3 ms·

Also, the 12-year deadline is a talking point for politicians. However the IPCC said there is not some “magic global mean temperature or total emissions that se

Also, the 12-year deadline is a talking point for politicians. However the IPCC said there is not some “magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate 'fine' from 'catastrophic’” [1] 1. https://www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline-c4ba1f99-bc76-42ac-8b93-e4eaa926938d.html https://www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocas... Someone at Reason read the UN/IPCC report, said there is no doomsday in it: https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a-degree-of/ https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a... There's also a lot of questionable stuff. The NOAA data adjustments and climate scientists openly discussing getting rid of the 1940s warmth: https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86IIKK9FRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86IIKK9FRg Lack of warming trend in the raw data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDaoHMHyDWxR3PqUP0EdtdIUU84 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDao... The new USCRN data showing no significant warming trend in the USA in 12 years: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/the-uscrn-revisited/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/the-uscrn-revisited/ The Canadian data purge: https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1174909654297538560 https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1174909654297538560

lucb1e 7y ago
Squabbling over whether we have 12 years or if it's really maybe 14 or 7 until the point of no return doesn't really change what we have to do. I don't think there are many known experts on the topic that would say the number is far off. Edit: so you edited in some more bullshit sources. Let me look at just one. As I mentioned in another comment, we don't have time to go back and forth over every piece of bullshit since nonsense is a lot easier to write than it is to convincingly disprove (since the nonsense doesn't have to make sense). I clicked only one (so it's a random sample), and I chose it because it triggered my interest (it seemed data-based): the USCRN data link. The article helpfully links to the NOAA website where you can make your own plots. I am not a climate scientists, but the first thing that I notice is the timespan: look at the variance in that data that is linked. It jumps from -4°F to +7°F anomaly. No wonder that, over this timespan, you don't see anything. The article even mentions how variable this data is: "0.6 ± 0.9 °C". You can't say anything either way because you don't have enough data (a variance larger than your base value?!). But of course, the article sees it differently: "no statistically significant warming since the start of the record". Sure it's not significant, but neither does this disprove anything. What it definitely does not do is prove that there is no warming. If anything, the 0.6 value should tell you that it is more likely to be warming up (at a rate of 0.6°C per decade) than not (the odds of it being greater than 0.6 are equal to the odds that it is less than 0.6; and the odds that it is greater than zero (and we are indeed warming up every decade) is 83% (0.6±0.9 means it can be between 0.6-0.9 and 0.6+0.9, so between -0.3 and 1.5, so there are (rounded to one decimal) 18 possible values and 15 of them are positive, and 15/18 is around 83%). Again, all of this is uncertain because monthly data since 2004 is not a lot of data with this amount of variance, and I'm estimating uncertainty on uncertainty here, but the takeaway so far should be clear. But that's not the end of it. The author is literally turning a blind eye to the data that we do have. First they go "we have no data, and the data we do have suggests that the earth is warming up, so let me just deny that global warming is real", but then when you click through to the website, you discover that there totally is data. See those checkboxes at the top of the options? They have data going back way beyond 2004. Select any year you like, but be sure to take a long enough range (30 years or so) so you have any sort of reasonable sample size. If it looks like a bunch of random data to you and there is no clear trend, I would agree: the author of your article picked the least clear "Time Scale" option available. I didn't quite understand the difference between the Time Scale options "previous 12 months" and "12-Month" so I downloaded the whole dataset and computed averages per year. They match the option "Time Scale: 12-Month", so that's what that means: the year's average. You can just set that Time Scale option and don't have to go through the trouble of downloading things and validating what you think the option might mean (see what I mean by "disproving bullshit is more work than writing it"?). Now, over 30+ years and with the year's average, please tell me you see a trend there? This new USCRN data is just not active for long enough to draw conclusions, and the high-uncertainty conclusions that can be drawn (referring to the article you linked to, namely the 0.6°C per decade, give or take 0.9) suggest that it is going up rapidly. I wonder if all this work has been for nothing, it took more time than I had hoped... I just hope it makes you rethink what you believe or look at your sources more critically (instead of only looking critically at the generally accepted sources).
- solarwind 7y ago
  Though I do agree with the sentiment that disproving bullshit is more work than writing it, the linked Google Sheet is a literal import of the raw and modified data sets freely downloadable from the NOAA ftp site.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    Do you realize you completely ignored the analysis that my comment is about?
    - solarwind 7y ago
      The USCRN is a new network of 143 stations that wasn't fully completed in 2008 (started in 2001 with data becoming available 2004). The data prior to 2004 is from the historical sensor network (USHCN). The whole reason the USCRN was built was because of the problems with the historical network. The USCRN was designed to get more reliable measurements. The aforementioned spreadsheet illustrates the problems with the USHCN data.

lucb1e 7y ago

Squabbling over whether we have 12 years or if it's really maybe 14 or 7 until the point of no return doesn't really change what we have to do. I don't think there are many known experts on the topic that would say the number is far off. Edit: so you edited in some more bullshit sources. Let me look at just one. As I mentioned in another comment, we don't have time to go back and forth over every piece of bullshit since nonsense is a lot easier to write than it is to convincingly disprove (since the nonsense doesn't have to make sense). I clicked only one (so it's a random sample), and I chose it because it triggered my interest (it seemed data-based): the USCRN data link. The article helpfully links to the NOAA website where you can make your own plots. I am not a climate scientists, but the first thing that I notice is the timespan: look at the variance in that data that is linked. It jumps from -4°F to +7°F anomaly. No wonder that, over this timespan, you don't see anything. The article even mentions how variable this data is: "0.6 ± 0.9 °C". You can't say anything either way because you don't have enough data (a variance larger than your base value?!). But of course, the article sees it differently: "no statistically significant warming since the start of the record". Sure it's not significant, but neither does this disprove anything. What it definitely does not do is prove that there is no warming. If anything, the 0.6 value should tell you that it is more likely to be warming up (at a rate of 0.6°C per decade) than not (the odds of it being greater than 0.6 are equal to the odds that it is less than 0.6; and the odds that it is greater than zero (and we are indeed warming up every decade) is 83% (0.6±0.9 means it can be between 0.6-0.9 and 0.6+0.9, so between -0.3 and 1.5, so there are (rounded to one decimal) 18 possible values and 15 of them are positive, and 15/18 is around 83%). Again, all of this is uncertain because monthly data since 2004 is not a lot of data with this amount of variance, and I'm estimating uncertainty on uncertainty here, but the takeaway so far should be clear. But that's not the end of it. The author is literally turning a blind eye to the data that we do have. First they go "we have no data, and the data we do have suggests that the earth is warming up, so let me just deny that global warming is real", but then when you click through to the website, you discover that there totally is data. See those checkboxes at the top of the options? They have data going back way beyond 2004. Select any year you like, but be sure to take a long enough range (30 years or so) so you have any sort of reasonable sample size. If it looks like a bunch of random data to you and there is no clear trend, I would agree: the author of your article picked the least clear "Time Scale" option available. I didn't quite understand the difference between the Time Scale options "previous 12 months" and "12-Month" so I downloaded the whole dataset and computed averages per year. They match the option "Time Scale: 12-Month", so that's what that means: the year's average. You can just set that Time Scale option and don't have to go through the trouble of downloading things and validating what you think the option might mean (see what I mean by "disproving bullshit is more work than writing it"?). Now, over 30+ years and with the year's average, please tell me you see a trend there? This new USCRN data is just not active for long enough to draw conclusions, and the high-uncertainty conclusions that can be drawn (referring to the article you linked to, namely the 0.6°C per decade, give or take 0.9) suggest that it is going up rapidly. I wonder if all this work has been for nothing, it took more time than I had hoped... I just hope it makes you rethink what you believe or look at your sources more critically (instead of only looking critically at the generally accepted sources).

solarwind 7y ago
Though I do agree with the sentiment that disproving bullshit is more work than writing it, the linked Google Sheet is a literal import of the raw and modified data sets freely downloadable from the NOAA ftp site.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  Do you realize you completely ignored the analysis that my comment is about?
  - solarwind 7y ago
    The USCRN is a new network of 143 stations that wasn't fully completed in 2008 (started in 2001 with data becoming available 2004). The data prior to 2004 is from the historical sensor network (USHCN). The whole reason the USCRN was built was because of the problems with the historical network. The USCRN was designed to get more reliable measurements. The aforementioned spreadsheet illustrates the problems with the USHCN data.