The new official climate change thread

[fuji]

Sorry you don't get too caveat your answer. Earth's climate has warmed in the 21st century and the warming has been significant. This is clear from the thirty year average temperature rise.

If you want to talk about El Nino's, let's point out that the warming has manifested itself as this El Nino's being warmer than previous ones precisely because it's taking place in a warmer climate.

In fact if you look just at historical El Nino's you can see that they are progressively getting warmer over time.

 

[Frankfooter]

My arguement is not the quality of data but the quantity of data..

The issue should be quality.
Its pretty easy to use a thermometer, but what satellites have to do to measure temperature in the atmosphere requires a lot of processing and tweaking to get numbers. Its not a foolproof method by a long shot.

And on top of that, even satellites are showing warming.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/06/troposphere-temperatures-for-may-2016.html

This argument comes from the denier camp, not as an informed argument about the science, but as a way to try to discount higher surface temperature readings by trying to claim that they should be replaced by measurements in the atmosphere. Its an apples and oranges issue. In a debate about surface temperatures using temperatures in the upper atmosphere to try to claim lower temperatures is just wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

Nope, that's pure moviefan fairy tale.

Its not even close to reality.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Earth's climate has warmed in the 21st century and the warming has been significant.

Wrong.

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

As for the El Nino weather phenomenon, it is clearly ending and is expected to be followed by a huge La Nina later this year. During this period, you can't draw any conclusions about long-term temperature trends until both phenomena have ended.

In fact, the former vice-chair of the IPCC very clearly stated the IPCC could not find a link between the intensity of an El Nino and climate change:

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter

You can draw one conclusion in this period -- the Earth's temperature still hasn't warmed as much as predicted and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong.

One chart from one study doesn't make a case.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZL6hnKUgAEYIkW.jpg
That chart does, because it uses all of NASA, NOAA and Met office data, its not from a 'study'.

That chart has the most recent data and the warming of 2015, 2014 and 2013 has put the globe smack dab in the middle of where the IPCC said it should be.
Meanwhile you personally predicted that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC and continue to lie about that, with fairy tale math and claims.

The fact that 15 out of 16 of the warmest years ever recorded by man occurred since 2001 means that chance that you aren't totally bullshitting and lying your face off repeatedly has been calculated as 0.01%.

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study

You are full of shit.

 

[fuji]

Wrong.

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

As for the El Nino weather phenomenon, it is clearly ending and is expected to be followed by a huge La Nina later this year. During this period, you can't draw any conclusions about long-term temperature trends until both phenomena have ended.

In fact, the former vice-chair of the IPCC very clearly stated the IPCC could not find a link between the intensity of an El Nino and climate change:

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter

You can draw one conclusion in this period -- the Earth's temperature still hasn't warmed as much as predicted and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

Shall I calculate the degree of significance for you?

And note that "warming slowdown" = warming.

And yes, by averaging thirty years together so as to cover multiple El Nino's I can indeed draw conclusions. Moreover, just noting that each El Nino's warmer than the previous one is evidence of warming.

Of course there will be peaks and valleys, but both the peaks and the valleys are warmer than they used to be.

 

[K Douglas]

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

That source is about as credible as a Palestinian history textbook. Nice try.

 

[K Douglas]

Shall I calculate the degree of significance for you?

And note that "warming slowdown" = warming.

And yes, by averaging thirty years together so as to cover multiple El Nino's I can indeed draw conclusions. Moreover, just noting that each El Nino's warmer than the previous one is evidence of warming.

Of course there will be peaks and valleys, but both the peaks and the valleys are warmer than they used to be.

30 years = 1 climate data point.

We've seen 2 climate data points 1910-1945 and 1979-1998 with fairly substantial warming (certainly not dangerous) and a group of alarmists led by the UN political hacks want to completely transform society through decarbonisation. 2 fucking climate data points out of 2.5 billion in the history of the Earth. Sheer madness! Meanwhile people are dying from starvation, malnourishment and war because of this absurd notion that we can somehow stop climate change by adjusting a co2 knob.

 

[bishop]

The issue should be quality.
Its pretty easy to use a thermometer, but what satellites have to do to measure temperature in the atmosphere requires a lot of processing and tweaking to get numbers. Its not a foolproof method by a long shot.

And on top of that, even satellites are showing warming.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/06/troposphere-temperatures-for-may-2016.html

This argument comes from the denier camp, not as an informed argument about the science, but as a way to try to discount higher surface temperature readings by trying to claim that they should be replaced by measurements in the atmosphere. Its an apples and oranges issue. In a debate about surface temperatures using temperatures in the upper atmosphere to try to claim lower temperatures is just wrong.

Frank, just because satellite data does not make as strong of a case for AGW does not mean satallite data is wrong. I know you believe that the ends always justify the means, no matter how absurd that means is, but that is not my view.

Look, outside of AGW, having a few high quality instruments making a large number of measurements is better than having a large number of lower quality instruments making a few measurements each. I say this as a general case. I also say that since it is considerably more expensive to put a satellite into space that the quality of the instruments in a satellite is generally better than the quality of instruments in a typical land measurement device, again I say this as a general case. I am also saying that as a general case that with all things being equal, I prefer the dataset that has a larger volume of data. I also say that as a general case that computing the variance on 2 different sets of data with each dataset having it's own sampling rate yeilds jack shit, in the article the only tangible thing the author offers is a graph of the variance between satellite and ground measurements and he uses that to conclude that since satellite data has more variance; therefore it is an inferior dataset.

Since the author of that article shows a fairly complex chart on how satellites measure temperature and has no chart showing how land based devices measure and collect data that you think; ahh the author does not show it because a land based measurement device is so simple and so fool proof that it is not worth showing a chart for that.

I know it seems to you that nothing can go wrong with a land based temperature measurement device because you can shove a thermometer in your mouth and get a reading. I can assure you that these land based measurement devices do not have an arm that shoves a thermometer around and has a camera that looks at the height of the mercury to determine the temperature.

To me it does not matter if the satellite data shows more or less warming, I care only about the methodology because I can only apply logic and reason to methodology. AGW could be real and if it is real I hope that scientists use vigorous standards to objectively prove it because if scientists can prove it to the same scientific standard as other scientific discplines that all other scientific disciplines will benefit. In all scientific disciplines there is a void between mathermatical models and the measured actual, sometimes this is incredible small, sometimes it is huge, but in every instance being able to bridge that gap in one discipline also helps to bridge the gap in all other disciplines. For instance maybe climate scientists might feel that in order to bridge that gap in thier own feild of research that a massive quantum computer needs to be built, a quantum computer however taylored to climate research will still be of huge benefit to all other scientific disciplines and every scientist will want to book time on that computer to further their own research. But if you say that the new profound scientific discovery that climate scientists bring to other disciplines is a fucking poll, what use is that?

 

[Frankfooter]

]
To me it does not matter if the satellite data shows more or less warming, I care only about the methodology because I can only apply logic and reason to methodology.

Compare the processes:
Surface temperatures - read the thermometer, note it down

Satellite readings:
Satellites record radiance, not temperature
Satellite drift - you must know the exact orbit and whether its stable or changing/collapsing, and whether the reading of the satellite as it passes over an area happens at exactly the same time of day
Atmosphere friction - amount of slowing down of the satellite due to friction
And don't forget the amount of data filtering, check out some of the process for sea temp by satellites here:
https://slgo.ca/en/remotesensing/info.html

Its not simple, which means there are many more possibilities for error.

From wiki:

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Its not a straightforward reading of temperatures, there is so much filtering and correcting of the data that there is no agreement between data sets from different satellites.

Unless its a geostationary orbit, that satellite is moving around the planet all the time. That means that while there is constant data there are massive gaps in the data set over any one location, which means its easier to get constant radio temperature updates from automated buoys in the ocean. So your argument about data volume isn't necessarily correct.

But mostly, the biggest reason that you refuse to even acknowledge is that they don't read the temperature of the surface of the planet, they read the radiance of the atmosphere and that gets interpreted into readings of the temperature up in the atmosphere.

Surface temperature is what we use as our metric, to switch between surface and upper troposphere as if they measured the same thing is really just shoddy arguments. Its like saying you want to know the temperature of China so you're going to use only the measurements at the top of Mt Everest because you've got a shiny new weather station there. Its not relevant to the discussion of temperatures on the surface of the planet, we don't live in the clouds.

 

[K Douglas]

Surface temperature readings have many issues

1. They are mostly concentrated in certain parts of the globe, many in urban areas and subject to the urban heat island effect. It requires data to be adjusted subjectively.
2. They are not standardized globally. For example some weather stations have thermometers that aren't at the required specified height.
3. Thermometers malfunction.
4. The integrity of the data has been questioned for many stations.
5. Weather stations have moved or closed over time.
6. In many cases the raw data has been 'adjusted'. In the vast majority of instances it tends to cool the past Dr Don Easterbrook's testimony before Congress exposed that. I prefer to use the term altered.
7. As I mentioned in 1 much of the planet has no historical reading. Deserts, mountains, remote areas. 1 weather station covers the entire Canadian Arctic. To compensate the GCM's do estimates based on statistical formulas. The same formulas that have projected temperatures far greater than what has been observed.

 

[fuji]

You know that the satellite data ALSO shows consistent warming, right?

And while you list what you see as problems with the surface measurements, you neglected to mention the even bigger problems with the satellite data, such as that they don't even measure temperature at all.

 

[Frankfooter]

30 years = 1 climate data point.

We've seen 2 climate data points 1910-1945 and 1979-1998 with fairly substantial warming (certainly not dangerous) and a group of alarmists led by the UN political hacks want to completely transform society through decarbonisation. 2 fucking climate data points out of 2.5 billion in the history of the Earth. Sheer madness! Meanwhile people are dying from starvation, malnourishment and war because of this absurd notion that we can somehow stop climate change by adjusting a co2 knob.

What the heck is a 'climate data point'?

We are presently around 1.5ºC global anomaly from pre-industrial temperatures.
Extreme weather will lead to extreme crop failures.

 

[Frankfooter]

Surface temperature readings have many issues

1. They are mostly concentrated in certain parts of the globe, many in urban areas and subject to the urban heat island effect. It requires data to be adjusted subjectively.
2. They are not standardized globally. For example some weather stations have thermometers that aren't at the required specified height.
3. Thermometers malfunction.
4. The integrity of the data has been questioned for many stations.
5. Weather stations have moved or closed over time.
6. In many cases the raw data has been 'adjusted'. In the vast majority of instances it tends to cool the past Dr Don Easterbrook's testimony before Congress exposed that. I prefer to use the term altered.
7. As I mentioned in 1 much of the planet has no historical reading. Deserts, mountains, remote areas. 1 weather station covers the entire Canadian Arctic. To compensate the GCM's do estimates based on statistical formulas. The same formulas that have projected temperatures far greater than what has been observed.

Of course there are occasional issues.
But those are easy to overcome.

The question remains:

Why do you think the temperature in the upper troposphere is more relevant to us then the temperature down here on the surface of the planet?

 

[bishop]

Frank you are still under the impression that ground based temperature measurement is no different than you sticking a thermometer in your mouth. That is not the case. You think that it is so simple that there is no room for error, but in all fields of science there is an entire universe of study, temperature measurement is no different. Because some article does not go into the details of the complexity of ground based temperature recoding devices does in no way mean there are no problems and the the problems are not complex.

Ground based devices are probably more prone to human error because I am guessing that in most cases that a human, no matter if he has a PHD or not, will be going from device to device and gathering the data. If the human gets sick, if perhaps he made a mixup on the downloading the data, etc... that will effect the data. When you have an automated system like a satellite system to measure temperature, several PHD caliber people will probably check over everything and certify to their best ability that the system meets some standard and there is less risk of relying on humans to gather the data. Again, I will make another general statement, automated systems in general produce high quality data/product.

Again I know nothing about these temperature reading devices and anything about satellites, but as long as they operate in the realm of logic and reason, then you can do a boundary check on them to asses some level of confidence in the system using logic and reason. Now I know that you think Climate Science can operate outside the laws of logic and reason because the ends justify the means, but that is not science to me and a poll no matter what the numbers are is not science.

If you want to make a case of polls to determine scientific truths, should you start by polling all scientists if polls reveal scientific truths, if that poll is yes then perhaps the next poll should be to poll if AGW is real or not targetted to climate scientists. Now even with that extra step, that is not science to me, but atleast it is more reasonable and logical than a straight up poll about AGW. Again I know that to you the ends justify the means, and any means no matter how unscientific, you will accept it as science fact because it supports your views. But if one day you have some strange disease, and a bunch of scientists say that they did a poll on an untested drug and you should take that drug, you would certainly demand more than that unless you have no hope otherwise, and if you do take the drug it is only because out of human desperation rather than logic and reason.

I am using my logic and reasoning that i developed from engineering to apply it to AGW, one of the central merits of science is that it is accessible as opposed to religion which demands that truths can only be revealed to a few special believers by god himself. You are turning AGW into a religion, you are making a mockery of science.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ground based devices are probably more prone to human error because I am guessing ...

Again I know nothing about these temperature reading devices and anything about satellites, but ...

You are guessing, you are assuming that surface stations aren't automated, that buoys that take sea surface temperatures aren't automated, and there aren't other automated stations. You also are guessing they can't sample the temperatures even more often then satellites. Do some research.
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/...tations']&Portal=GCMD_Services&MetadataType=0

If you want to make a case of polls to determine scientific truths, should you start by polling all scientists if polls reveal scientific truths, if that poll is yes then perhaps the next poll should be to poll if AGW is real or not targetted to climate scientists.

That's been done repeatedly, and the polls find around 97% of climatologists support the claims of AGW.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Polls have also done with non-climatologists and they show high acceptance of the findings synthesized by the IPCC.

And why can't you answer this question:

Why do you think the temperature in the upper troposphere is more relevant to us then the temperature down here on the surface of the planet?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Shall I calculate the degree of significance for you?

If you like. But anyone who knows how to read a graph knows the numerical differences are statistically insignificant.

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

The Earth's temperature in the 21st century was stagnant prior to El Nino. The predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[fuji]

"But anyone who knows how to read a graph knows the numerical differences are statistically insignificant."

False. And given that you have been provided with data, that amounts to blatant lying. Either that or you just have no fucking clue what statistical significance actually is.

Hint: with a thirty year rolling average that is monotonically increasing you can prove mathematically that the result is going to be significant. But I can go do the calculation, and it's going to show an enormously significant relationship between time and temperature.

You really are totally innumerate.

Remember YOUR prediction, explicitly stated, was that there has been NO WARMING, not some, not less, not a slowdown. Your claim is "no warming".

Your claim is just flat fucking wrong, your theory that produced that prediction is therefore rejected. You are utterly refuted even by the graph in your own post which clearly shows warming and is taken from an article that says there was warming.

Earth's temperature WAS NOT stagnant in the 2000's, it was warming, less quickly than in the prior fifteen years, but nevertheless warming. Significantly, in the statistical sense. Moreover that slowdown is over.

You couldn't be more thoroughly refuted by the data.

 

[Frankfooter]

If you like. But anyone who knows how to read a graph knows the numerical differences are statistically insignificant.

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

The Earth's temperature in the 21st century was stagnant prior to El Nino. The predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature remain spectacularly wrong.

You really are the worst of the deniers here, moviefan.

FAST and a couple of others just aren't that smart, and are too stuck in their world view to accept game changing information so they just refuse to accept information. You however, go so far as to actively lie to try to make a point. You know full well that the study you are quoting a) doesn't say what you claim it does, b) argues AGW is real and must acted upon, c) shows that warming is continuing.

It also shows how sad and pathetic your case has become that the strongest claim you are now trying to make is that climate change is real, the warming continues BUT the warming slowed for a few years.
That's the best you've got?

The rest of your claims are accusations that NASA and NOAA committed fraud and fairy tale math like your claim that you didn't lose the bet that 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.

Meanwhile you keep claiming that despite the fact that 15 of the 16 warmest years ever recorded by man have happened since 2001 the planet isn't really warming.
You're just getting pathetic.
Give it up.

 

[JohnLarue]

You really are the worst of the deniers here, moviefan.

FAST and a couple of others just aren't that smart, and are too stuck in their world view to accept game changing information so they just refuse to accept information. You however, go so far as to actively lie to try to make a point. You know full well that the study you are quoting a) doesn't say what you claim it does, b) argues AGW is real and must acted upon, c) shows that warming is continuing.

It also shows how sad and pathetic your case has become that the strongest claim you are now trying to make is that climate change is real, the warming continues BUT the warming slowed for a few years.
That's the best you've got?

The rest of your claims are accusations that NASA and NOAA committed fraud and fairy tale math like your claim that you didn't lose the bet that 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.

Meanwhile you keep claiming that despite the fact that 15 of the 16 warmest years ever recorded by man have happened since 2001 the planet isn't really warming.
You're just getting pathetic.
Give it up.

Give us a break
You are the worst of all the left wing loonie zealots who can not and will not consider an alternative view to your beliefs
Your approach makes all intelligent people question your trustworthiness
You are the worst enemy of your cause, regardless of whether your hypothesis is right or wrong

BTW, you indicating others are not too smart is about as ironic as it gets
It does not take a massive IQ to spew propaganda without having a true understanding of the subject matter & that is the only thing you bring to the table