Sell your sailplane before 2030

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC+12, Paul B wrote:
"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets"

Yes, if one set of datasets does not support the predetermined view, no problem, just get new datasets, or "better" analysis, problem is fixed .

My thoughts exactly.

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all ok, actually.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:08:47 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all ok, actually.

My personal favorite was a map showing red dots for all the places that the average temperature for some month was "the highest ever recorded". And there was a perfectly spaced grid with literally hundreds of points scattered throughout the oceans of the world. Probably true that the temperature was the "highest ever recorded" at each of those points, but with an even, perfect pattern like was shown, I couldn't help but wonder "How many years have they been recording that data?"

And do you really think that mankind can substantially increase the temperature on the surface of earth more than some breaking down of the insulation of the rock, dirt, water, etc that is on the surface? Or the gradual heat transfer that is happening from the core to the surface of the planet? Quick Google search says that it is estimated that the temperature at the core of the earth is over 10,000 F. So, there is one whale of a lot of heat being radiated up from below.

Not doubting that Man has his local impacts. But to try and imply that we are the cause of all the changes? I think someone has a bit too high an opinion of himself...

Just my thoughts. I won't be selling off my fleet based on this latest prediction.

Steve Leonard

Quick Google search says that it is estimated that the temperature at the core of the earth is over 10,000 F. So, there is one whale of a lot of heat being radiated up from below.

And a whole load of rock to insulate us. Average heat flow from the interior is around 0.08W/m^2 at the surface, compared to 700 - 1400W/m^2 from the sun. So yes, the hot core has an effect but it's pretty small.

Not doubting that Man has his local impacts. But to try and imply that we are the cause of all the changes? I think someone has a bit too high an opinion of himself...

We're the cause of one slow trend, superimposed on other trends and other oscillations. We turn trapped carbon into CO2, CO2 absorbs infrared and heats up, so a small change in the 0.04% CO2 atmosphere content means a small but inexorable warming.

The climate in 50 or 100 years is still up for debate, most of it around the effects and prevalence of clouds, but it's never a good idea to crap in your own nest.

Hey ho. Happy Tuesday.

DH

Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/21/2015 6:08 AM:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC+12, Paul B wrote:
"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets"

Yes, if one set of datasets does not support the predetermined
view, no problem, just get new datasets, or "better" analysis,
problem is fixed .

My thoughts exactly.

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged
problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new
evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and
seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all
ok, actually.

Did either of you read the article? They did not get completely new
datasets, but used the original datasets, plus additions to them from
areas that previously had very sparse measurements. The Arctic is one of
those, and it is also an area that has warmed more rapidly than most
other places. Another thing they did was to correct for differences in
ocean temperature measurements made from buoys and ships. A third change
was adding the most recent data (2013 and 2014), which was not in the
original datasets.

All these things, and more, made a significant difference. None of this
is done in secret and simply announced. You can examine the published
paper yourself, see the methods used, and the raw data.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

Here is another view of NOAA's declaration that the hiatus is bogus:

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/201...ing-past-data/

Even the IPCC said there was a hiatus.

Tom

2G wrote on 7/21/2015 9:14 PM:
Here is another view of NOAA's declaration that the hiatus is bogus:

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/201...ing-past-data/

Even the IPCC said there was a hiatus.

Tom

That's quite lengthy article - can you summarize the most important
points it makes about the NOAA paper?

My understanding is the IPCC "hiatus" remarks apply to 2012 and earlier
data, unlike the NOAA paper, which includes the hotter years of 2013 and
2014. But even if NOAA is wrong and the older IPCC report remarks are
correct, the IPCC still shows the global temperature climbing at half
the previous; ie, the "hiatus" doesn't refer to a lack of warming, only
a reduction in the rate, and using "hiatus" indicates the past higher
rate of rise is expected to resume.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf