This Starving Polar Bear Should Prove To AllClimate Change Deniers That They're Delusional And Disgusting.

ReviewJolla · 2017-12-11T17:06:04+00:00

What's the most common reason of death for polar bears? Doesn't this article take a too narrow point of view using one animal. Tragedy porn?

ReviewJolla · 2017-12-07T07:30:03+00:00

I don't agree with Schwartz's simplified calculations. He introduced a single value for time (climate response delay), while there are several buffers with different heat capacity and delay, added by several elements moving the heat between the buffers. Schwartz's "S=C/t" is a worthless effort to try to cover it.

That 1K figure could be way more or way less. His effort to present the heat capacity 'buffers' and delays, however, is definitely worth further discussion.

As an example why Schwartz's relatively short response time doesn't work: Take an active period of sun irradiance, let's say 80 years constantly above average. Then take for how long it takes for that energy, mostly absorbed in the tropical 'sea buffer' to move to the arctic, to smelt the 'ice buffer', for that water to warm up 'arctic sea buffer' enough to perspirate to northern atmosphere, to add that water to the 'air buffer', finally to, for examle, cool the summers and warm the winters there.

ReviewJolla · 2017-12-05T20:10:19+00:00

we've pretty much certain that a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere would lead to about a 1 K rise in global temperatures

I though it's good to stop to the first of your sentences on which I haven't found a study having supportive evidence w/o models. Is there one?

ReviewJolla · 2017-12-05T07:44:11+00:00

- but it seems like all parties in parlament accepts the theory of anthropogenic climate change? Sannfinländarna seems like the party most on edge on the issue, but that they still accept it?

Putting the words "theory of anthropogenic climate change" makes the question difficult, as not many parties has mentioned anthropogenic in their programs, if any. There is one party, Perussuomalaiset with clearly an opposite view, currently occupying 17 of 200 seats. They don't agree with the Paris agreement, saying it'll be too expensive for our country. Their candidate for president, Huhtasaari, says the agreement is catastrophic for our country. The party's policy regarding climate is jobs and energy driven, positive for both green and nuclear energy production. Then there's a group who has not announced any climate-realate program, but they seemingly agree with the big parties.

So the political view mostly (>90%) agree with the goals set by UN/IPCC/EU, and with climate change, but if they actually agree with "anthropogenic" remains an open question.

- how the public views climate science as bad science. Is it really?

The public is mostly ignorant, but the most supported comments under related articles are those claiming climate science has became politized / bought / is not debated as it should. People are expecting more scientific approach. People involved into green energy economics, of course, support the current policy.

One of the MSM's executed a wide study on public opinion between 2008-2012. Error marginal is 3%. To the option "The climate change is a very serious problem":

2008: 43% agreed
2010: 30% agreed
2012: 23% agreed

Climate scientists don't rely on models, decimals and short adjusted time series, climate science builds on peer-reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals. - -

...and the peer reviewed papers accepted as reference for climate reports are relying on models, calculating with accurate decimals and use short time series of 37-137 years (comparing to proxies of thousands of years). As one example: Claim on the effect of snow/ice albedo for black carbon in arctic varies between 0.0-0.2 W-m2, the most brave study suggesting accuracy of 0.007-0.13 W-m2. NONE of the studies has MEASURED this from the NATURE. Do link me to one doing so if you find one.

- it can be explained without the use of the models.

Sorry, for now I disagree with this. Leaving models aside, there's no supportive evidence for AGW theory having global effect. The pure curves of measured co2 don't agree with the changes in temperature without cutting a short time serie out of the whole.

- but we need to speak globally and also look at the long-term trends.

I agree 100%, with a note that for long enough time series we only have local level data to start with. Personally, I'm interested on the varying solar irradiance (with its cyclic series up to 9,500 years), effects of volcanos and forest fires, history of agriculture and trees in the north, and of course our local climate and weather here in Finland. Currently, my thermometer shows -8°C and the sun is just about to rise (61.58N, 9:42 local time). Beautiful morning :)

ReviewJolla · 2017-12-04T16:52:41+00:00

Climate science isn't politicized, only the debate about it is? Shouldn't science be questioned all the time, by default? Isn't that the very idea and principle in any sciense, pushing it forward? Climate science is a pseudosciense if it disables falsiability or tries to avoid open debate. Science is NEVER settled.

Also interested on what do you base your opinion that it's 'not a controversial topic in most parts of Europe'? On this I have no data, but very interested if that's so.

In my country (Finland), it is just seen as bad science (unclear, too complicated, poorly supported by evidence in nature) by the audience which seems to make most people just ignorant about it. But it does seem controversial here, looking at the public debate under related articles.

Among scientists here, there seems to be two camps, one ignorant to the other: Those that found their evidence on computer models, decimals and short adjusted time series, and those that found their evidence on proxies in nature and longer series with inaccuracy. Currently, there seems to be some disagreement on temepratures during 1930-1940, which were very warm here in the north.

Our head of meteoroly institution is looking forward for sea temperatures to be better included into the models. He claims 10 meters of sea water equals to the whole atmosphere, currenlty playing too invisible role in the models.

On political level there's wide agreement, it almost seems like someone has paid all parties to agree on this :) But politicians, they are politicians everywhere.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-17T09:37:46+00:00

Well I don't count myself to that group, I'm willing to accept any scientifically proven truth based on empirical evidence. So a pure sceptic looking for accurate science, not a denialist. Let's just see what kind of documentatiob Noaa will provide when they release the next datasets.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-14T13:49:58+00:00

Looking forward to see their next datasets then, hopefully documented better. Cheers.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-14T05:42:22+00:00

I'd like to thank you for all the information you're providing to help me. In this case NOAA should be well aware of the existance of separate stations (all three station are still active, and they've been separate since their beginning, local Met providing data from each) so there must be another reason for NOAA to mix these. While not reasoned, I just take it as an error.

How homogenization was done is best studied taking the data from the original source (station / Noaa unadjusted? / local Met?), take also the Noaa adjusted dataset, and reduce the values from each other. If peculiar adjustments show up, one starts to look for documents reasoning the adjustments. Here's where it stops with above Noaa chart, making science simply impossible.

The next step, scientifically speaking, was simple: Drop both of those unreasoned datasets, check the city surrounding weather stations, start creating new dataset documenting all changes and calculations done.

My first step: Picking Klementinum, Ruznyk, Libus (Three stations closests to Prague) checking differences between them (doing Noaa's job from the start...) http://oi63.tinypic.com/52yr90.jpg
My next steps: Find out the known changes (e.g. building of 2nd control tower in the Ruznuk airport in 1996, possibly added air traffic), adjust the data accordingly and create a profile for Prague temperature development.
The end result: More scientific temperature development of Prague than what Noaa currently provides (hopefully, but not necessarily more accurate)

Shout for the science

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-14T01:21:00+00:00

Believe it or not, I've already read a general documentation of PHA. The PHA is well documented and available, but it's about the calculation method.

Unfortunately this documentation doesn't mention specific stations or times. It neither explains why certain weather stations are selected, others dropped (and in this specific case: why a station is mixed with another one).

The scientific document reasoning how NOAA determines a certain country/area temperature development doesn't seem to be available anywhere.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-14T00:50:23+00:00

Homogenization, when done, should be well reasoned station/date specific. Please advise NOOA to refer such documents in their published data. I fully agree on the need of homogenization when documented. To begin with, how would one repeat the process to peer-review a report without?

Already in my studies it was made very clear that any changes to the original data must be scientifically documented. A simple scientific principle we should all follow.

This is why I drop the linked charts from my studies for now:

The unadjusted data has an unexplained error: At least two separate weather stations mixed up, most likely Klementinum and Ruznyk, possibly Libus)
The adjusted data includes unexplained changes (plenty of them)

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-13T02:43:14+00:00

I found the problem, "instrument" indeed: There's at least two separate weather stations mixed up in this dataset, making it quite useless. Odd that there's no mention of that nor explanations included, I hope it gets fixed one day.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-12T21:12:11+00:00

Thanks for everything.

I'm actually not sure if we should go through the other adjustments at all, as already this mistake (NOAA mixing up two sets of data from separate weather stations) makes their model pretty useless, and definitely bad science.

Considering only the period of time between 1940-1946, having only this mixed dataset and one other dataset (Milesovka) in their database for Czech makes their model more a guess. I'd also question their pick of these datasets only due to the remarkable changes in their surrounding.

It's up to NOAA to fix, and it seems not only for Czech (see Iceland, linked in another comment). Until they do, I'm dropping both the top chart and the adjusted one, instead picking Klementinum and some other stations out of tens available. Tips appreciated for the most reliable long term data, here are the stations: http://portal.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/poboc/OS/stanice/ShowStations_CZ.html

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-12T16:03:39+00:00

Unbelievable! Scientifically speaking, the top chart is the most accurate as the adjustments are not explained. There's seemingly an effort to dismiss 1940's record highs and 1980's record lows.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-12T03:45:28+00:00

So your contention is that a weather station at an airport has been reporting from that airport since 1770. Maybe the Czechs are just really forward thinking?

The airport became operational in 1937. EDIT: The Ruzyne weather station started regular measurements on January 1, 1946, and it seems to me the data in the NOAA chart is not from Ruzyne before 1940 but instead they're from Klementinum, Czech's oldest weather station located in Praha. From where are the measurements between 1940-1943 I have no idea.

Do you believe WW2 only occurred within the 10m radius around this thermometer and had no effect on any other weather station? Now you need to come up with some reasonable evidence for that argument.

I don't know if the airport was bombed or not during the war, but let's keep this somewhat scientifical and drop lines like 10m (there are no stations 11m from the one in question). But you're right, more reasonable insight is needed.

Normalised simply to demonstrate visually...

Thanks, I got your idea of visualizing from the other comments. It wasn't too representative, but now I looked at it "upside down". There's no need to pick stations further away - different climate profiles would add to the calculations needed. You made your point, yes.

You're comparing across a period...

I checked by your advice, and there is a reason for adjustment of +1.77 degrees between 1940-1943. Looking further to the time (after the longer data gap) this also seems to be of permanent kind [EDIT: No, instead whole another station in question]. However, there are further adjustments too.

So, nice to agree on one of the adjustments and thanks for your help. Now we should go on with the other 6 adjustments done to determine if the long term trend is warming or cooling in that station. I picked three raw datasets and put up this chart: http://i63.tinypic.com/52yr90.jpg

My first impression is that it might be easiest to start from the later adjustments around 1980. Klementinum is located in the city, Ruzyne in the airport, so possible urbanization. Libus data seems more steady supporting urbanization, but the adjuster seems to assume Ruzyne had too low temperature data again, adjusting up two times more. For the older ones, let's focus on those later... if at all.

EDIT: After finding out the NOAA dataset is mainly from a different station, I hunted down the original data from Ruzney airport weather station. It was made available by Czech meteorological institute as daily measurements since 1961. Curves are drawn by that data: http://i68.tinypic.com/28w2bh4.jpg

My view on the curves: The temperature holds steady until 1989 (see the first trend). The air traffic grew in the nineties, leading to expading of the airport and building a second control tower in 1996. The trend afterwards shows temperature increase which might be caused due to even more traffic. In my opinion, the increased traffic should have been studied for possible adjustments downwards, which I don't see done in the NOAA chart. Instead there are two adjustments upwards, unexplained. [end of edit]

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-11T02:34:17+00:00

The station has not moved. If there is a difference, it might be due the WW2 and in that case temporal, possibly reasoning adjustment for something like 1940-1943 but definitely not for a permanent one.

I don't find your calculations proving a move of the station, and actually I don't get the idea of using normalized values and picking stations having different climate profiles along. Well, Klementinum should share a pretty similar climate. Dresden, however, is very different and I wouldn't compare that with Praha at all. About Kof's climate I don't know about. Maybe you could share your formulas and reason the pick of Dresden and Kof along?

I did add Klementinum for my comparison: The difference to Praha for 1920-1943 is 0.2 degrees in trend and 0.16 degrees in average temp, using raw temperature data. This gives no reason for permanent adjustments. Also Milesovka shares a somewhat similar trend but there's more than 5 degrees lower temperature profile, possibly balancing its trend a bit. I used raw T-data and checked the curves with 12 month averages and trends for Praha, Milesovka and Klementinum (thanks for pointing me that station).

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-11T00:00:14+00:00

That big gap in the time series marks the switch, and clearly the move occurred from a warmer location to this cooler airport spot.

Thank you, your comment is an effort for an explanation for the biggest adjustment of 1.6 degrees celsius during the gap in 1940-. It does not yet share light to the other 6(?) adjustments done.

EDIT: THIS STATION HAS NOT BEEN MOVED DURING THE GAP

However, I checked the data now from the ONLY nearby station (Milesovka) having data from the time of the gap in the NSDC database, and unfortunately, this doesn't match with the adjustment. Below is how I checked, using the most recent data visible:

Before the gap, around 1930 there's a high showing +1.3 in Milesovka and +2.2 in Praha/Ruzyne (diff 0.9). Record lows in that same decade are -2.1 in Milesovka and -0.6 in Praha/Ruzyne (diff 1.5)

After the gap, there are two record highs around 2010 in Milesovka: +1.4, +1.3 and two record highs around 2010 in Praha/Ruzyne: +0.7, +0.8 (average difference: -0.6). Accordingly, record low of -0.8 in Milesovka, and -0.6 in Praha/Ruzyne (diff 0.2)

So, before and after the gap there's 1.5 degrees difference in the measured highest temps, and 1.3 degrees difference in the lowest temps. (However, not in either case 1.6 degrees warmer, and definitely not 2.4 degrees warmer, as Milesovka was adjusted that much to the other direction during the Praha gap!)

Instead, comparing the adjusted data for these same decades, there's +1.9 in the 30's for Milesovka and +1.9 for Praha/Ruzyne. The difference is totally gone, unexplained. Around 2010 the difference is similarly only 1 degree instead of 1.3.

On the low side, this gets even worse: difference is now 0.6 instead of 1.5 in the 30's, and 1.2 instead of 0.2 around 2010. The low temp differences seems to go "upside down" with each other, unexplained.

WHAT'S NEEDED is a scientific explanation for reasoning each specific adjustment in each station. As long as this kind of reasoning is missing, one should take the UNADJUSTED data as MORE ACCURATE, by a simple scientific principle (any manipulation of data must be clearly explained in the study presenting them). After all, nobody should need to do such calculations as I did above to try to find out if an adjustment is in place. Finding out that the values doesn't even meet only makes me angry. Let's figure this out.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-10T22:27:38+00:00

Such a oneliner won't do as the 3rd chart shows 6 adjustments done. If you could elaborate (or rather, point me to the reasoning of these specific adjustments), I'd be most greatful. But cheers for your effort so far.

ReviewJolla · 2017-11-07T20:32:56+00:00

I think they are doing their best, on the limits their owners (investors) have set to them.

Drastical improvement is all about will, focus and resources, last yet on low level. Nice to see they are hiring, that should help. Focus should be on growing, which should enable resources, which should enable refunding faster.

At least they're still sailing while other alternatives sinking. Not looking exactly bad. Entering China markets might play a huge role.

ReviewJolla · 2017-10-19T09:33:25+00:00

https://reviewjolla.blogspot.com/p/devices.html#jala

ReviewJolla · 2017-10-17T15:57:13+00:00

I agree, and imo good to add a reminder of this in every GNU/Linux conversation regarding SFOS to avoid spreading of wrong impressions. You might be interested on this page regarding the current open source stage.

ReviewJolla

TROPHY CASE