Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted this before and I see I have to refresh peoples memory again

3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Ms. Laframboise is considered to be quite a whack job in her home country, sort of an Ann Coulter with a parka. If you folks are that enamoured, er sorry, enamored, with her please feel free to take her. I think she's looking for work.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Only shows the amount of unsettled debate about the adjustments, not just from the folks, but from amongst the scientists themselves.

Really what climate scientists of any stripe, question adjustments.

Both RSS and UAH are adjusted.

One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.

Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade « Roy Spencer, PhD

Monthly maps of MSU/AMSU brightness temperatures and brightness temperature anomalies for each dataset are available for browsing using a browse tool, or download, from our FTP server (ftp.remss.com/msu). Each monthly map is a 144 x 72 (2.5 degree resolution) gridded dataset of brightness temperatures. Brightness temperatures are adjusted to correspond to a local time of midnight using our monthly diurnal cycle climatology. Brightness temperature anomalies are the difference between the monthly brightness temperatures and the average value for that month. The references period varies from product to product due to the different dataset lengths available.

Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems

It was folks like Watts who cried out for adjustments based on UHI, evem after BEST stated

The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

Berkeley Earth

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted this before and I see I have to refresh peoples memory again

3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Originally Posted by Brob2

Ms. Laframboise is considered to be quite a whack job in her home country, sort of an Ann Coulter with a parka. If you folks are that enamoured, er sorry, enamored, with her please feel free to take her. I think she's looking for work.

LOL. No thanks, we already have too many of those types down this way -- on both sides.

But if nothing else, her article does highlight the confusion L-E and others seem to have when failing to distinguish btwn. criticisms of the politicalization of the science vs. criticisms of the scientists themselves. In even simpler terms, it's the difference btwn. a scientific process that many believe has been corrupted by politics, as opposed to the scientists themselves being corrupt. Nobody has suggested the latter (except maybe the George Mason guy & Jack's Cornwall insinuations).

And one doesn't have to subscribe to much of the article to understand that, as essentially an int'l political body, not even the IPCC is capable of just "sticking to the science."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really what climate scientists of any stripe, question adjustments.

Both RSS and UAH are adjusted.



Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade « Roy Spencer, PhD



Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems

It was folks like Watts who cried out for adjustments based on UHI, evem after BEST stated



Berkeley Earth

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

I understand this, but don't need to challenge the adjustments to any of the datasets. The critical disparity in long-term rates of warming b'twn UAH/RSS & surface data is self-evident assuming all the adjustments are correct.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I understand this, but don't need to challenge the adjustments to any of the datasets. The critical disparity in long-term rates of warming b'twn UAH/RSS & surface data is self-evident assuming all the adjustments are correct.

They measure different heights of the troposphere.

HADCrut is well known for underestimating Arctic temperatures.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by Exile

an int'l political body, not even the IPCC, is capable of just "sticking to the science."

Yes, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for national political bodies.
Makes me wish for the good ole days of Napoleon Bonaparte, but then again, I was younger then.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

And one doesn't have to subscribe to much of the article to understand that, as essentially an int'l political body, not even the IPCC is capable of just "sticking to the science."

Finally someone else gets it. The ipcc is nothing but a multi governmental political body. And we all know politics run on money not facts.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Brob2

Yes, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for national political bodies.

Exactly.

Makes me wish for the good ole days of Napoleon Bonaparte, but then again, I was younger then.

Always figured you northerners for being tough & hardy, but didn't realize you were also so long-lived!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

They measure different heights of the troposphere.

Not sure what this relates to. A reason why adjustments are used for the sat data?

HADCrut is well known for underestimating Arctic temperatures.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

I take it that adjustments are used to compensate for the lack of coverage (i.e. stations) over the poles (and Africa)? The report suggested they had not fully compensated, but the adjustments got them closer to the estimates. But then I don't really understand where the estimates come from.

[fryewe]

If you don't think I've been making a logic-based argument, then you really haven't been reading (or i really really suck at this)...

Is this the poll that was referred to earlier?

I vote for the latter.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Finally someone else gets it. The ipcc is nothing but a multi governmental political body. And we all know politics run on money not facts.

(Gov't) haterz gonna hate.

The IPCC was created in response to the early findings of climate problems, to collect all the findings (including those that don't support AGW!), to spur further research and collaboration, to facilitate conversation between countries about this, and to attempt to find common ground between countries for acknowledging and addressing the problem.

As the Canadian Ann Coulter stated in that link, journalists won't plough through a 7000 page report, and often not even a 200 page overview. And Joe Sixpack doesn't usually read Scientific American, or Nature, let alone the actual scientific journals. IPCC is the UN's attempt to make the climate problems better understood, AND presented in terms that most governments don't find objectionable (which is why the member governments have a kick at it before the reports are released), and more digestable to the general media.

The most common criticism of the IPCC's 'science', from people who actually know the science, is that the IPCC has been downplaying the severity of the problem in order to make it more palatable to the member countries.

Those of you who still think there's some nefarious secret purpose behind the IPCC... it would help make your case if you could articulate what you think that nefarious secret purpose is... in a bit more detail than "hurf-durf gummint!". And please remember, don't suffer in silence, help is just a phone call away. Reach out to a friend or loved one.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But then I don't really understand where the estimates come from.

The is a profound admission.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(Gov't) haterz gonna hate.

The IPCC was created in response to the early findings of climate problems, to collect all the findings (including those that don't support AGW!), to spur further research and collaboration, to facilitate conversation between countries about this, and to attempt to find common ground between countries for acknowledging and addressing the problem.

As the Canadian Ann Coulter stated in that link, journalists won't plough through a 7000 page report, and often not even a 200 page overview. And Joe Sixpack doesn't usually read Scientific American, or Nature, let alone the actual scientific journals. IPCC is the UN's attempt to make the climate problems better understood, AND presented in terms that most governments don't find objectionable (which is why the member governments have a kick at it before the reports are released), and more digestable to the general media.

The most common criticism of the IPCC's 'science', from people who actually know the science, is that the IPCC has been downplaying the severity of the problem in order to make it more palatable to the member countries.

Those of you who still think there's some nefarious secret purpose behind the IPCC... it would help make your case if you could articulate what you think that nefarious secret purpose is... in a bit more detail than "hurf-durf gummint!". And please remember, don't suffer in silence, help is just a phone call away. Reach out to a friend or loved one.

The thing is that may have been what the IPCC was supposed to be when it was formed . The problem is and correct me if I'm not spot on with this one . The IPCC is a multi government political entity . On that we agree. Now the cruxt Of that is I have never seen any political group that doesn't have or rather quickly develop a MODIS operandi that has its own members interest placed above anything else that leads itself to supporting them in a nor that they would like to become accustomed to.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The IPCC is a multi government political entity . On that we agree. Now the crux of that is I have never seen any political group that doesn't have or rather quickly develop a MODIS operandi that has its own members interest placed above anything else that leads itself to supporting them in a nor that they would like to become accustomed to.

ok, but what is "its own members interest"? Most governments, especially of affluent countries, don't want anything raining on their parade. They don't like bad news. Does the US government really want to be saying to its citizens "folks, please go for a small six instead of a hemi in your next truck, ok?"

As I mentioned, the IPCC is more often accused of downplaying, not exaggerating or faking the problem. If you have a different take on what is the IPCC members' true aim, lets hear it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The is a profound admission.

Enlighten us with thou wisdom thy wise climate change sage.