It looks like even the proponents of warming are becoming skeptics.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07...-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/

 

"Who else is speculating about abrupt cooling? One name which might surprise you is former NASA GISS director James Hansen."

When I talked about those global cooling advocates turned global warming advocates, I was specifically thinking about Hansen. He made his fame largely on global cooling in the 1970s and was thought to be a leading authority on that.

He turned around in the 1990s and became the leading authority on global warming.

I guess he's preparing to go back to the future now?

That would be really funny, in a sad way.

 

It looks like even the proponents of warming are becoming skeptics.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07...-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/

I've been hearing that if our present El Nino trend drops off this fall and goes full La Nina on us most of the upper US is going to have a 'kick ass n holds barred only the strong survive' winter like the good old days that Grandpa talked about to reinforce the concept that nature still does whatever it wants when it wants.

 

There is FAR more than that... hang in there and I'll get back with my sources

Here you go, I knew I had read an article about that possibility somewhere:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.

 

It looks like even the proponents of warming are becoming skeptics.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07...-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/

how to trust someone telling you that temperature increased by 0.25deg over a century when same guys cant tell if it it is going to rain on Tuesday.

 

how to trust someone telling you that temperature increased by 0.25deg over a century when same guys cant tell if it it is going to rain on Tuesday.

I opened a drawer full of mercury thermometers last week and found they were all within a 5°C range. How well were those thermometers across the country calibrated back in the day? What method?

 

I opened a drawer full of mercury thermometers last week and found they were all within a 5°C range. How well were those thermometers across the country calibrated back in the day? What method?

Let's say you were right about that (which, of course, you might) There are other ways to infer the average temperature of any period of time, such as geological records, tree rings, ice samples from the artic, etc... my question is, how accurate would those estimates be? Would they be better than, say, 0.25°C ?

 

Would they be better than, say, 0.25°C ?

How could the measurement of an effect ever be more accurate than the measurement of the cause?

 

Let's say you were right about that (which, of course, you might) There are other ways to infer the average temperature of any period of time, such as geological records, tree rings, ice samples from the artic, etc... my question is, how accurate would those estimates be? Would they be better than, say, 0.25°C ?

What caused the tree rings to be different from a previous year?
- CO2 levels do not shift significantly

Regional changes
- Rainfall
- volcanic activity can change nutrient levels in soil or
- volcanic activity can change sunlight with particulates
- plants grow according to Q10 law if nutrients, water, cO2 levels are constant so temp changes influence growth rings
(Q10 law: biological growth rates double every 10°C increase or halve every 10°decrease)

On a local/micro-environment level, lots of variations can exist year-to-year.
- run-off from up gradient vegetation can change the nutrient levels
- geological changes (erosion)
- animal nesting areas change in local micro-environments. (manure and urine)


That is a long way of saying, good luck measuring tree growth rings to a fraction of a percent.

 

How could the measurement of an effect ever be more accurate than the measurement of the cause?

I'm afraid you lost me there, Joey. Mind elaborating?

That is a long way of saying, good luck measuring tree growth rings to a fraction of a percent.

Ok, so tree rings are discarded as a reliable way of estimating temperatures. Are there any other methods out there that could be used, and how accurate would they be?

 

@cmartinez

To get information from a 20-year old, 200-year old or 2000 year events (seasonal weather) with day-to-day variations of 15°C and annual variations up to 80°C to find average temperature variations of less than 1°C? I cannot think of one. Nobody else has either. People claim to use ice-cores and tree rings but I am not convinced.

I am not convinced that all the variables have been accounted for.

 

Come on, you can smooth any data with sufficient and well placed biases.

 

@cmartinez

To get information from a 20-year old, 200-year old or 2000 year events (seasonal weather) with day-to-day variations of 15°C and annual variations up to 80°C to find average temperature variations of less than 1°C? I cannot think of one. Nobody else has either. People claim to use ice-cores and tree rings but I am not convinced.

I am not convinced that all the variables have been accounted for.

The reliability of measurements is one of the first topics presented in any application of physics or chemistry.

The accuracy and margin of error of the instruments used in the measurement process is a prime factor in determining the overall reliability the parameter that's being measured.

However the uniformity and consistency of the object being measured is a major variable that can lead to uncertainties. In weather and climate, the environment where the measurements are taken will vary from one location to another.

Julian Frieze was a pioneer in the study of weather and climate phenomenon and he recognized the affect of these uncertainties and he attempted to standardize the instruments and environment for weather measurements. However, the natural environment is subject to variables that increase the margin of error. Accordingly, the margin of error in weather measurements may be at least 5% or even much more.

Interesting to note that Frieze developed the Aerovane wind instrument which uses military grade synchros to transmit wind direction to a remote recorder. Hence wind direction is the only weather parameter that can be accurately measured with laboratory precision.

Considering the enormous size of the atmosphere, I chuckle every time I hear some "scientist" claim that he has measured a change of 1/2 a degree in global temperature.

 

Come on, you can smooth any data with sufficient and well placed biases.

I'm not good at knowing sarcasm when I read it... but this, I got... good one

 

Considering the enormous size of the atmosphere, I chuckle every time I hear some "scientist" claim that he has measured a change of 1/2 a degree in global temperature

Good point. Even inside my own house, I can tell that a particular room can be at 1 or 2°C up or down from the rest of the house. Who's to tell where a temperature measuring instrument should be put? On top of a mountain? Under the shades of trees? Under a roof or tent in the desert, savanna or open grass field?
How can one possible average what the world temperature is?

I know that with the use of satellites maybe that question can be more easily answered, but to what degree?

 

Good point. Even inside my own house, I can tell that a particular room can be at 1 or 2°C up or down from the rest of the house. Who's to tell where a temperature measuring instrument should be put? On top of a mountain? Under the shades of trees? Under a roof or tent in the desert, savanna or open grass field?
How can one possible average what the world temperature is?

I know that with the use of satellites maybe that question can be more easily answered, but to what degree?

Most of the measurement locations haven't changed locations but the area around the measurement location has certainly changed. Ya think that changes anything?

 

Ya think that changes anything?

yes, I do...

 

U.S. Climate Reference Station USCRN specifications for your viewing pleasure.

Here you can find a 2011 report on surface stations, including pictures of the station.

 

@cmartinez

While my use of the word bias served two purposes, one was for the believers and one for the "adjustment" amount entered to skew the data.

from Merriam Webster
Full Definition of bias
1: a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45 degree angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit
2a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green in lawn bowling
b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency
c : the swerve of the bowl
3a : bent, tendency
b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
c : an instance of such prejudice
d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
(2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
4a : a voltage applied to a device (as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation
b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording
on the bias

 

yes, I do...

So does the US national weather service. 1 to 3°C peak temp and as much as 12°C in the evenings as cities cool much more slowly than non-concreted areas.