7 ms·

They go on to say: "The temperature in Barrow had been warming so fast this year, the data was automatically flagged as unreal and removed from the climate dat

They go on to say: "The temperature in Barrow had been warming so fast this year, the data was automatically flagged as unreal and removed from the climate database. It was done by algorithms that were put in place to ensure that only the best data gets included in NOAA’s reports." These are algorithms that have not been triggered before. I understand that seasonal and "natural" fluctuations are taken care of. In theory that leaves man made. There is rather a lot of science around that indicates us lot as buggering up not just the climate itself but the oceans and even near space (junk). I'll grant you that this article sounds a little breathless but then the issue is a little bit important. I'll never forget the sight of an Aussie near sobbing on camera as he described coral bleaching over huge parts of the Great Barrier Reef ("Blue Planet II" - BBC). Sun Fish are seen off Cornwall, Polar bears are running out of ice to hunt across, 1 in xhundred year weather events are being seen much more regularly than their name suggests. We can ignore the science but as civilians we can only attribute so much to el Nino, seasonal variability and such like. Read a few papers yourself or read a few summaries from sources that you trust but don't summarise a shed load of research as: "There isn't enough science around how the climate functions"

phkahler 9y ago
There isn't enough good science. If you look at the historic record (a million years or so) you'll see glaciations and interglacial periods. One thing we should expect is a new round of glaciation if nothing changes. But it's not time for that yet. A simple google for "interglacial high water mark" yielded this: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-ice/high-water-mark https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-ice... Which indicates that sea levels have historically been several feet higher than they are today during the interglacials. There is no data on the exact temperature profile over short (100 year) historic time scales. We have evidence of data tampering - i.e. a climate model that showed the "hockey stick" regardless of what the input data was. It's a highly politicized thing. And lastly, if I accept climate change as a result of human activity I say we still don't have decent models. We need to accurately account for the effect of contrails. There is significant evidence that this matters. There is correlation between temperature rises and the increase in air traffic. It may not be "carbon" but "water vapor" that is the cause. I find these things interesting, but the headlines and stories are all very alarmist. Look at this fine article we're talking about. The data isn't all that interesting, it's just that it tripped a plausibility check someone implemented, and we don't know what the stated requirements for the check were.
- gerdesj 9y ago
  "There isn't enough good science." ... and yet you quote some rather good science wrt glaciation periods etc (I doubt you did it yourself) The thing is that we live at the moment as we are with the world as it is. For example if the sea level rose say 1m (4 feet), what would that do to say FL which is rather low lying? The weather will continue to get wilder and wilder. I happen to live on the side of a hill in Yeovil, Somerset, UK (I'm alright, probably). Somerset has a low lying region called the Levels and recently they flooded badly - that will happen more often. We have a lot of data and a lot of papers and a lot of models that predict a nasty end. Your "hockey stick" example is bollocks - the paper was sound but the interpretation by some was not. The ridiculous thing is that although no one with a scientific bent has mentioned it, have you noticed just how odd the weather has been over the last decade? Records for hot and cold and wet etc are being broken "since records began" quite often. "And lastly, if I accept climate change as a result of human activity I say we still don't have decent models." Have you done any research on this whatsoever?
  - apple4ever 9y ago
    > Have you done any research on this whatsoever? Have you? The models are all terrible. They can't even output matching observed data!
    - gerdesj 9y ago
      No mate. I simply read other people's (scientists) output. "They can't even output matching observed data!" - example please?
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > They can't even output matching observed data! Citation needed
  - xupybd 9y ago
    >Have you done any research on this whatsoever? I think it's fair to say climate models are modelling a very complex, near chaotic, system. One of the difficulties with this subject is understanding and verifying these models is simply impossible for the lay person. I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of a lack of research. It's possible to study this very in depth and still lack the ability to assess if the models are correct.

phkahler 9y ago

There isn't enough good science. If you look at the historic record (a million years or so) you'll see glaciations and interglacial periods. One thing we should expect is a new round of glaciation if nothing changes. But it's not time for that yet. A simple google for "interglacial high water mark" yielded this: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-ice/high-water-mark https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-ice... Which indicates that sea levels have historically been several feet higher than they are today during the interglacials. There is no data on the exact temperature profile over short (100 year) historic time scales. We have evidence of data tampering - i.e. a climate model that showed the "hockey stick" regardless of what the input data was. It's a highly politicized thing. And lastly, if I accept climate change as a result of human activity I say we still don't have decent models. We need to accurately account for the effect of contrails. There is significant evidence that this matters. There is correlation between temperature rises and the increase in air traffic. It may not be "carbon" but "water vapor" that is the cause. I find these things interesting, but the headlines and stories are all very alarmist. Look at this fine article we're talking about. The data isn't all that interesting, it's just that it tripped a plausibility check someone implemented, and we don't know what the stated requirements for the check were.

gerdesj 9y ago
"There isn't enough good science." ... and yet you quote some rather good science wrt glaciation periods etc (I doubt you did it yourself) The thing is that we live at the moment as we are with the world as it is. For example if the sea level rose say 1m (4 feet), what would that do to say FL which is rather low lying? The weather will continue to get wilder and wilder. I happen to live on the side of a hill in Yeovil, Somerset, UK (I'm alright, probably). Somerset has a low lying region called the Levels and recently they flooded badly - that will happen more often. We have a lot of data and a lot of papers and a lot of models that predict a nasty end. Your "hockey stick" example is bollocks - the paper was sound but the interpretation by some was not. The ridiculous thing is that although no one with a scientific bent has mentioned it, have you noticed just how odd the weather has been over the last decade? Records for hot and cold and wet etc are being broken "since records began" quite often. "And lastly, if I accept climate change as a result of human activity I say we still don't have decent models." Have you done any research on this whatsoever?
- apple4ever 9y ago
  > Have you done any research on this whatsoever? Have you? The models are all terrible. They can't even output matching observed data!
  - gerdesj 9y ago
    No mate. I simply read other people's (scientists) output. "They can't even output matching observed data!" - example please?
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > They can't even output matching observed data! Citation needed
- xupybd 9y ago
  >Have you done any research on this whatsoever? I think it's fair to say climate models are modelling a very complex, near chaotic, system. One of the difficulties with this subject is understanding and verifying these models is simply impossible for the lay person. I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of a lack of research. It's possible to study this very in depth and still lack the ability to assess if the models are correct.