I believe the research estimates surface temperatures will reach 125. That’s a little different that saying “It’s 125 degrees outside”. While this is a disturbing trend, I’m sure we’ll see this misrepresented and misused by every side. I believe in climate change, but clumsy headlines like this undermines the cause and gives the climate deniers a reason to declare all of the findings fake.
This is just a summary of the 6th Annual National Risk Assessment report, which IJ provided a link to review in full detail. I don’t care if the cookie monster or the hamburgler wrote this article – what’s more important is the actual report and its methodology and findings, which you can read for yourself if you so desire.
True. Did you read the methodolgy? Its approach stands on the shoulders of past research, which is not fully cited in the summary. I will take a look at cites to see. My past experience finds the base very loose, like 2+2>0, when you need for the base to be a certain 2+2=4.
Look at the assumptions to determine bias, if any. I am very suspect of this predictive modeling. If only because the Gorean crowd would have stumbled upon this model had it been real.
“…past research, which is not fully cited in the summary”
Please give me a direct quote from the report where you don’t think it was fully cited. I came across no such text. Note: you may have to click the link to view peer reviewed research or the full detailed technical methodology, but that’s still a valid citation.
This was a cite in the summary provided on the firststreet.org website.
“The model makes use of data which has been shown to be strongly correlated with air temperatures in past research. Satellite derived land surface temperature (LST) estimates were obtained and compared with actual observed air temperatures at the same location in order to gain an understanding of the relationship. LST is distinct from air temperature, but the values tend to be strongly correlated. For each station, the complete June, July, and August monthly temperature records for the years between 2014 and 2020 are used, as summertime land surface temperatures show the best differentiation among smaller areas.”
I have downloaded the report to read.
August 23, 2022 at 9:34 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Not sure what you think needs a further citation.
Seems sufficient looking at the last sentence you cited and the first sentence in the next paragraph — “LST data were acquired at a 30-meter spatial resolution from the Landsat 8 Collection 2 surface temperature product for the years 2014 to 2020.”
And if you click the link below those paragraphs which says “See full methodology here” it links you to the FULL methodology rather than just the overview you cited.
What piece do you think requires further citations?
August 23, 2022 at 10:10 am
Evolved Economics says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@Rosenblatt
I think you need to re-read my original note to you. I indicated I would and will review the full review. I was just commenting the summary gave guidance, into the methodology which gave me concern. I also expressed my thoughts of doubt that such an extreme prediction would have surface much earlier in scienctific, Gorean experts. I will be reading through the report as a part of my job. You insistence for me to “give me a direct quote from the report where you don’t think it was fully cited.” reminds me of middle school debate tactics.
August 23, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Sorry if I did not read your comment the way you intended. I thought you said they didn’t fully cite their sources, so I asked for a specific part of the report where you didn’t think they cited something completely, to which you responded with your “The model makes…” text which I felt was sufficiently cited within the article and via the link to the full detailed methodology info.
I didn’t realize you were saying the summary only gave guidance into the methodology which concerned you in spite of the fact the summary provided a link that covered their full methodology.
August 31, 2022 at 9:06 pm
Logical says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
One of the problems with the methodology is the temperature stations themselves. NOAA initially put them in standard areas you might expect, let’s say the edge of a city. However, as urbanization occurs more and more, the stations become closer to heat islands and therefore show higher temps than otherwise would occur. All NOAA or whomever is doing the studying would have to do is move the stations away from the hottest parts of the cities. This is why 50,000 scientists protested the climate change findings.
I struggle with the thoughts that some scientists predict that the warming of the planet is imminent while others claim it’s normal weather activity. Not sure who or what to believe. But Polar, I can find comfort knowing that you know exactly what the ultimate outcome will be and fortunately you’re not too worried. I assume if you were worried you’d post a few good recommendations on how to hedge our bets on this. Your post are old and tired, big dog, you need new material.
25 years ago California was supposed to be under water by now as well as most of the current coast. 40 years ago, we were worrying about another ice age. How about people start waking up and just ignore these “sky is falling” so called experts. They know nothing, other than making up some crazy theories based on 30 years of data. The more we entertain these people and post their articles, the more they write and then our stupid government gives them grants for their research. How about researching the last 5,000 years and let us know what has happened? Oh you can’t. That’s because you have NO idea on how the environment works. What happened to our ice age that was predicted? What happened to Al Gore’s the coast will be gone by now? It’s because they don’t want a real job but they need money coming in so they pick up a pen and start writing nonsense. “Goodnight!”
Like the great Al Gore said in 2008, citing a noted climate expert (Dr. Maslowski)…” there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
As the late author Michael Crichton said, you can’t even tell me what the climate OR the weather is going to be like tomorrow but you’re predicting what it will be in 20, 50 or 100 years?
The reason I believe the predictions is that there is VISIBLE, MEASURABLE evidence of melting icecaps and TRENDS of changing temperatures over time. No one good day of cool or heat is evidence that the changes are not happening. More importantly- if climate science’s warnings are correct, we can take steps to prepare (as agriculture is doing). Better safe than sorry. Crops need to be more resistant to drought and heat, construction needs to be insulated, etc. I have seen many documentaries already about the shrinking water level in the Colorado river, Lake Meade, and other important sources of irrigation. Preparation is better than regret. For the “business people” go make a profit off the climate change opportunities and stop with the conspiracy theories.
Preparation is good when it results in a positive change. However, some reports show that it would cost well over $1,000,000,000,000 (that’s Trillion with a T), to lower the temperature just ONE degree! And guess who gets to spend that? The so-called depest pockets, the USA!
I believe the research estimates surface temperatures will reach 125. That’s a little different that saying “It’s 125 degrees outside”. While this is a disturbing trend, I’m sure we’ll see this misrepresented and misused by every side. I believe in climate change, but clumsy headlines like this undermines the cause and gives the climate deniers a reason to declare all of the findings fake.
Because no author is named for this article, I have to ask….
Al Gore; is that you who wrote this rubbish?
BTW; where is your private jet parked now?
All that is needed is someone who will promise to Make Climate Great Again.
This is just a summary of the 6th Annual National Risk Assessment report, which IJ provided a link to review in full detail. I don’t care if the cookie monster or the hamburgler wrote this article – what’s more important is the actual report and its methodology and findings, which you can read for yourself if you so desire.
True. Did you read the methodolgy? Its approach stands on the shoulders of past research, which is not fully cited in the summary. I will take a look at cites to see. My past experience finds the base very loose, like 2+2>0, when you need for the base to be a certain 2+2=4.
Look at the assumptions to determine bias, if any. I am very suspect of this predictive modeling. If only because the Gorean crowd would have stumbled upon this model had it been real.
“…past research, which is not fully cited in the summary”
Please give me a direct quote from the report where you don’t think it was fully cited. I came across no such text. Note: you may have to click the link to view peer reviewed research or the full detailed technical methodology, but that’s still a valid citation.
This was a cite in the summary provided on the firststreet.org website.
“The model makes use of data which has been shown to be strongly correlated with air temperatures in past research. Satellite derived land surface temperature (LST) estimates were obtained and compared with actual observed air temperatures at the same location in order to gain an understanding of the relationship. LST is distinct from air temperature, but the values tend to be strongly correlated. For each station, the complete June, July, and August monthly temperature records for the years between 2014 and 2020 are used, as summertime land surface temperatures show the best differentiation among smaller areas.”
I have downloaded the report to read.
Not sure what you think needs a further citation.
Seems sufficient looking at the last sentence you cited and the first sentence in the next paragraph — “LST data were acquired at a 30-meter spatial resolution from the Landsat 8 Collection 2 surface temperature product for the years 2014 to 2020.”
And if you click the link below those paragraphs which says “See full methodology here” it links you to the FULL methodology rather than just the overview you cited.
What piece do you think requires further citations?
@Rosenblatt
I think you need to re-read my original note to you. I indicated I would and will review the full review. I was just commenting the summary gave guidance, into the methodology which gave me concern. I also expressed my thoughts of doubt that such an extreme prediction would have surface much earlier in scienctific, Gorean experts. I will be reading through the report as a part of my job. You insistence for me to “give me a direct quote from the report where you don’t think it was fully cited.” reminds me of middle school debate tactics.
Sorry if I did not read your comment the way you intended. I thought you said they didn’t fully cite their sources, so I asked for a specific part of the report where you didn’t think they cited something completely, to which you responded with your “The model makes…” text which I felt was sufficiently cited within the article and via the link to the full detailed methodology info.
I didn’t realize you were saying the summary only gave guidance into the methodology which concerned you in spite of the fact the summary provided a link that covered their full methodology.
One of the problems with the methodology is the temperature stations themselves. NOAA initially put them in standard areas you might expect, let’s say the edge of a city. However, as urbanization occurs more and more, the stations become closer to heat islands and therefore show higher temps than otherwise would occur. All NOAA or whomever is doing the studying would have to do is move the stations away from the hottest parts of the cities. This is why 50,000 scientists protested the climate change findings.
I struggle with the thoughts that some scientists predict that the warming of the planet is imminent while others claim it’s normal weather activity. Not sure who or what to believe. But Polar, I can find comfort knowing that you know exactly what the ultimate outcome will be and fortunately you’re not too worried. I assume if you were worried you’d post a few good recommendations on how to hedge our bets on this. Your post are old and tired, big dog, you need new material.
25 years ago California was supposed to be under water by now as well as most of the current coast. 40 years ago, we were worrying about another ice age. How about people start waking up and just ignore these “sky is falling” so called experts. They know nothing, other than making up some crazy theories based on 30 years of data. The more we entertain these people and post their articles, the more they write and then our stupid government gives them grants for their research. How about researching the last 5,000 years and let us know what has happened? Oh you can’t. That’s because you have NO idea on how the environment works. What happened to our ice age that was predicted? What happened to Al Gore’s the coast will be gone by now? It’s because they don’t want a real job but they need money coming in so they pick up a pen and start writing nonsense. “Goodnight!”
Like the great Al Gore said in 2008, citing a noted climate expert (Dr. Maslowski)…” there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
As the late author Michael Crichton said, you can’t even tell me what the climate OR the weather is going to be like tomorrow but you’re predicting what it will be in 20, 50 or 100 years?
Tell me you don’t understand how probabilities work without telling me you don’t understand how probabilities work
Tell me you don’t understand how probabilities work without telling me you don’t understand how probabilities work
The reason I believe the predictions is that there is VISIBLE, MEASURABLE evidence of melting icecaps and TRENDS of changing temperatures over time. No one good day of cool or heat is evidence that the changes are not happening. More importantly- if climate science’s warnings are correct, we can take steps to prepare (as agriculture is doing). Better safe than sorry. Crops need to be more resistant to drought and heat, construction needs to be insulated, etc. I have seen many documentaries already about the shrinking water level in the Colorado river, Lake Meade, and other important sources of irrigation. Preparation is better than regret. For the “business people” go make a profit off the climate change opportunities and stop with the conspiracy theories.
Preparation is good when it results in a positive change. However, some reports show that it would cost well over $1,000,000,000,000 (that’s Trillion with a T), to lower the temperature just ONE degree! And guess who gets to spend that? The so-called depest pockets, the USA!