As to the "majority of climate scientists"

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by bricklayer, Jan 8, 2019.

  1. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would anyone believe they are right?
     
  2. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The thing is that if our science is wrong then what we're all conversing on right now is a grand and inexplicably shared delusion. Our science isn't just speculation it heats our homes, drives our cars and factories, imbues our lives. Our science, in a word, works.
     
  3. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. There is a standard that applies to how ambient temperatures can be collected. Places that were the "official temp" for a location were required to meet these standards. Over time, these locations (lots of air ports) have had their environments changed to a sufficient level to artificially raise the temperatures those official sites then collect. This is known as heat bloom and the resulting collection then represents what is termed a heat island. Official temp collection sites outside of these heat islands have not demonstrated the same artificial heat. There is a direct relationship with concentration of buildings and concrete with ambient temperature increases. Those stations that aren't associated with those islands have continued to also collect data, and those stations have not shown the temperature "increases" that the heat island locations have. In fact, those temps are trending downward (the rate of which is minute but yes, trending lower). And yet, heat island collections temps continue to rise. (again, in minute amounts).

    Heat islands make their own weather, in much the same way orographic weather is created. The problem with how models then ingest this data, is that the necessary level of heat island effect isn't being taken out of the data set, and the induction then of this "rise" in temps is artificially skewing the rest of the normative data set that is showing a slow declining trend. Which artificially then "creates" most if not all of the warming in the data sets. Similarly, the use of model extrapolation from this data then generalizes the temperature artifice to the general data and further skews the outputs of the modeled temp predictions. We see this in vast swaths of the earth where actual standardized collection sites are unavailable, and models then "predict" the temps for those locations. And because these are skewed, the predicted data is also skewed in a way that isn't actually supported by actual data collections.

    Which is why the data set then generated is sloppy.

    So, now that someone else has done the work for you, what does that tell me then, about you?
     
  4. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would point out that "science" literally had nothing to do with the apple landing on Newton's head. It did, however, lend cause to trying to figure out why the apple landed on his head, and the use of the scientific method to then describe it to give the explanation veracity.
     
  5. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because they do account for the heat island effect by calculating temps from urban and rural areas and including the difference. In fact Jones et al calculated average land temperatures from 42 rural and 42 urban temperature stations and the curve of change over time fit both data sets exactly. Brohal et al calculated all the urban stations in the US and got exactly the same result. Average temperatures over the contiguous US have increased by roughly 1 degree F. over the period of those studies.

    In fact, because of the rapid urbanization in China over the last 25 years ot so, they have been able to compare change in stations over time as cities grew and get a pretty good formula for accounting for the heat island effect over urban areas.

    If what you are saying were true, we would expect to see the greatest warming over urban centers but that is not what is observed. The greatest warming is occuring globally over non urban areas in the far north; Alaska, Siberia, the Canadian Arcapeligo and in desserts and glaciers
     
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because what I'm saying is true, the greatest heat signature increases are exactly where we don't have actual collection sites. As mentioned. Like the warming we see in Siberia, or the Antarctic, most all of Africa, etc.

    The unfortunate truth is that the statistical difference is entirely created by the disregard of the actual collection standards. Clearly, not enough of the heat island effect is being removed from the observations in those locations that create the effect. But hey, keep telling yourself it's the CO2.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  7. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will because there is no denying the fact. You're first paragragh makes no sense at all. If the rate of change in both urban and rural stations over the US is exactly the same.........and globally it is the far north that is changing most rapidly.......??
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  8. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would say, look at the real data. You're wrong. Simple as that. Stamping your feet about it isn't going to make it better.

    I would say two things as well. Clearly, there must be warming given the easing of the previous glacial cycle. Must be. There has to be an expectation that natural easing in temps would happen. Ignoring that is, well, ignorant. Second, the extrapolated conformed data that continues to point to unnatural forcing is suspect. For reasons noted. Again, ignoring that is, ignorant. I understand the contention that makes in the faith you hold.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incorrect. The answer is of course more science. Everything about your life. The fact that you are not worried about being eaten by a bear, or raped by a barbarian, or that we don't need an iron lung, ore ever had an iron lung, or that people are living past 45, or that we have internet and international travel, that we have been to mars and the moon, that we no longer burn witches, that we have a USA, that we have surgery and more than 25% of our babies live are all because of science, with exactly 0 input from anything else (barring some philosophy I suppose).

    It's true that Archimedes didn't immediately intuit quantum mechanics, it took a while to fully develop science in a pure form, but especially now, it is by far the most accurate institution, and probably most important thing we do as humans.
     
  10. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I asked "Why would anyone believe they are right?" Your answer: "Incorrect." What exactly was "Incorrect". about my question?
    Was in "Incorrect" for me to ask?
     
  11. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incorrect would be any answer other than "science"
     
  12. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, what exactly is incorrect about my question? I asked: "Why would anyone believe they are right?"

    Do you believe it is politically incorrect to even ask?
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO. You need to cite a source or sources.

    By your post you are expecting me to believe you instead of NASA, NOAA and the vast array of science organizations around the world, including independents, universities, etc.

    There is NO CHANCE anyone should read your paragraphs and decide they invalidate the methods and conclusions of science on this topic.
     
    EarthSky likes this.
  14. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meteorologist
     
  15. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AKA Weather Girl? ;-)
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have to believe me, if you read the methodology published by the nice folks who produce the data, they readily admit it. That you don't read it, and you infer veracity based on what folks who aren't responsible for the data sets tell you about it, well, that's just religious, I suppose...
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  17. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ignoring the part where you didn't answer my question either, I'll give you just a fraction of the reasons we should all believe scientists:

     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your contribution here is zero without there being a specific cite for your argument.

    If you cite an known scientist or organization that supports your claim, it becomes possible to find who/why there is disagreement.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  19. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody is stamping their feet that is in your imagination and I have looked at the data - lots and lots of data. Here's some:

    [​IMG]

    Figure 1. Annual average temperature anomalies. Jones et al (dotted green and brown) is a dataset of 42 rural and 42 urban sites. Li et al (solid green and brown) is an adjusted dataset of 42 rural and 40 urban sites. Li (blue) is a non-adjusted set of 728 stations, urban and rural. CRUTEM3v (red) is a land-only data set (Brohan et al., 2006). This plot uses the 1954–83 base period.

    [​IMG]
    Figure 9
    Comparison of spatially gridded minimum temperatures for the TOB‐only adjusted USHCN data, v2 USHCN data (homogenized using all Coop station series as reference series), USHCN data homogenized using series from Coop stations only classified as rural according to the impervious surface method, and USHCN data homogenized using series from Coop stations only classified as urban (according to the impervious surface method). (Top) CONUS average anomalies for the four versions of the USHCN data. (Bottom) Differences between the USHCN v2 data homogenized with all Coop station series and data adjusted only for the TOB bias (blue), data homogenized using only rural station series (green), and data homogenized using only urban station series (red).


    [53] Nevertheless, the pairing of urban and rural stations in a manner that controls for instrument type and time of observation changes reveals larger trends at urban stations, which is consistent with the understanding that land use changes associated with urbanization lead to larger historic temperature trends at urban stations. However, that this larger trend signal is effectively removed through homogenization suggests that the urban environments characterized by larger trends do not have large spatial scales that allow them to be sampled by a number of Coop stations (or that the urban temperature signal is heterogeneous) and thus the local urban signal is being effectively removed via homogenization.

    [54] Because homogenization is largely successful in removing urban bias in the USHCN temperature data, it appears that only about 5% of the period‐of‐record USHCN version 2 minimum temperature trends across the CONUS can be attributed to local urban influences and, furthermore, that most of this contribution is coming from data for years prior to 1930. This residual urban bias for the earlier years in the record may be a consequence of the reduced station density of the Coop network in the early part of the 20th century, which limits the number of pairs available for detecting inhomogeneities, some of which may be related to urbanization.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/urban-heat-islands-and-u-s-temperature-trends/


    You seem to be that one stamping your feet.

    You have posted a single paragraph of unsupported, barely legible assertions with nothing to back it up. What does "the extrapolated conformed data that continues to point to unnatural forcing is suspect" even mean? What data are you talking about? You copied that right from WUWT didn't you?

    If that is true then man up and show some evidence then!!

    If you have some data or links to post that prove your contention throw them up here and let's look at the data. I'm always open to learning something.

    But a single paragraph of nothing is just the usual :blahblah:
     
    Etbauer likes this.
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pardon me for not wanting to rehash and restate or otherwise do the work for yet another poster. There's an archive. Read it there. This is covered ground. I have cited studies, those studies have been ignored, because the money isn't in the obvious answer of natural modification of the climate that we find ourselves in these days. Nor does it provide value to attack progress or the creation of man made heat islands because folks don't care really what their actual impact is. So, instead, we attack something as benign as CO2 which frankly is like attacking Oxygen. Both are essential, and yet, depending on your perspective, you might conclude that they are both horribly dangerous things. And yet, that conversation is simply superficial, and not one based in what the observable world around us tells us.

    So, we attack the benign. Again, because it's easy, there isn't a real upside or downside associated with the measurable concentration levels that can normally exist given our atmospheric composition, so why not attack it?

    And every time I get into this part of the conversation, I ask the million dollar question, what are you willing to do about it. And then, because you can't actually provide a rational answer to that, the conversation stops, and the breathless devotional chanting starts all over again. So, read the archive. I've posted, cited, highlighted, and debated this topic to death. Feel free to do some of the work yourself.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science is great, but scientists lie like rugs. Surely you know that.
     
  22. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Sometimes these things are best viewed with a little perspective.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  23. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but probably less than any other category of human being.
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm saying I want a cite. I see NO cite by you on this thread.

    Is that too much to ask?

    Is your issue so irrelevant or settled that there isn't even a CITE that attempts to make your point?

    Beyond that, please remember that what we do or don't do about it is NOT a factor in determining whether the problem exists.
     
  25. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, see last post. Three reputable citations from which you can choose. I don't care which one you start with.
     
    Ddyad likes this.

Share This Page