Global Warming Thread X

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Global Warming Thread X

Postby Gary » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:57 am

Cha-ching!

New Thread for all, per David's guidelines.

It is now time to continue our opinionating here.

Choose your pundit!

Gary
__________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs, Norman, OK
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Gary
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: Norman, Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:08 pm

Gary wrote:Cha-ching!

New Thread for all, per David's guidelines.

It is now time to continue our opinionating here.

Choose your pundit!

Gary
Thanks, Gary. You're the man of the hour...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:19 pm

OK I'll move it here.

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:1aDavid, are you going to admit that article you linked approvingly was full of misrepresentations like:

(1) Gore said 18-20 feet not 20 meters
(2) Gore (and his "band of merry alarmist climate scientists") did not claim this would happen by 2100 and in fact they never gave a date for when Greenland (or Antartica) Ice Sheets would completely dissolve.
(I clearly quoted for you what was said in An Inconvenient Truth - see above)
(3) That James Hansen has been crisscrossing the globe claiming sea levels would rise to 20 meters by 2100.

1a) Full of misrepresentations? Hardly. The article may have misrepresented Gore's terms by using meters instead of feet [cf. point (1) below], but that wasn't the focus of the article. The focus of the article was on this article. And it refutes anything that Gore has said about sea-level rises.

(1) Yes, I'll admit that the article quoted meters rather than feet. But whether Gore stated it in meters or feet, both figures are preposterous. Not even the IPCC predicted a 20 feet rise in sea-levels.

(2) Believe it or not, Gore predicted that the arctic could be ice free in 5 years. Yes, that was 5 years. If he's correct about that, the ice sheet in Greenland, which is mostly within the arctic circle would also melt. But we know that Greenland ice sheet didn't even the Medieval Warming Period which was warmer than it is now. Strangely, contrary to your alarming news about this year being the hottest year on record to date, Steve Goddard said yesterday (8/15/10) that this has been the coldest summer on record north of 80N, and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the average date. (Source) Something's cockeyed somewhere. How can it be the coldest on record in the arctic and hottest on record elsewhere simultaneously? Methinks the warmists have it all wrong...

(3) Hansen has predicted a sea-level rise of 5 meters (16 feet) by the end of the century, which is very close to what Gore predicted. Other than Gore and Hansen, Richard Alley, is the only scientist/professor who says seas could rse that much. Alley says there's a possibility that sea-levels could rise 23ft. Hansen may not have predicted 20 meters, but his prediction is preposterous considering that at no time in the history have sea-levels risen that much that fast.

:


I'll take this by pieces as I have time (and this is low on my priority list).

You have admitted to the units error (be it slothful reporting or deliberate on the part of your source, I do not know). That is progress.

But you have not admitted to your source's addition of a date to Gore's statement of the amount of sea level rise there would be if Greenland "melted" and then compares to the IPCC and PALSEA explicitly dated sea level rises by 2100. Sloppy work David. Gore is right on (if not underplaying the sea level rise if Greenland's glacier's melt) - Gore said 18-20 feet, others have said 23 feet which closely matches my calculations. In your defense you offered an
article on a totally different factor - the polar ice cap (not the Greenland glaciers). The relatively thin polar ice cap (10's of meters) is more susceptable to melting than the thick glacier ice (1000's of meters) in Greenland.

Now, Gore did misquote Dr. Maslowski about the polar ice but not in any way that changes the severity of the issue.

Dr Maslowki said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020
.
when Gore said in 2009
He told delegates that new computer modelling suggests that by 2014 there is a 75 per cent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in the summertime.


IOW Gore had it 5 years instead of 6 years and misunderstood the 80% of ice melting with 75% probability of all the ice melting in the summertime (not winter). It is also not out of the question he was using someone else's legitimate research than Maslowski's because they are not that far apart. And again this (in green) is all about the polar sea ice cap (not Greenland)


You lampoon Gore for misunderstandings (actually not really changing the severity of the message) while your own source's errors (deliberate or otherwise) are far worse and changes the severity content very markedly. If you are going to lampoon someone, you better be right, else egg lands right back on your face!

I'll get to Steve Goddard's article in Anthny Watts site in due time but I agree there is a marked difference in the DMI/COI temp data with the GISTEMP data.

As for the third admission of error I asked for, you link another denialist article (judging from the sarcastic tone) that quotes a whatif exercise by James Hansen as if he was saying it was an actual prediction.
Hansen wrote:As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres (16 feet) by 2095.

He is right in his calculations:
1 cm by 2015
2 cm by 2025
4 cm by 2035
8 cm by 2045
16 cm by 2055
32 cm by 2065
64 cm by 2075
128 cm by 2085
312 cm by 2095

= 567 cm which is more than 5 metres (16 feet).

I do not have the context but you really have not shown me that this is a Hansen prediction. It is in all likelihoid just a whatif exercise. If he were trying to be accurate and was hyping sea level rise (as you say), he certainly would have started the series with 3cm/decade (which we are now experiencing) not 1cm/decade. No, this is a whatif exercise only and exponential growth rates are not what scientists predict.
Plus you have not shown that Hansen is "crisscrossing the globe" talking about 20 meters sea level rise by 2100.

To boot your claim that
.. his prediction is preposterous considering that at no time in the history have sea-levels risen that much that fast.

may be correct but it is not "preposterous" as shown below:
Image
Hansen's whatif exercise of 5.7 m rise /90 years ( =0.063m/year = 6.3 cm/year) is only 35% more than that of about 14,000 years ago when the rise rate was ~30m/700 years (= .042m/year = 4.2 cm/year). Hardly preposterous.

As usaul on this subject, you are fond of provocative language w/o the DATA to support it.

Enough time wasted.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:05 am

.
.
            Satellitegate
Behold! There's another global warming "-gate" scandal coming down the pike. In addition to "Climategate," "Amazongate," "Glaciergate," and a host of other "-gate" scandals generated by the global warmist crowd, we now have "Satellitegate". Turns out that numerous NOAA satellites have gone on the blink and are reporting false temperatures. The US Government is now admitting that the NOAA global warming satellite sensors are “degraded” and temperatures sent down from the satellites may be off by 10-15 degrees. Interestingly, John Christy, Keith's crosstown neighbor, is one of those involved in exposing the scandal.
Monday, August 16, 2010

Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan

US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” - temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

NOAA’s chief Program Administrator, Chuck Pistis, at first disingenuously tried to discredit my report and whitewash the matter with disinformation. Indeed, we may have a smoking gun of a cover up when we contrast and compare latest announcements with the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary.

The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ since its launch in September 2000. Yet on the advice of top climate scientists I’m reliably informed that such failures were made known to NOAA years ago.

Nonetheless, the U.S. agency continued to sell its flawed data products to numerous international institutions without making it public that satellite sensors were “degraded” and unreliable for assessing climate change.

NOAA-16 had been commissioned as a polar-orbiting satellite featuring AMSU, AVHRR and High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS) measuring instrumentation which were discovered by a member of the public last week to have suffered catastrophic failure. Dr John Christy drew my attention to specific concomitant flaws he had uncovered and reported with the AMSU years ago.

NOAA in Fear of Rush of International Lawsuits?
The snuffed out satellite had been run continuously up until being taken offline soon after my article went viral (August 10, 2010) in which I exposed the full extent of how seriously degraded it’s sensors were. The automatic readings had been contaminated by hundreds, if not thousands, of false and absurdly high temperature readings, some as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit (boiling point of water is 212 F.). We now know NOAA was aware of these outrageous anomalies at least since 2006 but they were not remedied. (Continue reading...).

Automatic satellite readings as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit?! Now we know where some of the warmists (NOAA) get some of their fodder for propagating GW alarmism. This may be a game-changer...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:34 am

Howard V wrote:David:

I'm taking your warning of coming global cooling [called fall and winter] seriously. 1I'm starting to grow my winter beard. It should be nice and warm by the time the cold weather arrives. 2Every year the color of my beard gets closer and closer to that of the fat guy in the red suit who comes by in December.

Howard

1) Sounds like a winner to me. I've had mine trimmed quite a bit shorter during the summer. I believe I'll let it grow out some for the cool season...

2) I hear tell that they're having record cold temperatures up where the fat fellow lives. An Arctic watcher by the name of Steve Goddard said, Summer has come to a premature and frosty end at Santa’s workshop. Based on what the guy wrote down in the article, it appears that the summer melt season will be the shortest on record in Arctic. Maybe we should brace ourselves for a "normal" colder than usual fall & winter... :wink:

Are you going to grow another winter garden this year??
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:19 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
            Satellitegate
Behold! There's another global warming "-gate" scandal coming down the pike. In addition to "Climategate," "Amazongate," "Glaciergate," and a host of other "-gate" scandals generated by the global warmist crowd, we now have "Satellitegate". Turns out that numerous NOAA satellites have gone on the blink and are reporting false temperatures. The US Government is now admitting that the NOAA global warming satellite sensors are “degraded” and temperatures sent down from the satellites may be off by 10-15 degrees. Interestingly, John Christy, Keith's crosstown neighbor, is one of those involved in exposing the scandal.
Monday, August 16, 2010

Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan

US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” - temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

NOAA’s chief Program Administrator, Chuck Pistis, at first disingenuously tried to discredit my report and whitewash the matter with disinformation. Indeed, we may have a smoking gun of a cover up when we contrast and compare latest announcements with the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary.

The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ since its launch in September 2000. Yet on the advice of top climate scientists I’m reliably informed that such failures were made known to NOAA years ago.

Nonetheless, the U.S. agency continued to sell its flawed data products to numerous international institutions without making it public that satellite sensors were “degraded” and unreliable for assessing climate change.

NOAA-16 had been commissioned as a polar-orbiting satellite featuring AMSU, AVHRR and High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS) measuring instrumentation which were discovered by a member of the public last week to have suffered catastrophic failure. Dr John Christy drew my attention to specific concomitant flaws he had uncovered and reported with the AMSU years ago.

NOAA in Fear of Rush of International Lawsuits?
The snuffed out satellite had been run continuously up until being taken offline soon after my article went viral (August 10, 2010) in which I exposed the full extent of how seriously degraded it’s sensors were. The automatic readings had been contaminated by hundreds, if not thousands, of false and absurdly high temperature readings, some as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit (boiling point of water is 212 F.). We now know NOAA was aware of these outrageous anomalies at least since 2006 but they were not remedied. (Continue reading...).

Automatic satellite readings as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit?! Now we know where some of the warmists (NOAA) get some of their fodder for propagating GW alarmism. This may be a game-changer...


Changing subject again.

This piece by the denialist rag Canadian Free Press is suspect for several reasons. They are trying to lump in by association the AMSU data that UAH does the data processing for with some other stellite sensor problems. Spencer has kept on reporting the AMSU data and even tries to point out the few times temps cool in his blog (ignoring the increasing temp anomalies since July 2009 as reported by his own instrument). In balance,the sensor AVHRR on NOAA-16 satellite and the AMSU on the NOAA-16 satellite have problems but the overall AMSU measurement program is intact (there are several AMSU sensors on several NOAA satellites ) and providing reliable data/ The offending data had been removed as far back as 2006.

Here is what Spencer and Christy say in the "continued reading" part of the article. I want you to notice the provocative title (underlined) the article gives, compared to what is actually said by these "Climate experts"

Evidence from Climate Experts Points to Conspiracy to Deceive
Dr. Roy Spencer commented, “Obviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16 AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for climate monitoring.”

Dr Christy particularly addressed faults exclusively with the AMSU instrumentation and not problems with the AVHRR system. He advised me, “We spent a lot of time in 2006 trying to deal with the issues of NOAA-16, but the errors were so erratic, we ended up eliminating it as one of the backbones of our dataset.”

As many such analysts have long been advising, these failures go way beyond the shockingly absurd numbers of 604 degrees recorded at Egg harbor, Wisconsin.

Dr. Timothy Ball, climate consultant to the military and lead author of a new book
debunking the greenhouse gas theory, observes, “At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day.”

I guess Dr. Ball is suggesting Spencer and Christy have been incompetent or deliberate liars for their political message. Absurd to say the least.

So you see the satellite data that is actually being used is still good data (updated daily and availble at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ as I have linked many times and asked David to access but he refuses to do or at least acknowledge he has since the data supports GW) . This article is tryinig to lump in some problems with other satellite sensors to baldly claim it is all bogus (all "Satellitegate") when that is simply not the truth. If the satellite data is as bad as this article makes it out to be, why hasn't Spencer said so and curtailed putting the data online. The satellite data does line up good with the direct surface measurments and each shows a positive trend of similiar magnitudes and peaks and valleys that match each other - i.e. good validation.
Image

I think I'll call Christy on this one.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Gary » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:44 pm

I may have missed some (in fact, it is LIKELY I have), but in looking back through the boards, there have been One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Six (1286) posts which 'start' with the phrase "Global Warming" over the past X years.

I don't guess you all have come to a consensus yet, have you?

Gary
__________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs, Norman, OK
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Gary
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: Norman, Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Jim » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:03 pm

David Flick wrote:Automatic satellite readings as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit?! Now we know where some of the warmists (NOAA) get some of their fodder for propagating GW alarmism. This may be a game-changer...


Same old story -- garbage in...garbage out.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Gary » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:15 pm

David Flick wrote:
Monday, August 16, 2010

Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan

[snippage]

NOAA’s chief Program Administrator, Chuck Pistis, at first disingenuously tried to discredit my report and whitewash the matter with disinformation. Indeed, we may have a smoking gun of a cover up when we contrast and compare latest announcements with the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary.

[more snippage]



David,

Your source, John O'Sullivan, is just as suspect as he claims the Satellite data to be.

There is NO such person as "Chuck Pistis" who works for NOAA in any capacity.

Don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Go to this site, https://nsd.rdc.noaa.gov/nsd/pubsearch, Enter "Pistis" in the last name blank and you can see for yourself that there is no such person who works there. If you enter my name, I'll be there.

There is, however, a Charles "Chuck" Pistis who works for the University of Michigan as a part of the SeaGrant community. You can read about old Chuck there: http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/contact/pistis.html. He doesn't seem to have any connection to the Satellite community.

In the time being, you'll need to fact check Mr. O'Sullivan.

Gary
__________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs, Norman, OK
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Gary
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: Norman, Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:26 pm

Jim wrote:
David Flick wrote:Automatic satellite readings as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit?! Now we know where some of the warmists (NOAA) get some of their fodder for propagating GW alarmism. This may be a game-changer...


Same old story -- garbage in...garbage out.


Virtually all sensor data analysis begins with wild point extraction from the data set. Wild points are there (usually high points) in the IR sensor data I work with (also measured with sensors out of the atmosphere) - root cause is usually EMI events or cosmic rays.

Just one more example of denialist demogoguery. The garbage is coming from the RW ideologues who are GW deniers for reasons other than science.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:32 pm

Gary wrote:
David Flick wrote:
Monday, August 16, 2010

Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan

[snippage]

NOAA’s chief Program Administrator, Chuck Pistis, at first disingenuously tried to discredit my report and whitewash the matter with disinformation. Indeed, we may have a smoking gun of a cover up when we contrast and compare latest announcements with the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary.

[more snippage]



David,

Your source, John O'Sullivan, is just as suspect as he claims the Satellite data to be.

There is NO such person as "Chuck Pistis" who works for NOAA in any capacity.

Don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Go to this site, https://nsd.rdc.noaa.gov/nsd/pubsearch, Enter "Pistis" in the last name blank and you can see for yourself that there is no such person who works there. If you enter my name, I'll be there.

There is, however, a Charles "Chuck" Pistis who works for the University of Michigan as a part of the SeaGrant community. You can read about old Chuck there: http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/contact/pistis.html. He doesn't seem to have any connection to the Satellite community.

In the time being, you'll need to fact check Mr. O'Sullivan.

Gary


Interesting but not surprising.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Howard V » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:24 pm

David:

My home grown beard is coming along nicely. I think it will be ready in time for the annual global cooling.

And, yes, I'm planning on a winter garden again this year. Extreme dryness due to lack of rain and high temps [yep, we've had global warming this summer] have just about done in my summer garden so I'm in the process of chopping it down and tilling it under in prep for getting fall and winter plants going in a few weeks. But I've had a very productive summer garden.

This winter I'll again be growing veggies under plastic and in a sense to some degree creating a micro climate [warmer] different from the outside temp. Worked well last winter. I hope it does as well this winter.

If we could wrap the whole planet in plastic we might be able to effect global warming. However, it would still be sun dependent as the plastic would not be making heat but trapping solar heat.

That beard of mine is going to be a lot whiter this winter than last. That is interesting as what hair I have left on my head [other than my face] is still fairly black - but more and more of that black hair is just bailing out.

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:14 am

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:37 am

Howard V wrote:David:

My home grown beard is coming along nicely. I think it will be ready in time for the annual global cooling.


I guess that makes me a hypocrite - having a beard since April 1977 (summer and winter) while believing temps have risen since 1977. Maybe its my fault!

Image
And the average from June 09 - May 10 is 0.815C (off this graph) as shown here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Last edited by KeithE on Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Howard V » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:44 pm

KeithE:

Keep your beard!!! Global [ and local] cooling id coming!!!

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:14 am

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:18 pm

Howard V wrote:David:

My home grown beard is coming along nicely. I think it will be ready in time for the annual global cooling.

Yeah, it's probably your fault that the average temp from June 09 - May 10 is 0.815C. If you want the credit, I'll be glad to give it to you... :wink:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:43 pm

Howard V wrote:David:

1aMy home grown beard is coming along nicely. I think it will be ready in time for the annual global cooling.

2And, yes, I'm planning on a winter garden again this year. Extreme dryness due to lack of rain and high temps [yep, we've had global warming this summer] have just about done in my summer garden so I'm in the process of chopping it down and tilling it under in prep for getting fall and winter plants going in a few weeks. But I've had a very productive summer garden.

This winter I'll again be growing veggies under plastic and in a sense to some degree creating a micro climate [warmer] different from the outside temp. Worked well last winter. I hope it does as well this winter.

3If we could wrap the whole planet in plastic we might be able to effect global warming. However, it would still be sun dependent as the plastic would not be making heat but trapping solar heat.

1bThat beard of mine is going to be a lot whiter this winter than last. That is interesting as what hair I have left on my head [other than my face] is still fairly black - but more and more of that black hair is just bailing out.

Howard

Howard, I've been outa pocket for most of the last three days and haven't had the time to do much GW stuff. Sorry about that. Fixin' to head off yto work for my night job here in a minute, but I'll have time for a post or two. I'll finish after I get off work in the morning.

1a&b) Say, Howard, why don't you send me a snapshot of you and your beard and I'll format it and create an avatar with you. You gotta get with the program here. The GW heavy hitters around here wear beards... :wink:

2) Glad to hear about your summer garden being a good one. Keep up posted on the progress of your fall & winter garden...

3) You could go down to Lowes and get the plastic to wrap Huntsville. Maybe Keith will loan you some plastic.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:03 pm



You must have a skinny screen.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:20 pm

KeithE wrote:

You must have a skinny screen.

I do have my screen set for larger font size, making the right side of the graph unreadable. But that's not the point. When you post multiple large graphs, the post is so darn big that I spend most of my time scrolling instead of reading. It's easier for me to view a graph through a link than to view it as part of the text. Besides, I have that one memorized. You've posted it at least a gazillion times...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:10 pm

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:

You must have a skinny screen.

I do have my screen set for larger font size, making the right side of the graph unreadable. But that's not the point. When you post multiple large graphs, the post is so darn big that I spend most of my time scrolling instead of reading. It's easier for me to view a graph through a link than to view it as part of the text. Besides, I have that one memorized. You've posted it at least a gazillion times...


I posted it again because I was pointing out that right at 1977 (when I started my beard) is when the most recent upturn in GW started. Look at it closely. Thus in TIC fashion saying I caused it.

Besides, I know DATA bothers you and you would rather just read text (like preachers/politicians/lawyers/journalists). Scientists speak in DATA (I don't always get around to reading all the text).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:48 pm

Gary wrote:David,

1Your source, John O'Sullivan, is just as suspect as he claims the Satellite data to be.

2There is NO such person as "Chuck Pistis" who works for NOAA in any capacity. Don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Go to this site, https://nsd.rdc.noaa.gov/nsd/pubsearch, Enter "Pistis" in the last name blank and you can see for yourself that there is no such person who works there. If you enter my name, I'll be there.

3There is, however, a Charles "Chuck" Pistis who works for the University of Michigan as a part of the SeaGrant community. You can read about old Chuck there: http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/contact/pistis.html. He doesn't seem to have any connection to the Satellite community.

4In the time being, you'll need to fact check Mr. O'Sullivan.

1) Cf. #4 below

2) You're correct, "Chuck Pistis" apparently doesn't work directly for NOAA.

3) Pistis does, however, have an indirect connection with the NOAA satellite community. He was apparently using NOAA satellite data in his research of temperatures of Lake Michigan. (Cf. #4)

4) I fact checked John O'Sullivan. Here's an article on his personal blog in which he discusses the deceit of NOAA satellite system. You'll need to read the entire article to get full details, but here's an excerpt of the article wherein Pistis is mentioned.
Meanwhile, back on his blog Anderson points to the key issues that NOAA tries to cover up. He refers to how Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant project, tried to pass off the dodgy data as being an accidental product of the satellite’s malfunction sensors taking readings off the top of clouds rather than the surface temperatures.

By contrast, Anderson cogently refutes this explanation showing that such bogus data was consistently of very high temperatures not associated with those detected from cloud tops. He advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favorably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.

As Pistis admitted, all such satellite data is fed automatically into records and apparently as long as it showed high enough temperatures to satisfy the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates of those numbers were not going to make careful scrutiny for at least half a decade.

Anderson bemoans, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”

Charles Pistis has evaded the repeated question of whether the temperature measurement data from such satellites has gone into the NOAA temperature record. This sure suggests this is an awkward question to answer.”

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter whether or not Pistis works directly for NOAA, he is directly involved in the story (or the attempted coverup). Are you prepared to deny that the NOAA satellite system has some severe credibility problems and that several of them have now been shut down?
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:11 am

.
.
Here's an interesting review of Warmist-in-Chief, Jame Hansen's, latest book. Catastrophic AGW alarmism at it's very best...

My favorite comment (written by Charles Higley) is #15
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the latest from Roy Spencer on sea-surface temps:

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:16 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
Here's an interesting review of Warmist-in-Chief, Jame Hansen's, latest book. Catastrophic AGW alarmism at it's very best...

My favorite comment (written by Charles Higley) is #15
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the latest from Roy Spencer on sea-surface temps:

.
.


Let's see Jim Hollingworth's DATAless rambling text vs. James Hansen's 40 years experience looking at the DATA.

Who is Jim Hollingsworth? - a building contractor in Idaho, and losing RW (no doubt) politician
Jim Hollingsworth is a building contractor in Kootenai County, Idaho. He has run for State Representative three times and is active in causes of liberty in Idaho


I think I'll hang with Hansen.

As for Higley's (#15) great quote in the denialist Master Resource "free- market energy blog":

1) The hypothesis of manmade global warming by CO2 does not have a single piece of defendable science behind it.

Take away the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick and the artificial and dishonest altered temperature records (which produce global warming on paper) and all you have is opinion.

2) All of Dr. Hansen’s spiel is unsupported for the simple fact that it is ALL opinion.


1) The hockey stick has not been discredited to anyone but in denialist rags such as this. And even if it was, this sort of paleoclimatic study is far from the only (or best) data that proves UNDENIALABLY that GW exists - read on in 2). And the connection between CO2 concentration in the atmsophere and GW is evident to anyone who understands absorption bands in the infrared (12-20 microns CO2 absorption band).

2) Hansen has DATA, loads of it - read about it here. Dig deep. Mr. Higdon offers only hot air (pun intended), that is 'opinion' (ill-informed - he offered no DATA).

As for Spencer's choice of what he reports out of his DATA, I wonder why he chooses to show the only data set (the sea surface temps) that makes his case vs all the other altitudes data (channels 04, 05,06,07,08,10,12,13) which all report substantially higher air temp this year than last and a positive (in a numeric sense) trend in temp since 1979 (although Spencer has left out the most positve trend portions - 1979-1998 - in his online data). Check it out at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (again that DATA that David refuses to look at - again and again!).

Fact is that there is a partially unexplained finding that when the sea surface temps go down, the air temps go up especially at low altitudes. Conservation of energy at play no doubt but exact mechanism unknown. That is what has happened since July 1 2010 (according to the DATA if one is honest enough to look at all the data). Instead David chooses to believe Spencer's one data source focus on SSTs. Spencer deludes himself or he is playing to his book-buying, Rush-listening, anti-regulation, and/or GW-denialists audience and has lost the title of "scientist" in the process as far as I'm concerned. But I'll look at his DATA. Also note that even the sea surface temps have a long term positive (in a numeric sense) trend.

Apparently David hates DATA and hides it. But I and most scientists live by DATA. The following plot shows all the lower troposphere satellite data (2 data reductions/analyses) and the direct surface air measurement from Phil Jones (i.e. the Hadley data which has not been discredited either in any place other than denialist rags - three independent studies have exonerated the data).
Image
or this smaller plot just for David
Image

Info about the plot:
This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg (2003; data set TaveGL2v with 2009 updates), to the microwave sounder (MSU) satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures determined by Christy et al. (UAH 2003; data set tltglhmam version 5.2 with 2009 updates) and Schabel et al. (RSS 2002; data set tlt_land_and_ocean with 2009 updates). These two satellite records reflect two different ways of interpreting the same set of microwave sounder measurements and are not independent records. Each record is plotted as the monthly average and straight lines are fit through each data set from January 1982 to December 2009. The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively.

It is important to know that the 5.2 version of Christy et al.'s satellite temperature record contains a significant correction over previous versions. In summer 2005, Mears and Wentz (2005) discovered that the UAH processing algorithms were incorrectly adjusting for diurnal variations, especially at low latitude. This correction raised the trend line 0.035°C/decade, and in so doing brought it into much better agreement with the ground based records and with independent satellite based analysis (e.g. Fu et al. 2004). The discovery of this error also explains why their satellite based temperature trends had disagreed most prominently in the tropics.

Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming


And I'll add, amounts to strong independent verification of the fastest rate of temp rise ever witnessed (>10X as fast than the uprise associated with the last de- glaciation period [138193 - 131250 years ago] whose temp rise was 9.4C and rise rate was +0.0135 C/decade) according to the Vostok data . Compare 0.0135 to 0.163 C/decade(lowest of the estimates in plot above). What is happening since 1977 is very significant (ever since I grew my beard).

And note it is the lower tropospheric air temp that directly relates to weather extremes we are seeing (Moscow, Pakistan, China, Greenland) and many other effects of GW. The ocean temps (indepth, not just the surface) have bleached coral, increased ocean acidity and eliminated 40% of the phytoplankton which is the bottom of the ocean's food chain (note: these are not just predictions, they have already happened as has an increase in extreme weather events - all part of the COST of no action already realized).

Spencer and Christy have continued to post their satellite data daily even after this so-called "Satellite Gate" sham has hit the denialogsphere. The O'Sullivan article would have us wipe out all the satellite data. They (Christy and Spencer) long ago (in 2006) have taken out the erroneous NOAA satellite sensor data (one satellite sensor out of a constellation) from their database - as the O'Sullivan article quoted them as saying under the heading "Evidence from climate experts points to conspiracy to deceive".

Evidence from Climate Experts Points to Conspiracy to Deceive
Dr. Roy Spencer commented, “Obviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16 AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for climate monitoring.”

Dr Christy particularly addressed faults exclusively with the AMSU instrumentation and not problems with the AVHRR system. He advised me, “We spent a lot of time in 2006 trying to deal with the issues of NOAA-16, but the errors were so erratic, we ended up eliminating it as one of the backbones of our dataset.”


That coupled with the Chuck Pistis unchecked position amounts to hilariously bad reporting from O'Sullivan - just like all the other Heartland, CEI, ..... disinformation prevading the web but not the real academic climate scienctists (97% of which believe in AGW).

Have a nice weekend - we are going to Nashville.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Haruo » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:39 pm

Global Cooling took effect here in Seattle this past week. Here's the graph that proves it:
globalcooler98178.GIF


If you like raw data, here's where I got the numbers to crunch into this GIF to you all.

I don't participate in the GW threads much; I try to save myself for the moments when I have something shocking and verifiable to report. ;-)
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13111
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Haruo » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:11 pm

I am probably to blame for this drastic cooling. When it got up into the 90s, I had Mrs H trim my beard back. I imagine that God, by analogy to the situation in Judges 16, decided to do something to teach me not to mar the corners of my beard as per Leviticus 19.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13111
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:36 am

Haruo wrote:Global Cooling took effect here in Seattle this past week. Here's the graph that proves it:
Image
If you like raw data, here's where I got the numbers to crunch into this GIF to you all.

I don't participate in the GW threads much; I try to save myself for the moments when I have something shocking and verifiable to report. ;-)

Nice graph & dataset... Looks as though you've uncovered an "unprecedented" rate of global cooling on the north left coast. It nicely offsets, Keith's "unprecedented" rate of global warming in his neck of the woods. We can breathe a sigh of relief. We'll all survive now and won't have to worry about our children and grandchildren. :wink:

Haruo wrote:I am probably to blame for this drastic cooling. When it got up into the 90s, I had Mrs H trim my beard back. I imagine that God, by analogy to the situation in Judges 16, decided to do something to teach me not to mar the corners of my beard as per Leviticus 19.

Amazing... The first recorded case of AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling) :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Next

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron