The new official climate change thread

[Moviefan-2]

You will be unable to come up with any reference about an international standard for testing "the AGW hypothesis" other than on your kooky denier websites.

Total nonsense. I have already shown you that all of the leading climate researchers on the planet are using annual temperature anomalies as the metric for determining whether or not warming is occurring as predicted.

http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/10/152510/1/152647365.VGKk7kJX.IPCC_AR5_W_13jun7.PNG

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201604.gif

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/18-4.3.jpg

 

[Moviefan-2]

....and your hypothesis that there has been no warming.

"Hypothesis"?

The observed data that were published in Nature to support an article on the warming "slowdown" clearly show there was no statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the super El Nino.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

No matter how many times Fuji tries to make this about me, the reality remains that the article and graph that appeared in Nature weren't created by me.

 

[fuji]

Total nonsense. I have already shown you that all of the leading climate researchers on the planet are using annual temperature anomalies as the metric for determining whether or not warming is occurring as predicted.

http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/10/152510/1/152647365.VGKk7kJX.IPCC_AR5_W_13jun7.PNG

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201604.gif

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/18-4.3.jpg

They are taking the data and feeding it into regressions over many years. They aren't looking at it without any mathematical analysis as you stupidly are.

Shall I regress temperature by year for you and tell you the level of overwhelming statistical significance?

You are behaving very foolishly here. You think this is a word game. You make false and careless statements then hide behind pettifoggery when you are proven wrong.

You stupidly claimed the climate wasn't warming, I showed you it was. Your statement was very clear: no warming. But there has been warming, both over short timescales (which you blame on El Nino's) and over the 30 year timescale that is the definition of climate.

You have zero credibility left and you have been wrong in almost everything you say. You made false claims, you misrepresent climate science, and you try to bluster past the facts that disprove you.

You are a good example of the unreasonable, unscientific, innumerate mentality that pervades climate denial.

 

[Frankfooter]

Have you ever seen me reference something with a link to wattsupwiththat.com? However, at least the guy who runs that site has a background in weather and climate. Unlike your boy John Cook who is merely a sociologist posing as an impartial scientist.
The Heartland Institute is a think tank and it sponsors the NIPCC, it's a legit organization that is knowledgeable about the subject of climate change. Nice try.
As far as I am concerned what I express is my opinion which is based on what I have researched about the subject. This is a political forum and this is a political, not scientific, debate. Alarmists have seen to that - they have completely bastardized the scientific method. I just expose it.

You are debating as if it were political, but its a scientific issue.
Heartland and WUWT are both incredibly inept at the science, they function as paid propagandists of the fossil fuel industry, such as Exxon.
As for their politics:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...sweeps-up-more-than-100-u-s-institutions.html
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04...-expanding-exxon-climate-denial-investigation
http://www.climateinvestigations.org/dci_group_subpoena_exxon_climate_fraud

If you are talking politics you have to talk about the sources of funding for Heartland and WUWT.

If you want to talk science, and that's what this is about, then you should ignore everything written on this incredibly inaccurate propaganda blogs.
But its obvious you can't tell science from propaganda, as you don't see the difference in fully documented articles at skeptical science with fully undocumented opinion pieces at WUWT and Heartland.

 

[Frankfooter]

Total nonsense. I have already shown you that all of the leading climate researchers on the planet are using annual temperature anomalies as the metric for determining whether or not warming is occurring as predicted.

And all the leading climate researchers have found that AGW is real and we need to something about it right now.
As long as you are quoting those researchers, you better be aware of their findings.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Hypothesis"?

The observed data that were published in Nature to support an article on the warming "slowdown" clearly show there was no statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the super El Nino.

I know you love to quote that study, which also stated that they confirmed that AGW is real and its effects are upon us.
Its also just one study and in response to another study which found there was no slowdown at all.

Really, its just troll tactics.
Because as long as you are backing the findings of this study you are also backing what one of the lead authors of the study says about its results:

“So we have every reason to believe that the warming of the planet and the detrimental impacts of that warming will continue unabated if we do not dramatically reduce our emissions,” Mann said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/

Though I am glad to hear that you are now supporting Michael Mann, author of the hockey stick chart, and his work enough to quote it here as support for your positions. That's a start.

Tamino has a really smart discussion of the Fyfe paper and the faults with its premise, that of using 'broken' trend lines.
Here's a chart showing how Fyfe looked at the data vs non-broken trend lines.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/figure01.jpeg?w=1000&h=998

And again, Tamino shows that Fyfe's paper itself relies on cherry picking, and here shows trend lines for 2001-2014 vs 2000-2015.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fig3.jpeg?w=1000&h=664

In short, Fyfe's paper is interesting, but its findings aren't as solid as moviefan would like. Not that it will stop him from quoting it.
But it does show how weak his argument is getting. Now he's given up on claiming that there is no warming, now he's just claiming that the warming is continuing but its a little bit slower over his cherry picked years.

Moving goal posts, eh?

Here's the full Tamino article, its very good if your'e interested.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/record-global-warming-or-warming-slowdown/sted.

 

[FAST]

Have you ever seen me reference something with a link to wattsupwiththat.com? However, at least the guy who runs that site has a background in weather and climate. Unlike your boy John Cook who is merely a sociologist posing as an impartial scientist.
The Heartland Institute is a think tank and it sponsors the NIPCC, it's a legit organization that is knowledgeable about the subject of climate change. Nice try.
As far as I am concerned what I express is my opinion which is based on what I have researched about the subject. This is a political forum and this is a political, not scientific, debate. Alarmists have seen to that - they have completely bastardized the scientific method. I just expose it.

Guys, just give up with footer, he thinks the most important green house gas is only in the atmosphere for "a short time", so really can't be the MOST important green house gas, AND evaporation from farming irrigation, which INCREASES the most important green house gas, is simply part of the "carbon cycle".

And, burning and clear cutting forests does NOT introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of the worlds transportation, why, because the big 3 tax leaches don't like to bring that up.

And he doesn't even know that when water is sprayed into the air for farming, it, strange enough, evaporates, and then guess what, adds to the MOST important green house gas.

But its only in the atmosphere for "a short time", so it just doesn't matter, as he also puts it, "its part of the carbon cycle".

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Guys, just give up with footer, he thinks the most important green house gas is only in the atmosphere for "a short time", so really can't be the MOST important green house gas, AND evaporation from farming irrigation, which INCREASES the most important green house gas, is simply part of the "carbon cycle".

And, burning and clear cutting forests does NOT introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of the worlds transportation, why, because the big 3 tax leaches don't like to bring that up.

And he doesn't even know that when water is sprayed into the air for farming, it, strange enough, evaporates, and then guess what, adds to the MOST important green house gas.

But its only in the atmosphere for "a short time", so it just doesn't matter, as he also puts it, "its part of the carbon cycle".

FAST

Hey, FAST, keep it up.
You're getting closer to understanding the grade 5 level science needed here.
:whoo:

 

[FAST]

Hey, FAST, keep it up.
You're getting closer to understanding the grade 5 level science needed here.
:whoo:

Your are so fricken stupid, you don't realize you were just made to look like the fool you constantly portray.

Including,...admitting the big 3 tax leaches, IPCC, NASA and NOAA are much like yourself,...liars.

But at least the over 4000 otherwise unemployable and redundant self proclaimed "scientists" pay income tax, but you wouldn't know anything about that either.

FAST

 

[bishop]

And if anyone actually wants to learn the real reasons why satellite data isn't as reliable, there's an excellent post here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

Of course the deniers here will attack the fact that its at skeptical science, which is too bad.
Its really quite well written and has useful information there, and the references to more detailed info if you need it.

He is using the fact that satellite observations have more variance to say that therefore surface measurements are better because they have less.

Think of the time interval between surface and satellite measurements, I know nothing about satellites or using them to measure temperature but I am almost certain that they measure temperature much much faster than a typical surface temperature measurement. In other words satellite measurements have more fidelity because the sample rate is higher, and with higher fidelity comes higher observable variance. For land measurements, some measurement devices will be connected via satellite/celluar links so they can transmit data very quickly and subsequently sample temperature at high rates. Some land measurement devices will not have that connectivity, they probably store the data on flash memory or magnetic media and that device has to be physcially accessed to get the data. Now flash memory and magnetic Tape/hard drives are dirt cheap now, but that is only in recent times, many of the land measurement devices were made decades ago when flash memory was either non existent or very expensive and hard/tape drives were small and expensive, so the fidelity of their measurment is poor because they can only store so much onto memory before it runs out.

I say the above knowing nothing about satellites, satellite temperature measurement, surface measurement, and surface measurement devices. I say the above because I know about datalogging devices and real time data communications for said datalogging devices, from my work which in part involves datalogging devices.

 

[fuji]

The satellites don't measure temperature AT ALL. They measure other things and then scientists impute temperature from those readings.

There are also calibration problems where the instruments on different satellites return different measurements for the same surface temperature just because they have different equipment, so scientists have to correct for that.

Finally satellite data even when perfect is EXPECTED to show less warming than land measurements because the ocean has a high heat capacity and significantly moderates warming / cooling trends. It just takes longer to heat up.

 

[Frankfooter]

I know nothing about satellites or using them to measure temperature but I am almost certain

At least you are honest.

I'm not a climatologist either, nor an expert on satellites, but I imagine that being able to sample temperatures more often doesn't help if each sample itself isn't as accurate. (not to mention that there is no reason that automated surface stations could also have high sample rates now).

The big point is the amount of data manipulation necessary to get each sample. Check the rrs flowchart supplied with the post and you'll see its not so simple as reading a thermometer and noting the temperature.
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/rss_flowchart.png

The secondary big point is that it doesn't measure surface temperature, and the temperature in the clouds are useful but not as important for our needs.
But if you prefer I'll see if I can find a place that uses satellite temperatures to measure the upper troposphere above Toronto and you can use that as your daily weather report.
Good luck with that.

 

[Frankfooter]

Your are so fricken stupid, you don't realize you were just made to look like the fool you constantly portray.

Including,...admitting the big 3 tax leaches, IPCC, NASA and NOAA are much like yourself,...liars.

But at least the over 4000 otherwise unemployable and redundant self proclaimed "scientists" pay income tax, but you wouldn't know anything about that either.

FAST

Just when I thought there was hope that you could master simple concepts like the carbon cycle and the fact that if you put too much water vapour in the atmosphere it becomes a cloud and rains it back onto the surface.

Never mind, feel free to post random punctuation, crazy conspiracy theories about scientists and your right wing nonsense.
You really are doing a great job as poster boy for the denier kingdom.

:bolt:

 

[Frankfooter]

For those who say that only satellites are accurate:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/06/troposphere-temperatures-for-may-2016.html

 

[FAST]

Just when I thought there was hope that you could master simple concepts like the carbon cycle and the fact that if you put too much water vapour in the atmosphere it becomes a cloud and rains it back onto the surface.

Never mind, feel free to post random punctuation, crazy conspiracy theories about scientists and your right wing nonsense.
You really are doing a great job as poster boy for the denier kingdom.

I have a complete understanding of the "carbon cycle",...problem is idiot, I was not commenting on anything to do with that,...but I guess when some one is simple minded,...you are unable to consider more than one process at a time,...can you actually walk and chew gum at the same time?

And,..."the fact that if you put too much water vapour in the atmosphere it becomes a cloud and rains it back onto the surface",...that just confirms how simple minded you are,...and hilarious.
Since you obviously need help on the subject,...water vapour content in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing,...this confirmed by at least 2 of your tax leaches,...and lo and behold,...its not raining all the time.
AND,...the fact that farming has also been confirmed to be the biggest cause of the increase in water vapour content in the atmosphere,...again confirmed by your favorite tax leaches.
But NEVER reported by the UN.


Your welcome,... for adding pauses in posts replying to you,...you obviously still need them,...but try to keep up.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

I have a complete understanding of the "carbon cycle",...problem is idiot, I was not commenting on anything to do with that,

Looks like failed basic science again.
Whoops.

And,..."the fact that if you put too much water vapour in the atmosphere it becomes a cloud and rains it back onto the surface",...that just confirms how simple minded you are,...and hilarious.
FAST

That's why its a feedback mechanism.
Heat the planet and moisture in the air goes up a bit.
Let the planet cool down and it goes back down.

The moisture put into the atmosphere from farming is similar, it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more then 7 days.

That's why water vapour is a feedback mechanism, it can't drive climate change except on an incredibly short time scale. So the water vapour from farming will be out of the atmosphere at the end of the growing season. Short term.

I'm going to have to start charging you for these lessons in climate basics soon, its not worth telling you the same thing over and over again.

Try to pay attention this time.

 

[bishop]

The satellites don't measure temperature AT ALL. They measure other things and then scientists impute temperature from those readings.

There are also calibration problems where the instruments on different satellites return different measurements for the same surface temperature just because they have different equipment, so scientists have to correct for that.

Finally satellite data even when perfect is EXPECTED to show less warming than land measurements because the ocean has a high heat capacity and significantly moderates warming / cooling trends. It just takes longer to heat up.

My arguement is not the quality of data but the quantity of data. There is a certainly quality about quantity, that is a chinese saying, and in engineered that is true. In many of the measurment systems we use today, the actual hardware is very poor, but the sample rate is very high, with high samples rates there are well accepted mathematical tools to increase the quality of the sampled data, the most commonly used technique is called oversampling and decimation also an infinite input Response filter works too. I have never touched any more advanced techniques than those.

With all things being equal, satelite data is at the very least of higher sample rate. Now I strongly contend that the instrumentation on satellites is of much much much higher quality than instruments on a typical land base temperature measurement device, I say this because it costs maybe 30k per kg to send stuff into space so it would be pound foolish to send shitty instruments into space.

Whatever the calibration problems are between 10-100 (my guess) satellites is also experienced with 1000-10000 (my guess) land based temperature measurement devices, it make no sense that you for exaggerate the former and minimise the latter.

Regarding the ocean effect, you are probably right. Again I am not arguing the quality of data in my posts, however if you look at satellite data vs land based data, the general shape is similar between them (outside of perhaps the latest decade). So if there is such a huge effect of the ocean then for some reason it only started to manifest itself recently and I see no reason why this should be the case.

 

[bishop]

In that article posted by frank is this

"Now let us consider a distant asteroid. It has no atmosphere and is in a circular orbit, so the temperature is constant. We have a real instrument on the asteroid, but the power supply is running down so there is some drift in the readings. The readings show a linear trend. Because the temperature history is linear, the standard error in the trend is zero. And yet we know that the observed trend is wrong. In this case the standard error in the trend underestimates the uncertainty in the observations."

That type of scenario is possible however that is easily managed by using a seperate circuit that has a voltage reference, all measurements use the votlage reference as reference, so a power supply that is failing or losing power would be taken care of. Now if you are going to spend the money to launch a satellite to fly around a rock, then you would spend the few dollars to install a proper voltage reference.

The issue of the power supply is much more applicable to a land based measurement device as they are much cheaper devices, with that said I can not imagine even a land based device not having a voltage reference, with that said it is even harder to imagine a satellite not having one either, with that said statellites probably have multiple voltage references which not only calibrate for offset and linear errors but also for non linear errors as well.

So the example used by the author is more applicable to land based devices rather than satellite instruments, so that is a really really poor example.

 

[K Douglas]

The satellites don't measure temperature AT ALL. They measure other things and then scientists impute temperature from those readings.

There are also calibration problems where the instruments on different satellites return different measurements for the same surface temperature just because they have different equipment, so scientists have to correct for that.

Finally satellite data even when perfect is EXPECTED to show less warming than land measurements because the ocean has a high heat capacity and significantly moderates warming / cooling trends. It just takes longer to heat up.

the imputing is a simple algorithmic model. the satellite technology has improved immensely and the error rate is much lower than surface temperature thermometer records.
the satellite data covers every square inch of the lower troposphere.
the biggest challenge faced is orbit decay but the corrections for this are pretty straight forward.
the satellite data correlates well with the radiosonde data. for scientists that is significant.
you have yet to comment on all the issues I brought up with respect to the surface temperature calculations. I'll add poor instrumentation and lack of uniformity to the mix. the data has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You stupidly claimed the climate wasn't warming....

The "climate wasn't warming"? What the hell does that mean?

What I said was that the Earth's temperature in the 21st century -- prior to the El Nino months -- has been stagnant and there wasn't any statistically significant warming. That is absolutely true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

I also said the predictions about how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been consistently and spectacularly wrong. That also remains true.