Scientists say it could already be "game over" for climate change Have we already blown it? http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-it-could-already-be-game-over-for-climate-change Messing with a system that you do not understand is really dumb. How do you code what you do not comprehend? psikYes, it may be game over for none changing climate. Welcome to the real world of weather. Guess what – it is also game over for the planet as it was known 12,000 years ago. Or 40,000 years ago, or 70,000 years ago. Rivers have been known to change course. Shore lines have been known to change. And areas of ice coverage have been known to change. Can you answer these questions? How many years has mankind been domesticating earth? Has mankind domestication of earth made the earth better or worse for mankind? Could Climate Change be part of the domestication process? Point being. It is a new game where mankind has reached a point where to have as many people on earth today as we have. We have to take care of the earth as a whole just like we have to take care of agriculture land for farming.
Scientists say it could already be "game over" for climate change Have we already blown it? http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-it-could-already-be-game-over-for-climate-change Messing with a system that you do not understand is really dumb. How do you code what you do not comprehend? psikYes, it may be game over for none changing climate. Welcome to the real world of weather. Guess what – it is also game over for the planet as it was known 12,000 years ago. Or 40,000 years ago, or 70,000 years ago. Rivers have been known to change course. Shore lines have been known to change. And areas of ice coverage have been known to change. Can you answer these questions? How many years has mankind been domesticating earth? Has mankind domestication of earth made the earth better or worse for mankind? Could Climate Change be part of the domestication process? Point being. It is a new game where mankind has reached a point where to have as many people on earth today as we have. We have to take care of the earth as a whole just like we have to take care of agriculture land for farming. Considering humans' record, we're doomed.
Yes, it may be game over for none changing climate. Welcome to the real world of weather. Guess what – it is also game over for the planet as it was known 12,000 years ago. Or 40,000 years ago, or 70,000 years ago. Rivers have been known to change course. Shore lines have been known to change. And areas of ice coverage have been known to change. Can you answer these questions?.It is not just a matter of change. It is SPEED of change. If you are driving along at 80 mph and then lightly press on the brakes and slow to zero in 1000 feet, that is change. If you are going at 80 mph and slam on the brakes as hard as you can, that is change also, but can you predict and control what happens? When in geological history has the change been this fast? When was the last time CO2 was over 400 ppm? Some people are just aren't smart enough to comprehend how weather changes in a slowly evolving climate! psik
In a loose way this fits under models and projects and such
The unprecedented drop in global sea ice, in one terrifying gif This could be what a global warming tipping point looks like https://thinkprogress.org/this-could-be-what-a-global-warming-tipping-point-looks-like-c9287e836403#.hhn4uk7j0 Arctic sea ice area and volume have collapsed in recent decades. And the North Pole has been freakishly warm this winter, as carbon pollution has made what would have been once-in-1,000-years heatwaves increasingly commonplace. But what’s so remarkable about this year is that the ongoing drop in Arctic sea ice has been matched ( https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/01/low-sea-ice-extent-continues-in-both-poles/ ) by an unexpectedly sharp drop in Antarctic sea ice. A new animation from Kevin Pluck shows just how unprecedented this is: https://twitter.com/kevpluck/status/817126011435446273 Climate models have always predicted that human-caused warming would be at least twice as fast for the Arctic as for the planet as a whole thanks to Arctic amplification — a vicious cycle that includes higher temperatures melting highly reflective white ice and snow, which is replaced by the dark blue sea or dark land, both of which absorb more solar energy and lead to more melting. Systems with amplifying feedbacks tend to have tipping points beyond which change is irreversible. In the case of the great polar ice sheets that will drive catastrophic sea level rise and ultimately inundate every major coastal city, we appear to be dangerously close to such tipping points. ... https://thinkprogress.org/study-confirms-worlds-coastal-cities-unsavable-if-we-don-t-slash-carbon-pollution-f499c9a5c513#.3upm2jy3h
Former climate skeptic engineer.
Solving The Global Warming Problem
psik
Former climate skeptic engineer. Solving The Global Warming Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZggrNvQ2s psikSeems to be a nice guy. Wants to sell his book. It is refreshing to see someone come up with some fixes that might have a small chance of working for America. But we would never get the rest of the world to follow. Never talked about the climate models. Says, all it takes is simple math and then add a bunch of zeros. He talked about a total meltdown of life caused by the upcoming warming. Never related to the past history of other climate cycles. We still need the computer models. Having to choose who ideals we think are the best is not science. This guy spent years of his life building San Onofre nuclear power plant which now is not operating and going to cost billions to clean up. On future power needs for the country he never once said nuclear power.
Former climate skeptic engineer. Solving The Global Warming Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZggrNvQ2s psikSeems to be a nice guy. Wants to sell his book. It is refreshing to see someone come up with some fixes that might have a small chance of working for America. But we would never get the rest of the world to follow. Never talked about the climate models. Says, all it takes is simple math and then add a bunch of zeros. He talked about a total meltdown of life caused by the upcoming warming. Never related to the past history of other climate cycles. We still need the computer models. Having to choose who ideals we think are the best is not science. This guy spent years of his life building San Onofre nuclear power plant which now is not operating and going to cost billions to clean up. On future power needs for the country he never once said nuclear power. One of these days, Mike, you'll post something that makes sense. This is not that day.
Some very disturbing news today. John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information) is claiming that “They had good data from buoys, and they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships." This was done to make it look as if the sea was warmer." Mr. Bates is saying that there was a system of grants for data that proved warming and you got no grants if your data was otherwise.
According to Mr. Bates bad data was given to the IPCC and White House because the 2013 IPCC report was saying from 1998 to 2012 was only showing a small increase in global temperatures. Therefore in 2015 a report that became known as the “pausebuster" claimed that bad data was used for the 2013 report and in fact the rate of warming was greater.
Mr. Bates claims this was all done for political reasons.
So how is this affecting the Climate Models?
A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it."
:down: Just how sad it this?
I want a source, Mike.
I want a source, Mike.From today's NYTimes: No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say]. :lol:
I kinda figured his source would be a British tabloid. Another example of Yohe’s motivated reasoning and lack of critical thinking skills.
I want a source, Mike.From today's NYTimes: No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say]. :lol: GREAT, thanks. I agree with the Daily Mail not being a good source. But they were giving information from the House meetings on the subject. It is very important to have good data and to keep the political pressure away from the data if the computer models are going to work properly. The NY Times report is great news and points the issue was really in the timing of a release of the data. Which is no big deal to me. As long as the data is correct. Today’s news includes more on the subject. Scientists argue current climate change models understate the problem. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/oupu-sac020817.php There seems to be more stories going different directions right now. I suspect it has to do with the upcoming carbon tax talks. Last year we were told it would be a year of record rain in my area of the State. We were told that it would be the wettest year for us in our area that has occurred in 65 years. Yet, it turned out to be one of the driest years we have had. Makes one wonder how good the computer models are really working. The Climate Models can only be as good as the data that is used. We need to spend and do what it takes to create a great data gathering system for the Computer Models.
What I find curious is the amount of data that has to be processed.
Suppose you have 1,000 data sources around the world and you take the high and low every day, that is:
1,000 * 365 * 2 = 730,000 data points per year.
So if there are more locations with more than two measurements per day then the amount of data skyrockets.
So even if the data is being tampered with, how can you know without being one of the people doing the tampering?
Maybe they tampered with a Walgreen’s sign I saw last summer showing 104 degrees.
psik
What I find curious is the amount of data that has to be processed. Suppose you have 1,000 data sources around the world and you take the high and low every day, that is: 1,000 * 365 * 2 = 730,000 data points per year. So if there are more locations with more than two measurements per day then the amount of data skyrockets. So even if the data is being tampered with, how can you know without being one of the people doing the tampering? Maybe they tampered with a Walgreen's sign I saw last summer showing 104 degrees. psikSigh. Go back to the WTC conspiracy, instead, psikey. It would be less taxing for you. L
So even if the data is being tampered with, how can you know without being one of the people doing the tampering?Seems to me deliberate tampering wouldn't tend to make gobbledygook out of the data so be obvious to the various algorithms they get precessed through. It's like the comedian at the high wire or the piano, first you need to master the thing, before you can mess with details. Look at all the different processes, from testing observation instrument accuracy, to weighting various components, satellites drift, compared to thermos distortions, calibrating instruments with each other, etc, etc. Right now scientists and technicians have their hands too full for those kinds of finessed shenanigans need to meaningfully manipulate the data. Besides the fuking reality of global weather events sure screams warming no matter where you look. Unless you decide to choose that one patch in the North Atlantic, the rest of that story is plenty scary, so may as well sweep that under then carpet.
Maybe they tampered with a Walgreen's sign I saw last summer showing 104 degrees.Sure, then again the extreme heat may have whacked the calibration and it's simply screwed up. The funny thing is most people knocking climate models never even define what they expect a climate model to tell them. All they know is contrarian parroting of bullshit soundbites lacking all defensible substance. But adding up to no, no, no don't want to hear it. Just like all them Republican Representatives and Senators hiding from their angry constituents.
It’s about 50 degrees warmer than normal near the North Pole, yet again
Continuous destabilization is so interesting.
psik
I think we’re seeing that the climate models were too conservative. For one, the scientists did not have enough data to know everything to look for, such as Arctic methane releases. Secondly, scientists did not want to sound alarmists so they were conservative in their public statements. When I went back to college a few years ago I almost quit studying environmental science and policy because Environmental Science 101 depressed me so much. Many people who would care if they had enough information simply don’t know what is happening, and then there are the deniers who lie about global warming and deliberately obfuscate when they aren’t lying outright. The reality is we’ve passed several tipping points and catastrophic global warming is irreversible. All we can do is make some changes to not keep making things worse.
So even if the data is being tampered with, how can you know without being one of the people doing the tampering?Seems to me deliberate tampering wouldn't tend to make gobbledygook out of the data so be obvious to the various algorithms they get precessed through. It's like the comedian at the high wire or the piano, first you need to master the thing, before you can mess with details. Look at all the different processes, from testing observation instrument accuracy, to weighting various components, satellites drift, compared to thermos distortions, calibrating instruments with each other, etc, etc. Right now scientists and technicians have their hands too full for those kinds of finessed shenanigans need to meaningfully manipulate the data. Besides the fuking reality of global weather events sure screams warming no matter where you look. Unless you decide to choose that one patch in the North Atlantic, the rest of that story is plenty scary, so may as well sweep that under then carpet.
Maybe they tampered with a Walgreen's sign I saw last summer showing 104 degrees.Sure, then again the extreme heat may have whacked the calibration and it's simply screwed up. The funny thing is most people knocking climate models never even define what they expect a climate model to tell them. All they know is contrarian parroting of bullshit soundbites lacking all defensible substance. But adding up to no, no, no don't want to hear it. Just like all them Republican Representatives and Senators hiding from their angry constituents. CC, this is guess on my part. But when they are talking buoys. I had a friend at Scripts in San Diego that spent a lot of time traveling around the world setting ocean buoys. This was close to forty years ago now. The way he explained it to me was that these buoys would sink to predetermined depths and record data at different depths like salt content and temperature. Then the buoys would rise back to the surface and relay that data to a satellite that was to be put in orbit. Then just keep repeating the up and down data gathering. If this is the data they are talking about that was not use and replaced with ships surface data. Then the problem should be reviewed and looked into by a third party.
If this is the data they are talking about that was not use and replaced with ships surface data. Then the problem should be reviewed and looked into by a third party.What are you talking about? Also sounds like you are mixing up weather buoys with ARGO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy Weather buoys are instruments which collect weather and ocean data within the world's oceans, as well as aid during emergency response to chemical spills, legal proceedings, and engineering design. Moored buoys have been in use since 1951, while drifting buoys have been used since 1979. Moored buoys are connected with the ocean bottom using either chains, nylon, or buoyant polypropylene. With the decline of the weather ship, they have taken a more primary role in measuring conditions over the open seas since the 1970s. During the 1980s and 1990s, a network of buoys in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean helped study the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Moored weather buoys range from 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) to 12 metres (39 ft) in diameter, while drifting buoys are smaller, with diameters of 30 centimetres (12 in) to 40 centimetres (16 in). Also check out http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rmd.shtml
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu What is Argo? Argo is a global array of 3,800 free-drifting profiling floats that measures thetemperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection. Argo deployments began in 2000, and by November 2007, the millionth profile was collected. Today, even with close to 3800 active floats, there are still some areas of the ocean that are over-populated while others have gaps that need to be filled with additional floats. Here's cool old document that gives more details http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237142.pdf
Then the problem should be reviewed and looked into by a third party.You act as if this sort of data is kept secret. Oh yeah that's what your right-wing sources keep feeding your people. Well that's pure bullshit. The data has been public from the gitgo and many many third and forth and fifth parties have accessed the data for many different reasons. Have at it: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/
Global Argo Data Repository https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/ IMPORTANT NOTICES: — 5 January 2015: The monthly archives of the original Argo data are available at: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/nodc/archive/arc0022/0042682 — 29 April 2014: Argo data made available through the repository is a translation of original Argo with the global attributes section of the Argo NetCDF format ehnanced. The contents of the Argo data including orginal quality flags are preserved. (Read More...) For the master source of Argo data and information, visit:____________________The Argo Project Office JCOMMOPS Argo Information Center French Coriolis Server US GODAE Server ObjectivesGADR Home What's New Overview Argo Basins Data Argo Floats Data Argo DACs Data List of Grey Floats File Naming ConventionsMaintain authoritative reference version of original operational oceanographic data and information. Provide high quality data to a wide variety of users in a timely and useful manner.