IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Science: Global warming "pause" didn't happen.
Science:

In their paper, Karl's team sums up the combined effect of additional land temperature stations, corrected commercial ship temperature data, and corrected ship-to-buoy calibrations. The group estimates that the world warmed at a rate of 0.086°C per decade between 1998 and 2012—more than twice the IPCC's estimate of about 0.039°C per decade. The new estimate, the researchers note, is much closer to the rate of 0.113°C per decade estimated for 1950 to 1999. And for the period from 2000 to 2014, the new analysis suggests a warming rate of 0.116°C per decade—slightly higher than the 20th century rate. “What you see is that the slowdown just goes away,” Karl says.

And that's without including the elephant in the room: Arctic warming. A 2014 paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society highlighted how the scarcity of temperature data from the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, has produced a significant “cool” bias in the global trends, especially since 1997.

“The post-1998 period is really difficult, partially because of Arctic warming and partly because of the change in SST measurements,” says Kevin Cowtan, a computational scientist at the University of York in the United Kingdom, who co-authored the 2014 paper. “The fact that it's caused problems is completely understandable, if unfortunate.”


Cheers,
Scott.
New yup, correct the numbers to get the results you want
works for me http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full.pdf looked at their methodology, the reasoning behind the "corrections" doesn't wash.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New They do this for a living. Do you?
Every measurement has error bars of two types: random and systematic. If you don't correct for systematic errors, you'll draw incorrect inferences.

"First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the
buoy data (15–17)."

Systematic error bars can change over time (as they get more information) even if random error bars don't.

It's not a conspiracy.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New They do this for a living, why yes they do
if you read the actual paper the rational for changing the numbers in that fashion do not grok unless they are trying to erase the hiatus, then it makes perfect sense.
Why is noaa turning down many of the arctic sensors when that is an area of most concern? Why fluff the buoy numbers when their accuracy is much better than the ship collection numbers?
There is no conspiracy, just folks who use the evidence to approve their prejudices. See creationist science for similarities.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New You're grasping at straws again.
Why is noaa turning down many of the arctic sensors when that is an area of most concern?


The supplementary data from the paper is here. It says:

Therefore, our estimate of the additional warming over recent decades in the arctic, not included in our primary global analysis, is likely to be an underestimate of the actual warming. However, because our data date back to 1880, further investigation (beyond the scope of this analysis) is required to demonstrate the optimum interpolation approach for both short and long periods in data-sparse, high-latitude regions.


Similarly with your other questions.

Happy hunting. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New keep on keeping on.
any "scientist" who ignores data selectively to their bias needs to have questions asked.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New Asked and answered. :-)
That warming has been fastest in the northern latitudes isn't in dispute.

E.g.

They didn't "ignore data to suit their bias" or whatever.

The climate datasets are public and freely available. You're welcome to do your own analysis if you think they're wrong.

http://gosic.org/

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Imagining conspiracy/thus perfect secrecy ... across such masses of the quite demonstrably 'numerate'
(or the idea of confirmation bias and other memes-du-jour)
is the stuff of a mindset, not of: a rational awareness of ... the irrationality of many folks' jelloware.
Especially since: much of the average jelloware remains innumerate by any measure.

All you need do is Look Around/while evading your own confirmation-bias. Can ya manage that?
New what secrecy? They stated exactly what numbers they wanted to changed to get their prefered results?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Expand Edited by boxley June 15, 2015, 11:23:00 AM EDT
     Science: Global warming "pause" didn't happen. - (Another Scott) - (8)
         yup, correct the numbers to get the results you want - (boxley) - (7)
             They do this for a living. Do you? - (Another Scott) - (6)
                 They do this for a living, why yes they do - (boxley) - (5)
                     You're grasping at straws again. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                         keep on keeping on. - (boxley) - (3)
                             Asked and answered. :-) - (Another Scott)
                             Imagining conspiracy/thus perfect secrecy ... across such masses of the quite demonstrably 'numerate' - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 what secrecy? They stated exactly what numbers they wanted to changed to get their prefered results? -NT - (boxley)

Department of Redundancy Department
53 ms