that local stats should not be used by either side. This was just a tongue in cheek poke at taoist, who stated earlier that cold temperatures in the Eastern US were balanced by sweltering temperatures out West.

Spoilsport.

Quality first, piglet.

You know I don't read one-liners. Lucky for you I saw your second comment, or your marshmallows would remain untoasted. And Carpe! That's not how you present an image in Nat. Sci., chopped to make the lack of sourcing a challenge. Really.

It's from the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute, though I'm not sure how Vox et al. got an image for December 28, seeing as there's nothing beyond October 2017 data in their daily reanalysis mapsgfs_world_ced_t2anom_1_day.jpg

And piglet ...

This was just a tongue in cheek poke at taoist, who stated earlier that cold temperatures in the Eastern US were balanced by sweltering temperatures out West.

Troll better.

In the earlier WaPo article, I quoted ...

Right now, the jet stream is crashing south in the eastern half of the continent while surging northward in the west half. That phenomenon, called the North American Winter Dipole, is strangely enough simultaneously responsible for freezing temperatures in the East and the roasting temperatures in the West, which are fueling recent forest fires in California.

For the record, I'm not Dino Grandoni, I don't write for the Washington Post, and there was no suggestion that the anomalies balanced. Even on average, it's wicked cold in North America.

And on average, popular science writers muff the science.

Using a large single-model ensemble of climate simulations, we show that the observed positive trend in the warm-West/cool-East events is attributable to historical anthropogenic emissions including greenhouse gases, but that the co-occurrence of extreme western warmth and eastern cold will likely decrease in the future as winter temperatures warm dramatically across the continent, thereby reducing the occurrence of severely cold conditions in the East.

If this research holds up, dipole frequencies will increase, creating "polar vortexes" more often. But it's a phenomena that will fade over time. Still, the east coast should get ready for nasty winters for a while.

[carpedm9587]

If you're using Chrome install Lazarus Form Recovery. If you're using the new Firefox use the Textarea add-on. Lazarus works better than Texteria, but it isn't compatible with the latest Firefox. Basically what these add-ons do is save your recently typed pages in cached memory so that if the page crashes, you can simply click a button (Lazarus, the ankh in the field you're typing in, Texteria, a drop-down near your address bar), and it will restore what you wrote.

Thanks! Unfortunately - their website is offline and I cannot seem to find them on the webstore

I'm using Chrome.

[carpedm9587]

And Carpe! That's not how you present an image in Nat. Sci., chopped to make the lack of sourcing a challenge. Really.

Sorry. I'm working in between posts. In the courses I build, I habitually cut the image to omit the "fluff." I did so as a knee-jerk in the post, not thinking about how it would render the image hard to find. I realized that when I went back to find it AFTER I posted it and had a hard time, even WITH my history.

I interpeted the 12/28 at the top left as the day the image was generated/posted, which didn't seem relevant. As it turns out, it was actually day the data represented, making my cropping even MORE eggregious.

As my old French teacher would have said, 20 lashes with a wet noodle!

[Adrift]

Thanks! Unfortunately - their website is offline and I cannot seem to find them on the webstore

I'm using Chrome.

Huh. I hyperlinked it in my post. Here's the direct link: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...ppkifgno?hl=en