worst long term prediction ever ?

[LibertyBell]

56 minutes ago, csnavywx said:

What would you have to see to change your mind?

Because I know what I would have to see for my position to be falsified. You need to state that here or expect to be challenged until you do.

if anything the IPCC predictions have been way too conservative

 

[bdgwx]

Seriously @ChescoWx? I made a good faith effort to engage with you. You provided no rationalization for your continued use of data that you know is contaminated with breakpoint biases. You provided no response to the forecast models that do accurately predict 2m temperatures decades ahead. You provided no peer reviewed literature showing how the prediction that Atlantic City casinos would be flooded by now were made. And now you want us to all go join your "dissenting views" forum? Message received...there is nothing that will change your mind.

[donsutherland1]

From the Scafetta paper (2007) referenced in the 'alternative forum' via a Forbes opinion piece:

...we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle.

That paper's conclusion is already badly off course. The warming has accelerated.

GISS Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies:

1880: -0.16°C
2007: +0.66°C (year of paper used to denote the start of the referenced 30-year period)

Change: Approximately 0.06°C/decade

2007: +0.66°C (year of paper used to denote the start of the referenced 30-year period)
2022: +0.89°C (after two years of La Niña; the average anomaly during 2010-2022 was +0.82°C)

Change: Approximately 0.15°/decade (nearly 2.4 times the rate of warming during 1880-2007)

The increased rate of warming is consistent with the observed increased energy imbalance produced by the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The physics is sound (basic understanding dates back to the 19th century). Efforts to find workarounds to deviate from the laws of physics and their implications, namely the impact of increased greenhouse gas forcing, are futile as shown in the rapid breakdown of the Scafetta hypothesis.

 

[Roger Smith]

The Chesco data appear more steady-state than a lot of data sets I have examined over the past two decades. I am well aware of urban heat island contamination of data sets but I took a look at some locations that have no urban effect and find that the general consensus is valid, you can see the upward trend through any time period whether it's 1950-present, 1890-present or whatever. Urbanized settings are of course warming faster and show a larger differential. Toronto (downtown) has warmed about 2.5 C from mid-19th century to present. I think at least 1.1 C of that is urban heat island which leaves a warming of about 1.4 C. 

The only place where I find myself in disagreement with IPCC theory is where they say all of the recent warming is due to greenhouse gases and (at the risk of over-simplifying) the recent warming comes despite a background tendency towards natural cooling. I think it's more complicated than that, with no advanced human society present, I think the recent past would have displayed a modest warming. Several large El Nino events seem to have driven this warming (I would argue there was a natural cooling cycle around 1940-1980 which reversed with the strong 1982-83 El Nino and was sustained by several more).

Now that opens up the difficult question, does the human induced warming signal extend to the creation of stronger El Ninos? That is a tough one to resolve. Since we don't have a fully accepted theory of what causes the Pacific oscillations in natural terms, only a statistical theory of when to expect them, we cannot easily say well the human activity interacts with this or that and produces stronger El Ninos. It may be true, or it may just be bad luck (if you don't want large warming) that on top of everything else we get these strong El Ninos. 

But anyway, the salient point is that one set of data (including Chesco) cannot alone reveal very much, it is more about the overall picture of all data and much of that is beyond dispute, for example, the well-maintained CET data set shows a clear warming signal 1987-present compared to pre-1987; arctic Canada locations that I analyzed (link to results below) show a 1.5 to 2.5 C warming in recent decades; after stripping out the urban heat island both Toronto and New York City show clear warming although not so much in terms of extreme summer warmth as most other indices. 

(link to my arctic Canada studies on the net-weather (UK) site) ...

(software here doesn't like my link, try block copying this and going from there)

http://www.community.netweather.tv/topic/87367-climate-change-study-at-cambridge-bay-resolute-and-eureka-nu-canada-1940-to-2022/page/3/#comment-4780813

or go to Net-weather, look for climate change subforum, this thread is near the middle of page one of menu.

It's a complete analysis of all available data for four locations in arctic Canada. 

 

[ChescoWx]

23 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Seriously @ChescoWx? I made a good faith effort to engage with you. You provided no rationalization for your continued use of data that you know is contaminated with breakpoint biases. You provided no response to the forecast models that do accurately predict 2m temperatures decades ahead. You provided no peer reviewed literature showing how the prediction that Atlantic City casinos would be flooded by now were made. And now you want us to all go join your "dissenting views" forum? Message received...there is nothing that will change your mind.

I provided a detailed explanation of the multiple steps we have taken to validate the statistical accuracy of the data (see above) that means the data has been proven to be acceptable and not contaminated. If it was contaminated obviously the statistical significance (p-value) would not be there and my data would not stand up to the scientifically proven rigor that we accomplished with our data testing and analysis. Hope that helps!

[csnavywx]

On 2/7/2023 at 3:13 AM, csnavywx said:

What would you have to see to change your mind?

Because I know what I would have to see for my position to be falsified. You need to state that here or expect to be challenged until you do.

Crickets...

Like usual. 

[Bhs1975]

if anything the IPCC predictions have been way too conservative
 

Yeap the massive disruptions will only accelerate degrading civilization to some unknown breaking point.

[ChescoWx]

On 2/9/2023 at 1:13 PM, csnavywx said:

Crickets...

Like usual. 

CSNavy waiting as usual for any actual non NOAA adjusted long term weather data verification ...more than since 1970 to support with any scientific rigor any such warming claims.

[csnavywx]

27 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

CSNavy waiting as usual for any actual non NOAA adjusted long term weather data verification ...more than since 1970 to support with any scientific rigor any such warming claims.

Dodging it still. Not gonna work. State your entire climate position clearly and the conditions under which your position will be falsified.

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

CSNavy waiting as usual for any actual non NOAA adjusted long term weather data verification ...more than since 1970 to support with any scientific rigor any such warming claims.

Let me get this straight. You want to use data that has not been adjusted for known bias caused by instrument package changes, time-of-observation changes, station sighting changes, measurement procedure changes (transition from bucket to ship intake to buoy)? Yes/No?

If that is your bar for acceptance then no thank you. Using data that is known to be contaminated with biases without making any attempt to address those biases is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst. I'm going to have no part of it.

And BTW...don't think I didn't notice that you completely ignored the fact that the "non NOAA adjusted long term weather data" shows more warming vs the adjusted data. It's worth repeating in all caps and bold...the unadjusted/raw data shows MORE warming than the adjusted data. So if you're bar for acceptance includes the unethical (and potentially fraudulent) analysis of data known to be contaminated with biases then you are going to have accept that the warming is MORE than is being reported by scientists since 1880.

 

 

[ChescoWx]

18 hours ago, bdgwx said:

And BTW...don't think I didn't notice that you completely ignored the fact that the "non NOAA adjusted long term weather data" shows more warming vs the adjusted data. It's worth repeating in all caps and bold...the unadjusted/raw data shows MORE warming than the adjusted data. So if you're bar for acceptance includes the unethical (and potentially fraudulent) analysis of data known to be contaminated with biases then you are going to have accept that the warming is MORE than is being reported by scientists since 1880.

 

 

More warming in the non-adjusted data huh? Not among these stations in Chester County PA

[ChescoWx]

All available un-adjusted raw National Weather Service COOP stations blended averages below clearly show the cyclical nature of the climate in Chester County PA. The overall warmest decades remain the 1930's and 1940's. We actually had the 2000's finish cooler than the 1990's and the 2010's warmed but still not quite to the warmth we observed in the 1990's. Note in the chart below I list all individual stations with a blue temperature indicating cooler temps vs the prior decade - red being warmer and black the same as the prior decade.

[Typhoon Tip]

The problem with "plausibility" in argument construction is in the definition of plausibility, itself - it seems likely to be true, however "seems" seldom is in any reality that they are used to describe.  

All of what is typically used to refute climate change may even be clever, when not eye-rolling obviously divisive and/or evasive.  However, ...and often escaping the arguer's attention, those uses do nothing to abase or remove a key, fundamental physics constraint:
Elevating green house gasses always stores more heat. 

C02 ( as well as catalogue of other NOX and gas types ..) are higher than 100 years ago, they've got no case.  

If C02 is higher in point-time B, than it was at point-time A, the space in which it occupies became greater in capacity for storing thermal energy.  That cannot be controverted.   

 

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The problem with "plausibility" in argument construction is in the definition of plausibility, itself - it seems likely to be true, however "seems" seldom is in any reality that they are used to describe.  

All of what is typically used to refute climate change may even be clever, when not eye-rolling obviously divisive and/or evasive.  However, ...and often escaping the arguer's attention, those uses do nothing to abase or remove a key, fundamental physics constraint:
Elevating green house gasses always stores more heat. 

C02 ( as well as catalogue of other NOX and gas types ..) are higher than 100 years ago, they've got no case.  

If C02 is higher in point-time B, than it was at point-time A, the space in which it occupies became greater in capacity for storing thermal energy.  That cannot be controverted.   

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if people confuse plausibility with plausible deniability lol

 

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

More warming in the non-adjusted data huh?

 

Correct. Like I said earlier, Dr. Hausfather provides a good introduction to the topic.

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Correct. Like I said earlier, Dr. Hausfather provides a good introduction to the topic.

But of course the unadjusted data for all of the available Chester County sites does not show the above trend lines.....

[forkyfork]

so what 

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The problem with "plausibility" in argument construction is in the definition of plausibility, itself - it seems likely to be true, however "seems" seldom is in any reality that they are used to describe.  

All of what is typically used to refute climate change may even be clever, when not eye-rolling obviously divisive and/or evasive.  However, ...and often escaping the arguer's attention, those uses do nothing to abase or remove a key, fundamental physics constraint:
Elevating green house gasses always stores more heat. 

C02 ( as well as catalogue of other NOX and gas types ..) are higher than 100 years ago, they've got no case.  

If C02 is higher in point-time B, than it was at point-time A, the space in which it occupies became greater in capacity for storing thermal energy.  That cannot be controverted.   

 

 

 

 

Of course Tip...but the actual unadjusted data should follow suit...there should be consistent data without adjustment for the 1930's and 1940's that support this supposition....correct?? How can we find entire counties in the USA that do not follow the same warming we should expect to see?

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

But of course the unadjusted data for all of the available Chester County sites does not show the above trend lines.....

You saw the breakpoint analysis clearly showing the low bias later in the period...

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Of course Tip...but the actual unadjusted data should follow suit...there should be consistent data without adjustment for the 1930's and 1940's that support this supposition....correct?? How can we find entire counties in the USA that do not follow the same warming we should expect to see?

No. That is not correct. First, the warming is not homogenous. There is no expectation that it will be the same everywhere on the planet or that every location will even experience warming at all. It is the opposite actually. We expect the temperature trends to be different from location to location. We even expect some locations to cool. Second, as I already pointed out land stations are notorious for having breakpoints that bias their trends downward due to time-of-observation changes and instrument package changes. See Vose et al 2003 and Hubbard & Lin 2006 for details on these particular issues and Menne et al. 2009 for details how it is handled.

[chubbs]

I can't find any supporting information for Paul's contention that Chester County temperatures are the same now as the 1930s+1940s. There are a number of problems in his analysis: 1) he has different stations in different decades, 2) The decade averages can be misleading vs looking at all the 10-year averages, 3) The last data point is 2010-19 and warming continues, 4) Most importantly the raw Coop data is noisy and biased, more on that below.

The individual coop stations don't agree amongst themselves. Below are 3 stations that cover the entire period (Coatesville is used in Chescowx series). The 30-40s are not unambiguously as warm as today: Coatesville is warmer today.  Note also that trends in individual stations are not the same when all 10-year averages are plotted vs just the decade averages. The lack of agreement among these stations is due to the numerous station changes and moves (the breakpoints discussed by bdgwx). That's why bias adjustment is needed.  Otherwise the most erratic stations, like West Chester and Phoenxville skew the result.

 

Unlike the coop stations the NWS regional climate sites are all in good agreement with each other. See plot upthread for other regional sites that agree with Allentown and philly airport.  All of these stations show strong warming since the 1940s (no data available for 1930s).  The raw data from the regional sites disagrees with the coop raw data, but agrees well Coop bias adjusted data. With bias adjustment, the temperature trends in Chester County are not different than the region as a whole (compare SE Pa and Coatesville) or even the global temperature chart posted by bdgwx. The 30s and 40s are warmer than surrounding decades, but much cooler than today.

No you can't avoid warming by living in Chester County. With proper analysis there is no evidence that Chester County is as warm now as the 30s or 40s. No evidence that I am aware of anyway.

 

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

"I can't find any supporting information for Paul's contention that Chester County temperatures are the same now as the 1930s+1940s."

"With bias adjustment, the temperature trends in Chester County are not different than the region as a whole (compare SE Pa and Coatesville)"

 

 

Hi Charlie....the supporting information is the raw data above - it is right there on the page - I even posted the ranking that clearly show the 1930's and 1940's are the warmest decades. Now of course I understand with the "bias adjustment" applied to the data it supports the warming much better....but we like our weather like our onions....raw!! Go Birds!!!

[forkyfork]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:44 AM, ChescoWx said:

Hi Charlie....the supporting information is the raw data above - it is right there on the page - I even posted the ranking that clearly show the 1930's and 1940's are the warmest decades. Now of course I understand with the "bias adjustment" applied to the data it supports the warming much better....but we like our weather like our onions....raw!! Go Birds!!!

tell us when you think this line will go back down thx

[ChescoWx]

8 hours ago, forkyfork said:

tell us when you think this line will go back down thx

At least for the area analyzed below - based on the clear cycles of warm - cold illustrated below I would expect we see the trend downward starting later this decade....

 

[forkyfork]

53 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

At least for the area analyzed below - based on the clear cycles of warm - cold illustrated below I would expect we see the trend downward starting later this decade....

 

i didn't know your local weather influenced the ocean

[ChescoWx]

13 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

i didn't know your local weather influenced the ocean

Ocean of course cools and warms at a much different pace than land....I only address land temps for Chester County PA....

[dseagull]

Knowing that the earth has and always will go through warming and cooling cycles...

 

How can we appropriately assign the current and very real warming over a very small timescale to anthropogenic forces?  I'd like to believe that the current warming is at least moderately associated with carbon output by man, but our ability to measure such contributions is extremely limited.  How can we determine the extent of man-made global warming and/or cooling?  A mere 50 years ago, the scientific community (sans political contributions) was convinced that we were entering another large-scale cooling period, correct?

 

In addition, we are also in the beginning stages of exploring effects of solar forces and cycles on our planet's weather.  Would it not be foolish to jump to conclusions, based on data sets that only go back to the late 1800's, when only primitive data collection methods existed?

 

Very curious as to what folks on here would say, as the meteorological field seems very divided on where we lay in the current evolution of climate on the planet.  

 

What are the risk/reward ratio conclusions for minimizing carbon output?  What strategies exist that are feasible to offset man-made contributions to warming?  It's fascinating, and not just from a scientific approach.  From a sociological vantage, its absolutely mind blowing. 

 

Mankind operates under an assumption that "we" are at the center of the universe.  That's well documented.  Should we not take that into consideration when studying climate change, anthropogenic or not?

[dseagull]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:43 AM, ChescoWx said:

Hi CSNavyWx I am simply showing actual data - with supporting documentation and references.  I unlike some I have met on the other side of this debate... can have calm rational discussions on the data without anger. I have no expectation of changing your views - that is your right.  See answers below.

Doesn't matter what ya throw at him. It won't work. The only thing that matters is this when engaging in this sort of discussion:

What would it take to invalidate your position?

• Actual climate data with a longer period or record than only since 1970.
• Data and analytics should include at the very least data from the 1890's without post observation adjustments for the 1930's-1950's
• A forecast model that has been proven to accurately predict 2m temperatures for decades ahead of today. The fact our models today still struggle with 2m temps for even 1 month ahead call this into question.  One can't test a model prediction until we have future data to validate the forecast, Unfortunately this makes it unfalsifiable and clearly outside of the scientific method. So we should really pay little attention to data derived from climate models.
• That said - Irrespective of any modeling if 50 years from now we are reviewing actual real un-adjusted data and every single decade has continued to warm - I will be on board with this non-stop warming hypothesis that has not yet been proven as we stand here today in 2023. The non-stop warming hypothesis is of course not the famed "settled science" we too often hear as a response to debate.

If he can't state it clearly at this point -- block and move on. This is a very sad statement and sentiment but so  very common today in our society that simply shuts down and does not wish to debate any topic. This is why we now have "safe spaces" in our colleges and universities - let's just shut off and cancel or block any dissenting opinions - so sad to see!!

Tired of the years of coddling this shit on this board. It's tiring.

Thank you.  

[dseagull]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:50 AM, wkd said:

I believe one of the events predicted was increased flooding events due to a warmer atmosphere.  Maybe it's just news coverage (which I doubt), but it seems to me that in the U.S as well as numerous other parts of the world,  this prediction has certainly proved valid.  Even here in NJ, rainfall events of over an inch seem fairly normal.  I don't remember that being the case in my past.

"My past"  

 

Those two words should not exist in any discussion of climate.  

 

Again, 50 years ago.... "global cooling,"  "the next ice age..." 

 

We must be responsible and remain cognizant of political contributions to "popular opinion."

 

The data simply does not exist to make any sound predictions. 

 

Flipping the world upside-down in order to combat "man-made global warming" is foolish.  We can have mature and scientific debate, but hysteria is not good for anyone.  Keep in mind, most folks are not well versed in weather.  To expect mankind to understand climate, simply by viewing short clips of media and social media propaganda, would also be foolish.  

[Cobalt]

1 hour ago, dseagull said:

Again, 50 years ago.... "global cooling,"  "the next ice age..." 

This is a common myth, during the 1970s the amount papers discussing global warming far exceeded those that mentioned the potential of the Earth cooling.

This is also around the same time when Exxon's own scientists produced research predicting the future of AGW, which ended up being remarkably accurate.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=Specifically%2C Exxon projected that fossil,has been proven largely accurate.

 

[fujiwara79]

46 minutes ago, Cobalt said:

This is a common myth, during the 1970s the amount papers discussing global warming far exceeded those that mentioned the potential of the Earth cooling.

Yes, can confirm.  There was a famous Newsweek article in 1975 about an impending ice age, which is frequently cited by "skeptics".  But if you actually read that article - something that very few of these people have actually done - a non-trivial portion of the article talks about how there's a growing view amongst scientists that the world is actually going to warm due to CO2.  But the media sensationalized the ice age stuff back then.