Science & Technology News

[StuM]

> Mapping carbon flow through different microbial taxa, as demonstrated here, is crucial in developing taxon-sensitive soil carbon models, that may reduce the uncertainty in climate change projections.


I thought the science ws settled.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

> Mapping carbon flow through different microbial taxa, as demonstrated here, is crucial in developing taxon-sensitive soil carbon models, that may reduce the uncertainty in climate change projections.
I thought the science ws settled.

The basic issues ARE settled:

Our climate is changing - ie: warming. It’s us causing it. It will continue to happen. We can mitigate this change.

What remains somewhat uncertain, are some of the specific DETAILS, and their DEGREE of change/response.

The discussion should not be about how much uncertainty there is, but rather about how much confidence we have, that the real planetary response lies somewhere in the range of projected uncertainty.

By increasing our real understanding, we might even end up making our climate projections more uncertain, in terms of a greater range, in the extent the planet might warm.

But we’ll be more confident that the true answer falls within that range.

I neglected to cite my reference, for my statement, that “... the amount of carbon stored in soils is often greater than the amount stored aboveground in living and dead plant biomass ...”
Here it is:
“Forest Soil Carbon and Climate Change” ~ by David D'Amore & Evan Kane,
➥ https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/forest-soil-carbon

[GordMay]

Narwhal tusks show a dramatic increase in mercury, despite diet changes suggesting otherwise

An international team of researchers has discovered that a narwhal's tusk can provide valuable insight into the changing conditions in the Arctic.[1]

The team analyzed stable isotopes, to look at mercury levels, and diet changes, over the past 50 years, as top level predators like the narwhal primarily absorb mercury through their diet.

They found that since the year 2000, even though their diet changed, to eat prey that were lower in mercury, the amount of mercury the narwhals absorbed increased dramatically.

They hypothesize that there’s some other source of mercury, that's not coming from the diet. And they suspect that it's either a combination of increased emissions of mercury globally, or change in the way that mercury is moving within the Arctic ecosystem.

[1] “Analysis of narwhal tusks reveals lifelong feeding ecology and mercury exposure” ~ by Rune Dietz et al
➥ https://www.cell.com/current-biology...showall%3Dtrue

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh well that clears it up then. Teams of overworked scientists battling government enforced shutdowns are still pouring over the 2019 data even today. No doubt the website will be updated as soon as the latest results come to hand.

Who was taking to you?

But --- truth hurts, doesn't it?


Thought about editing the excerpt dishonestly, as members of your cult would do;


"This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2020. It is common for additional observations to be added to archives after some delay. Consequently, temperature analysis calculations can be subject to revisions as new data becomes available. Such revisions are typically quite small and are considered unlikely to alter the qualitative conclusions presented in this report."


Or this way, as slightly more honest MSM outlets might do:

"This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2020. It is common for additional observations to be added to archives after some delay... Consequently, temperature analysis calculations can be subject to revisions as new data becomes available. Such revisions are typically quite small and are considered unlikely to alter the qualitative conclusions presented in this report."


"Notice the difference?"


Instead I choose to use it in it's entirety, for no ulterior motive.

But, as dealing in 'scientific things' and 'honesty' are wont to do, new things are sometimes serendipitously revealed, though in this case it is just confirming evidence.

To avoid the attention of that incomprehensible species that prowl this forum, I'll leave that revelation to the imaginations of those that have them...


From the Berkley Earth website;

https://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/

"Our methodology was inspired by the need for a more thorough data set that addressed many of the major concerns raised by global warming skeptics.

...

Overview

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a scientific and objective manner.

The first four of these concerns were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Berkeley Earth’s analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record.

The fifth concern related to the over-reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings.

We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years, demonstrating that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. Through our rigorous analysis, we were able to conclude that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit."



'Skeptics' (those who have fluid comprehensive faculties) in this context do not include deniers (whose comprehensive faculties have, for whatever reason, become 'frozen' in some fantasy-land of their own.)

[newhaul]

Ok I know this is a screen grab however in the past I have posted the links to the actual reports that this was written from .

All of the MMGWC people put your brains together and explain away all of these statements .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh well that clears it up then. Teams of overworked scientists battling government enforced shutdowns are still pouring over the 2019 data even today. No doubt the website will be updated as soon as the latest results come to hand.

Give them time to adjust the data to match up with the results their boss wants to project to everyone .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Who was taking to you?

But --- truth hurts, doesn't it?


Thought about editing the excerpt dishonestly, as members of your cult would do;


"This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2020. It is common for additional observations to be added to archives after some delay. Consequently, temperature analysis calculations can be subject to revisions as new data becomes available. Such revisions are typically quite small and are considered unlikely to alter the qualitative conclusions presented in this report."


Or this way, as slightly more honest MSM outlets might do:

"This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2020. It is common for additional observations to be added to archives after some delay... Consequently, temperature analysis calculations can be subject to revisions as new data becomes available. Such revisions are typically quite small and are considered unlikely to alter the qualitative conclusions presented in this report."


"Notice the difference?"


Instead I choose to use it in it's entirety, for no ulterior motive.

But, as dealing in 'scientific things' and 'honesty' are wont to do, new things are sometimes serendipitously revealed, though in this case it is just confirming evidence.

To avoid the attention of that incomprehensible species that prowl this forum, I'll leave that revelation to the imaginations of those that have them...


From the Berkley Earth website;

https://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/

"Our methodology was inspired by the need for a more thorough data set that addressed many of the major concerns raised by global warming skeptics.

...

Overview

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a scientific and objective manner.

The first four of these concerns were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Berkeley Earth’s analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record.

The fifth concern related to the over-reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings.

We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years, demonstrating that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. Through our rigorous analysis, we were able to conclude that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit."



'Skeptics' (those who have fluid comprehensive faculties) in this context do not include deniers (whose comprehensive faculties have, for whatever reason, become 'frozen' in some fantasy-land of their own.)

My goodness. If only their math were as good as their quasi ponti-scientificy resonant inspired ramblings. But in all fairness, with your "unique" style of writing it's difficult to determine where your diatribe ends and theirs begins.

But as long as you believe 1.27 - 1.28 = 0.02 that's fine.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Give them time to adjust the data to match up with the results their boss wants to project to everyone .

A skeptic, which apparently I'm not, might just suspect they were keen to get that little old Y axis close to 1.5 deg C and award 2020 the Silver medal for "hottest year ever" as an appetizer to this year's IPCC main course .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Here, for example is some data that may have made it into the latest IPCC report that is, well, questionable.


Comparing Berkerley Earth 2019 and 2020 reports makes interesting reading....

In addition to what has already been pointed out, that small revisions to graphs often occur because of late additions to the data set, it might be of some interest to note that while the IPCC acknowledges the Berkeley Earth temperature data set, it is not the primary data sources for the IPCC reports.

[IPCC] Definition of global average temperature

....We adopt a working definition of warming over the historical period based on an average of the four available global datasets that are supported by peer-reviewed publications: the three datasets used in the AR5, updated (Karl et al., 2015), together with the Cowtan-Way infilled dataset (Cowtan and Way, 2014). A further two datasets, Berkeley Earth (Rohde et al., 2013) and that of the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), are provided in Table 1.1. This working definition provides an updated estimate of 0.86°C for the warming over the period 1880–2012 based on a linear trend. This quantity was quoted as 0.85°C in the AR5. Hence the inclusion of the Cowtan-Way dataset does not introduce any inconsistency with the AR5, whereas redefining GMST to represent global SAT could increase this figure by up to 20% (Table 1.1, blue lines in Figure 1.2 and Richardson et al., 2016)....

The four primary temperature data sets are:

NASA’s GISTEMP

NOAA’s GlobalTemp

the UK’s HadCRUT

Cowtan & Way

If the data sets are superimposed on top of one another, this is what they look like. Your complaints seem more like the trolling of a denier than the serious scientific inquiry of a skeptic


Global Temperature Report for 2019 - Berkeley Earth

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

In addition to what has already been pointed out, that small revisions to graphs often occur because of late additions to the data set, it might be of some interest to note that while the IPCC acknowledges the Berkeley Earth temperature data set, it is not the primary data sources for the IPCC reports.

[IPCC] Definition of global average temperature

....We adopt a working definition of warming over the historical period based on an average of the four available global datasets that are supported by peer-reviewed publications: the three datasets used in the AR5, updated (Karl et al., 2015), together with the Cowtan-Way infilled dataset (Cowtan and Way, 2014). A further two datasets, Berkeley Earth (Rohde et al., 2013) and that of the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), are provided in Table 1.1. This working definition provides an updated estimate of 0.86°C for the warming over the period 1880–2012 based on a linear trend. This quantity was quoted as 0.85°C in the AR5. Hence the inclusion of the Cowtan-Way dataset does not introduce any inconsistency with the AR5, whereas redefining GMST to represent global SAT could increase this figure by up to 20% (Table 1.1, blue lines in Figure 1.2 and Richardson et al., 2016)....

The four primary temperature data sets are:

NASA’s GISTEMP

NOAA’s GlobalTemp

the UK’s HadCRUT

Cowtan & Way

If the data sets are superimposed on top of one another, this is what they look like. Your complaints seem more like the trolling of a denier than the serious scientific inquiry of a skeptic


Global Temperature Report for 2019 - Berkeley Earth

And where do they all get their raw data to interpret?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok I know this is a screen grab however in the past I have posted the links to the actual reports that this was written from .
All of the MMGWC people put your brains together and explain away all of these statements .

Anyone [mostly popular media, not scientists] making those claims was wrong, and probably misrepresenting the scientific consensus, even then; just as you have been consistently proven wrong, on this Forum.

For instance:
That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”
Claims that scientists flip-flopped on climate don't reflect the science.
➥ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...oming-ice-age/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Anyone [mostly popular media, not scientists] making those claims was wrong, and probably misrepresenting the scientific consensus, even then; just as you have been consistently proven wrong, on this Forum.

For instance:
That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”
Claims that scientists flip-flopped on climate don't reflect the science.
➥ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016...oming-ice-age/

They are all directly from scientific reports made at the time . Look at 2008 = fewer hurricanes. Then 2012 more hurricanes .
A few years later iirc 2016 the IPCC stated there was no stasticical difference in hurricane activity due to climate change.

Ice Age coming .1970s

Statement from below article

Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way…within a lifetime…"

https://www.johnlocke.org/update/cli...in-a-lifetime/

They use the exact same language now except it's warming not cooling .

Start reading with the Kyoto accords and all the way up to the current flawed CMIP6 .
Study a bit of astrophysics (specificly solar) and a smattering of geology.
Then we may be able to discuss this topic .

Want to talk fishing or sailing or anything else boat and marine related we are already on a good level playing field . We both will likely learn something .

And the beer tastes better

[jimbunyard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YymGJKhGgY

Astrophysics to explain climate change on a rocky planet? No wonder your delusions are out of control.

[garyfdl]

#July 2021 global surface temp was 1.67°F (0.93°C) above avg -- making it the hottest July recorded to date.https://t.co/xKGLizOml4 via @NOAANCEIclimate #StateOfClimate report #July2021 pic.twitter.com/8hHkF8ndVM

— NOAA (@NOAA) August 13, 2021

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Astrophysics to explain climate change on a rocky planet? No wonder your delusions are out of control.

If you don't know what the sun is doing and what it's effects are on its planets well you are missing 70% of the equation. 5hen there is the effects on us of the cosmic astrophysics.
You need to have a grasp on all of it to even begin to understand any of it .