Reply to post: Did the story author read the NASA link?

Climate-change skeptic lined up to run NASA in this Trump timeline


Did the story author read the NASA link?

From that link (

"Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier."

^ This can't be true because Explorer 6 was only active for 60 days, none of them during the spring, and Ladsat didn't launch until 1972.

"The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950."

^ This is based on data from weather stations that weren't designed to measure sub-degree changes. You have a signal that's close to the noise floor (1: 2: ) and the investigators didn't use blinds. The reported warming also spiked after those investigators took a political stand (in the 1970s: ) and tapered off during the 2000s. That's the pattern you'd expect to see if bias were the main cause.

"All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years."

^ Ditto. The methodology was also changed when recent data showed less warming than expected. (That's non-preferred. See the BAMS analysis of the reproducibility fiasco.)

The proxy indeces are vulnerable to p-hacking because there are lots of potential proxies to choose from, and they weren't pre-registered.

"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."

^ This is based on the same data, and is even farther inside the instrumental margin of error.

"Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006"

...out of 684,000 cubic miles, or 0.009% or the total. (I'm being generous. If we use their low estimate, it's only 0.005%.)

"...while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."

...out of 7.2 million cubic miles, or five ten-thousandths of a percent.

I'm perfectly willing to work on energy-saving technologies (and have done so, actually). I also spent a few years as a Democratic organizer, and I've been a bike commuter for close to 20 years.

My beef is that the policy proposals from US greens don't make engineering sense. At this point, almost nay low-CO2 tech would be worth building, and the feedback loops in the models imply that timing of emissions is as important as total footprint. You won't get anywhere trying to talk to them about that.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019