Climate change

Is Climate change a threat that concens you


  • Total voters
    28
Status
Not open for further replies.

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
I agree, but as I implied that will only postpone the inevitable, unless the problem we solve is our numbers. If we could actually hold a level - maybe one that grows slightly as we learn how to handle more - then we might avoid the fate of the bacteria. But the world population has doubled in my lifetime and I see little reason to think humans will contain themselves.
If things get that bad we will start to leave this planet in ships. I think that population pressure has been a major driver for space exploration more than once in this universe. A one-way trip to mars looks a lot better on a dying planet earth.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I think those guys got peer reviewed out of business.
I think so too. The webpage hasn't been updated in years, despite many promises to do so. The authors said they would end their investigation if NOAA could prove the sitings do not cause a warming bias in the temperatures being recorded, which they did here:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

To summarize:

Results indicate that there
is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however,
this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread
conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the
sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because
associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (
“cool”) bias in maximum



temperatures and only a slight positive (
“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These



results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining
the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on
temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments
applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting
changes, although a small overall residual negative (
“cool”) bias appears to remain in the



adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures
are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure
characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no
evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
And, the strongest evidence yet of the histroical temperature record. Notice the convergence of temperature proxies and measured values. You can't get a bridge to join by guessing.

 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
@Brownout

Interesting read. I'll assume you read the conclusions.

[18] Given the now extensive documentation by surfacestations.org [Watts, 2009] that the exposure characteristics of many USHCN stations are far from ideal, it is reasonable to question the role that poor exposure may have played in biasing CONUS temperature trends. However, our analysis and the earlier study by Peterson [2006] illustrate the need for data analysis in establishing the role of station exposure characteristics on temperature trends no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence of bias may be. In other words, photos and site surveys do not preclude the need for data analysis, and concerns over exposure must be evaluated in light of other changes in observation practice such as new instrumentation.
They haven't done the analysis and this study indicates that more funding is required to do it.

[19] Indeed, our analysis does provide evidence of bias in poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, given the evidence provided by surfacestations.org that poor exposure sites are predominantly MMTS sites, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to MMTS‐type sensors in the USHCN. Moreover, the bias in unadjusted maximum temperature data from poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites is, on average, negative while the bias in minimum temperatures is positive (though smaller in magnitude than the negative bias in maximum temperatures). The adjustments for instrument changes and station moves provided in version 2 of the USHCN monthly temperature data largely account for the impact of the MMTS transition, although an overall residual negative bias remains in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Still, the USHCN adjusted data averaged over the CONUS are well aligned with the averages derived from the USCRN for the past five years.
Agreeing that there is a bias in those sites, but no reference on how those sites fit into the climate picture.

[20] The reason why station exposure does not play an obvious role in temperature trends probably warrants further investigation. It is possible that, in general, once a changeover to bad exposure has occurred, the magnitude of background trend parallels that at well exposed sites albeit with an offset. Such a phenomenon has been observed at urban stations whereby once a site has become fully urbanized, its trend is similar to those at surrounding rural sites [e.g., Boehm, 1998; Easterling et al., 2005]. This is not to say that exposure is irrelevant in all contexts or that adherence to siting standards is unimportant. Apart from potentially altering the degree to which a station’s mean value is representative of a region, poor siting in the USHCN may have altered the nature of the impact of the MMTS transition from what it would have been had good siting been maintained at all stations. Moreover, there may be more subtle artifacts associated with siting characteristics such as alterations to the seasonal cycle. Classification of USHCN exposure characteristics as well as observations from the very well sited USCRN stations should prove valuable in such studies. Nevertheless, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
Yes it warrants further investigation and they need more funding to do so.

In the opening paragraphs,
Both instrument changes and sensor moves are known to cause shifts in the mean level of a station’s temperature series that are unrelated to true variations in the climate signal [Mitchell, 1953; Peterson et al., 1998]. The process of removing such nonclimatic artifacts is called homogenization. In essence, homogenization of climate data involves identifying and removing abrupt shifts in station series that are unique to a particular series.
Abrupt changes when there are equipment changes is one thing. The asphalt doesn't go from cool to hot abruptly. The air conditioner, may cycle, but if the instrument doesn't know when it is running, you may or may not be able to detect that change.

All in all, their document acknowledges there is an error. Their religion forces them not to own it.

Nice picture Brownout. Now, why did the instruments follow along with the reconstruction for a couple of years before taking off? What caused the sudden shift?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
If things get that bad we will start to leave this planet in ships. I think that population pressure has been a major driver for space exploration more than once in this universe. A one-way trip to mars looks a lot better on a dying planet earth.
Only after things are worse here than on Mars.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
@Brownout

They haven't done the analysis and this study indicates that more funding is required to do it.
That is in the paper



Agreeing that there is a bias in those sites, but no reference on how those sites fit into the climate picture
.

With wide spread convergence with well situated sites.



Yes it warrants further investigation and they need more funding to do so.
So do non consensus studies. Nobody works for free.



Abrupt changes when there are equipment changes is one thing. The asphalt doesn't go from cool to hot abruptly. The air conditioner, may cycle, but if the instrument doesn't know when it is running, you may or may not be able to detect that change.
And the conclusions are these things don't create a bias for warmer measurements.

All in all, their document acknowledges there is an error. Their religion forces them not to own it.
Science has admitted errors from the start. Religion belongs to the denier sect.

Nice picture Brownout. Now, why did the instruments follow along with the reconstruction for a couple of years before taking off? What caused the sudden shift?
CO2.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
History shows that to be wrong. What's necessary is the hope of something better in the future that's worth the effort of living in a hell hole while you build that better future.
More people stayed in Europe than moved to the US in the 1880s to 1910s. 80% thought the hell hole they knew was better than the hell hole they didn't know. I don't understand how history proved me wrong.

The 20% tht did leave Europe must have done some research and/or had other evidence that opportunity or better conditions existed in the US. If HOPE was their only driving force to leave, people would have exited Europe to more broadly distributed destinations.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
More people stayed in Europe than moved to the US in the 1880s to 1910s. 80% thought the hell hole they knew was better than the hell hole they didn't know. I don't understand how history proved me wrong.

The 20% tht did leave Europe must have done some research and/or had other evidence that opportunity or better conditions existed in the US. If HOPE was their only driving force to leave, people would have exited Europe to more broadly distributed destinations.
The 20% that left were the smart ones who helped make a superpower that saved this planet from a possible despotic future twice (WW2 and the Cold War). The 80% that stayed in Europe or would stay on earth, well that's just natural selection.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
The 20% that left were the smart ones who helped make a superpower that saved this planet from a possible despotic future twice (WW2 and the Cold War). The 80% that stayed in Europe or would stay on earth, well that's just natural selection.
Let's take a step back. Do you really think it will be a better option to attempt to establish a new, independent (self-sufficient) culture/society on mars than find ways to live on a polluted and warming earth?
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
Let's take a step back. Do you really think it will be a better option to attempt to establish a new, independent (self-sufficient) culture/society on mars than find ways to live on a polluted and warming earth?
Yes. Animals migrate when conditions change. The weak are left behind, the strong and cunning survive. As humans I don't think we would just cut ties and say sorry but staying on earth is a dead-end street for humanity even if the earth was Eden. Intense population pressure just might be what we need to get to the next step in evolution on Mars or Earth.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Yes. Animals migrate when conditions change. The weak are left behind, the strong and cunning survive. As humans I don't think we would just cut ties and say sorry but staying on earth is a dead-end street for humanity even if the earth was Eden. Intense population pressure just might be what we need to get to the next step in evolution on Mars or Earth.

Earth as a "dead end street" when the "opportunity" of mars is 95% co2 atmosphere (the little atmosphere it does have) & more argon than oxygen. There is a reason that places like Greenland have so few people. Few people have viewed them as better than what they have. If those are the smart people, then the phrase "too dumb to come in from the cold" would not be used in Greenland - but it is.

I'm done.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
It's a dead-end for those of us who want to have our children and grandchildren move off this rock in the future. Having seen first hand the brutality of humans to other humans under pressure gives me little hope that the current species of humanity will be inclined to use 'nice' methods to reduce 'climate change' (that I believe (from looking at the science) IS human driven and is NOT a natural cycle but I have very little faith in the prediction capability's of the current climate models), over population or any number of possible planetary calamities in the future. I've seen people with little children risk likely dead and to be dead in rickety leaky boats in SE Asia after the war escaping bad conditions hand us their children and future with the last ounce of strength in their bodies. NASA is planning today for one-way trips to Mars, serious groups today are planning one-way trips to Mars. If there is a usable source of water on the planet people will be there in 100 years. We might all live in domed cities there or underground but to me that's an exciting future to look forward to.
 
Last edited:

Kermit2

Joined Feb 5, 2010
4,162
WE MUST DO SOMETHING

or or WEATHER and stuff will keep happening.
I know. I have a solution. Lets send those 'smart guys' lots of money. we can make a tax and sell credits for polluters and I bet we could make a killing before anyone got wise that the weather was just weather and sometimes it gets hotter or colder than you remember but after you have been around awhile it seems to pretty much just get hot then cold then hot then cold then hot then cold.

We need to worry about REAL problems like radioactive isotopes washing into the pacific basin. To many pesticides in our vegetables and to many hormones and antibiotics in our chicken and beef.

There is plenty that REALLY needs to be fixed///....like NOW. The weather? I don't know? What month is it and I can tell you pretty much what to expect. get over it and onto something urgent if you REALLY need a cause to be passionate about.
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Or cigarettes don't hurt you and let's hire a climatologist to try and shoot this down so people don't think carbon from burning oil and coal is a problem and screw up our billions in profits.
But NSA is right. both horses are dead.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
And yet you started yet another thread...

Tsk Tsk. :)
The horse might be dead but it still moves inside so we keep beating it to see what fly's out. Usually the result of continued beating is not pretty but it's hard to resist the anticipation of what terrible thing will happen if you continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top