Owen Abrey shared a link.
Mike Babulic Good news, but also a little scary. Does this mean ocean acidification is also going at a faster than predicted rateAugust 4 at 1:51pm via mobile ·
Owen AbreyNo, the opposite, the ocean equilibrium is de-acidifying--easily accommodating and bringing into equilibrium the millionths of ppm added to the atmosphere. Try and imagine 400ppm CO2 against the atmosphere 1.5-2.0 Billion years ago. The a...See More
Nils Ek If only everyone - OK not everyone, but say, every fifth person - took Geology 101: physical geology and earth history, starting with the formation of the solid earth. They would understand that the current "climate change" is just a blip in a long series of events, many of which dwarf this one.August 5 at 6:59pm · · 1
Carl Ek Temperature change of Pacific NW? IT IS RISING, contrary to Owen's information.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Climatechange/ changepnw.html#TemperatureP recipitation 
www.fws.govClimate Change in the Pacific Northwest website is part of the Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service21 hours ago · Edited · ·- Owen Abrey An assessment made in 2009? Man would I ever like to see the red on their faces today. Talk about eating crow!
- Owen Abrey Even so, with record high snow packs, weeks later snow melt, unusually high flooding through the summers, 3 years does not a climate make. I know that. And they should be embarrassed.
- Mike Babulic The climate change hypothesis predicts increased precipitation in many regions, which would lead to a larger snowpack and unusually high floodingabout an hour ago via mobile ·
- Owen Abrey Yes of course you are correct it does predict it. And that isn't a safe prediction by any measure! I agree there will always be each season unique to itself. Last winter does not predict in a cause and effect way, the weather this year. Living on the West side of Canada, we are fairly significantly impacted by the El-ninio/a effects. However, perhaps spring boarding off this report in 2009, it was predicted that we would have winters of lessening precip. In regard to a local climate, I have some theories of mid term climatic effects. We had a fair amount of snow in 2011. However it melted fairly quickly without flooding. However, it did noticably boost the humidity and rain patterns--I thought it would peter out, and so did the predictors. So it was surprising to get 20' of snow at my mine site. This year was different. When the snow is on the mountains, the winds blow noticeably cooler. Significantly lowering daily temps. Usually in my community everyone waits until 2 things, 1) the snow is gone on Baker Mt. (around 8800') and May 24th weekend. This year everything from fruit trees to gardens is a full 2 weeks late. Flooding has be very high, BC Hydro had to open the spillways extensively this year to accommodate the flush. The extra moisture in the mountains because of a delayed run off, is very high. I have a bumper crop of Huckleberries at the mine consequently. The moisture contributes to cloud formation noticeably this year. So it has rained more than it has for a long time. Winter will come early, frosts will come early. This at best could be called a micro-climate, I acknowledge that. Observing the incredible forces of nature before an after a thunderstorm, trying to calculate the number of joules exchanged at the ground there-by, makes AGW and our puny .003% CO2 level seem pretty irrelevant.17 minutes ago · Edited ·
- Owen Abrey Of course the appropriate come-back is regional variabilty of weather does not a climate make. I could leave that alone, if proof-text papers like this one: mimeographed from other IPCC papers, didn't scream the SAME thing. But of course the IPCC has the world of credibility behind it so it doesn't matter if they are hypocrites who take no responsibility when they are wrong.
- Owen Abrey "The beating of a butterfly's wing in Japan effects the flight of a 757 in London. I know the quantum evidence of this. But of course after satisfying one's self with quantum mechanics, that indeed this is true, one has to step back and weigh all the other effects not only at the quantum threshold and below... Then the suggestion becomes preposterous. We can see that in this instance. But CO2 levels are a butterfly's wing no matter how you cut it--if you dare to actually look at the real numbers...
- Owen Abrey It is the phenomenal power of H20, conservatively supposed to create about 85% of climate variability, that make those 300 millionths (.00300%) seem a bit over-emphasized... I know its crazy to think so, after all, the science is settled, right?
Gary,
ReplyDeleteMy take away from this was quite different from yours. Here is what I took away. It’s a hard problem to determine what the actual temperatures are and were. The negative in the commentary was that the algorithms were “hidden,” “I requested a copy of Menne’s algorithm at the time of its introduction, but was refused.” I think that’s fair game, when a relatively small number of people are advancing an agenda that the world is warming and the entire economy has to be restructured to “green” technologies. Yet, from what I gather reading here, Climate scientists have tried to not share their data, with the excuse their professional careers are more important than double checking the work. Climate Scientists really are like the Catholic Church prior to the Renaissance: believe the word, sorry you can’t read it.
Other than that, I suspect this is interesting because it’s a hard statistical problem, and one that requires some deep thinking. Like polling, it’s merely a reflection of the reality. That to me is more honest, which is to say, “I don’t know the truth, only don’t expect me to believe you just because you think I should.” Isn’t Science supposed to be all about replication and verification of results? If you’ve been reading Nature, you will there is a large concern over bias, hopefully unintentional, though not always, it has become a rather large topic. Climate Scientists should clean up their act as Steve has suggested. This is merely another example of why it’s important.