Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 23:38:41

Only people who don't actually read scientific papers would be impressed by the rock analyst's attempt to look like an expert in climate.


Well first off, unlike you, I have never suggested I am an expert in climate. I am, however, an earth scientist and have taught at university and at the first year level where basic climate physics are dealt with. I am not an expert but I have the science background, I do know how to do research and I do know that when that research is published after peer review and there is no formal Discussion published in that journal then the original paper is likely a valid assessment. I have, out of interest, spent the last decade and a half studying various aspects of climate science out of interest. I am familiar with the literature and open to opposing views if backed up with something other than opinion.

You, on the other hand are arguing that these published scientists are all wrong. I have a number of papers outside of the ones I mentioned that speak to the same greening effect so I suspect you have a lot of work to do. Please show us the research that refutes that. Arguing that satellite data is suspect and then pointing to surface data that has been shown to be both inaccurate and imprecise is a classic approach by people who are familiar with the climate arguments but are not scientists. Of course there is uncertainty with satellite measurements but if you bothered to read the papers you would see they did address them. I have a difficult time taking you to be an expert in this field given the tirade you just made about "deniers". This has no place in science and that tirade pretty much puts you in a very bad light. Why should we all take you as the authority here? Please post the relevant papers and we can discuss as scientists normally would.

I am not going to take any 14% trend estimate from satellite data seriously. The error bars are larger than this even for a set of measurements at a given time. If you try to put error bars on the trend spanning several instruments you are looking at errors over 30%. Satellites are not so bad for bulk emission measurements such as those that can be used to infer temperature. But for refined products such as the trend of vegetation colour in scene pixels it is another ball game.


fine, post the references to the literature that show this to be the case, stating errors are over 30% requires a reference to my mind. Better yet point to where in those publications I posted that the error bars overwhelm the signal.

If the rock analyst is going to poop on climate models and their submodels (e.g. for cloud processes) as being unreliable and uncertain, I can throw his excrement right back at him and argue that the satellite measurement papers he invokes above are just as uncertain. In fact, they are even more uncertain.


well first off my discussion about the uncertainties with respect to how clouds were handled was base on a quote from the IPCC AR5 research section and a number of papers which I am more than willing to point to if needed. It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of all the scientists who contributed to that chapter and those papers. The difference is you are talking about errors with respect to satellite measurements whereas they are talking about uncertainties about processes with respect to clouds. Completely different aspects and completely unrelated.

Also I need to point out the satellite studies were done as reference research, ie. comparing to older studies. Given the same errors present in each vintage of study the empirical observations are valid without concern over error bars (unless you can establish measurement error has declined between the periods).
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby litesong » Thu 27 Oct 2016, 07:00:33

dissident wrote: deniers who are childish and deserve no respect.....No amount of refutation will matter because they systematically ignore it and continue to spout the same old tired lies.....To claim that they need to be argued against in some civilized manner when they personally take a dump on such discourse is simply absurd. It is like demanding autistics to be treated like Einsteins. Some of these autistics need a straight jacket and a padded room instead of deference and coddling.


Aye!! Aye Aye!!!! https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ay ... ajaxhist=0

In the past I mentioned that AGW deniers are even worse on other websites, even threatening AGW advocates to get them to leave websites (which they did). AGW deniers brag that they have no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc education, so they are not affected by the liberal education system.
Aye Aye!!!! https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ay ... ajaxhist=0
AGW deniers aren't affected by education!!!!!!!!
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 16 Dec 2016, 14:22:29

InverseInverse
Follow
Share This
NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 17: Anthony Scaramucci, a member of the transition team executive committee and founder of investment firm SkyBridge Capital, speaks to reporters at Trump Tower, November 17, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Trump's Adviser Thinks Climate Change Is Like the Flat Earth Hoax
Sarah SloatDonald TrumpDecember 15, 2016
According to NASA, 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is due to human activities. Despite this fact, Donald Trump advisor and total non-scientist Anthony Scaramucci compared climate change to the idea that the world is flat on the CNN program New Day.

The topic came up after the show’s host, Chris Cuomo, asked Scaramucci why Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy for the names of individuals working in the department on climate change. Scaramucci evaded the question, choosing instead to explain that Trump’s team doesn’t want climate change to be “ideologically based” and that maybe 97 percent of scientists have gotten climate change wrong.

“There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat, and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world,” Scaramucci said. “We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.”

But comparing climate change to the beliefs of flat-earth truthers like B.o.B and Tila Tequila is an inaccurate and very bad analogy, reminiscent of the time Ted Cruz compared “global warming alarmists” to Galileo. To equate a scientific reality like climate change to the disproved theory that the world is flat not only compares fact to fiction but gives a semblance of credibility to the idea that the world is flat.


https://www.inverse.com/article/25291-a ... earth-hoax
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 10:51:41

US Republicans are clearly totally blinkered by their ideology when it comes to climate change. Thanks to Exxon, Koch brothers and other funded propaganda climate science has been politicized. So there is no more attention to the science but attention to the supposed leftist agenda of the researchers. The above post shows this rather well. The new crew taking over is worried about the ideological purity of climate researchers and not the clearly evident climate change. Even if they believe it is natural, there is zero effort to adapt or mitigate the impacts. The fixation is all on some conspiracy by leftists.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:09:23

"US Republicans are clearly totally blinkered by their ideology..." Nicely put!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:22:29

pstarr wrote:diss, to your point that aerosols are clouding the pictures. You apparently did not review the study the Rock posted:
The GIMMS (Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies) data set is a normalizeed difference vegetation index (NDVI) product available for a 25 year period spanning from 1981 to 2006. The data set is derived from imagery obtained from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument onboard the NOAA satellite series 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17. This is an NDVI dataset that has been corrected for calibration, view geometry, volcanic aerosols, and other effects not related to vegetation change.

NDVI is normalized for atmospheric effects, including water vapor and aerosols, clouds, minimized by forming composite images from daily or near-daily images, soil effects ie moisture, anisotropic and other spectral effects. Landsat is decades old and yes perhaps the optics, sensors, or transmission protocols have changed. But that has been accounted for also.

diss, you put a lot of time into that last post, a subject you have not previously shown much interest in. Curious? You're not one of the greenie plants like Al Gore? Or perhaps under the employ of the Russkies, trying to drain us of our oil, our precious bodily fluids?


You clearly have no clue what you are spouting off about. It is easy to measure bulk land use changes. Forest here one year, open field the next. That is what LANDSAT was designed to measure. The problem is determining the vegetation bulk trends from pixels which are vegetated. Just because some product is released with all sorts of corrections does not imply that those corrections have enough accuracy to establish 14% level trends. In particular, there have been no proper attribution studies that causally link CO2 to the pixel vegetation volume amounts. You avoid dealing with the fact that there have been large land use changes globally which have nothing to do with CO2 but directly contribute to the appearance of more vegetated pixels. The study being discussed does not even correct for this effect. It just willy nilly assumes that all greening is directly due to CO2. Look at Figure 1 in

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e3004.html

The peak LAI (leaf area index) trend overlaps all the regions I brought up in my post. Being a credulous and smug snot you wouldn't understand this nuance. The correlation with all the zones with abandoned farms is incredible. This includes southern Ontario, the eastern USA (yes it is quite similar and I have driven through enough of the US east to confirm this), the Steppe overlapping Russia and Ukraine, eastern China. Over most of Canada, the western USA, Alaska, Siberia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Australia, Argentina, and significant parts of southern Africa the trend is negative. The paper uses three LAI datasets (GIMMS LAI3g, GLASS and GLOMAP) and the disagreement between them is substantial. GIMMS disagrees with the other two over the Amazon basin, showing much less greening, but instead shows much more greening over Australia. GLASS clearly overestimates overall the greening trend compared to the other two datasets. I am not talking about little differences, I am talking about going from positive to negative trends. Also, the regional details of the trends are different between all three datasets. There are bulk similarities but the patterns are nowhere near identical.

There is no way that a 14% level trend can be inferred from datasets that vary so much. This variation also demonstrates all the points about correction uncertainties I was making. And that is before the whole attribution to CO2.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:23:30

I think there has been some adaptation, just not nearly enough. We should be federally buying up all property in southern Louisiana and specifically New Orleans and removing all permanent structures. The swamp is disapearing into the sea, fighting this losing battle with sea level rise is expensive and pointless. There is a reason private insurers have or are pulling coverage.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:49:33

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00635/full

Satellite derived LAI products have serious problems over forested regions. And abandoned farmland is where there is forest regrowth.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:56:31

Subjectivist wrote:I think there has been some adaptation, just not nearly enough. We should be federally buying up all property in southern Louisiana and specifically New Orleans and removing all permanent structures. The swamp is disapearing into the sea, fighting this losing battle with sea level rise is expensive and pointless. There is a reason private insurers have or are pulling coverage.


What is missing is serious adaptation in transport and housing. Vanilla internal combustion engines should have been history by now. Every car should be a hybrid that stores energy during breaking and uses an electrical motor to drive the wheels. Public transit should not be something were it is better to take the car. Municipalities should restrict urban sprawl and increase density. Europe is a good model. Solar energy heating and house design should be such that heating by fossil fuels (even if it is via the electrical grid) should be minimized. As of now such changes are token and it is BAU. Looks like it will be BAU until we fall over the cliff edge.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 12:24:20

"[Mostly Socialist] Europe is a good model."

Fixed that for ya! :-D :-D :-D
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 12:25:58

Dissident and Pstarr
with reference to the Zhu et al, 20166. Greening of the Earth and its drivers paper it is worth reading the whole thing to understand what they did. My read is that it addresses the issues Dissident points out.
Long-term changes in vegetation greenness are driven by multiple interacting biogeochemical drivers and land-use effects9. Biogeochemical drivers include the fertilization effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (eCO2), regional climate change (temperature, precipitation and radiation), and varying rates of nitrogen deposition. Land-use-related drivers involve changes in land cover and in land management intensity, including fertilization, irrigation, forestry and grazing. None of these driving factors can be considered in isolation, given their strong interactions with one another. Previously, a few studies had investigated the drivers of global greenness trends, with a limited number of models and satellite observations, which prevented an appropriate quantification of uncertainties.
Here, we investigate trends of leaf area index (LAI) and their drivers for the period 1982 to 2009 using three remotely sensed data sets (GIMMS3g, GLASS and GLOMAP) and outputs from ten ecosystem models run at global extent (see Supplementary Information). We use the growing season integrated leaf area index (hereafter, LAI; Methods) as the variable of our study. We first analyse global and regional LAI trends for the study period and differences between the three data sets. Using modelling results, we then quantify the contributions of CO2 fertilization, climatic factors, nitrogen deposition and LCC to the observed trends.


Trends from the three long-term satellite LAI data sets consistently show positive values over a large proportion of the global vegetated area since 1982
The regions with the largest greening trends, consistent across the three data sets, are in southeast North America, the northern Amazon, Europe, Central Africa and Southeast Asia.
The GLASS LAI data shows the most extensive statistically significant greening (Mann–Kendall test, p < 0.05 ) over 50% of vegetated lands, followed by GLOBMAP LAI (43%) and GIMMS LAI3g (25%). All three LAI data sets also consistently show a decreasing LAI trend (browning) over less than 4% of global vegetated land—these are observed in northwest North America and central South America.


and they also "sense check" the observations against 10 global ecosystem models

We compare satellite-based LAI anomalies with LAI anomalies simulated by ten global ecosystem models driven by eCO2 (+46ppm over the study period), climate, nitrogen deposition and LCC (Supplementary Section 7). Multi-Model Ensemble Mean (MMEM) LAI anomalies, with all these drivers considered, generally agree with averaged satellite observations at the global scale (r = 0.85, p < 0.01; Fig. 2a). The trend in MMEM LAI anomalies (0.062 m2 m−2 yr−1 ) is within the range of estimates from the three satellite data sets.


and they try to derive the contribution of CO2 to the results from the models
We used an optimal fingerprint detection method13 to assess the ability of the models to simulate response patterns of LAI to eCO2 , climate change, nitrogen deposition and LCC.

Globally, the model factorial simulations suggest that CO2 fertilization explains the largest contribution to the satellite-observed LAI trend (70.1 ± 29.4%, 0.048 ± 0.020 m2 m−2 yr−1 ), followed by nitrogen deposition (8.8 ± 11.8%, 0.006 ± 0.008 m2 m−2 yr−1 ), climate change (8.1 ± 20.6%, 0.006 ± 0.014 m2 m−2 yr−1 ) and LCC (3.7 ± 14.7%, 0.003 ± 0.010m2 m−2 yr−1)


so to sum:

-the study uses 3 recent remote sensing datasets and the trends in all 3 agree with one another over all areas
-they incorporate land cover change into their analysis (LCC) along with greening and browning analysis (LAI)
-they test their results against a climate model that shows general agreement with observations
-the rationale as to what contribution CO2 plays in the observed greening comes from analysis of the models
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 13:07:03

Ahh, baby roc...the linkless wonder!

I'll let others destroy this latest sophistry. I can't be bothered with this twit any more.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 13:41:01

Ahh, baby roc...the linkless wonder!


I was referencing the actual paper that pstarr was pointing to on greening of the earth that was recently published by a group at NASA. both pstarr and dissident are aware of what paper that is so I did not see a need to reference it once again. I was supplying quotes from within the actual paper which I believe address the concerns dissident had. Maybe not. That is up for him to respond to as I suspect he will take the time to read the paper.

For the memory impaired
Zhu, Z., 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change., DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3004

As usual you step in to blather about something you know absolutely nothing about and have zero background to discuss....good idea to leave that discussion to those who have actually read something. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 13:44:57

Yes rock, thanks for the discussion. It is a great study. It should change (along with previous studies on CO2 fertilization) the entire discussion. But it won't. Too many ideologues on either side of this fence.

dohboi wrote:Ahh, baby roc...the linkless wonder!

I'll let others destroy this latest sophistry. I can't be bothered with this twit any more.

dohboi is trapped in his own agenda. He was hoping to make converts here at peakoil.com to join him and his army of liberal activists in the overthrow of the reigning paradigm. Now he realizes he is equally part of the problem. And has offered no solution.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26342
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 13:55:54

"...trapped in his own agenda..."

Projection, much?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

And baby roc, thanks for reminding us that the study you were referencing was for the period 1982–2009, now essentially ancient history. CO2 is no longer having a greening effect overall.

Since once again you refused to bother posting a link, I kindly provide one here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e3004.html

Relevant line: " Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009."

And it is rather rich for someone who was absolutely certain that warm water could not persist below cold water in polar oceans (even though that is exactly what happens) to claim that anyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. Rich indeed.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 14:25:34

And baby roc, thanks for reminding us that the study you were referencing was for the period 1982–2009, now essentially ancient history. CO2 is no longer having a greening effect overall.


Oh really? That NASA paper referenced was published in April of this year. What do you have to show us that is more recent? What are you basing this claim on other than your imagination?

Note that the paper referenced refers to the trend for all 3 data sets and the only one which there is most recent qualified data is GIMM LAI3g. The following graph

Image

That graph demonstrates that GIMM LAI3g along with the two other datasets and the model have good agreement in the period of 1982-2009 (the length of the two other data sets and hence the model runs) and that the continuation of GIMM LAI3g to 2014 shows a continual increase in LAI to end 2014.
So you give no support for your claim greening has stopped whereas this graph on its own suggests it has not

I am not sure why you even bother to post on science related topics. You never bother to read any actual publications in order to discuss them, presumably because anything technical sets your mind spinning away in confusion.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5512
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 14:39:20

You can find this shit yourself. I'm giving two related article (with links, mind you), then I have to move on to other things and let others pick up the pieces. Best luck with your delusions.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .2762/full

...decline in the Northern Hemisphere's uptake of carbon dioxide in biomass

Trees and plants reached 'peak carbon' 10 years ago

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/tree ... -years-ago

And in any case, whatever extra uptake of atmospheric CO2 plants may or may have been responsible for, it hasn't kept actual CO2 levels from continuing their dizzying increase, and the earths soils, especially in the far north, are about to start dumping massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 20150.html

https://www.adn.com/arctic/2016/12/01/l ... tmosphere/
Last edited by dohboi on Sat 17 Dec 2016, 14:59:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 14:47:56

dohboi wrote:You can find this shit yourself. I'm giving two related article (with links, mind you), then I have to move on to other things and let others pick up the pieces. Best luck with your delusions.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .2762/full

...decline in the Northern Hemisphere's uptake of carbon dioxide in biomass

Trees and plants reached 'peak carbon' 10 years ago

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/tree ... -years-ago

From the Curran study: "New measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide reveal that plants have reached saturation point, and that since 2006 the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by plants has been declining. “It’s the first evidence that we are tipping over the edge, potentially towards runaway or irreversible climate change,” says James Curran, former chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency."

The study refers to the North Hemisphere and the results have been refuted. The bulk of the greening affect is in the dry tropics, most noticeably in the African continent in the Southern Hemisphere.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26342
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 14:59:56

Soooo, basically your argument is "my study is better than yours"

Okey dokey.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16785
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 15:09:36

dohboi wrote:Soooo, basically your argument is "my study is better than yours"

Okey dokey.
Let's try this: the Curran data is older than the new data and only refers to a minor component of the entire planetary data set. Okey dokey
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26342
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests