Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
2017's global temperatures
Collapse
X
-
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostUp until a year or so ago, the "no warming since..." crowd was still very vocal. And if the recent pattern of temperature change - huge spikes upwards followed by relative stasis for a decade or more - continues, then i wouldn't be surprised to see them return in about 7-8 years. In the mean time, i expect "the climate's always changing" to predominate.
A question. Is ocean life more sensitive to temerpature change than land life forms? It would seem likely in that ocean temperatures are much more stable and have a much smaller range of variation, which I would expect to produce less reason to evolve a high range of temperature tolerance. But over time, an X degree shift in temperature on land would also become an X degree shift in ocean temperature (it would just lag the land shift).
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIIRC the cause of the 'hiatus' was heat tranfer to the oceans. No reason to believe that sort of bounce/rebound would not be cyclical.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostA question. Is ocean life more sensitive to temerpature change than land life forms? It would seem likely in that ocean temperatures are much more stable and have a much smaller range of variation, which I would expect to produce less reason to evolve a high range of temperature tolerance. But over time, an X degree shift in temperature on land would also become an X degree shift in ocean temperature (it would just lag the land shift).
Combined, these will produce winners and losers. Sea grasses don't have skeletons, can generally tolerate higher temperatures, and their photosynthesis will benefit from easier access to CO2. Corals make skeletons and lose key symbiotic creatures if the temperatures get too high (that's coral bleaching). Fish would be harmed by the acidification and maybe the temperature, but would probably benefit from the higher productivity if they graze on sea grass. So at an ecosystem level, where all these species facing different impacts interact, things get really complicated really fast. In a lot of cases, all we're able to say at this point is "things will change.""Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post[ATTACH=CONFIG]26021[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]26022[/ATTACH]
Over time, as the earth continues to warm, this will start to look like a "normal" year. But for now, it's clear that the last few years stand apart from anything anyone alive today has seen."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostI've been meaning to ask for a while - why are they using mean and not median? And the follow up, how is it adjusted?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostI've been meaning to ask for a while - why are they using mean and not median? And the follow up, how is it adjusted?
As for the follow up, how is what adjusted? The final temperature figure?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostBecause the mean is just a more relevant statistic when it comes to temperature. There are tens of thousands of temperature sites integrated into the global data set, and they're not evenly distributed - there's a lot more in the warm places that are easy to get to than there are in say, the Antarctic. So the median value wouldn't give an actual picture of what the global temperature is up to. Instead, they give a geographically weighted mean, which provides a clearer picture.
As for the follow up, how is what adjusted? The final temperature figure?
Thanks!"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe raw data is adjusted. TOB, heat island effect, wild point editing, and so on. So it is not fair to say the results come solely from 'unaltered data'. From my studies, those adjustments make sense, are valI'd and even necessay to get an accurate result. And further, they don't change the general trend. That is, the averaged raw unadjusted data shows basically the same result. But those that have their doubts will see deception in the way you characterise the results relationship to the raw data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/...t-any-further/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAdjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone. Of course these "adjustments" aren't immediately obvious if you don't have access to past archives, and you will only have access to those if you had the foresight, or luck, to hang onto them since NOAA et al make past data archives unavailable to the public.
SMEdit_CurlyinPipes_PlumbingTTS-046-010web.jpg
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAdjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone. Of course these "adjustments" aren't immediately obvious if you don't have access to past archives, and you will only have access to those if you had the foresight, or luck, to hang onto them since NOAA et al make past data archives unavailable to the public.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/...t-any-further/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostRelying on Anthony "never met a fossil fuel company donation I didn't like" Watts for accurate climate change information is like relying on the 3 Stooges for plumbing advice.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26792[/ATTACH]
disk space and bandwidth are very cheap these days.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAdjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone.
All data is past. How do you define "present" in this context?
Past data should not be set in stone. You're basically demanding that, if we identify any problems with past data, we keep using it instead of fixing the problems. It makes no sense.
Berkeley Earth did an analysis that eliminated the adjustment process involved in how NASA and NOAA handle the problems with past data. It produced a statistically indistinguishable result.
As far as the raw past data being available: that's actually an annoying result of contract law. Lots of the weather data from other countries is sold as a product by their meteorological services. Those weather services get to set the terms for what's done with the data; NASA and NOAA have to agree to those terms if they want to use it. The end result is that it's not NASA and NOAA's decision as to whether the original data should be handed out. The data they do control is made public.
This is not to say it's a positive thing. I think all the data should be made public. Just explaining why it isn't (and more or less blaming the lawyers)."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post...
Past data should not be set in stone. You're basically demanding that, if we identify any problems with past data, we keep using it instead of fixing the problems. It makes no sense.
.....
While I'd grant the need to correct demonstrable transcription errors, you're still dealing with the original data set (which is less of an issue in the last twenty years). If you're using older data sets (which should be the case for long term studies) then just how many times can you read the thing without noticing errors - it seems absurd to have gross errors (San Francisco 1/17/1894 250F) still being located in such data sets.
I'd guess by 'past' data he means 'old' data. To me, that's data ten years old or more (which is why I really don't see why anyone should be needing to fix data sets in use that long.)
Given the huge advances in computer technology, it's hard to understand where the issues would lie in the data sets? Recording and transcription errors should be minimized - I get having trouble reading Dr Bob's notes from 1955 (probably best to just track down his secretary and let her do it ) but modern computers can read thermometers just fine.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostYou lost me here - if the raw data is corrupted you (general - here until designated otherwise) can't 'fix' it. You either recorded the data correctly or you didn't.
While I'd grant the need to correct demonstrable transcription errors, you're still dealing with the original data set (which is less of an issue in the last twenty years). If you're using older data sets (which should be the case for long term studies) then just how many times can you read the thing without noticing errors - it seems absurd to have gross errors (San Francisco 1/17/1894 250F) still being located in such data sets.
I'd guess by 'past' data he means 'old' data. To me, that's data ten years old or more (which is why I really don't see why anyone should be needing to fix data sets in use that long.)
Given the huge advances in computer technology, it's hard to understand where the issues would lie in the data sets? Recording and transcription errors should be minimized - I get having trouble reading Dr Bob's notes from 1955 (probably best to just track down his secretary and let her do it ) but modern computers can read thermometers just fine.
The current trend towards discounting the adjustments made to past data rest on the assumption that climatologists are complicit in this vast conspiracy to defraud everyone by skewing data to make the statement they want it to make. While some scientists have done this (there are bad eggs in any group), most have not. Most are honestly trying to determine a) what is happening, b) what has happened, c) what it means, d) and what we might be able to do about it.
Meanwhile, just as the lead industry and cigarette industry did before them, the fossil fuels industry is throwing as much smoke in the air as they can because their business model is under threat. The sugar industry is doing the same thing.
It pattern is predictable...and a little sad.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 02:47 PM
|
0 responses
5 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 02:47 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
1 response
9 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 01:14 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
12 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment