| Mithmee | 17 May 2018 1:20 p.m. PST |
What is happening on the Big Island will impact the climate over the next several years.
link So something else that is no due to humans that is going to impact this planet. Oh and we better get lucky that Kilauea doesn't pull a Krakatoa because if it does the climate is really going to be impacted. |
| Cacique Caribe | 17 May 2018 1:56 p.m. PST |
I think some prominent iman in Iran said the eruption is caused by us humans … by women wearing jeans in Western societies. :) Everything is our fault. Dan |
| Martin From Canada | 17 May 2018 2:29 p.m. PST |
So something else that is no due to humans that is going to impact this planet. Mithmee, if you have a patient with a gunshot wound to left leg, what's better? First aid, or shoot the patient in the right leg to even things out? Oh and we better get lucky that Kilauea doesn't pull a Krakatoa because if it does the climate is really going to be impacted. How many times must I remind you that Weather ≠ Climate?
As for Volcanic eruptions, from the 5AR WGI:
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing Chapter 8 p.691
8.4.2.1 Introduction
Volcanic eruptions that inject substantial amounts of SO2 gas into the stratosphere are the dominant natural cause of externally forced climate change on the annual and multi-decadal time scales, both because of the multi-decadal variability of eruptions and the time scale of the climate system response, and can explain much of the pre-industrial climate change of the last millennium (Schneider et al., 2009; Brovkin et al., 2010; Legras et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2012). Although volcanic eruptions inject both mineral particles (called ash or tephra) and sulphate aerosol precursor gases (predominantly SO2) into the atmosphere, it is the sulphate aerosols, which because of their small size are effective scatterers of sunlight and have long lifetimes, that are responsible for RF important for climate. Global annually averaged emissions of CO2 from volcanic eruptions since 1750 have been at least 100 times smaller than anthropogenic emissions and inconsequential for climate on millennial and shorter time scales (Gerlach,2011). To be important for climate change, sulphur must be injected into the stratosphere, as the lifetime of aerosols in the troposphere is only about one week, whereas sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere from tropical eruptions have a lifetime of about one year, and those from high-latitude eruptions last several months. PDF link
.
|
| CorroPredo | 17 May 2018 4:22 p.m. PST |
Remind us all you want, nobodies listening. |
| skippy0001 | 17 May 2018 4:26 p.m. PST |
|
 StoneMtnMinis  | 17 May 2018 5:31 p.m. PST |
OK, the fanboys will love this then….
link |
| Martin From Canada | 17 May 2018 6:36 p.m. PST |
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier? No excrement of bos tauros Sherlock. Does 1999 ring any bells? The temperatures spiked during a La Nino year (2016) and return back to baseline growth when the effects of the La Nino fade.
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
Yes, let's all focus on the outliers and ignore the trend. Same thing, different pile. It's '98-99 all over again, or how the brilliant Nazi Generals had a series of victories against the dastardly commies in '43-45… until you look at the map and see how each successive battle is closer and closer to Berlin.
It's like going down the up escalator!
NASA GISS Data link
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
1981 56 41 49 31 24 31 33 32 16 13 24 43 33 31 39 34 32 18 1981
1982 10 15 -1 9 15 5 12 7 13 12 15 43 13 13 23 8 8 14 1982
1983 52 40 42 31 35 20 17 33 38 15 33 17 31 33 45 36 23 28 1983
1984 29 17 29 8 32 5 16 16 20 15 6 -5 16 18 21 23 12 14 1984
1985 22 -6 17 11 15 17 -1 14 14 11 9 15 11 10 4 14 10 11 1985
1986 28 38 28 24 23 10 11 11 -1 12 12 16 18 18 27 25 11 8 1986
1987 36 45 16 22 25 36 45 28 38 31 26 48 33 30 33 21 36 31 1987
1988 57 43 52 44 44 44 32 43 38 38 12 32 40 41 49 47 40 30 1988
1989 15 34 36 31 18 16 34 35 37 31 21 39 29 28 27 28 28 29 1989
1990 40 41 76 55 45 38 43 30 28 43 47 41 44 44 40 59 37 39 1990
1991 41 49 35 52 37 52 47 39 47 29 32 33 41 42 44 41 46 36 1991
1992 44 41 47 24 32 25 10 6 -1 6 3 21 21 22 39 34 13 3 1992
1993 37 38 36 26 27 23 25 10 9 22 7 16 23 23 32 30 19 12 1993
1994 28 2 27 40 27 42 30 21 28 40 47 36 31 29 15 32 31 38 1994
1995 51 78 45 47 25 41 47 46 32 47 46 28 44 45 55 39 45 41 1995
1996 25 48 32 34 29 24 37 48 25 18 41 40 33 32 34 32 36 28 1996
1997 31 38 53 36 36 53 35 41 52 61 65 59 47 45 36 42 43 60 1997
1998 60 90 63 63 68 77 68 66 40 43 49 56 62 62 70 65 70 44 1998
1999 48 65 34 33 31 37 36 32 38 37 38 43 39 40 56 33 35 38 1999
2000 24 56 57 57 35 40 39 42 38 26 32 30 40 41 41 50 40 32 2000Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 42 44 55 50 56 53 60 50 53 51 71 56 53 51 39 54 54 58 2001
2002 75 76 90 57 62 53 62 52 59 54 56 44 62 63 69 70 56 56 2002
2003 73 55 57 54 60 47 53 65 63 73 53 73 61 58 57 57 55 63 2003
2004 58 72 65 62 40 42 25 45 51 63 70 50 54 56 68 56 38 61 2004
2005 71 56 70 68 62 64 62 61 71 74 71 65 66 65 59 67 62 72 2005
2006 55 68 61 49 46 63 51 69 61 65 70 73 61 60 63 52 61 65 2006
2007 94 70 68 73 65 57 59 57 58 57 55 46 63 66 79 69 58 57 2007
2008 22 34 73 51 46 44 58 44 60 61 65 52 51 50 34 56 49 62 2008
2009 61 50 52 59 64 65 70 65 67 63 76 65 63 62 54 58 67 69 2009
2010 73 79 92 84 72 62 59 62 57 68 78 46 69 71 73 82 61 67 2010
2011 48 50 62 61 49 55 71 70 53 62 55 52 57 57 48 57 65 57 2011
2012 44 47 55 67 73 62 53 60 70 74 74 52 61 61 48 65 58 73 2012
2013 66 55 66 52 56 64 57 65 75 66 78 65 64 63 57 58 62 73 2013
2014 73 52 76 77 84 65 55 80 87 80 66 77 73 72 63 79 67 78 2014
2015 81 86 90 74 74 78 70 78 80 106 102 110 86 83 81 79 75 96 2015
2016 115 134 130 107 89 77 81 99 86 87 90 82 98 100 119 109 86 88 2016
2017 96 111 112 92 87 69 80 86 73 86 85 88 89 88 96 97 79 81 2017
2018 75 80 88 86 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 81 **** **** **** 2018
From Tamino's How Climate Deniers can "Hide the Incline" (Interesting read btw)
link
From HadCrut (Temperature anomaly of 1961-90 temperatures in Centigrade) link
Year Anomaly Difference YTY
1970 -0.027 -0.059
1971 -0.186 -0.159
1972 -0.065 0.121
1973 0.062 0.127
1974 -0.214 -0.276
1975 -0.149 0.065
1976 -0.241 -0.092
1977 0.047 0.288
1978 -0.062 -0.109
1979 0.057 0.119
1980 0.092 0.035
1981 0.14 0.048
1982 0.011 -0.129
1983 0.194 0.183
1984 -0.014 -0.208
1985 -0.03 -0.016
1986 0.045 0.075
1987 0.192 0.147
1988 0.198 0.006
1989 0.118 -0.08
1990 0.296 0.178
1991 0.254 -0.042
1992 0.105 -0.149
1993 0.148 0.043
1994 0.208 0.06
1995 0.325 0.117
1996 0.183 -0.142
1997 0.39 0.207
1998 0.539 0.149
1999 0.306 -0.233
2000 0.294 -0.012
2001 0.441 0.147
2002 0.496 0.055
2003 0.505 0.009
2004 0.447 -0.058
2005 0.545 0.098
2006 0.506 -0.039
2007 0.491 -0.015
2008 0.395 -0.096
2009 0.506 0.111
2010 0.56 0.054
2011 0.425 -0.135
2012 0.47 0.045
2013 0.514 0.044
2014 0.579 0.065
2015 0.763 0.184
2016 0.797 0.034
2017 0.676 -0.121
2018 0.563 -0.113
|
| Mithmee | 17 May 2018 7:43 p.m. PST |
Martin Always with the charts that were more than likely made by hand-picked data that will tell the story to prove something that is not happening. How many times must I remind you that Weather Climate? What is Climate? the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period a region with particular prevailing weather conditions Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time.[1][2] It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region No matter now you cut it Climate always comes back to what the weather is doing. Oh and if the "Big Island" goes up like Krakotoa did we will see Global cooling for a very long time. Many individuals here just want to forget that we have not seen a really big eruption in a very long time. Crater Lake use to be a 12,000 foot mountain which really blew it top. link Very large eruptions have always impacted the weather, which in turn impacted the climate and there have really long term effects on the climate. This one only impacted the Global climate for around two decades and it really was still quite small. link link |
| Bowman | 17 May 2018 8:03 p.m. PST |
OK, the fanboys will love this then…. Instead of the childish name calling, how about showing where the purported research actually shows what Investors Business Daily says it does. We can wait. And really, editorials from Investors Business Daily depicts science now? Hilarious. What's next? Climate Depot? Don't bother Martin. After all, volcanoes release CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and that affects the climate. But human activity also releases CO2 and other greenhouse gases, at a rate of 100 times greater than all worldwide volcanic activity, not just that on Hawaii currently. But apparently, that has no effect. Got it. Where's the face palm emoticon? |
| Bowman | 17 May 2018 8:14 p.m. PST |
This one only impacted the Global climate for around two decades and it really was still quite small. More Mithmee "reality" What two decades? As is usual, the links you provided do not support your statement. The first link states, "In the case of Mount Pinatubo, the result was a measurable cooling of the Earth's surface for a period of almost two years." Then, "The Pinatubo eruption increased aerosol optical depth in the stratosphere by a factor of 10 to 100 times normal levels measured prior to the eruption. ("Aerosol optical depth" is a measure of how much light airborne particles prevent from passing through a column of atmosphere.) Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C)." The second link makes no statement on the duration of the cooling brought on by Pinatubo. Nice hyperbole and nice try. And why do you say Pinatubo was "still quite small"? Pinatubo was actually the second biggest eruption in the entire 20th century. link The data from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies shows little effect of the Pinatubo eruption beyond the under 2 year dip that the scientists measured. This is the data that Martin shows. |
| Bowman | 17 May 2018 8:26 p.m. PST |
So to put the 15 month period of 1degree F cooler global temperature from Pinatubo in perspective, here is a list of the ten hottest years (globally) from records going back to 1880 link You can see that the 10 warmest global record temperatures are all from 1998 onwards. Regardless what Investors Business Daily says. Lol. |
| goragrad | 17 May 2018 10:40 p.m. PST |
Once more with the 'adjusted' temperature record… |
| Martin From Canada | 17 May 2018 11:22 p.m. PST |
|
| Cacique Caribe | 18 May 2018 4:06 a.m. PST |
Maybe a nuclear winter could help cool things off? :) Dan |
| Bowman | 18 May 2018 4:47 a.m. PST |
Dan, the mechanism of a nuclear winter and the cooling from volcanoes works the same way. Particulate matter in the stratosphere absorbs or reflects radiation from the Sun. This increases the Earth's albedo, thereby dropping the temperature. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo While the volcano on Hawaii looks impressive let's keep this all in perspective. According to the USGS, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 released in 2010 was 700 times that released by Pinatubo in 1991. "There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions." "All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities." link PDF link |
| Bowman | 18 May 2018 5:03 a.m. PST |
Once more with the 'adjusted' temperature record… Since you are not in a position to substantiate the claim above, you are simply "poisoning the well". Which, you may know, is a form of logical fallacy. So when the GISS does this: link They are awesome. When the GISS does this: link They are awesome. When the GISS does this: link They are awesome. When they do this: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp They are liars and cheats. Ok, got it. Btw, does that include all of Columbia University? The deniers seem to have an innate sense of which center of higher learning is suspect or biased and which ones aren't. |
| Mithmee | 18 May 2018 12:14 p.m. PST |
And why do you say Pinatubo was "still quite small"? Pinatubo was actually the second biggest eruption in the entire 20th century. Why because neither it or the 1912 Eruption come even close to these. link There have been far larger Eruptions. Once more with the 'adjusted' temperature record… Well if they used the "Real Temperatures" they wouldn't be able to sell their "Agenda". |
| Martin From Canada | 18 May 2018 12:33 p.m. PST |
Well if they used the "Real Temperatures" they wouldn't be able to sell their "Agenda". As I've explained to you before, raw temperatures are as useful to climate scientists as cattle on the hoof is to a burger joint. There's a mandatory intermediate step. For example, how else would you be able to splice together data from Boeing Field (BFI) which is practically at sea level , Spokane International Airport (GEG) at 727m above sea level and Pearson International (YYZ) at 173m above sea level as well as 3 time zones away without data homogenization? |
 Inari7 | 18 May 2018 2:48 p.m. PST |
Mithmee If 90% of doctors said you had cancer would you believe the 10% who say you don't? Don't read into the question just Yes or no….. |
| Bowman | 18 May 2018 2:49 p.m. PST |
Why because neither it or the 1912 Eruption come even close to these. Now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it, with no coherent point being made. Look, according to the USGS, about 50-60 volcanoes erupt every year on the Earth. That's 500-600 eruptions per century. If Pinatubo was the second biggest blast out of 600, then I can safely call it "big". Btw, that doesn't include undersea eruptions. Again, even with 50-60 eruptions a year, the total contribution to climate change amounts to less than 1% when compared to AGW. Think about that when you go scrambling to Wiki to find bigger eruptions, some of which occurred tens of millions of years ago. Well if they used the "Real Temperatures" they wouldn't be able to sell their "Agenda". Keep chanting that all you want. It's still just an unsubstantiated proclamation. To which I'll invoke Hitchen's Razor. |
| CorroPredo | 18 May 2018 3:03 p.m. PST |
It's no use talking to these "scientists", Mithmee. They wouldn't admit they're wrong if their life depended on it. |
| Bowman | 18 May 2018 3:18 p.m. PST |
Mithmee If 90% of doctors said you had cancer would you believe the 10% who say you don't? It's worse than that. Mithmee doesn't think proxy science is real science, and if you need to mathematically "massage" the raw data then everything is bogus. So, an oncologist suspects cancer. He orders an MRI as it is the least invasive method to detect cancer. And while an MRI will produce a good image of the cancer, that a radiologist can decipher, that's actually not what it measures. The MRI creates very powerful magnetic fields and then turns them off, all in rapid succession. When the field is on, the protons in the nuclei in the water in the subjects body align all the spins of the protons. When the field goes off, the proton spins undergo "precession", meaning that the spins revert back to normal. Flipping the proton spins generates very small radio signals, which are read by sensors. So in effect the MRI is just a gloriously complex radio receiver. That's the proxy science part. To get an image, you need to sequence various mathematical algorithms to produce a 3 dimensional image. Think of a radio telescope determining the surface topography of a planet or moon. Anyways, a lot of data modification is necessary for the diagnostic computers to determine an image to can be useful to the radiologists. I'm told that it is the sequencing and the mathematical models that make for a good MRI result, and not the qualities of the machine itself. Unfortunately, due to my MS, I spend an inordinate time in these machines every year. So I'm happy about this type of proxy science that requires a lot of data manipulation in order to determine that my MS lesions are not spreading. A bit of a derail. |
| Inari7 | 18 May 2018 4:30 p.m. PST |
Bowman, now your reading into the question. If 9 out of 10 doctors said you had cancer would you take treatment? |
| Mithmee | 18 May 2018 4:53 p.m. PST |
For example, how else would you be able to splice together data from Boeing Field (BFI) which is practically at sea level , Spokane International Airport (GEG) at 727m above sea level and Pearson International (YYZ) at 173m above sea level as well as 3 time zones away without data homogenization? I wouldn't since I would only use "Actual Real Data" since that is the only data that counts. But you want to take that data and change it into something that proves your "Agenda". |
| Mithmee | 18 May 2018 4:57 p.m. PST |
Mithmee If 90% of doctors said you had cancer would you believe the 10% who say you don't? Don't read into the question just Yes or no….. Wouldn't matter if I had Cancer or not since I would not care. You see I know that I am going to die sometime in the future, though it is more likely by a Heart Attack then Cancer, because that runs in my family the other doesn't. Though getting the Big-C is a great way to lose weight. |
| Mithmee | 18 May 2018 5:04 p.m. PST |
It's worse than that. Mithmee doesn't think proxy science is real science, and if you need to mathematically "massage" the raw data then everything is bogus. Bowman, I work in Finance for a very large company and to mathematically "massage" the raw data" Will usually end up with someone going to prison and the company paying a very large fine. The "Actuals" are the "Actuals" and you do not massage them to get the results that you want. Both you and Martin have no problem with taking "Real Data" and turning it into numbers that are more to your liking. |
| Mithmee | 18 May 2018 5:40 p.m. PST |
It's no use talking to these "scientists", Mithmee. They wouldn't admit they're wrong if their life depended on it. I know that and I also know that we have not had a really big Eruption since 1883 but Krakatoa Eruption could pale against Kilauea if it decides to blow up. The Scientists were caught flat-footed with these series of Eruptions but that is the nature of Volcanoes. They think something and it does something completely different.
Like Mount St Helens beautiful mountain one day and a gaping crater in a very short period of time. YouTube link Krakatoa YouTube link We have not had a VEI 8 Volanco in a very long time. |
| Martin From Canada | 18 May 2018 6:29 p.m. PST |
Will usually end up with someone going to prison and the company paying a very large fine.The "Actuals" are the "Actuals" and you do not massage them to get the results that you want. Both you and Martin have no problem with taking "Real Data" and turning it into numbers that are more to your liking. More like converting CAD, EUR and GBP into USD in order to do a proper comparison… |
| Bowman | 19 May 2018 5:51 p.m. PST |
I work in Finance for a very large company and tomathematically "massage" the raw data"
Will usually end up with someone going to prison and the company paying a very large fine. Ya, so it's a self admitted stupid analogy. Manipulating radio signal readings to formulate an MRI image has nothing to do with accounting and "cooking the books". Thanks for making my point. You have difficulty understanding some things. The Scientists were caught flat-footed with these series of Eruptions but that is the nature of Volcanoes Wrong as usual: "Volcanologists who watch Kilauea haven't seen a boom like that since 1924, but that doesn't mean they were surprised. Quite the opposite. Kilauea and its sibling volcanoes, sitting atop a "hot spot" in Earth's crust, are where volcano observation started, and they're literally a textbook case of how close observation with high-tech sensors can teach scientists to forecast disaster, and by forecasting it, avert it. Part of the reason we have this opportunity to make good forecasts at Kilauea is that the volcano is extremely well-monitored," says Mike Poland, a USGS geophysicist and scientist in charge at Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. (Poland also spent 10 years at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.) "It's been a testing ground for monitoring equipment, and not only are new techniques developed there, but the network of equipment has been expanding for decades." link "Kilauea is "unlike a lot of volcanoes because it's a shield volcano"meaning it has long, sloping sides"and because it's huge," Klemetti says. "The scale of it is hard to comprehend until you're on the volcano and you realize you can drive 20 miles and still be on the volcano. Kilauea has also "been pretty much in eruption for the last 35 years," he adds. There are long-simmering lava lakes within its crater, and every so often new flows appear within Volcanoes National Park." link From 2011: link So they've clearly known about Kilauea……end of story.
And Kilauea has been in a continuous eruption for decades and may continue for years. Great. What do you expect the scientists to do? They warned the government who moved the public away. What else can they do? Stop the eruption? Now how is this eruption (and the 50 to 60 other eruptions around the world) impacting climate change but AGW, which is larger by a factor of 100, somehow isn't? |
| Bowman | 19 May 2018 6:04 p.m. PST |
Bowman, now your reading into the question. Umm…..I'm not reading into any question as it was not originally asked of me. If 9 out of 10 doctors said you had cancer would you take treatment? Probably yes, but it would depend on the cancer, at what stage it was detected, and what the treatment would consist of. Sorry but it's not a simple yeas or no question. I've only been diagnosed with MS by two neurologists. I'm under treatment for that. It's a little more cut and dried than cancer. |
| Gunfreak | 20 May 2018 1:21 a.m. PST |
It's more like he's in a hospital bed. Minutes away from dying from cancer. And the doctors tells him he only got a few minutes left. Mithmee will then spend the last two minutes of is life telling the doctors he doesn't have cancer and the doctors only claim he has cancer to get their big paychecks. |
| Ed Mohrmann | 20 May 2018 2:56 a.m. PST |
Hmmm…injecting any discussion of the medical
profession into this discussion of the effect of
volcanoes on the global climate doesn't seem
relevant, at least to me. Diagnosticians make errors, more than we'd like
to think. Equipment collecting data over broad reaches of
time typically doesn't (not that it can't, mind,
but the data is NOT OPINION, as a diagnosis can
be). |
| Mithmee | 20 May 2018 6:56 a.m. PST |
Bowman, You still don't get it. If the Scientists knew where it would erupt they would have warned everyone before it did. Sure Kilauea has been in constant Eruption for decades and the scientists have been watching it. But this current Eruption broke ground around 10 miles away from where they were watching. If they knew then people would have been told ahead of the eruption and not after. |
| Bowman | 21 May 2018 5:07 a.m. PST |
Hmmm…injecting any discussion of the medical
profession into this discussion of the effect of
volcanoes on the global climate doesn't seem
relevant, at least to me. Ed, it has to do with collecting "proxy science" data and then manipulating the data to get a meaningful result. This is something climate scientists get attacked for by those who do not understand climate science. These processes are supposedly "not science" and not "real data" simply because some don't like the end results. I'm showing how medical diagnostics from a simple pulse oximeter to a complex MRI machine do just that. I thought the medical analogy was good as many here have had personal experience with pulse oximeters or MRIs. You still don't get it.If the Scientists knew where it would erupt they would have warned everyone before it did. Sorry, you don't get it. They did warn the local administration that a full eruption was eminent. What they can't fortell is the exact location and extent of every fissure. I guess their crystal balls weren't working that day. Sure Kilauea has been in constant Eruption for decades and the scientists have been watching it. Contradicts what you said before. Getting back to the gist of your thread. You are claiming (initially with some hyperbole) that this will affect climate. Fair enough, no one disagrees with that. However, the example of Pinatubo you gave and insisted that decades of climate were affected turned out to be 15 months of 1 degree cooler weather. Still impressive, but no where near your claims. More importantly, you also dodge the fact that AGW accounts for a far, far greater effect on the Earth's climate than all the volcanos erupting worldwide combined. By a factor of 100. Dodge noted. Since that conflicts with your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, you choose to ignore it. It is you who doesn't get it, and there is nothing to be gained from continuing this thread. |
| goragrad | 22 May 2018 5:20 p.m. PST |
This got attention… At any rate on a more, perhaps, apt look at data adjustment and proxies, I am a surveyor. Over the years I have worked with a number of electronic distance measuring devices and the data produced by them. Including that derived from satellite measurements (GPS). One project I observed while working at an engineering firm was a classic case of a 'proxy' leading to 'adjustment' of the raw data to fit the result indicated by the proxy. In preparing a plot of ground for a housing development the desired final contours are established by an engineer and the existing ground is then regraded with earth moving equipment until it matches those contours. Additional soil may need to be imported to the site or excess hauled away. The initial surface of the site is mapped by surveyors as is the final in order to determine whether the desired final grades have been created and how much earth has been moved. In this particular case the site had an excess of soil which had been hauled off. The construction company doing the earthwork was to be paid for this based on the number of cubic yards hauled. The project engineer had a digital terrain model of the site prior to the earthwork being started and created another based on the survey of the site after the work was done. Using these he calculated the quantity of earth hauled away. Unfortunately this differed from his proxy – the number of trucks of soil (times the capacity of the trucks) reported by the contractor (the firms client) – by several thousand yards. After agonizing for some time (and discussion with me among others and experimenting with the data) the engineer came up with an adjustment of 4 hundredths of a foot to add to the entire final surface that made the quantities agree. He reasoned that the surveyor doing the fieldwork was well muscled and when driving in the wooden stakes that marked out the grid when doing the final survey that he would have driven them that much below the actual ground surface as the ground would have been less compact than the original surface. Had the client been the site developer he might well have taken the position that the contractor's trucks had not been loaded to capacity and held the originally calculated quantity. Of course this was in the private sector which is driven my profit motive rather than the public sector which has no agendas… Such as ignoring tree ring proxies for the 20th Century when they show a decline contradicting the 'measured' temperatures that show a Hockey Stick rise. |
| Mithmee | 22 May 2018 5:44 p.m. PST |
More importantly, you also dodge the fact that AGW accounts for a far, far greater effect on the Earth's climate than all the volcanos erupting worldwide combined. No I just do not believe that it happening since most of the data is not even "REAL". The "REAL DATA" has been played with and put through computer programs so that is comes out showing what they want it to show. |
| Charlie 12 | 22 May 2018 6:36 p.m. PST |
You still don't get it.
If the Scientists knew where it would erupt they would have warned everyone before it did. As Bowman pointed out, they DID know the eruption was imminent. And, based on observations (more of that dreaded proxy science again), they had predicted the East Rift zone (where the Leilani Estates are located) was the likely area of highest activity. So much for your assertion… |
| Charlie 12 | 22 May 2018 6:37 p.m. PST |
No I just do not believe that it happening since most of the data is not even "REAL". No, its because it doesn't fit into your own personal bias. Sorry, science isn't beholden to YOU…. |
's preferred method for stripping paint from resin and plastic models.
