Quick primer for the believers in AGW.

Discussion in 'Conservation' started by Klickrolf, Jun 7, 2016.

Tags:
  1. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald that's His Lordship, to you.....

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    3,183
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    "WE"?? So how many have you popped? More people are killed by hammers and knives. Strange you would say that though, Trump was saying the 270 million gun owners in this country, if they all voted together, would keep that corrupt, lying bitch from turning the Office of President into another pay-for-play scheme, thereby preventing her from removing a civil right through here appointment of radical "judges" to the Supreme Court. Sorry you missed that point.

    I don't "fantasize" about killing people at all, having actually done so many times while in the Service-that's what we got paid for. I have a complete grasp of what it entails. News flash however...humans aren't an endangered species-we can loose all the gang-bangers and assorted garbage without missing a beat-and help keep the planet clean in the process.............
     
  2. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald that's His Lordship, to you.....

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    3,183
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    It's been awhile since I read that: you may be correct, but somehow i don't think so. I thought it was a different survey which found some dead bears and automatically attributed it to "long swims".

    Sorry I was being obtuse on the extinction events. My point was, that adaptation is adaptation-doesn't matter what forces the change, but clearly something does. Creatures either adapt or go extinct, and we can't expect zoos to "save" the species. The "zoo" numbers won't be enough to maintain a viable population.

    What I'd like to understand better, is why Paleontologists say that after the K/T crash, for the most part, only small mammals were able to survive. They're portrayed as burrowing animals, but I'd think the heavy concentrations of sulfur dioxide released by the supervolcanoes would have wrought havoc with them!
     
  3. weiliwen

    weiliwen Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,018
    Likes Received:
    931
    Location:
    Chicago Illinois
    This is the kind of person that deniers of facts like those above love:
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-house-science-committees-anti-science-rampage.
    Some of the proof of Big Oil trying to rig (no pun intended) the evidence:
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change

    I cannot include a hyperlink to prove that the "temperature rise hiatus" is bogus, as you need a membership to the American Association of the Advancement of Science, so here is the entire article. Read it or don't, but your climate denial excuses have officially been proven incorrect.


    Abstract
    Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (1) concluded that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998-2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years.” The more recent trend was “estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951-2012.” The apparent slowdown was termed a “hiatus,” and inspired a suite of physical explanations for its cause, including changes in radiative forcing, deep ocean heat uptake, and atmospheric circulation changes (212). While these analyses and theories have considerable merit in helping to understand the global climate system, other important aspects of the “hiatus” related to observational biases in global surface temperature data have not received similar attention. In particular, residual data biases in the modern era could well have muted recent warming, and as stated by IPCC, the trend period itself was short and commenced with a strong El Niño in 1998. Given recent improvements in the observed record (13, 14) and additional years of global data (including a record-warm 2014), we re-examine the observational evidence related to a “hiatus” in recent global surface warming.

    The data used in our long-term global temperature analysis primarily involve surface air temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land, and for coverage across oceans, the data are sea surface temperature (SST) observations taken primarily by thousands of commercial ships and drifting surface buoys. These networks of observations are always undergoing change. Changes of particular importance include: (i) an increasing amount of ocean data from buoys, which are slightly different than data from ships; (ii) an increasing amount of ship data from engine intake thermometers, which are slightly different than data from bucket sea-water temperatures; and (iii) a large increase in land-station data that enables better analysis of key regions that may be warming faster or slower than the global average. We address all three of these, none of which were included in our previous analysis used in the IPCC report (1).

    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 (1517). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average ship-buoy difference globally, although the corrections in that analysis were constrained by differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13).

    Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day. Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures. Of the 11 improvements in ERSST version 4 (13), the continuation of the ship correction had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference with version 3b. (The buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C dec−1 to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C dec−1. See supplementary materials for details.)

    Third, there have also been advancements in the calculation of land surface air temperatures (LSTs). The most important is the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) databank (14, 19), which forms the basis of the LST component of our new analysis. The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)–Daily dataset (20) with over 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available. The resulting integration improves spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have increased rapidly in recent decades (1). We applied the same methods used in our old analysis for quality control, time-dependent bias corrections, and other data processing steps (21) to the ISTI databank to address artificial shifts in the data caused by changes in station location, temperature instrumentation, observing practice, urbanization, siting conditions, etc. These corrections are essentially the same as those used in the GHCN–Monthly version 3 dataset (22, 23), which is updated operationally by NOAA’s NCEI. To obtain our new global analysis, the corrected ISTI land data (14) were systematically merged with ERSST version 4 (13), as described in the supplemental materials.

    In addition to the three improvements just discussed, since the IPCC report (1), new analyses (24) have revealed that incomplete coverage over the Arctic has led to an underestimate of recent (since 1997) warming in the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit data used in the IPCC report (1). These analyses have surmised that incomplete Arctic coverage also affects the trends from our analysis as reported by IPCC (1). We address this issue as well.

    Figure 1 depicts temperature trends in our old analysis, our new analysis, and our new analysis supplemented with polar interpolation. (In this discussion, “old” refers to the analysis based on ERSST version 3b for ocean areas and GHCN–Monthly version 3 for land areas). For the most recent IPCC period (1998–2012), the new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale (0.086 vs. 0.039°C dec−1; see Table S1 in the supplementary material). This is clearly attributable to the new SST analysis, which itself has much higher trends (0.075 vs. 0.014°C dec−1). In contrast, trends in the new LST analysis are only slightly higher (0.117 vs. 0. 112°C dec−1).

    [​IMG]<img class="fragment-image" src="https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632/F1.medium.gif"/>
    Fig. 1 Effect of new analysis on global surface temperature trends for several periods.
    Temperature trends are shown for data with the “new” analysis (squares) and “old” analysis (circles) for several periods of interest. Also indicated are global values calculated with the new corrections and the polar interpolation method (triangles). Consistent with IPCC (1), the error bars represent the 90% confidence intervals (CIs). The additional error associated with uncertainty of our corrections extends the 90% CI and is depicted with a horizontal dash. (A) and (B) show the base period (1951–2012) and “hiatus” period used in IPCC (1). (C) An alternate base period—the second half of the 20th century. (D) The 21st century through 2014. (E) 1998 (a strong El Niño year) through the 21st century. See Table S1 for source data.


    IPCC (1) acknowledged that trends since 1998 were tenuous because the period was short and commenced with a strong El Niño. Two additional years of data are now available to revisit this point, including a record-warm 2014, and trends computed through 2014 confirm the IPCC supposition. Specifically, the central trend estimate in our new analysis for 1998–2014 is 0.020°C dec−1 higher compared to 1998–2012. Likewise, global trends for 2000–2014 are 0.030°C dec−1 higher than for 1998–2012. In other words, changing the start and end date by two years does in fact have a notable impact on the assessment of the rate of warming, but less compared to the impact of new time-dependent bias corrections.

    Our analysis also suggests that short- and long-term warming rates are far more similar than previously estimated in IPCC (1). The difference between the trends in two periods used in IPCC (1) (1998-2012 and 1951-2012) is an illustrative metric: the trends for these two periods in the new analysis differ by 0.043°C dec−1 compared to 0.078°C dec−1 in the old analysis reported by IPCC (1). The smaller difference results from more warming in the new ocean analysis since 1998, reflecting the improved bias corrections in ERSST version 4. The new corrections show that the 90% confidence interval for 1998–2012 encompasses the best estimate of the trend for 1951–2012.

    It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998–2012 (Fig. 1 and table S1) using the approach described in (25) for determining trend uncertainty. In contrast, IPCC (1), which also utilized the approach in (25), reported no statistically significant trends for 1998-2012 in any of the three primary global surface temperature datasets. Moreover, for 1998–2014, our new global trend is 0.106± 0.058°C dec−1, and for 2000–2014 it is 0.116± 0.067°C dec−1 (see table S1 for details). This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century (Fig. 1). A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (see supplement) that also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, also shows that the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends (but not 1998–2012) were positive at the 0.10 significance level.

    For the full period of record (1880–present) (Fig. 2), the new global analysis has essentially the same rate of warming as the previous analysis (0.068°C dec−1 and 0.065°C dec−1 respectively; Table S1), reinforcing the point that the new corrections mainly have an impact in recent decades. However, it is also clear that the long-term trend would be significantly higher (by 0.085°C dec−1; Fig. 2B) without corrections for other historical biases as described in (26).

    [​IMG]<img class="fragment-image" src="https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632/F2.medium.gif"/>
    Fig. 2 Global (land and ocean) surface temperature anomaly time series with new analysis, old analysis, and with and without time-dependent bias corrections.
    (A) The new analysis (solid black) compared to the old analysis (red). (B) The new analysis (solid black) versus no corrections for time-dependent biases (cyan).


    Figure 3 shows that there are important differences between the latitudinal structure of trends for the second half of the 20th century and for the 21st century (2000–2014). For example, the Arctic latitudes have shown strong warming trends both over the land and ocean since 2000, but during the latter half of the 20th century, the ocean trends in this area are near zero. The longer term 50-year trend has more consistency in the rates of warming across all latitudes, and this is even more evident over the full period of record back to 1880 (fig. S1). There is a distinct Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude cooling in LST during the 21st century, which is also showing up in cooling of the cold extremes as reported for the extreme minimum temperatures in this zone in (27). Atmospheric teleconnections and regional forcings could be relevant in understanding these short time-scale zonal trends. It is evident that in most latitude bands, the global trends in the past 15 years are comparable to trends in the preceding 50 years.

    [​IMG]<img class="fragment-image" src="https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632/F3.medium.gif"/>
    Fig. 3 Latitudinal profiles of surface temperature trends.
    Zonal mean trends and statistical uncertainty of the trend estimates for global, ocean, and land surface temperature, averaged in 30-degree latitudinal belts, for the second half of the 20th century (dashed) compared to the past 15 years (solid). Trends are cosine-weighted within latitude belts, and the vertical axis is on a sine scale to reflect the proportional surface area of the latitude bands. Note that only the uncertainty related to the trend estimates is provided because zonal standard errors of estimate are not available in contrast to the global averages.


    Finally, we consider the impact of larger warming rates in high latitudes (24) on the overall global trend. To estimate the magnitude of the additional warming, we applied large-area interpolation over the poles using the limited observational data available. Results (Fig. 1) indicate that, indeed, additional global warming of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius per decade over the 21st century is evident, providing further evidence against the notion of a recent warming “hiatus.” See supplemental materials for details.

    In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1). Even starting a trend calculation with 1998, the extremely warm El Niño year that is often used as the beginning of the “hiatus”, our global temperature trend (1998-2014) is 0.106°C dec−1 – and we know that is an underestimate due to incomplete coverage over the Arctic. Indeed, based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s (1) statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years” – is no longer valid.

    Supplementary Materials
    www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/science.aaa5632/DC1

    Materials and Methods

    Fig. S1

    Table S1

    References (2838)

    References and Notes

    1. IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013).

      1. G. A. Meehl,
      2. H. Teng,
      3. J. M. Arblaster
      , Climate Model Simulations of the Observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming. Nature Clim. Change 4, 898–902 (2014).
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. G. A. Meehl,
      2. A. Hu,
      3. J. M. Arblaster,
      4. J. Fasullo,
      5. K. E. Trenberth
      , Externally forced and internally generated decadal climate variability associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. J. Clim. 26, 7298–7310 (2013).doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. Y. Kosaka,
      2. S.-P. Xie
      , Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).doi:10.1038/nature12534pmid:23995690
      OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. M. H. England
      2. et al
      ., Slowdown of surface greenhouse warming due to recent Pacific trade wind acceleration. Nature Clim. Change 4, 222–227 (2014).
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. B. D. Santer,
      2. C. Bonfils,
      3. J. F. Painter,
      4. M. D. Zelinka,
      5. C. Mears,
      6. S. Solomon,
      7. G. A. Schmidt,
      8. J. C. Fyfe,
      9. J. N. S. Cole,
      10. L. Nazarenko,
      11. K. E. Taylor,
      12. F. J. Wentz
      , Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat. Geosci. 7, 185–189 (2014).doi:10.1038/ngeo2098
      OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefGoogle Scholar
      1. G. A. Schmidt,
      2. D. T. Shindell,
      3. K. Tsigaridis
      , Reconciling warming trends. Nat. Geosci. 7, 158–160 (2014).doi:10.1038/ngeo2105
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. J. Tollefson
      , Climate change: The case of the missing heat. Nature 505, 276–278 (2014).doi:10.1038/505276apmid:24429612
      OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. M. Watanabe,
      2. Y. Kamae,
      3. M. Yoshimori,
      4. A. Oka,
      5. M. Sato,
      6. M. Ishii,
      7. T. Mochizuki,
      8. M. Kimoto
      , Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3175–3179 (2013).doi:10.1002/grl.50541
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. J. C. Fyfe,
      2. N. P. Gillett
      , Recent observed and simulated warming. Nature Clim. Change 4, 150–151 (2014).doi:10.1038/nclimate2111
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. K. E. Trenberth,
      2. J. T. Fasullo,
      3. M. A. Balmaseda
      , Earth’s energy imbalance. J. Clim. 27, 3129–3144 (2014).doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. H. Ding,
      2. R. J. Greatbatch,
      3. M. Latif,
      4. W. Park,
      5. R. Gerdes
      , Hindcast of the 1976/77 and 1998/99 climate shifts in the Pacific. J. Clim. 26, 7650–7661 (2013).doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. B. Huang,
      2. V. F. Banzon,
      3. E. Freeman,
      4. J. Lawrimore,
      5. W. Liu,
      6. T. C. Peterson,
      7. T. M. Smith,
      8. P. W. Thorne,
      9. S. D. Woodruff,
      10. H.-M. Zhang
      , Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST.v4), Part I. Upgrades and Intercomparisons. J. Clim. 28, 911–930 (2015).doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. J. J. Rennie
      2. et al
      ., The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: Monthly temperature data release description and methods. Geosci. Data J. 1, 75–102 (2014).
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. E. C. Kent,
      2. J. J. Kennedy,
      3. D. I. Berry,
      4. R. O. Smith
      , Effects of instrumentation changes on sea surface temperature measured in situ. WIREs. Clim. Change 1, 718–728 (2010).
      OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
      1. R. W. Reynolds,
      2. N. A. Rayner,
      3. T. M. Smith,
      4. D. C. Stokes,
      5. W. Wang
      , An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. J. Clim. 15, 1609–1625 (2002).doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1609:AIISAS>2.0.CO;2
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. R. W. Reynolds,
      2. D. B. Chelton
      , Comparisons of daily sea surface temperature analyses for 2007–08. J. Clim. 23, 3545–3562 (2010).doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3294.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. J. J. Kennedy,
      2. N. A. Rayner,
      3. R. O. Smith,
      4. D. E. Parker,
      5. M. Saunby
      , Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea surface temperature observations measured in situ since 1850: 2. Biases and homogenization. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 116 (D14), D14104 (2011).doi:10.1029/2010JD015220
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. J. H. Lawrimore,
      2. J. J. Rennie,
      3. P. W. Thorne
      , Responding to the need for better global temperature data. Eos 94, 61 (2014).
      OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
      1. M. J. Menne,
      2. I. Durre,
      3. R. S. Vose,
      4. B. E. Gleason,
      5. T. G. Houston
      , An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily database. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 29, 897–910 (2012).doi:10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. M. J. Menne,
      2. C. N. Williams Jr.
      , Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Clim. 22, 1700–1717 (2009).doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2263.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. J. H. Lawrimore,
      2. M. J. Menne,
      3. B. E. Gleason,
      4. C. N. Williams,
      5. D. B. Wuertz,
      6. R. S. Vose,
      7. J. Rennie
      , An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network monthly mean temperature data set, version 3. J. Geophys. Res. 116 (D19), D19121 (2011).doi:10.1029/2011JD016187
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. C. N. Williams,
      2. M. J. Menne,
      3. P. W. Thorne
      , Benchmarking the performance of pairwise homogenization of surface temperatures in the United States. J. Geophys. Res. 117 (D5), D05116 (2012).doi:10.1029/2011JD016761
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. K. Cowtan,
      2. R. G. Way
      , Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. Roy. Met. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).doi:10.1002/qj.2297
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. B. Santer,
      2. P. W. Thorne,
      3. L. Haimberger,
      4. K. E. Taylor,
      5. T. M. L. Wigley,
      6. J. R. Lanzante,
      7. S. Solomon,
      8. M. Free,
      9. P. J. Gleckler,
      10. P. D. Jones,
      11. T. R. Karl,
      12. S. A. Klein,
      13. C. Mears,
      14. D. Nychka,
      15. G. A. Schmidt,
      16. S. C. Sherwood,
      17. F. J. Wentz
      , Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Int. J. Climatol. 28, 1703–1722 (2008).doi:10.1002/joc.1756
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. T. M. Smith,
      2. R. W. Reynolds
      , Extended reconstruction of global sea surface temperatures based on COADS data (1854-1997). J. Clim. 16, 1495–1510 (2003).doi:10.1175/1520-0442-16.10.1495
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. J. Sillman,
      2. M. G. Donat,
      3. J. C. Fyfe,
      4. F. W. Zwiers
      , Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 064023 (2014).doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064023
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. T. M. Smith,
      2. R. W. Reynolds,
      3. T. C. Peterson,
      4. J. H. Lawrimore
      , Improvements to NOAA's historical merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis (1880-2006). J. Clim. 21, 2283–2296 (2008).doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2100.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. S. D. Woodruff,
      2. S. J. Worley,
      3. S. J. Lubker,
      4. Z. Ji,
      5. J. Eric Freeman,
      6. D. I. Berry,
      7. P. Brohan,
      8. E. C. Kent,
      9. R. W. Reynolds,
      10. S. R. Smith,
      11. C. Wilkinson
      , ICOADS Release 2.5: Extensions and enhancements to the surface marine meteorological archive. Int. J. Climatol. 31, 951–967 (2011).doi:10.1002/joc.2103
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
    2. V. F. Banzon, R. W. Reynolds, T. Smith, The role of satellite data in extended reconstruction of sea surface temperature. In: Proceedings: “Oceans from Space” Venice 2010, V. Barale, J.F.R. Gower, L. B. Alberotanza, Eds (European Commission, Venice, Italy, 2010), pp. 27-28.

      1. R. S. Vose
      2. et al
      ., NOAA’s merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1677–1685 (2012).
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. T. M. Smith,
      2. R. W. Reynolds
      , A global merged land air and sea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880–1997). J. Clim. 18, 2021–2036 (2005).doi:10.1175/JCLI3362.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
    3. D. L. Hartmann et al., Observations: Atmosphere and Surface Supplementary Material. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013).

      1. C. J. Willmott,
      2. S. G. Ackleson,
      3. R. E. Davis,
      4. J. J. Feddema,
      5. K. M. Klink,
      6. D. R. Legates,
      7. J. O’Donnell,
      8. C. M. Rowe
      , Statistics for the Evaluation and Comparison of Models. J. Geophys. Res. 90 (C5), 8995–9006 (1985).doi:10.1029/JC090iC05p08995
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. E. M. A. Dodd,
      2. C. J. Merchant,
      3. N. A. Rayner,
      4. C. P. Morice
      , An Investigation into the Impact of using Various Techniques to Estimate Arctic Surface Air Temperature Anomalies. J. Clim. 28, 1743–1763 (2015).doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00250.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
      1. B. D. Santer,
      2. T. M. L. Wigley,
      3. J. S. Boyle,
      4. D. J. Gaffen,
      5. J. J. Hnilo,
      6. D. Nychka,
      7. D. E. Parker,
      8. K. E. Taylor
      , Statistical significance of trends and trend differences in layer-average atmospheric temperature time series. J. Geophys. Res. 105 (D6), 7337–7356 (2000).doi:10.1029/1999JD901105
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
    4. D. S. Wilks, Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences (Academic Press, New York, ed. 2, 2006)

      1. A. Arguez,
      2. T. R. Karl,
      3. M. F. Squires,
      4. R. S. Vose
      , Uncertainty in annual rankings from NOAA's global temperature time series. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 5965–5969 (2013).doi:10.1002/2013GL057999
      OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
    5. Acknowledgments: We thank the many scientists at NCEI and at other institutions who routinely collect, archive, quality control, and provide access to the many complex data streams that go into the computation of the global surface temperature. In particular, we thank Tim Boyer, Byron Gleason, Jessica Matthews, Jared Rennie, and Claude Williams for their contributions to this analysis. We also thank Drs. Jerry Meehl and Phil Duffy for constructive comments on an early version of this manuscript.
     
    dryflylarry, jwg, dfl and 2 others like this.
  4. jersey

    jersey livin' the dream

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    639
    Location:
    sonoma county
    Thanks for the civility Kerry. I like the last sentence.

    38,300 auto deaths in 2015. Google it... Over 3 times the rate of guns, really? Guns are a right and driving a priveledge. Both tools are human-operated, but one is truly more dangerous.

    What assault cars are being outlawed next year? Will there be a limit on assault car gas? Do I need to swipe my ID to buy oil for my assault car? Will my assault cat have a limited carbon footprint allowance? Will I need permission from the Govt to cross state lines with my assault car? Will my assault car be labeled Black Car? If my assault car is left unlocked, can I be prosecuted?

    Not an attack toward you Phil, but guns are not a big concern when the Earth is over heating due to all the assault cars. Allegedly.
     
    KerryS, Klickrolf and spadebit like this.
  5. spadebit

    spadebit Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Keep in mind... the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides.
     
    Alex MacDonald, jwg and Klickrolf like this.
  6. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    931
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    I started reading Bob's post but quit when I read it's all based on surface temp data loggers and most sit in urban areas like airports, areas with blacktop roads and buildings running A/C units...heat islands!
    For those who might want to dig a little deeper. I won't make you scroll down to read so here are links, click them if you'd like to learn a little more.

    http://www.virginiaclimate.polyrad.net/surface_temp.pdf
    I've only been through the first 15 pages, large format text so it's easy and relatively quick. A quote from page 8 "The terrestrial datasets have become seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted for climate trend assessment.


    Michael Mann in a Climategate email to Phil Jones of CRU and
    Gavin Schmidt of NASA wrote: “As we all know, this isn’t about
    truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”
    But Albert Einstein said: “Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.”
    "

    And one more to put this into perspective, real perspective!
    Try this: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/...ng-scientific-consensus/#sthash.D8JF2OwF.dpbs
     
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  7. Golden Trout

    Golden Trout Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    555
    Location:
    North Central Washington
    Not all of those suicides are by gun, but a majority are. And while some people feeling suicidal impulses will choose another method if a gun is not at hand, public health researchers cite two reasons guns are particularly dangerous: 1) Guns are more lethal than most other methods people try, so someone who attempts suicide another way is more likely to survive; 2) Studies suggest that suicide attempts often occur shortly after people decide to kill themselves, so people with deadly means at hand when the impulse strikes are more likely to use them than those who have to wait or plan.

    So this makes guns less of a problem?????

    Almost 20% of the vehicle fatalities were some kind of drug related. In my mind this kind of irresponsibility is an assault vehicle!
     
  8. Gene S

    Gene S Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    159
    Location:
    SW MT, State of Jefferson

    Wouldn't this suggest that suicide is more of a public health issue than a gun problem??
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  9. spadebit

    spadebit Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Guns aren't a problem. Irresponsible and mentally unstable people with guns are a problem.
    Yesterday, an irresponsible 13 yr old was shot by police because he robbed a store using a replica handgun. The Mayor blamed the gun, not the kids choice to act irresponsibly. I guess the Mayor thinks robbing people or small businesses is ok. To my knowledge, a gun or even a fake gun doesn't have a mind of its own.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  10. Golden Trout

    Golden Trout Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    555
    Location:
    North Central Washington
    I believe my post somewhat agrees with both of your comments as it was written by public health researchers. Their point being the availability of a deadly weapon.
     
  11. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,514
    Likes Received:
    3,594
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    Uh oh, someone's been fully indoctrinated... that is some seriously strong punch being served. Now, what to do about that most annoying bright spot in the sky... the elephant in the AGW war room :D.
     
  12. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,514
    Likes Received:
    3,594
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    So now guns are responsible for AGW... we should be paying for entertainment on this level :rolleyes:.
     
  13. Golden Trout

    Golden Trout Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    555
    Location:
    North Central Washington
    Actually its Bullshitters and their properties.

    http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
     
  14. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    931
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    Check out termites and methane, interesting indeed!
    http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm

    Thought I'd add a couple good reads (recently published) to help keep your minds thinking as they should. The first informs the reader the "science" is missing. "EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding has been conclusively invalidated."
    http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog...ly-is-the-science-underlying-climate-alarmism

    The second addresses the "National Academy of Sciences" concerns. Hope you enjoy the reads and learn something from them.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-concerned-members-national-academy-sciences/

    Both publications provide support for their "opinions" with off-colored text links, click on them if you think the interpretation is wrong.
     
  15. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,514
    Likes Received:
    3,594
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    Why do you suppose the EPA, in their 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Report, chose to start the clock at 1950? On the surface this does not pass the smell test and even the most ardent AGW supporters should be raising an eyebrow... or two.