NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

vikingpower writes: Earth's 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much. The British Met office also reports on the same phenomenon, even forecasting that global temperatures are very soon going to reach the one-degree-Celsius marker. According to Stephen Belcher, Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, "We've had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first time we're set to reach the 1 C marker and it's clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory."

Comments

Told you so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Told you so...

Looking forward

[Anonymous Coward]

to growing Oranges in Alaska.

"the polar bears will be fine" -- Freeman Dyson

Re:Looking forward

[hambone142]

If it weren't for "global warming", we'd be in the ice age.

Re:Looking forward

[riverat1]

We're still in an ice age according to the definition that geologists use, just in an interglacial period. /pedant

Re:Looking forward

[MillionthMonkey]

Back when Florida was about 1000 miles wider than today.

Re:Looking forward

[AlterEager]

What's with the quotes? If you think that AGW is preventing an "ice age" (quotes because we're already in an ice age) then you believe global warming exists.

Anyway, no. AGW may prevent us entering an "ice age" in the next few thousand years, but there is no way we'd be entering one now.

Re:Looking forward

[angel'o'sphere]

No we weren't, apart from incorrect nomenclature: the last 'ice age' ended roughly 10,000 years ago. So ... the next one would be in? Certainly not now or in another 10,000 years, make it somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 ... if there comes one at all.
Earth orbit is slightly changing 'right now' in a way that the next 'ice age' either wont come for a very long time, or will be the last for a very long time. ('ice age' as in glacial)

Re:Looking forward

[stoatwblr]

"Earth orbit is slightly changing 'right now' in a way that the next 'ice age' either wont come for a very long time, or will be the last for a very long time"

We'll continue having glacial periods as long as the continents are arranged the way they are - the southern circumpolar current being a particularly strong driver.

Once ocean currents are forced to pass through both tropical and polar latitudes, things will be more "normal" in long-term climactic terms. - that's going to be at least another 10 million years (or more) away though.

In the meantime, consider this factor apart from the obvious "global warming, sea level rises" one:

In geological history, _every_ time there's a record of rapid atmospheric CO2 spikes, there's been a global oceanic anoxic event too. When does ours start?

Re:Looking forward

[angel'o'sphere]

We'll continue having glacial periods as long as the continents are arranged the way they are - the southern circumpolar current being a particularly strong driver.
That is according to current theories incorrect.

The question is: which side of the earth is pointing to the sun when earth us closest to the sun. Right now in northern summer we are farest away from the sun. In northern winter we are closest. For a few millienia earth orbit is about to flatten, removing the "(not so) big difference" between farest and closest point. Hence the consensus is: the "ice age" period is about to be over right now. One or two more glaciers where to be expected for this "ice age", but with global warming they likely won't happen.

record-shattering recording instruments

[turkeydance]

and record-shattering recorders.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[fche]

and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been discussed here so often that even I have heard about it.

You have 100 100-year-old monitoring stations. You have new ones that were started more recently. To examine 100 year trends, do you

[a] ignore the more recent stations and do not correct for anything, even though this will bias your results towards more warming due to urbanization
[b] ignore the more recent stations and adjust the historical temperatures based on ???
[c] use all available data and try to correct for as many effects as you can think of

Doing anything, or not doing anything, has the potential to throw your numbers off. Unless you have some specific evidence that what has been done is not statistically rigorous do shut up. That also goes for the case where you don't have data to say one way or the other. There is not some massive conspiracy to fuck with the numbers here.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[sexconker]

[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments.
[E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.

If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E.
If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

You stop paying attention to temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites that we put into orbit for a specific reason.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Here are corrected and the unadjusted data side by side. Both tell the same story: https://climatecrock.files.wor...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[reboot246]

Please don't shatter records. They sound much better than digital recordings. If you re-record from a record to a digital recording, you're losing so much precious sound.

But if you insist on shattering records, start with that hip-hop crap.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites

The satellites are also not constant. You have to adjust for orbital decay, diurnal cycle, remove stratospheric signal, accommodate for sensor degridation, and you need to stitch data from multiple satellites. On top of that, satellites don't measure temperature, they measure radiance which needs to be reinterpreted as temperature using a model. Yes, they are very expensive, but that doesn't really mean that they are infallible or somehow a gold standard. Even Carl Mears who develops the RSS satellite data set says he trusts surface temperature measurements much more than the satellite models. Watch the video in this link: http://climatecrocks.com/2016/...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[goodmanj]

[E] is not possible when the experiment is being carried out over centuries, with a civilization growing inside the test chamber.
[D] leads to biases (chiefly the urban heat island effect) which *increase* the apparent trend (see Layzej's reply). If you don't correct for them, global warming looks *worse* than it actually is.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

At best it's an "unadjusted" aggregate of adjusted, manipulated, and otherwise tampered-with raw data.
Each sensor has its own different "corrections", "adjustments", reasons for exclusion, etc.

http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
Open up Monthly Climatic Data of the World TAVG, for example.

Look at the characterization files and look at how many missing values there are. In many cases there are more missing values than included values, with no reason given for the missing values.
Look at all the data where they know the sensor fucking moved.
Look at how noisy the recordings are for any given sensor.

Look at the data itself, not some digested and abused shit from some group with an agenda. Go read the raw data and think, Slashdot.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Since the electronics revolution of the 70's, more self-heating temperature instruments have been introduced to the market than at any other time in history. You would be suprised to find out how many temperature sensors that cost > $500 USD are completely worthless for recording "global warming trends". All they do is add to the temperature trend in very subtle ways. The stats guys see this as actually warming. Sad, but true.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, compensating for emissitivty is a bitch.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[riverat1]

and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments

Actually if you compare the unadjusted record to the adjusted record it's the unadjusted record that shows more warming. Link.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[MillionthMonkey]

We shouldn't pay attention to thermometers anymore because a satellite was expensive? What?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

We have to pay attention to thousands of thermometers located world wide and keep track of how the terrain and structures have evolved over the 100 years or so that some of them have been in place. Ho do you compensate for the increase in temperature caused by a new adjacent parking lot, or if someone decides to put an air conditioner in a window 10 feet away.

Satellites are much simpler to keep track of. Orbital decay and sensor degradation is constant and known. The satellites are also under constant control and watch of their operators. Clearly, their data is far more reliable. It also doesn't show as much warming.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[KGIII]

I modeled chaotic systems (vehicular and pedestrian).

Put new thermometer next to old ones - do this multiple time. Use the mean to adjust the old data. I've massaged a lot of data in my day. I was more able to actually verify it.

I have pneumonia so I'll skip it. If you really want to know, I'll share what my perpetual NDA allows. There's a reason we were the best but I might be biased.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Jane Q. Public]

I am so tired of this "but they don't measure temperature, they measure radiance" crap.

Of course they measure radiance. But NO instrument "directly" measures temperature. All of them measure some EFFECT that is the result of temperature. Even mercury or alcohol thermometers.

And they all use models, to varying extent. In the case of physical thermometers, that "model" is essentially built into its physical construction. In electronic thermometers, the "model" may be part of its physical construction, or based on a reference, or both. Or might be in firmware. Or it may be in software located somewhere else entirely. Even the surface temperature thermometer record has models to adjust for different factors, including changes of location.

The point is: what you say is pretty much true as far as it goes, but those are NOT strong arguments against the satellite record. Not only are they true of pretty much every kind of instrument, including thermometers, but:

* Radiosonde data has been shown to strongly correlate with UAH and RSS satellite data.

* Radiosonde (thermometer) data was actually used to help calibrate the satellites.

* Satellite instruments (MSU) also have the highest-quality internal references.

* Satellites have by far the best coverage of any instruments we have.

Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.

Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have". I am aware that some people (again, The Usual Suspects) disagree. But anyone who ignores the satellite record is doing something wrong.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Well, I'm not sure how much time I should spend discussing this with someone who rejects radiative physics, believes that the twin towers were an inside job, and thinks that Obama faked his birth certificate, but... Here is radiosonde measurements minus the satellite data. Note the rapid divergence around 2000? Suddenly satellite data took a nose dive relative to the radiosonde measurements. What happened there? https://tamino.files.wordpress...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

Satellites are not the best instruments we have if they do not show the warming we want to see. Ocean temperature buoys are also not the best instruments we have because they do not show the same level of warming as water drawn into a freighter's engine. The instrumentation is only good if it creates enough hysteria to guarantee more funding.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[JoeMerchant]

The "Usual Suspects" seem to have fallen silent on the "your science is faulty" front - we should look to lead in the gasoline, asbestos in the insulation, and other past denial events to get a clue as to their next moves.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

My guess is they added a new correction scheme to the satellite data around the year 2000.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Jack Griffin]

temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites

The satellites are also not constant. You have to adjust for ...

Retreating glaciers are constant though...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[phantomfive]

Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.

IF you have three different thermometers, and they give three different numbers, then you have set a minimum bound on your margin of error. The margin of error could still be larger.

What's the saying?
"If you have a clock, then you know what time it is.
If you have two clocks, then you're never sure."

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Wait... I thought they were a constant?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Your best bet is to consider all available evidence. Deniers would like to ignore the record warming that we're measuring on the surface in favour of the tropospheric temperatures obtained by the satellites... but not the UAH satellite data set because that shows rapid warming too. And not the tropospheric measurements obtained by RATPAC because they show rapid warming too. They would prefer you look only at the RSS data set. That is pure as the driven snow.

Regarding ocean warming... We've accumulated 150 zetajoules of warming in the oceans over the last 18 years. It took over 130 years prior to accumulate the same amount. The rate of increase is now the equivalent of 4 nuclear bombs per second. It's not the amount that should worry us though as much as the acceleration. - http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

How do you track sensor degradation? With only one satellite you would not even know if it was occurring.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

Actually that should read RATPAC, not satellite. Anyways, the data is constant, the method of adjustment is always in flux.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

Each satellite uses multiple discrete systems for measuring temperature.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[negRo_slim]

Of course people like you still exist and of course you are on /.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[ravenshrike]

I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.

That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

...At different altitudes.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

You are right that method of adjustment on satellite data is in flux. The difference in trend between each version is quite large. How do you know that the current adjustments are the right one if they are always in flux? And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Jane Q. Public]

I doubt you should spend any time with someone who rejects radiative physics.

But I'm not one of them, so what's your problem?

Nor did I say the Twin Towers were an inside job.

And the birth certificate on the Whitehouse website IS fake. Don't take my word for it... ask anyone who has a knowledge of computer graphics download it and examine it. They'll tell you the same.

BUT -- as I have stated many times here on Slashdot -- there could be a number of perfectly legitimate reasons for that. I do not claim he was not born in America. Which is what you seem to be implying. Imagine that.

And that's where all your bullshit comes from: distortions.

As I stated before, I know you can find references. And Tamino (just as I predicted) is one of "The Usual Suspects".

However, Tamino's work does NOT refute Christy, Norris et al. 2005, or 2008. Or Christy & Spencer 2012.

And Thorne et al. 2011 says the homogenization methods used by RATPAC and similar models (the kind Tamino likes to cite) are inadequate.

I already told you, it's pointless to go there. You can look those papers up just fine if you want to, but you won't prove anything.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Jane Q. Public]

This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.

Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.

But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.

And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?

So let's just knock off the BS, and show them what UAH actually shows for current temperatures.

No hottest year. Not even close. And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino... weather, not climate.

But as weather effects go, it's a big one. And when this big El Nino goes away, we're in for La Nina. Typically 2-3 years of cooler temperatures.

I suspect Layzej, like Tamino and pals, are trying to push the "OMG hottest year ever" message now, while they have a chance, and before it cools off.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Are you sure you're not a 911 truther? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Are you sure you don't deny basic physics? http://dumbscientist.com/archi...

Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets. That is true. The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . Tamino shows that RSS satellite record does not line up with tropospheric temperature measurements. Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

What are you talking about? What is 'unadjusted UAH'? You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments. Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version? They are both quite different. Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard? Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Jane Q. Public]

Are you sure you're not a 911 truther? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

Why was your reply to a comment about climate change an attempt at character assassination?

As for Dumb Sci, I've been telling him for years to stop distorting my words and misrepresenting me out-of-context. But I have to ask again: why do you ask? What does it have to do with the subject at hand? Do you have a problem just addressing the subject without insulting people who may disagree?

In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard. Anyway:

The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements.

You already wrote that.

Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets.

Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.

Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?

What the hell are you talking about? I suggested no such thing. In fact I haven't any idea where that came from. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

He did in fact deride UAH and its adjustments recently.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

[E] is not possible when the experiment is being carried out over centuries, with a civilization growing inside the test chamber.

Why not?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Jane Q. Public]

What are you talking about?

Well, then, be specific. What specific data were you showing in that Wood for Trees graph? And why did you include UAH land only, when the others were all global? Are you claiming that was an accident? Or were you trying to make an impression?

My point was that you weren't showing the finished results of UAH, but some intermediate data before further processing. And I really don't think it takes a genius to figure that out from what I wrote.

You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments.

It's the version they're using. It's "beta" only in the sense that they called out for constructive comments. There is a link to a discussion of it on the same page, if you're interested.

Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version?

Presumably the newer version. There is reason to think so.

Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard?

I never claimed that it was. But there are lots of very good reasons to believe they're better than current surface temperature datasets.

Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?

Why do you ask? I didn't say or even imply that they were. My comments were about your later statements:

And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... [woodfortrees.org]

One of my points was that your graph was messed up, because you used UAH land-only, vs RSS and UAH global (including sea). Your graph was misleading, intentionally or otherwise. I questioned your honestly not because of the uncalled-for attempts at personal slams, but because based on my past experience, my guess was (is) intentionally.

It should look more like this.

The bit about "unadjusted" was intended to mean that these curves are of instrumental data, not model outputs. Before being run through much processing. So "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" is relatively unaltered MSU data.

We get your point that some are adjusted more. That has little to do with whether particular adjustments are proper or improper.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Stephan Schulz]

[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments. [E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.

If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E. If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.

Of course, Berkeley Earth did take all the available raw data, automatically detected discontinuities (i.e. unexplainable jumps, especially if they conflict with overlapping neighbouring records), automatically cut series there, and then automatically realigned and reassembled all the snippets, in essentially the same way we do DNA reconstructions from fragmented DNA. And their result is indistinguishable from the more conventional reconstructions. The fact that several independent groups using at least two very different mechanisms come to the same result is either evidence for the reliability of that result, or, of course, for a big global conspiracy of scientists. Of course, the Berkeley study was mostly financed by the Koch brothers...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ares if you're tired of it? It's still the damn truth.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Stephan Schulz]

I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.

See the law of large numbers. It is possible to get arbitrarily good estimates by combining sufficiently many fuzzy individual measurements. This is not an invention of some communist cabal of climate scientists, but was formalised by Bernoulli and Poisson in the 18th and 19th century. And it is, of course, used in every modern tracking radar system, wether to keep moving bodies apart or to bring them together.

That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.

Thank's for your well-considered opinion. I'm sure both I and the world will give it the attention it deserves.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

There ISN'T *ANY* "unadjusted" UAH. UAH *is a method of adjusting the radiance figures to temperature*. And we're on version 6.0 (the last one was 5.6, so this isn't the 6th change).

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to note there were only eight thermometers for the continent named Antarctica. This small sampliing size makes all comments on global warming ridiculous.

Do we see any efforts to populate this continent with proper sensors? No.

We see more propaganda with all negative conclusions about global warming. Some areas are actually getting cooler. Some effects of global warming will make certain parts of the planet inhabitable. Do not forget there are weather derivative products. Is the current propaganda favorable to Goldman Sachs?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

So, what's your take on the satellite record, often adjusted, using multiple incompatible instruments?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.

Well, no. UAH has gone through 6 major modifications since it started because it turned out that the factors were not well known and are not predictable, why has the satellite data started to diverge from the radiosonde data? Is it a problem with the satellites? Change in atmospheric response due to humidity changes perhaps? Who knows?

The satellites are also not "under complete control and observation of their operators". They are in decaying orbits with instruments that are known to drift over time.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation != causation.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.

IF you have three different thermometers

But the thing is we have one thermometers and two temperatures. The UAH and RSS teams are using (mostly) the same satellites and getting different readings.

The problem is that the adjustments made to the satellite data are vastly larger than the ones applied to the surface data, and to a much greater extent decided on by "judgement". UAH has gone through six major revisions, producing wildly different temperatures.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.

Does Carl Mears, VP of RSS count as one of the "usual suspects"?

A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

-- Carl Mears

 

Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have".

Yes: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.

This was just before it was found that Christy and Spencer had got the sign wrong in their manipulation of the data.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[drinkypoo]

Ho do you compensate for the increase in temperature caused by a new adjacent parking lot, or if someone decides to put an air conditioner in a window 10 feet away.

Mostly by siting the sensors someplace that's not likely to happen. A lot of them are located at airports, out in the middle of a field someplace, where they're going to have fairly consistent influences year-on-year. A lot of them are just stuck in the boonies someplace where the USGS wanted to pick up some data.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino...

Can I take it then that you have never cherry picked 1998 to show that there is a 'pause' in surface temperatures?

Also, if it's just El Nino, can you explain why El Ninos are getting hotter (as indeed are La Ninas and as are neutral years).

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[fche]

"the unadjusted record"

I'd have to see something better cited. I've seen far too many re-re-re-re-adjusted time lines (history changed multiple times) to accept at face value that this particular chart is "unadjusted".

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[JimSadler]

What you suggest is not good. For example, how many decades did the tobacco industry stall action by demanding absolute proof of very direct connections between tobacco use and death and disease? rigid and formal proofs delay vital actions. We know that warming is occurring. One way to observe the problem is by species migration into areas that were formerly too cold for them to prosper. It doesn't matter a bit how much warming is produced by human activities. The point is that we have warming and need to immediately do everything we can to hold back warming. We are already seeing numerous deaths caused by warming. Those who would delay the battle will cost more lives. Win the battle and then look back and argue the cause of the battle.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

The bit about "unadjusted" was intended to mean that these curves are of instrumental data, not model outputs. Before being run through much processing. So "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" is relatively unaltered MSU data.

Nonsense. All RSS output is model output. The instrumental data is a bunch of numbers for microwave emission at various frequencies. There is no temperature output from the instruments.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[I'm New Around Here]

No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.
Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordp...

No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[dywolf]

If you do E, you're a fool.
Instruments (and thus accuracies) have improved considerably.
And automation (of reporting) has increased dramatically the number of data points possible to take in a daily, or even at all.
There are gaps in data from several older stations due to the instrument being inaccessible for a period of time and no one able to get to it to make a reading.

Also, if you do E, im curious where you found tens (or hundreds) of thousands of additional 100 year old instruments.
You show that you have little real world experience in the world of measurement, long or short term, or the care, maintenance, and use of instruments.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[dywolf]

satellites don't record temperature directly, and have lower accuracy.
they also are only capable of reading surface temperatures, which is the entire reason for the hiatus that wasn't: they physically incapable of detecting the increasing heat of the subsurface ocean.

they're good for a big picture view of trends, but you have to know their shortcomings.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[dywolf]

and you continue to push misinformation from spencer.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[tbannist]

No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.

Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.

Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.

Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all? Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?

No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".

On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

What does record temperature directly?

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

Sounds good. But its not true in practice. There's pictures of all sorts of poorly sited stations.

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[drinkypoo]

Sounds good. But its not true in practice. There's pictures of all sorts of poorly sited stations.

And yet, you have failed to show that the majority or even a significant number of these stations are poorly-sited. Further, by cross-correlating sensors from other places, you can get a good estimate of how they are "wrong", and do a pretty good job of correcting the sensors. However, the truth is that the planet includes ever more paved area, localized heat sources, and the like. If you didn't have sensors which were subject to such influences, then you would have an inaccurate picture of temperature variation.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[I'm New Around Here]

No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.

Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.

So are you saying that the claim by the AC about people cherry picking 1998 today is false because no one cherry picks 1998 anymore?

Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.

Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.

Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all?

I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.

Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?

I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point. I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.

You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.

No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".

On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".

The article on that site is 8 years old. Notice the first comment at the bottom is from 2007. So, eight years ago one person was shown to use 1998 as the starting point.

Except, wait a second. The claim being disputed is specifically warming for the years 1998 to 2005. It seems there was some significance for those dates. Since 1998 was a strong El Nino year, I wonder if 2005 was another. Looking around the net, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., it seems almost every year from 2002 to 2010 was either going into or coming out of El Nino conditions. Let's look further.

Here's a link, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear..., that says those two years were tied for the warmest up until then. So, hey, a valid reason to compare temperate in 2005 with 1998. The conclusions of the comparison may be wrong, or the refutations of those conclusions may be faulty. But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem there for you is that if you exclude the "poorly sited stations", you get a higher trend than with them.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[phantomfive]

The problem is that the adjustments made to the satellite data are vastly larger than the ones applied to the surface data, and to a much greater extent decided on by "judgement".

The adjustments in the terrestrial record depend a lot on judgement, man.

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Thermometers. Look up the word "metrology" (note: not Meteorology). They measure temperature directly within the (for mercury or alcohol thermometers) range of about -20C to +60C.

Then look up how an MSU works and go look for the ACTUAL RAW DATA from an MSU/AMSU and work out what the "temperature" is from that. You cannot do it. You need to model the atmosphere so that you can work out the likely proportions of radiation through the column of atmosphere so that you can then figure out what the temperature profile is. Which isn't a measure of the surface temperature AT ALL.

THEN you have to add a model in to figure out what the lower trop is, and then another guess as to what that means for the surface (if you want to get that figure, but UAH and RSS both don't do that step: they don't attempt to give the surface temperature AT ALL).

MSUs don't measure temperature at all. They measure microwave intensities. That includes reflections of microwaves from the surface, which definitely are not temperatures.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[necro81]

You, like Ted Cruz, seem to be laboring under the assumption that because it is a satellite, all rockety-spacey expensive and such, it must be better than measurements on the ground.

Satellite measurements have some advantages, such as being able to use one instrument to survey the entire Earth. On the other hand, these aren't direct measurements of temperature at ground level, in the stratosphere, or deep in the ocean; they're indirect measurements based on radiation, and have relatively large error bars compared to direct measurements. Satellite observations should not be relied upon in isolation to uphold or refute a hypothesis. We have data from multiple independent sources - they should all be utilized.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[blue9steel]

That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.

While it's a big problem, you're being unduly pessimistic. It's not necessary to prevent every last bit of global warming, just enough to forestall a species or civilization ending event.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

That particular chart is not unadjusted because ONE OF THE DATASETS IS ADJUSTED. The other one isn't.

Sorry if you don't like to think that there's any unadjusted data, but sorry for you, if you don't think it exists, how the hell did the adjusted data arise????

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[coinreturn]

Stop trying to confuse people with data.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[ravenshrike]

It's a simple matter of maths once you assume that the underlying premise is correct. Given that even if we cut all human emissions activity tomorrow according to the AGW proponents' own models it would take close to a century before the warming effect would stop increasing the temperature. Not return to normal, just stop increasing. And those were the old models that didn't take into account the effects they're saying the oceans are having on postponing the surface temperature increase. I imagine with those effects it would take significantly longer. So, basically you decided to dismiss the only options that would actually do anything to make yourself feel better about the situation. Possibly because you believe that the suggestions were either not serious(As, in fact, they are predicated on the AGW theory being correct), or made to make the environmentalists monsters for even considering the first one. The reasons are irrelevant. The Cold Equations of the matter reduce our options to those three.

Also, the law of large numbers assumes accurate recording and a repeat of the experiment in question. Attempting to apply it to temperature readings with equipment that may be miscalibrated, improperly treated, wrongly recorded, whose surrounding conditions may at any point change is a helluva stretch. Not without vastly expanding the error bars anyway which was my original point.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard.

Yes, I know. A fourth conspiracy theory. This is why it is rather pointless to talk with you.

Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly [wordpress.com] that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.

Well, the adjustments he objects to were made after the record was validated against the radiosonde data. The adjustments put the satellite data way out of sync with radiosonde data. You are a fan of the validation against the radiosonde data because you feel that this shows the satellite reconstruction to be strong and valid. You are also a fan of the satellite adjustments that now put the satellite reconstruction way out of sync with the radiosonde data. They say that wisdom is the ability to hold multiple conflicting truths in your head without budging. I`m not so sure...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Oversimplification is amusing. Thank you!

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Bartles]

No they don't. They show the expansion and contraction of mercury or alcohol in a sealed glass tube. Or they show the difference in coefficient of thermal expansion between two different types of metal. Or they measure the varying resistance of different materials.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

I followed your link and it said

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

and while this is fine in situations where there is a rich set of data points to average; this is not the case in climate data. In some areas of the world like the arctic thermometers are often thousands of kilometers apart. Additionally the dataset is sparse temporally, frequently the daily average temperature is half the difference betweem the minimum temperature and the maximum temperature.

The theorem of large numbers just doesn't apply because there isn't a large amount of numbers

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[surd1618]

I trust a website called climatecrocks.com exactly as much as I would trust a website called, say, scientifictruth.com, which is to say, absolutely not at all.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

See the law of large numbers. It is possible to get arbitrarily good estimates by combining sufficiently many fuzzy individual measurements. This is not an invention of some communist cabal of climate scientists, but was formalised by Bernoulli and Poisson in the 18th and 19th century. And it is, of course, used in every modern tracking radar system, wether to keep moving bodies apart or to bring them together.

That's assuming the "fuzz" in the fuzzy data follows some well-known distribution model. Does it?

Suppose 100 people measure the temperature in a room. If the error each measurement has is normally distributed, the average will converge to the actual temperature. But is that a safe assumption? What if the tendency is for people to "round down" when reading a thermometer? The average will no longer converge to the actual temperature. Something to think about...its not a cut and dry case IMO.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

It's actually a pretty good site in spite of the shitty (ha ha) name. Would you trust Carl Mears who developed the RSS satellite record? He is quoted here:

"they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties."

- http://www.theguardian.com/env...

He's also quoted in this video: https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk

Senator Cruz focuses on one data set (mine) from one type of instrument (satellite) and he ignores all of the other evidence. For example the surface temperature record, things like the arctic sea ice declining, things like the time of year that plants flower or leaf out. All of those sorts of things he's ignored in favour of this one piece of evidence that supports the story that he wants to tell.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

The sensor automatically calibrates by measuring the temperature of an on-board platinum wire thermometer and the cosmic background temperature, so sensor degradation is a non-issue.. Stratospheric signal is relatively constant and likewise a non-issue. Orbital decay has been an issue, but that was corrected.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

A "9/11 Truther" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

https://archive.is/G58Im https://archive.is/GuGzE

https://archive.is/TjlMk https://archive.is/uIGnF

https://archive.is/vLlom https://archive.is/Iz0A2

https://archive.is/k10c4 https://archive.is/KFkCq

https://archive.is/XtZO6 https://archive.is/LHZC7

https://archive.is/MKEDO https://archive.is/NNjEv

https://archive.is/B1jsw https://archive.is/dqD3R

https://archive.is/1EDRS https://archive.is/rhYhe

https://archive.is/fvX5f https://archive.is/E9iuB

https://archive.is/RXXHh https://archive.is/upXjj

This is very similar to climate change, where Sky Dragon Slayers like Dr. Latour deny basic physics. A "Sky Dragon Slayer" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

https://twitter.com/eachus/sta...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

And the birth certificate on the Whitehouse website IS fake. Don't take my word for it... ask anyone who has a knowledge of computer graphics download it and examine it. They'll tell you the same.

"This looks shopped / I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time." Seriously? You're seriously trying to run a meme as an argument.

Remember when /b used to be good?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

No Airports are really bad places to measure Climatological data, there is way too much concrete and asphalt to get reliable temperature and thermometers are even hit with jet engine exhaust! Airport thermometers are placed to report aviation related data, what's the air temp over the runway is what counts when your flying jet passenger planes.

The good stuff is U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) , but Climatologist avoid it because they can't justify pulling shenanigans with adjustments.

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Accuracy vs. Precision.

It is the change that is important here.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

The folks who developed the satellite reconstruction disagree. They say that there are substantial uncertainties. Certainly, the two major satellite reconstructions do not agree with each other or with radiosonde data. They recommend using the satellite reconstructions as one piece of data among dozens rather than treating them as a gold standard that somehow trumps all others.

"they are not thermometers in space. The satellite data were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties." - Carl Mears of RSS

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[riverat1]

Every time they run the adjustment algorithms the start with the unadjusted data.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

On what scientific evidence can you base the claim that historical thermometers have an 'inaccuracy' of +/- 5 degrees fahrenheit?

And again, on what scientific/physic law can you base your claim that you need to double the error rate?

Did water boil at a different temperature 100 years ago? Did ice melt at at a different temperature? Did alcohol or quicksilver expand or shrink at a different rate? Hello? Wake up!!

You don't even know how one of the simplest measuring instruments of man kind is working and you disregard scientists who do their job?

Hybris .. isnt that the word? Hybris, or well, american spelling hubris ...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

The satellites don't measure temperature. Facepalm. How should they be able to do that?
The measure certain stuff using other satellites radiation/emissions etc.
From that they 'conclude' what the temperature might be.
Different satellites use different data sources and different math to conclude temperatures from the data they measure. As measurings like that are rather new, the math, or how to correctly interpret the raw data, is not settled. Hence they give different temperature readings.

This: They are in decaying orbits with instruments that are known to drift over time. is just bollocks. How exactly is a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere depending on moisture and temperature 'degrading' ... exactly ... how is that supposed to work? Ha? The GPS satellites don't 'degrade' but the satellites measuring their signals, do?

Made in China Syndrom?

Idiot!

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[goodmanj]

Because a controlled experiment involving the actual Earth would mean telling a few billion people they have to keep their population, technology, and society constant for a century, and a) nobody's gonna agree to that, and b) if they did there wouldn't be an issue.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[ravenshrike]

Modern day LiG mercury thermometers crafted to NIST specifications have an uncertainty rate of 0.2 degrees C. Which is awfully fucking close to my 0.5 degrees F isn't it? I suppose that the error bars should have been higher a hundred years ago even assuming perfect conditions? We can go with that if you want. Makes the AGW side's argument much worse of course. Had you bothered to look it up yourself you would have known this but you just had to wave your dick around.

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div685...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[ravenshrike]

As for my increasing the error bar to a full degree if not more, given that observational error was barely conceived of at the turn of the century(see N-Rays) and that global warming was not even something they conceived of, the idea that the people recording the temperatures would have applied rigorous data collection methods consistently is wildly optimistic. Thus, given the random nature of any such errors, your error bars would have to be relatively large.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Agripa]

See the law of large numbers [wikipedia.org]. It is possible to get arbitrarily good estimates by combining sufficiently many fuzzy individual measurements. This is not an invention of some communist cabal of climate scientists, but was formalised by Bernoulli and Poisson in the 18th and 19th century. And it is, of course, used in every modern tracking radar system, wether to keep moving bodies apart or to bring them together.

I do not doubt that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring (*) but there are many physical measurements where this does not apply; it assumes errors are uncorrelated and not systematic.

I am more familiar with this in connection with precision data acquisition where someone suggests taking more averages to reduce noise and get a more accurate result. Often this returns a more accurate wrong result because non-linearity or some other systematic error is not reduced.

In the case of temperature measurements, how does the calibration curve of the instruments change over time? Do all instruments of the same design or production run have the same errors? Did the immediate environment where the temperature measurements were made change over decades?

(*) I just do not care because politics will trump any effort to control it and it will only be used as an excuse for rent seeking.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

The satellites don't measure temperature. Facepalm. How should they be able to do that?
The measure certain stuff using other satellites radiation/emissions etc.
From that they 'conclude' what the temperature might be.

You don't seem to know what satellites we're talking about here. The UAH and RSS datasets are based on the MSU (microwave sounding unit) and AMSU (advanced ...) instruments on NOAA satellites, they dont "measure certain stuff using other satellites"

This: They are in decaying orbits with instruments that are known to drift over time. is just bollocks. How exactly is a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere depending on moisture and temperature 'degrading' ... exactly ... how is that supposed to work? Ha? The GPS satellites don't 'degrade' but the satellites measuring their signals, do?

Made in China Syndrom?

Idiot!

We're not talking about GPS satellites here, the NOAA satellites don't have "a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere".

Why do you bother commenting if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[tbannist]

Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.

I'm afraid that's not the case, the people using 1997 are the same charlatans who used to use 1998. Here's the key thing thing, they're choosing the start point so they can get the trend they want. It's literally the opposite of science, they have conclusions and they just trying things until they find something that looks like it supports their conclusion.

I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.

That should be informative for you, then. You searched for "temperature graph 1997" and the first person you found is a raging climate change denier.

I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point.

I don't actually need to do that, I already know why they did it, so they could claim that there's no warming trend. The fact that the author is transparently incompetent just makes his bumbling more amusing.

I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.

But he didn't say that, he asked if Jane Q. Public had ever used 1998 in an argument to claim that there had been no warming. I can't be bothered to look for it, but I'm pretty certain she has and the AC has her dead to rights on using a double-standard, when El Nino years are exception when they show things she doesn't want to see and normal when they show what she does want to see.

You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.

I didn't mention that the start and end temperatures are also obviously mislabelled as well to claim that there isn't a warming trend despite it being obvious that there is one. There are just so many errors in that graph...

But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.

They started a trend line on 1998, 1998 was one of the strongest El Ninos on record, 2004-2005 was one of weakest. If you start a trend line on an outlier, you will always get a deceptive result, so yes, it is clearly a case of "global warming doesn't exist because of 1998".

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[david_thornley]

There are very few AGW proponents. There are a lot of people who are against global warming but know it's happening.

The Law of Large Numbers does not assume accurate recording. With inaccurate recording, it just takes larger numbers of observations to be reliable. With respect to repeats, systemic errors will throw the total off.

You also seem to have a pretty miserable idea of meteorology in the early Twentieth Century. Meteorologists took these things seriously. They made sure their thermometers were calibrated, treated them properly, and made careful measurements. Human intelligence and attention to detail hasn't evolved significantly in less than a century and a half.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[david_thornley]

That's not true; plenty of people have cherry-picked 1998. Also, if you look at smoothed averages you will see that 1977 was also an anomaly.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[lsatenstein]

Here are corrected and the unadjusted data side by side. Both tell the same story: https://climatecrock.files.wor...

I have this thought about warming, and one of the causes.
1) The earth is gradually getting larger in diameter due to astroids and space dust
2) The earths spinning around its axis and around the sun is slower by one second per year than it was about 50 years ago.
3) Atmospheric sun screening (polution) is preventing the heated earth from radiating energy out to the solar system.

Yes, infinitesimal changes to 1),2),3) may be the real causes (combined) of Global Warming

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

El Nino and La Nina are not alternating phenomena.
From a few years of a rather normal weather/climate either an El Nino or a La Nina can spawn. In other words when this El Nino ends we might have three years 'normal' weather and another El Nino again, without an in-between La Nina.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

Erm,I know what I'm talking about.
The satellites you mention don't use GPS, and? What is your point?

They don't measure temperature. Period. They measure what ever their instruments are made for, and from that they extrapolate temperature.

No grasp the rest I wrote: neither are those instruments nor measurements degrading nor are they perfect. Every few years we realize that old measurements where extrapolated wrongly because we now have a better understanding. Then obviously we have to adjust the old 'temperatures' and future algorithms to calculate the temperatures from the raw data.

Different satellites use different technologies and hence different algorithms and hence diverge in the temperatures they extrapolate from the data they use

Got it now?

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

No one is putting error bars on rare data.
You put it on the conclusion from that data.
Especially as you have no idea how to judge what errors might be in the raw data.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

... he asked if Jane Q. Public had ever used 1998 in an argument to claim that there had been no warming. I can't be bothered to look for it, but I'm pretty certain she has and the AC has her dead to rights on using a double-standard, when El Nino years are exception when they show things she doesn't want to see and normal when they show what she does want to see.

"SHE?" Well, you're right about almost everything there. After Layzej used the entire UAH satellite record, Jane falsely accused him of cherry-picking and (blissfully unaware of the irony) actually suggested cherry-picking 1998.

It's also nearly incomprehensible that Jane employs the double-standard you noted. For years, Jane cherry-picked short timespans starting in 1997/98 and refused to listen to the scientists telling Jane that we should look at long term trends because natural variability (mainly ENSO) adds noise to short term trends.

But now that temperatures are soaring, Jane suddenly realizes that natural variability exists and blames rising temperatures solely on El Nino without addressing the fact that El Ninos are getting warmer.

The contrarian double-standard is:

(1) Ignore El Ninos on the left hand side of a temperature graph. In that case, Janeland rules decree that the temperature record is a direct test of AGW and only AGW (no natural variability can be considered).

(2) Acknowledge El Nino on the right hand side of a temperature graph. In that case, Janeland rules decree that the temperature record is a direct test of natural variability and only natural variability (no AGW can be considered).

Contrast Jane's double standard with the scientific approach taken by NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, et cetera. Scientists don't use a double-standard; in either case scientists measure contributions from both natural and human causes. A simple uncertainty calculation could show Jane that he's cherry-picking timespans which are so short that they're dominated by noise. Sadly, years after I gave Jane open source code for calculating trends and uncertainties, Jane still hasn't calculated his very first uncertainty estimate. Hope springs eternal.

But as I said, you're only right about almost everything there because you kept referring to Jane as "she" and "her". "Jane Q. Public" is actually a man named "Lonny Eachus" who poses as a woman on the internet after he got mad at "sexist tyrant" women. Please don't feed his delusions or help him make all women look bad when he acts out the worst sexist stereotypes of women, accuses women of being able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots, etc. We shouldn't help Lonny Eachus pretend that a woman made those sexist claims.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should read the stuff you link and comprehend them before you use terms like 'dick waving around' (who actually uses words like that in public?)

What thermometer calibrations have to do with your beloved 'error bars' is beyond me ;)

Had you bothered to look it up yourself you would have known this

I don't live in the states, why should I look up US standards for calibrating a thermometer?

Hint: a miss calibrated thermometer goes wrong, in the same direction, all the time, with the same proportion: an error bar is useless. You simply can adjust the wrong measurement to the right one if you know the displacement. An error bar would worst case double the error into the wrong direction.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny Eachus that true skeptics might wonder how Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer also claimed agreement before satellite adjustments:

1997: "There isn't a problem with the measurements that we can find," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results." Dr. Christy explained further, "In particular, we've examined these two 'breaks' claimed by Hurrell and Trenberth. Even in these disputed intervals, we find excellent agreement between the two independent, direct atmospheric temperature measurements from balloons and satellites."

So Christy and Spencer claimed "excellent agreement" between their modeled satellite temperatures and balloons. Then other scientists found several mistakes in their model:

Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn't account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn't account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

After grudgingly fixing all these errors, Christy and Spencer might have deigned to explain why they claimed that their previously incorrect modeled satellite temperatures were in "excellent agreement" with balloon data. Instead, they appear to have (correctly) assumed that their unskeptical supporters won't notice or care if they repeat exactly the same claim with their new and differently modeled satellite temperatures.

A true skeptic might wonder how that's possible, but Jane/Lonny Eachus probably won't address this issue with anything but misdirection and baseless insinuations.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Layzej]

Great minds think alike (especially, I suppose, if Jane is right and they share the same head).

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]

You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

Re: record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could look at the "fat makes you fat" hypothesis and how we quickly acted in that falsehood and ended up with metabolic syndrome rife everywhere the food pyramid went.

It's bad enough to run headlong into action with people's health is on the line. To do the same with the only habitable planet we know of is foolhardy. What if our meddling actually Messes up the ecosystem.

A conservative approach is best. Be constrained in our use of resources, focus on efficiency, and don't assume we know the full story - a little humility goes a long way I science; especially considering the long list of accepted hypothesis that turned out to be false.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[acrimonious howard]

If you have 2 clocks, one says you've got 5 minutes before a meeting, another says 4, who cares if any of them are off, just get your butt to the meeting!

With climate change, we have thousands of clocks, and almost all of them are saying we better do something.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[AlterEager]

Erm,I know what I'm talking about.

Maybe, but when you spout nonsense like:

The measure certain stuff using other satellites radiation/emissions etc.

Why are we supposed to believe you. The NOAA MSA and AMSU instruments measure microwave emissions from oxygen, they do not use "other satellites radiation/emissions etc".

Then you continue with:

How exactly is a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere depending on moisture and temperature 'degrading'

The NOAA satellites don't have "a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere depending on moisture and temperature"

Then you bring up GPS:

The GPS satellites don't 'degrade' but the satellites measuring their signals, do?

Then you make the unsupported assertion:

neither are those instruments nor measurements degrading nor are they perfect.

We know the instruments are not perfect, look at the problems with the "hot target" for example.

As for not degrading, you might like to check out the NOAA status page.

For example:

12/16/2008 00:00:00 MetOp-2 AMSU-A1 Channel 7 degradation began violating specifications beginning 12/16.2008.

Conclusion: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[angel'o'sphere]

I did not talk about NOOA satellites but satellites in general.

Why you believe that sensors are degrading is beyond me. If sensors 'are' degrading, you easily fix that by post-processing their signals.

Regarding GPS, most european atmosphere measuring satellites use the signals of GPS satellites. You probably are not aware of that, no idea why you always bring the topic back on NOOA, when my argument was:
the satellites don't measure temperature! Regardless what they measure, they measure something that has to be interpreted and converted into temperature. Hence the 'quality' of the temperature we get out of it, is based on our math and understanding. Neither on sensors nor sensor degrading nor any AWG hoax data fixing.

So if you have several different types of measurement: everyone but you is expecting that their 'calculated' temperature is differing from each other. It would be a miracle if they would not.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[Anonymous Coward]

I've failed to communicate once again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[khayman80]

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]

... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]

When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]

Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]

Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]

Satellite data was all the rage in the 90's when it was warming. climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/est... [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-04]

RSS/UAH sat data was all the rage in the 90's, when it was warming. Now scoffed at. [JWSpry, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Alarmists used 2 love satellite data when it read > GISS/NOAA #ClimateFraud [Chuck L]

Yep. When sats agreed with them they called it "the best data there is." [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-26]

Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!

So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?

What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible

Hard to take this seriously...

[mpapazog]

...on a day when there's not a blizzard happening on the US east coast. Global warming my foot!

Re: Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Dutchmaan]

you mean the unusually intense blizzard?... seem to be hearing a lot of "record breaking" "unusual" "once in a century" weather patterns in the last few years...

..but I'm sure it's all part of the natural cycle of our planets history.. and nothing at all that is being predicted. Carry on....

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

"day"? Looks dark out my window, buster! Take your "day' pseudo-science bullshit out of here!

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[kheldan]

It's not happening where I live therefore it must not be happening anywhere!

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard two feet.
that Cancels out the 70F Christmas, so back to normal.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, continue to deny global warming, and the east coast will get dumped on with a shitload of snow you have never seen before. Up to your necks.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been a record shattering year for shattering records so our top ten climatologists hate shattering 2015's best recordkeepers, find out why!

No but seriously if the good (and I use the term loosely here) data only goes back one whole century, then how the media then chooses to report on weather in 2015 probably isn't going to be particularly brilliant.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Ol Olsoc]

...on a day when there's not a blizzard happening on the US east coast. Global warming my foot!

It's warmer down south than it is in the winter.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you don't have a clue about what climate change and global warming will do to weather doesn't mean it's not happening.

It just means you're an idiot.

Start with hurricane Alex which was the first to form in January since 1938. It likely fed back into your dumb ass seeing a blizzard.

You may be too stupid to understand weather, but don't treat that like it means anything to anybody but you.

You start changing currents which have been around for centuries, and all sorts of shit will happen. It won't be unifomly warmer.

Overall, however, it was actually warmer even if you have your head too far up your ass to understand it.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Nexion]

Shhhhh... believe the climate conjecturist... errr scientist. I meant scientist. You have to believe with all your soul. Don't be a climate heretic. We'll stone you.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[HiThere]

This is a serious problem, that nobody's figured out how to properly address. (Scorn doesn't work.)

People have a hard time believing climate predictions that run contrary to their current weather experience. A large part of this is the innate tendency of people to minimize both future gains and future costs. So they won't work now either to acquire a future benefit or to avoid a future loss. This is a readily measurable effect, not a theory. Any explanation of it would be a theory, but I don't have a useful theory. (A useful theory would be one that told how to overcome the effect.)

Your being moderated a troll is probably accurate, but the point you raise is real. And so is the problem it points at.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

... geological blink of an eye ago were under a mile of ice.

Let me play devil's advocate here. Exactly this. We are still coming out of an ice age, of course temperatures are going up!

The real question is how hot was it before the start of the previous ice age ? Shame no one ever mentions that bit of data, do they even have it ?

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same to you buddy. Your are claiming that 20,30,40 years of measurements points to a long-term trend. Meh.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[riverat1]

We are still in what geologists consider an ice age and probably will still be for thousands of years, as long as there are still substantial ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica. When all known natural drivers of climate are considered we should actually be cooling slightly but we aren't.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[riverat1]

Ever notice how you human-made climate change morons never have any evidence to backup what you say?

Ever notice how you just coveniently ignore any evidence presented to you about anthropogenic climate change?

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[MillionthMonkey]

They flat out don't seem to realize where snow comes from.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[MillionthMonkey]

It's too cold in here- let's light some explosives to "save" us!

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just as credible as the person you are denouncing.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Actually, the evidence supports climate change as a natural phenomenon that has happened many, many times in the Earth's life." ...Over hundreds to thousands of years, not within a man's lifetime.
The last time something remotely like this happened in recorded history was ~536 AD. For roughly a generation, the weather, which is to say the Climate when averaged out, changed for the worse. Current hypothesis revolve around a massive Volcanic eruption, as yet to be identified.
Volcanoes have been fairly quiet recently, in historical context.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[kheldan]

I'm far from being any sort of scientist and even I can plainly see that the weather everywhere on Earth is all part of one very large and complex system, and if more potential energy is kept in that system (global temperature rise) then more energetic things are likely to happen.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Sique]

Dying is also naturally occuring. So we are fucking idiots if we think the guy with the bloody knife in his hands has anything to do with it.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[tbannist]

Let me play devil's advocate here. Exactly this. We are still coming out of an ice age, of course temperatures are going up!

This is a bit interesting, because I think you mean we are coming out of a glacial period, where there are continent glaciers across most of the earth. But that would be wrong, because we would be headed toward a new glacial period without the human temperature effect. The recovery from a glacial period is relatively short, a few centuries to a thousand years, and occurred around 15,000 years ago. The recovery is followed by a long and slow decline that eventually triggers a new glacial period. We would be on that long slow decline for several thousand more years, except the human warming signal is completely overwhelming the natural signal. It's so overwhelmed, in fact, that for the first time in around 2.58 million of years, we may actually be coming out of the ice age. So that part of your sentence was unintentionally correct, but when combined with the second part, it's wrong. The correct statement would be: "Temperatures are going up so much, that we are coming out of the ice age."

The real question is how hot was it before the start of the previous ice age ? Shame no one ever mentions that bit of data, do they even have it ?

They do, whether you mean glacial period or ice age.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice how any time you're asked a question, you label the asker a denier?

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice that we can't ever hear about it without a political message or party cheer leading?

No one gives a fuck any more. When the first we heard from it was from a politician's bullhorn, everyone got skeptical. When we were told it was settled science, no one gave a shit any more. No science is ever settled. All science has to be explained over and over and over, as well as constantly revisited. The appearance of impropriety is all you need to lose your credibility. Trying to shut out discussion is about as bad of a appearance as you can get.

In closing, fuck off. Maybe it is happening. No one believes what you have to say and unless someone else finds a way to say it, nothing will happen. You may be right, but ultimately your failure is your fault.

Re:Hard to take this seriously...

[riverat1]

Unlike you I prefer going to what actual scientists say. The history in long starting with Joseph Fourier in the 1820s to John Tyndall in the 1850s and Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s who said the increase in temperature was proportional the the natural log of the increase in CO2. In the 1950s Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change". In the 1960s scientists told President Lyndon Johnson that the increase in CO2 would cause temperature increases. In 1979 the Charney report titled "Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment" stated "We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3C with a probable error of ± 1.5C." I could go on but there is a long line of scientific assessment before any politician took it up.

Come 2030

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll be missing these times when things were warmer.

No, I told you

[mdsolar]

Stop trying to take credit. You're always doing that.

Re: No, I told you

[Anonymous Coward]

Tldr

Re:No, I told you

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hereby sentence you to a term of no less than 6 years and not exceeding 12 years" etc, etc

An impressive feat of one-handed typing.
Now please go wash your hand, if you haven't already licked it clean.

It's a scam

[watermark]

It's a scam, Trump/Palin 2016!

Re:It's a scam

[Camel Pilot]

Is it really a scam... or is it Obama's fault? The right wing nutter dilemma

Re:It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump/Palin 2016: It's a scam.

Trump is satan.

Re:It's a scam

[ClickOnThis]

Trump is satan.

In an attempt to bolster his image with evangelicals, this week Donald Trump shared his personal prayer with students at Liberty University:

Dear God: You're fired.

Re:It's a scam

[hambone142]

Actually, we have a "choice".

It's between Hillary (Chucko) and Trump (Bozo).

Gotta love the two party system.

Re:It's a scam

[JWSmythe]

What would a demigod need with an election?

Re:It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

jump on the Trumpalin

Re:It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Obama's fault that libruls are scamming us with the truth

Re:It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't despair. Feel The Bern!!

Re:It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not necessary to get a majority of the votes for a third party to change that.
As long as a significant amount of votes are for a third party the two others would have to adapt to get voters back.
If there is a 1% difference between the two major parties in the election then the two will pay a lot of attention to that block that grabbed 1%

Re:It's a scam

[tbannist]

He's bored, and doing it just so he can do the theatrical reveal during his acceptance speech.

And the diabolical laugh too, of course...

Re:It's a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope it is getting warmer. We're in an interglacial period and have been for thousands of years. We're all in a 10 million year warming trend due to continental positioning vs ocean currents for polar caps.

There's even a possibility we'll approach the 300 million year average temperature of the planet.

If it starts getting colder, I'll worry.

Facts schmacts

[burtosis]

Ive been taught since a young age that not only are facts subjective but science is uncool, pointless, and only stupid nerds like it. What has this so called "science" ever done for anyone? Just gonna stick my fingers in my ears and hum till this all blows over. /s

Re:Facts schmacts

[Nexion]

The problem is that people in the field disagree, the scientific method cannot be applied when you only have one earth and the data is at best questionable. I'm of the opinion that no one actually has a firm grasp of what is happening here on earth, and liken our "scientists" to be cut from the same cloth as those who may have debated the value of leeches a hundred or so years ago.

Even at the height of bloodletting these people look like idiots today where the only time leeches are used makes some sense. Not to let the "demons" out, but rather to remove blood from a localized area. Someday mankind will look back on us all and laugh. On every "sky is falling" loonie and every person who thought there is no impact on earth from the pollution of humanity.

Of course there is a study that shows the hockey stick is totally true... of course. It is an agenda. People with money and an agenda are buying "scientists" on both sides, and they are paid to publish their conjecture.

Always remember, if you aren't part of the solution there is money in prolonging the problem as a "Climate Conjecturist".

Re:Facts schmacts

[burtosis]

The problem is that people in the field disagree, the scientific method cannot be applied when you only have one earth and the data is at best questionable. I'm of the opinion that no one actually has a firm grasp of what is happening here.

Of course if you can't imagine it, the rest of reality must fall in line with that uncertainty. Just as each human is fairly different from all others so all medical science and advancement is invalidated because there aren't identical clones to test on. Or better yet there is no proof the laws of physics will keep working as they have in the past so let's just leap off a building and fly like birds. Feel secure in your thoughts as more money is spent in a single year on a single popular sport in any given handful of countries than on the entire history of climate science. Congratulations are in order all around on human priorities.

Re:It's a trap

[MerlynEmrys67]

Trump/Palin 2016

Cheap Gas!

[danomatika]

Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.

If they are at all smart they will. Rather than buy a 10 mile per gallon vehicle, I just put the money I've saved on gas into my investments. These lower proces are not only saving me money - I'm profiting from them.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[BradMajors]

How have your investments being doing lately?

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Ol Olsoc]

How have your investments being doing lately?

Pretty good this year, although rates are down a little, but better than last year.. I have a fair amount more a month more to invest in the first place, which in itself is pretty good. Why some people are hell bent on giving a petroleum company their hard earned money is beyond me.

But it's been proven time and time again that my outlook is considered weird by most people here.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because people should always invest when the market is up.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[dywolf]

the guys being laid from the oil/gas companies are going to have a hard time pulling the same maneuver.
the states that run on an oil dependent economy are also going to have trouble pulling it off as they watch their budgets crater.

Oklahoma is projecting a 900 million hole this year. this after last years much smaller price drops caused a 600 million hole that they -barely- handled by cutting tons of services (couldn't cancel the oddly coincidental 600+ odd million in poorly timed tax cuts after all). this year, they wont be likely to be able to skate by again; they're already talking laying off loads teachers....in the worst and most underpaid state education system in the country.

so ya.
enjoy your cheap gas.

(yes, im a green enviro whacko who wants to see a prius or better in every garage, but I also know the consequences of cratering oil prices. the sharper the disruption to the status quo, the shaper the economic shock to states that depend on oil, coal, etc, and most of them aren't prepared to shift en masse to the newer technologies. imo they should be, and should be investing in them heavily cause they should be able to see it coming...but these states are completely averse to state spending on pretty much anything, so they refuse to do it)

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Ol Olsoc]

the guys being laid from the oil/gas companies are going to have a hard time pulling the same maneuver.

We did the gas exploration/drilling thing recently where I live. The locals who were promised these good jobs were hired as independent contractors and terminated as soon as the wells came on line.

the states that run on an oil dependent economy are also going to have trouble pulling it off as they watch their budgets crater.

Oklahoma is projecting a 900 million hole this year. this after last years much smaller price drops caused a 600 million hole that they -barely- handled by cutting tons of services (couldn't cancel the oddly coincidental 600+ odd million in poorly timed tax cuts after all). this year, they wont be likely to be able to skate by again; they're already talking laying off loads teachers....in the worst and most underpaid state education system in the country.

There are some - including myself - who believe that a state has to avoid relying on volatile resources such as petrochemicals as the basis of their economy. The money is nice when it happens, but all it takes is a look at oil prices over the long term to see that they tend towards feast or famine. Building an economy on that is foolish.

As well, Oklahoma's politicians do not help matters. It's getting difficult to do their job - blame liberals - when there aren't any left. The easy days of pumping a valuable resource out of the ground and patting yourself on the back for being brilliant are over.

so ya. enjoy your cheap gas.

I'm enjoying the ability to bank the money I'm not spending. I've not changed my driving habits, nor my penchant for driving vehicles that get good gas mileage. I sure as hell don't have any sympathy for the folks who are buying their 60 K 10 mile per gallon pickup trucks during this temporary downturn.

I'm just waiting for an all electric Jeep.

(yes, im a green enviro whacko who wants to see a prius or better in every garage, but I also know the consequences of cratering oil prices.

Then you should understand that the times are a changing. Reading your post, it appears you do, but you have to take that last step. It isn't a good time to be working in coal either. Petrochemicals are going to contract into a niche market eventually, where their portable high energy density can't be easily served by other means - Think airplanes for instance.

There will be disruptions - it is up to us to be proactive.

the sharper the disruption to the status quo, the shaper the economic shock to states that depend on oil, coal, etc, and most of them aren't prepared to shift en masse to the newer technologies. imo they should be, and should be investing in them heavily cause they should be able to see it coming...but these states are completely averse to state spending on pretty much anything, so they refuse to do it)

Oh yeah, and no doubt. But they will have to, unless they want to become the new rust belt. Those wealthy people who are enjoying Oklahoma's tax breaks - they'll just leave for another place, and Oklahoma will be left with the mess to clean up.

And that's the pity of it all. In my neck of the woods, wind power is very viable. So along the Allegheny Front, turbines are going up like humongous flowers. All the while being poopooed by the traditionalists. Meanwhile, we're just doing it.

There are incredible opportunities for big bucks in energy production at this moment. It's just moving away from where it was. Petrochemical is sputtering like a car running out of gas.

At least my outlook is Petroleum reserves will be drawn down, Natural Gas has life left in it after the big expansion. Marcellus has a lot left, then deeper, there is the Utica Shale. That should be interesting, as Utica Shale underlies more populated areas.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[dywolf]

im saving the stuff im saving too. but then i dont work in the industry.
(but my wife being a music teacher, shes probably at the top of the list for the likely coming teacher layoffs.)

lot of my friends do though.
half of them been laid off in past month.

im not really in disagreement.
just apprehensive about where its going, cause if the state here doesnt get its act together, its in for a rough ride.
to my mind these states that are so dependent on one main industry (we have several, but the state government is primarily funded by the oil/gas industry taxes) like Oklahoma (or WVa since seveal of its towns are utterly dependent on coal mining) should be leading the way in the reasearch/implementation and vocational training related to other energy sources. course, they dont, cause that's liberal hippy californican sissy stuff.

and the citizens will suffer for it, and that's the part i really wish i could fix.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[hucker75]

Do they still make 10 mile per gallon cars? Are you in America or something? The rest of us are up to 80 mpg.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Ol Olsoc]

Do they still make 10 mile per gallon cars? Are you in America or something?

The rest of us are up to 80 mpg.

And yet, desipte your "all 'murrican iz the evilz" attitude, in 2016, the worst gas milage cars come from Italy, a Lambo and a ferrari at 12 mpg - probably 10 in real life.

In fact, none of them are made in America - All the worst gas milage cars except the Infinti's are made in ........

Get ready for it.........

your 80 miles per gallon, environmentally superior......

Here's the link. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg... Trucks not surprisingly either, won't be getting as good as predicted, but once again, despite Europe having the edge in all things compared to their dull unsophisticated American brethren, the worst truck gas milage for 2016 are two offerings from Mercedes Benz. Where are they located?

Go figure, huh?

Pardon my sarcasm, but you deserve it.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[hucker75]

Finished waffling? I'll stick to the VW range. Lupo is very efficient. And it's well known that Americans can't get the same HP out of the same engine so they just stick in a bigger one cause that makes it go faster! Dumbest country in the world, and everyone else knows it.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas prices going down translates into Republican's/Oil barons wanting republicans in play. The only good indicator about Trump being in the mix is that it shows that the country/conservative side is sick off the BS and wants dramatic change. I don't believe that Trump will be that vehicle as he's very money driven and those with that much money will continue to drive the government.

Re:Cheap Gas!

[Anonymous Coward]

Further money has no meaning if the planet you live on no longer functions properly. Moving to somewhere new will not change things as it seems we learn nothing from our past.

Re:It's a trap

[turkeydance]

TP

Re:It's a trap

[kheldan]

Trump is a chump!
Dump the Trump!

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sun is brighter right now than at anytime in the past 10,000 years. That's a fact. No wonder it's so warm. I agree the Earth is getting warmer, but it's because of the sun instead of humans.

Re: Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhhhhhh!

Re:Meanwhile...

[DogDude]

Did somebody's mommy buy them a "scientist" outfit for his birthday?

Re:Meanwhile...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Google "total solar irradiance", look at the direct satellite measurements of solar output going back to 1978, then compare that curve to average global temperature anomaly over the same period.

Re:Meanwhile...

[HiThere]

That's actually not an exceptionally good argument, because the heat cycle has lots of feedback loops with lots of build-in delay loops and both positive and negative feedback controls. Which is why it's so hard to understand.

I agree with you that he's wrong, but even were he right, it would still mean that we needed to stop doing the things that pushed the temperature higher...which he doesn't seem to realize.

Re:Meanwhile...

[amiga3D]

Funny thing is that the sun is getting warmer and will continue to do so. Despite this it was warmer 125,000 years ago than it is now. Much warmer. Sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today during that period. I don't doubt for one minute that mankind has contributed to global warming but it's impossible to know for sure exactly how much. The world has gone through many stages of warming and cooling in the past and will go through more. I find the entire subject pretty fascinating. I was recently reading about the Eemian period.

The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 711021N 254740E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.

At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames

Re:Meanwhile...

[riverat1]

If you compare the state of Milankovitch Cycles for the Eemian to their current state it's not surprising that the Eemian was warmer. Thing is currently Milankovitch Cycles are trending toward cooler and it was getting cooler since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago) until human emissions of CO2 started raising the level in the atmosphere.

Re:Meanwhile...

[BradMajors]

Holocene Climatic Optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago)

Using the term optimum is not politically correct. It would imply that warmer temperatures than the present are better for the planet.

Re:Meanwhile...

[amiga3D]

Well it depends where you live I guess. The Sahara could well become a rain forest.

Re:Meanwhile...

[riverat1]

There are other names for it but it's kind of like the term "greenhouse effect". It doesn't really work like a real greenhouse (which limits convection) but we're kind of stuck with the name.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sahara *was* a rain forest, and within human memory.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Sique]

The last time, the Sahara was green (about 6000 AD), it was a savanna, but not a rain forest.

Re:Meanwhile...

[dywolf]

That's a fact.

Nope.

Re:Meanwhile...

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually going as a scientist on Halloween would be quite scary for the neighbourhood, would you not agree?

Re:It's a trap

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a chump!
  Dump the Trump!

Vote for Billary!

They'll wipe the slate clean.

What? You mean with a towel?

Damn those...

[DesertNomad]

Volcanoes (http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html)
Termite mounds generating methane gas (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html)
Penguins pooping on the Antarctica ice sheets (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090603-penguin-poop-video-ap.html)
Evil climate heaters at the Trilateral Commission (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm)
Tarps used by the UN that absorb sunlight too well (http://www.wired.com/2016/01/tarpaulin/)
Meteorites and asteroids polluting the atmosphere (http://www.ehso.com/climatechange/climatechangecauses-meteorites.php)
Ancient Romans (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/350051/The-Romans-were-producing-greenhouse-gases-report-slams-UN-climate-change-claims)
People against increased food supplies (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/record-co2-coincides-record-breaking-crop-yields-greening-globe)
Aliens who are causing the sun to heat up (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454) (except for the aliens part)

I tell you, it's just not our fault...

Re:Damn those...

[Nexion]

Whoa whoa whoa dude... stop trying to factor in everything that should be in the equation. Its making it hard for both sides to ply their agenda!

Not to mention you are missing a few million factors.

Re:Damn those...

[Anonymous Coward]

all of which pales in comparison to 50 GIGATONS of fossil fuel CO2. Per year.

thanks for playing, you lose.

Re:Damn those...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like it's significant. Go check out the total volume of the atmosphere, dumb shit.

Sorry silly human, you don't have the capability to affect an entire planet. You'd like to think you do, but you don't.

Re:Damn those...

[drinkypoo]

Volcanoes (http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html)

We already know that humans create, on average, orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism.

Termite mounds generating methane gas (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html)

Not even close to what we are releasing by fracking, then storing it under Los Angeles, then letting it leak out.

Penguins pooping on the Antarctica ice sheets

A rounding error.

Evil climate heaters at the Trilateral Commission

hee hee

Tarps used by the UN that absorb sunlight too well

The story doesn't actually say anything about tarps that absorb sunlight too well — and the UN tarps are highly reflective.

Meteorites and asteroids polluting the atmosphere

Rounding error

Ancient Romans

...were making a lot of concrete. We're making a lot more. Nobody claimed that AGW didn't start a long time ago. The claim is that it's increased by orders of magnitude. Straw man.

People against increased food supplies

Only total fucking idiots who don't understand plants think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to be beneficial to them. It isn't. The maximum amount of CO2 they can use is tied directly to their maximum rate of photosynthesis, which is in turn capped by the number of photons they can receive in any given period of time without being damaged by ultraviolet radiation. As atmospheric pollution actually harms the ozone layer that filters UV, what it does is reduce the amount of CO2 that plants are capable of using. When most any plant gets over about 100 degrees, it "shuts down"; its stoma close, for example, which renders it unable to respirate. You know nothing about plants.

Aliens who are causing the sun to heat up [...] (except for the aliens part)

You must be a fucking alien. Go back to the planet of the chucklefucks and let us be.

Re:Damn those...

[dywolf]

Volcanoes, global annual total, average: ~300 million tons CO2
Humanity, global annual total, average: 40+ billion tons.

And volcanoes spew much more in the form of dust and aerosols, resulting in an overall cooling effect from eruptions, not a warming.

Re:Damn those...

[dywolf]

1 person? no.
but 7+ billion of them?
absolutely.

Hell, animals much lesser than humans affect the climate.
There are several such keystone species capable of causing whats known as a trophic cascade.
for examples:

Beavers, because of their dams, create wetlands in places that wouldn't naturally support or create one, increasing biodiverty and health of a system, and what it can support.

Wolves, because of their predation changing the behavior of prey animals (especially deer), cause rivers to change course and flow clearer, and (again) increase plant and animal biodiversity.

Whales, because of their diving/surfacing patterns, fertilize the oceans, and mix nutrients (aka food) between all the layers of the oceans, both by eating and then defecating, and simply their movement itself as they ascend/descend. This behavior actually noticeably impacts CO2 levels of the atmosphere by keeping plankton populations healthy and abundant, increasing the amount CO2 absorbed into the ocean, and O2 content of the air.

And of course, humans over hunting and reducing whale populations by more than 95% also therefore impacts the system (planet) negatively.

So much for that theory that people cant affect the planet.
We absolutely do, in myriad ways.

Re:Damn those...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only total fucking idiots who don't understand plants think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to be beneficial to them"

I would say that you are the total fucking idiot here: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

"For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."

But yeah, ignore what the farmers say with all their "practical experience" and trust what the people who are paid to scream "DOOM" over and over again say instead.

Re:Damn those...

[drinkypoo]

"For the majority of greenhouse crops,

STOP RIGHT THERE. We are not talking about greenhouse crops. The reason CO2 enrichment works in greenhouses is that putting plants in greenhouses impedes their access to CO2.

Re:Damn those...

[fatwilbur]

When most any plant gets over about 100 degrees, it "shuts down"; its stoma close, for example, which renders it unable to respirate. You know nothing about plants.

...and I would say you know nothing about "Life". Life on this planet, especially flora, has evolved to handle greater changes in even shorter periods of time. I always laugh at the environmentalists who assume all life on this planet will just remain the same and die out when something changes.

Re:Damn those...

[drinkypoo]

...and I would say you know nothing about "Life". Life on this planet, especially flora, has evolved to handle greater changes in even shorter periods of time.

What? Not only hasn't it, but if it were going to do that on a useful time scale, it would have happened already.

Re:Damn those...

[hucker75]

Excellent, thanks for some real facts. Now persuade the dumbass politicians wasting our money on green shit.

Which to believe?

[Bartles]

<p><a href="http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/cordova1.JPG">This?</a></p><p><a href="http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0906/noaa-19.jpg">Or this?</a><p>I wonder which this news scare story is using and why?</p>

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

Fuck

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

What am I doing wrong?

Re:Which to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to add hyperlinks to a board that does not support doing so

Re:Which to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

By satellite, it was the third warmest on records going back almost 40 years.

It was warm enough skeptic Steve McIntyre wondered if the hiatus will continue: http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/05/update-of-model-observation-comparisons

Re:Which to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try clicking preview until you figure out how to form your markup.

Re:Which to believe?

[HiThere]

Without explanation, I have no trouble accepting both images as accurate, and neither as implying anything in particular about the story.

Would you care to explain? (Neither of those links was in the summary, and the summary linked to more than one additional web page.)

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

I did, I thought the preview was lying. I used the same format that I see when I quote a parent post. So what did I do wrong?

Re:Which to believe?

[sumdumass]

Looks like the quotes around the hyperlink.

Try it with href=link.com
of course use the  < > and a /a as you already did.

<a href=www.Google.com>whatever </a>

Re:Which to believe?

[sumdumass]

Oh, and post as plain text. If you select code it preserves the syntax instead of interpreting the links

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

Thanks!

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

One is a picture of a NOAA temperature station in situ next to a large electrical transformer , the other is a rendering of a NOAA satellite in orbit. Whenever we get a alarming story like this they use the data collected from terrestrial stations located next to heat emitting electrical transformers and disregard data collected from satellites.

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

Granted, this happened while it was being built, but the damage was fixed before launch.

Re:Which to believe?

[Fly Swatter]

Click the options down there beside the preview/quote parent buttons and be sure it is set to html, that monospace font makes is look like you are set to "code" which will ignore all hypertext.

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

Don't worry. The current super El Nino will probably cause the satellite records to set new record highs in the next few months.

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

Bartles thinks showing a weather station next to a transformer proves something as if the scientists compiling the records weren't aware of such issues. Problem is that satellites don't measure temperature but the radiance of microwave emissions of O2 which they then apply a model to to derive temperatures. There are far more adjustments made to the satellite data than the surface temperature record.

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

It does prove something. The data is unreliable. It's very easy to calibrate and decipher data from several satellites compared to thousands of everchanging temperature stations spread around the globe and monitored by volunteers.

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

Deriving satellite temperatures is a very complex task. You have to account for orbital decay and orbital drift of the satellites, sensor deterioration, data contamination from the stratosphere and surface reflection, clouds and high altitude mountains that jut into the area they're trying to measure.

Most of the surface temperature stations have been converted to automatic weather stations that report their measurements remotely. No volunteers involved.

Both the surface measurements and the satellite measurements have their issues but I see no reason to prefer one over the other except that I live on the surface and not the lower troposphere.

Re:Which to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very easy to calibrate and decipher data from several satellites

Yes, it completely trivial. Would you care to explain in detail exactly what has to be done? It's very easy so it should not take you much effort to explain it.

Re:Which to believe?

[tbannist]

On the other hand, each poorly sited thermometer contributes little to the overall average because there are thousands of thermometers. On the other hand, one error on the interpretation or measurement by a satellite (and there have been many such errors discovered so far) and you significantly disrupt the entire temperature series because there are only a handful of satellites.

Re:Which to believe?

[Bartles]

On the third hand, many poorly sited thermometers contribute greatly to the overall average. And because each thermometer's local environment is different, there is no way to easily correct the data.

Re:Which to believe?

[angel'o'sphere]

The 'super' El Nino is only distributing the heat coming from the sun differently than it would be distributed without El Nino.
Bottom line the 'average' temperature increase of the planet is the same.

Re:Which to believe?

[HiThere]

OK. Thank you, after reading your Bartles, after reading your replies and the other comments I understand the point you were making.

I'm afraid I still tend to accept the statements of the NOAA and NASA about temperature. And I acknowledge this is taking the word of an expert in an area where I know myself to be incompetent. I do that frequently...but it's also true that there are experts I don't trust, and your reasons for not trusting them don't seem irrational. I merely guess that they are incorrect.

E,g., if a certain weather station has been located next to a heat source for a long time, then it's local deviation should already have been factored into the on-going estimate, and if it's new it should undergo a period of validation. The existence of "heat islands" of various sizes is a well known effect. So I'm believing that they have already corrected for the effect that you are using as an example of why it is unreliable. But I know I could be wrong.

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

Yes, the El Nino itself doesn't cause heating but merely changes the distribution of existing heat. But since the start of "the pause" is generally the last super El Nino in 1997/1998 I think it's ok to use this super El Nino for comparison.

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

Scientists make adjustments for the urban heat island effect. When you compare the stations adjusted for the UHI to the unadjusted well sited stations the stations adjusted for the UHI actually show a slightly lower warming rate than the well sited stations.

Re:Which to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

What am I doing wrong?

Posting at all.

Re:Which to believe?

[angel'o'sphere]

As there is no 'pause', and El Ninos are - albeit big - only local situations and have nothing to do with the rest (the majourity) of the planet, I fail to see your point.

Europe e.g. is completely unaffected from El Nino or La Nina so is Russia, Scandinavia, most of China, north Africa, likely whole of Africa, Japan, Korea, definitely Canada, Alaska and the east side of North America (USA, Canada, Newfoundland, Greenland). I also doubt that Australia experiences any effect from both phenomena. Neither does Antarctica nor the Acrtic.

People also seem to forget completely: El Nino is not a heating effect. At its source, west coast of south america, up to south California, it is a cooling effect. On other parts of the planet it works as a heating effect as it changes rain patterns over land, preventing its cooling and hence heating it up.

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

I think we're basically in agreement. You're right that there was no actual statistically significant pause in warming. I think you go a little too far in saying where El Nino/ENSO doesn't have effects. There are definitely some effects on the east coast of the USA and in Australia.

Re:Which to believe?

[angel'o'sphere]

Then I probably miss worded my statement. El Nino has no effect on global warming or cooling. It is only a mechanism that transfers heat from here to there, on a limited geographical area, influencing local weather like rain in California.

The question if we have this year an El Nino, an unusual strong one, a La Ninja (hi hi) or an 'ordinary intermediate phase' has no effect at all on sea levels, ice ranges at the poles etc. in 10, 20, 50, 100 etc. years

Re:Which to believe?

[riverat1]

Like I said we basically agree. The El Nino/ENSO cycle just affect where heat is expressed and don't affect the total amount of warming.

It does have local effects on sea level which increases off the west coast of South America and drops some in the Western Pacific around the Phillipines during an El Nino but you're right it doesn't affect overall sea level rise.

Sensationalized....

[Lumpy]

I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!

Re:Sensationalized....

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we come in and take all that gold and oil!

And your maple syrup production goes to shit!

Re:Sensationalized....

[jandersen]

I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!

You mean the ones that are built on melting permafrost? It is a bit naive to think that you simply go smoothly from arctic or sub-arctic climate to balmy temperate just like that. It seems more likely that there will be at least decades of environmental upheavals, with among other things the populations of midges and mosquitoes exploding, before things settle down. And of course, a lot of what now appears to be frozen ground may end up becoming swamp, lake or river. For a taste (literally) of what the insects would be like, come to the Scottish Highlands or Lapland in summer; if you go cycling up there, let's just say, you don't need to pack a lunch - just keep your mouth open for a while.

Re:Sensationalized....

[Type44Q]

So that you can enjoy daytime highs in the summer of not 80deg F but, say, 120? That thawing out of the tundra isn't likely work out the way you're hoping it will...

Re:Sensationalized....

[Anonymous Coward]

You go sod off ya Hoser!

Re:Sensationalized....

[Agripa]

Otisburg?

Re:Sensationalized....

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!

Who wants swampland in the middle of nowhere?

Which to believe?

[Bartles]

This?

http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/cordova1.JPG

Or this?

http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0906/noaa-19.jpg

Which does this scare story use, and why?

4 Some of US

[JimSadler]

Yes, we are in trouble. But the right wing in the US is in no trouble at all. Just ask them. Things we can do : Plant mangrove swamps + grow trees everywhere. + stop all new road making and start painting rooftops white and reducing the human footprint on the earth . Stop burning oil and coal and above all, make far fewer babies.

Re: 4 Some of US

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Yes. Immediately stop burning oil and coal. Totally reasonable. We don't need electric power or anything. I mean we could use nuclear generation but that's evil too. Let's just regress to the 1800s and fuck everyone that lives in places that are unliveable without refrigeration or Air conditioning.

As far as making fewer babies, good luck with that. The smarter parts of the population already are, which is why we're heading straight into Idiocracy. The mouth breathers and Wal-Beasts will continue breeding until the average IQ in this country is sub-80 on the current scale.

Re: 4 Some of US

[dave420]

You added "immediately" to that. It doesn't make you look particularly mature if you have to butcher the statement you are responding to. Good jerb!

Re: 4 Some of US

[Anonymous Coward]

Plant mangrove swamps + grow trees everywhere. + stop all new road making and start painting rooftops white and reducing the human footprint on the earth . Stop burning oil and coal and above all, make far fewer babies.

OK, you start first, Facebook boy.

Deniers?

[laing]

I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.

All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?

When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?

I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.

Thank you.

Re:Deniers?

[stabiesoft]

Me too. I've been playing with a new pool controller I built to replace the old one and added a couple more thermistors. I've been very surprised with how difficult it is to calibrate them. Getting accuracy to even one degree is not trivial. I ended up calibrating to ice water, because I really just want to make sure pumps are running below freezing. Even that was not easy as unless you stir continuously and fairly vigorously, the temp of the water is around 36 even though it is ice water in a styrofom cup. Then the other surprise was how just a couple of feet makes a difference in the temp. the probes register. All in all, I'm sure experts can do this pretty well now, but I seriously doubt 100 years ago the accuracy was very good. And just how often did they go out and check the measurement back in 1890?

Re:Deniers?

[ishmaelflood]

Check out the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature, and the balloon dataset for correlation. These are both fairly robust measurements of temperature, in that urban heat island effect etc do not have to be 'adjusted' out (or not). It is also interesting to look at the trends in individual well sited terrestrial weather stations with good histories. For some reason these on average show a lesser warming trend than NOAA and GISS and all the other self publicists.

Having said that we probably will see +1 deg C relative to 1880 before long, and I wouldn't be amazed to see +1.5 by 2100 (except i'll be dead). But a sthe IPCC says anything up to +2 is on average beneficial for mankind, and there isn't enough fossil fuel left to get us much over that.

Re:Deniers?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

When all else fails, watch the way the parties debate and assess their credibility from their actions.

On one hand, there are scientists who tell you what their error bars are, talk in terms of probabilities, and tell you where they need more data to offer firmer forecasts.

On the other side I have heard
o The planet is not warming up, satellite measurements prove it
o The warming, which isn't happening, ended in 1998
o The warming, which isn't happening, which ended in 1998, is caused by carbon dioxide from volcanoes
o The warming which isn't happening which ended in 1998 which is caused by CO2 from volcanoes has nothing to do with CO2 but is caused by solar output changes

There's more.

Some of it is honest backlash against people who go beyond the evidence. I dismiss anyone who talks about "saving the planet". The planet was just fine with palm trees growing in Antarctica.

Most of it is cynically calculated intentional disinformation. See the book "The Climate Coverup" for examples of how talking points were tested in focus groups without any investigation into whether they were true.

Then consider, if you don't believe the scientists, that they could be wrong in either direction and things could be worse than they expect. There's actually some data to suggest exactly that. See the book "With Speed and Violence", from a science magazine editor who has excellent BS filters.

Re:Deniers?

[stabiesoft]

Thanks for making my point. I don't recall moon shots in the 1890's. So my point of data from the 1890's as a questionable gold standard of measurement stands.

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

Here are the corrected vs uncorrected temperature reconstructions. There is really no difference in the trend between the two: https://climatecrock.files.wor...

Satellite models don't agree with each other let alone with the uncorrected surface trends: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

and they don't agree with radiosonde data that takes actual measurements in the troposphere that the satellites are attempting to derive a temperature record for: https://tamino.files.wordpress...

Re:Deniers?

[Nexion]

No, you aren't a troll... you are just making too much sense. Stop that... choose an agenda and stick with it. The climate holy wars aren't kind to fence sitters.

Re:Deniers?

[SlurpingGreen]

https://www.youtube.com/playli...

Re:Deniers?

[HiThere]

"and there isn't enough fossil fuel left to get us much over that."?????
Are you insane? We're quite likely to go over +2 even were we to try as hard as we can manage to avoid it. I suspect that we're already committed to +2 C just from the fossil fuels we've already burned.

And I'm not sure of your source that "IPCC says anything up to +2 is on average beneficial for mankind". I haven't encountered that anywhere I've looked. I'm not even sure it would be beneficial in areas where people would be more comfortable were it warmer, because the change in temperature also means change in precipitation patterns, meaning unexpected droughts, floods, etc. Meaning massive crop failures. Making massive starvation probable. (It was crop failures that triggered the Arab Spring, which set the ground for ISIS. Yes, there were lots of other reasons, but crop failures were the trigger.)

P.S.: The IPCC may really have said that. Their report was a document that was intentionally non-alarmist, and they threw out all the more alarming forecasts. (Well, many of them were really extreme. It's quite unlikely that West Antarctica will soon melt. But they threw them out for being politically unacceptable.)

Re:Deniers?

[HiThere]

There's a fair amount of evidence that the official projections are intentionally filtered to avoid the more alarming scenarios that the scientists are actually projecting. Some of those scenarios *are* rather improbable, but the improbable scenarios that are ameliorative aren't being filtered out.

Re:Deniers?

[amiga3D]

People get nasty when you discuss global warming no matter which side you're on or even if you just ask questions. It's like discussing religion or politics.

Re:Deniers?

[goodmanj]

Just to pick the top story on that realclimatescience.com site: it's looking at NOAA's statement that 2015 had record *average* temperatures in the US, and is rebutting with data on the *frequency of hot days* in the US, which is an entirely different idea. Since greenhouse gases control the rate at which energy *leaves* the earth to cooling it down, you would predict it should warm the coolest days more than the warmest. Which is exactly what's happened. IPCC report finds, globally, a significant increase in night and winter temperatures, a statistically insignificant change in temperature of the hottest days.

The match between theoretical prediction, and basic physics is the best way to assess the truth. You'll notice that the denialists will try to poke holes in the standard global warming story, but very rarely will they show show that their revised data agrees with a physical theory. (In particular, if CO2 and water vapor concentrations are rising, why *doesn't* that cause global warming in their view? By everything we know about these gases, it should.)

Re: Deniers?

[SETY]

Short answer is your watching how science really works and most times non-scientists never pay attention. Climate scientists are under a microscope.
Does anyone think it's a good idea to dump ever increasing amounts of co2 in the atmosphere? If you don't think that is a good idea then we should be trying to put less or no co2 into the atmosphere.
If you do think that is a good idea, I'm at a loss for words. The science is dead simple for CO2 in a closed system, so simple an elementary school student could grasp it.

Re:Deniers?

[serbanp]

You're joking, right? thermal expansion coefficients are very stable in time and have long been applied to manufacturing very consistent thermometers. I'm pretty sure that a Hg-based one built 100 years ago still has the same accuracy today as when it was brand new.

As long as the glass inner tube is uniform in size, calibration for 0*C in an ice bath and for 100*C in boiling distilled water at 1 atm takes care of its accuracy and linearity.

A thermistor, with its highly nonlinear R=f(temp), is difficult to use to make an accurate thermometer. A thermocouple is better, but you need the cold junction reference.

Re:Deniers?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Just because you can't figure out how to calibrate your equipment properly doesn't mean trained lab scientists couldn't calibrate a thermometer properly 100 years ago. Mercury thermometers were easily accurate to within 1/10th of a degree back then, and once they were calibrated they were a sealed glass tube whose calibration would be VERY stable over time. For the past century or so, there have also been standard calibration protocols in place where you could send you thermometers away to be tested and properly calibrated, and existing weather stations often had logbooks noting this sort of thing.

Oh, and as for yourself, if you're making a calibration ice bath properly, it should definitely not be 36F. Read up on the proper way to make a slush bath (use crushed ice, usually more ice than water, if the ice floats, there's too much water, etc.), which should at a minimum get you to within 1 degree of freezing even in poorly controled conditions.

Re:Deniers?

[chipschap]

It was crop failures that triggered the Arab Spring, which set the ground for ISIS

There you have it, AGW is responsible for terrorism!

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have data manipulation because you have to translate the signal from a sensor (which may not be a thermometer) and translate it into something human-understandable, like a temperature. Even if you blanketed the earth in thermometers you would still have to perform a form of data manipulation known as calibration.

The anti-GW crowd uses dishonest data manipulation however. The much trumpeted "pause" is a result of this manipulation - they take 1998 as the starting date of this "pause." This is an example of the texas sharpshooter fallacy in action because this "pause" disappears when the interval doesn't start at 1998.

The site you link provides an excellent example of the cherry-picking the GW denying crowd does. The first article I saw on there links to an article stating that 2015 was the hottest year on record in the US. The site claims that this is false because the number of days over 95 isn't greater than it was in the 1930's. Global warming is not about extremes but about averages. Having more days over a certain threshold is meaningless when you are talking averages because a dataset with 50% of the numbers being 50 and 50% being 60 will have a higher average than a dataset having 50% 0 and 50% 100.

There is clear scientific consensus that the earth has gotten hotter on average. The accepted belief is that this is due to increased carbon dioxide production; alternative theories have failed to match what we see as well.

Re:Deniers?

[willy_me]

For someone who is not an expert it is quite simple. Trust the experts. More specifically, trust the general consensus of the scientific community.

All of the figures, plots, and graphs are not enough to truly understand the problem. Data can be formatted to backup almost any claim. You have to dive deep into the topic to understand enough to come to your own conclusion. So unless you plan on getting a PhD, trust those who already have. And do not trust individuals - they can be purchased. Rely on conclusions that have been presented, discussed, and argued by the scientific community thereby resulting in the acceptance of said conclusion.

And one last point. Ignore articles posted in places such as Slashdot. Rely on articles posted in reputable scientific journals. All of the newsfeeds that repost these things filter out anything they do not want you to see. Bogus papers will be posted but the numerous rebuttals showing that the paper is bogus will not. In essence - you are lied too. So go to the original source where crap is called out for what it is.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should believe the scientists. They are not lying to you. They are not manipulating the data in any way that is dishonest. If one did, others would point out out. If you accept that the scientists are manipulating the data, and no other scientist are calling them out, and only name-calling non-published bloggers are the ones who are correct, then you are accepting some sort of global conspiracy theory. That is not happening. Trust the scientists, the scientific organizations, and the reports put out by institutions like NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Association, and all of their international equivalents.

Don't put your faith in the blog you linked to. It uses name-calling, cherry-picking, and attacks individual scientists.

Captcha: altered.

Re:Deniers?

[riverat1]

Check out the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature, and the balloon dataset for correlation.

Radiosonde (balloon) data and satellite data started diverging from each other around 2010 with the radiosondes showing greater temperature rise. Link.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difficulty is that the Earth is rather large, and we can only sample a finite number of points. We often discover a reason that one of the sensors we've been relying on has been getting skewed data, so the recordings before and after time T have to be treated separately. For example, a city or shipping lane may spring up next to a sensor, and we have to revise the later temperatures down to account for the extra heat. Or a satellite's lenses are slowly scratched by stray dust particles from the atmosphere, and we have to revise its later images to be brighter to account for that darkening.
There's guesswork in determining what the least-wrong revision should be. If one sensor starts reading wildly different from the nearest sensors, do we just discard it? Or maybe we have to discard the absolute numbers from it, but we can salvage the year-over-year deltas. Or maybe it's actually representative of its region, and that region simply gets different air masses than its neighbors.
That guesswork is debated and revised and found to be mistaken often enough for deniers to find supposedly incriminating evidence of manipulation - "AHA, they're DISCARDING anything that doesn't FIT their PRE-CONCEIVED MODELS! FRAUUUD!" - but it's just the messiness inherent in trying to make sense of large amounts of complicated data.

Re:Deniers?

[Bartles]

At some point, for it to be believable, my personal observations have to agree with the paid scientific community. That's when you will get true consensus. We're not even close to that point.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it's like discussing religion and politics is that you often are discussing religion because you're discussing politics. I know several academics trying to establish a causal link between income inequality and global warming, but it's not specific to environmentalism - many academics see it as a moral imperative to prove their progressive views. Conservatives feel their worldview, traiditions, and sense of justice are being threatened and react in a similarly religious way.

Re:Deniers?

[argStyopa]

"When all else fails, watch the way the parties debate and assess their credibility from their actions."

I agree.

Watch anyone who dares suggest AGW is still open to question get savaged in ANY public forum - from how the OP phrased the question, I believe he/she's seen that.
Google Bjorn Lomborg - someone who says "Global warming IS happening, there are just many many other things that are more imperative" - and see how he's been raked across the coals.

We've had 15+ years of prediction of doom from the Global Warming camp (a partial list at https://anotherslownewsday.wor... ), which are continually proven wrong, desperately quickly rationalized, explained away, then buried under the NEXT "forecast of doom".

Let's also review all the things that have been blamed on global warming: http://whatreallyhappened.com/... (it's hilarious, and fully linked)

I don't know if warming is happening. I don't believe anyone anymore either. I used to try to find raw sources, but I've been told dozens of times that I can't be expected to understand temp data and hell, it's probably been tweaked anyway. It's hard to imagine that 7 billion people busily generating heat and burning hydrocarbons wouldn't have SOME impact.
All I know is that the paleotemps seem to indicate very quick spikes of temperature and CO2 every 120k years or so for the last 2+ million years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg)
The current spike looks EXACTLY like the others, and is coming pretty much right on time.

For me, the AGW crowd has failed to explain in broad terms why something that's happened periodically, and is happening again, is somehow "THIS TIME" characteristically different than all the previous instances.

Re: Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.

All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?

When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?

I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.

Thank you.

This paper from Berkeley Earth may shed some light on some of your concerns.

NASA, NOAA, Hadley/CRU, JMA, and the IPCC may also have some information regarding your areas of interest.

A little basic familiarity with statistics and thermodynamics will probably come in handy.

There are many good resources on the web for learning about statistics and thermo.

If you want to make a rational decision, it might require a substantial amount of time and effort on your part. You might need access to a technical library, if you have to go into a deep dive. Best of luck in your studies.

Re:Deniers?

[unimacs]

I'll go out on limb and say that virtually no one posting here is qualified on their own to come to any conclusions about whether the earth is warming or not. That's not to say they aren't smart people, just that researching long term climate patterns and their causes is not their vocation and not something they're trained for. Lots of people can regurgitate information they found somewhere else. They can also do some analysis on some subset of data and come to some conclusions which may or may not be correct.

Climate modeling is complex and at some point you have to rely on the experts. For example, let say you're not feeling well and haven't been for months. In fact, it's getting worse. You try to diagnose and treat it yourself but it's not working so you go to the doctor who sends you to a specialist. The specialist says you've got some terminal illness. There is a treatment but it's not guaranteed to work and the treatment itself is going to make you feel worse for awhile. That sucks, but doctors make mistakes right? So you get a second opinion. That doctor agrees with the first. In fact you end up seeing 100 of them and all but one agree with the diagnosis and the treatment. Which one are you going to believe?

When it comes to climate science, maybe 90 some percent of scientists world wide are on the take and just perpetuating the climate change myth in order to keep their funding sources in tact. Or just maybe, actually trying to lower CO2 emissions world wide is not trivial and there's a number of influential people who stand to lose big if we do it. It means some lucrative industries (fossil fuel production) would have to be dramatically scaled back. It might even mean lifestyle changes which are never easy and are a tough sell. There are a whole lot of built in reasons for people not wanting to believe it.

" In 1960, in a poll organised by the American Cancer Society, only a third of all US doctors agreed that cigarette smoking should be considered ‘a major cause of lung cancer’. This same poll revealed that 43% of all American doctors were still smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, with occasional users accounting for another 5%. With half of all doctors smoking, it should come as no surprise that most Americans remained unconvinced of life-threatening harms from the habit." - http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/...

So even doctors are fallible and inclined not to believe things that would suggest they need to change. Yes, the climate scientists could be just parroting each other, participating in group think, and trying to keep their funding alive. I don't believe that is what's really going on.

Re:Deniers?

[riverat1]

Not so much responsible as an aggravating factor.

Re:Deniers?

[unimacs]

Note: In my post above, it is possible that the 1 out of the hundred doctors who disagreed with the diagnosis is correct. However, I feel you should make decisions on the best information you have available, not whether or not you want to believe it.

Re:Deniers?

[KeensMustard]

Good measures of reliability are (a) the presence of evidence, rather than assertions (b) Whether this evidence can be readily and repeatedly observed (c) In the event of errors or observations that contradict the hypothesis, how have the parties responded to explain the contradiction, and if necessary adjust or reject the hypothesis in favor of a better one. (d) Whether the hypothesis relies on a rhetorical device. So let's compare:

Climate Science:

(a) The current theory of 'Greenhouse Gases' relies on the observation of the temperature at the earths surface, which fluctuates less than we would expect and is also (on average) higher than we would expect in comparison to a control body (say, the Moon). A similar observation may be made at various heights within the atmosphere. This phenomena can't be explained by observing the properties of the most common atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) but less common components demonstrate behaviors (in terms of how they absorb and radiate radiation in the visible and infra red spectra) which account for the differential in both base temperature and variability. These are termed 'The Greenhouse Gases'.

(b) These observations are recorded and can be remeasured by anyone who feels the urge to do so. Repeated observations have yielded the same result, without exception, for 150 years.

(c) Various mechanisms were misunderstood in the earlier hypothesis (by Fourier and Tyndall) but these were acknowledged, corrected, and the modified hypothesis did not contradict the earlier observations.

(d) No fallacy, or rhetoric is necessary to prove the hypothesis, it is entirely demonstrated via independent, objective observation.

The Denier Hypothesis

(a) There is no apparent hypothesis. NO hypothesis has been proposed to explain the atmospheric temperature differential from a baseline control, or the measured differential at different zones within the atmosphere.

(b) There is no way to independently verify any observations because no observations have been published.

(c) Numerous assertions from Denialism have been disproven, without any forthcoming acknowledgement, nor adjustment to the underlying theory to match with new observations. The assertions include: saying that no temperature rise has occurred (disproven by observation), saying that the temperature was due to solar variance (disproven by observation), saying that the increased concentrations of CO2 were due to volcanoes (disproven by observation). et cetera. These theories are inherently contradictory but are often present in the same conversation (2 of these can be noted in this very thread)

(d) The Denier hypothesis makes frequent use of rhetoric: it is rarely presented without some rhetorical device (appeals to emotion e.g. "I'm concerned/confused" false equivalence e.g. "I'm not sure who to believe anymore" burden of proof fallacy e.g. "Why doesn't someone explain x to me?" ).

When considered using these criteria the choice seems pretty clear.

Re:Deniers?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"Data can be formatted to backup almost any claim" Too true...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Mark Twain

Re:Deniers?

[riverat1]

The site you link provides an excellent example of the cherry-picking the GW denying crowd does. The first article I saw on there links to an article stating that 2015 was the hottest year on record in the US.

Not only that but the contiguous USA only covers about 3% of the Earth's surface, not a particularly good analog for the whole planet.

Re:Deniers?

[dave420]

You should ask your educators for a refund.

Re:Deniers?

[Rockoon]

There you have it, AGW is responsible for terrorism!

Actually I think he was saying that terrorism proves AGW.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

did you read any of the climate gate emails.

In their own words they damned themselves, they were deliberately misleading people and lying

Re:Deniers?

[AmiMoJo]

http://whatreallyhappened.com (it's hilarious, and fully linked)

I clicked on the first three links.

1. 404
2. Daily Mail, well known for its accurate and level headed science reporting
3. 404

At that point I gave up. What you have to remember is that shitty journalists mis-reporting climate science is not representative of the actual science. A better source would be the UN reports, that make clear statements and predictions, with stated margins of error and probabilities, and are of course fully sourced and verifiable.

While there have been revisions to the models, to say that predictions were "wrong" is inaccurate. The basic prediction, that the earth is warming due to human activity, is supported by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted. It's about as certain as theories like general relativity and gravity.

Just because some guy points at the sky and says "look at those clouds, they don't come crashing down to earth, and what about the birds?!" doesn't mean that the theory of gravity is wrong and they would rightly be rejected by the majority of people attending a conference on gravity who came to hear some actual science.

Re:Deniers?

[drinkypoo]

I don't know if warming is happening. I don't believe anyone anymore either. I used to try to find raw sources, but I've been told dozens of times that I can't be expected to understand temp data and hell, it's probably been tweaked anyway.

Do you even have enough storage for the data sets? If you were qualified to comprehend the data, you'd be able to get your hands on it without any trouble.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I see you doing is trying to mock people by calling them "scientists" in a derisive manner. You haven't presented any evidence to support your nutjob belief that AGW is real. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because you haven't got any and that you only believe what you believe because you've been indoctrinated by the unreliable and unscientific scaremongers in the media.

Prove that humans are responsible for climate change. Prove that climate change isn't naturally occurring. You can't, because there aren't enough historical records to base any kind of legitimate assumption on.

Now kindly fuck off. Your sheep-like idiocy is sickening.

Re:Deniers?

[Sique]

My personal observation agree with the paid scientific community. I live in a mountainous region, where one degree Celsius difference in average temperature means 300 m (or 1000 feet) height difference for glaciers. It means that winter sport infrastructure that was built in the 1900ies and 1920ies is now far below the end of the glacier. Even the ski lift stations from the 1960ies are now located too low for a long winter sport season. And additionally it means that 300 m of rocks and mud, that once were baked together in permafrost, are now thawing and creating avalanches and mudslides.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just being pedantic. It's all irrelevant. 100 years of temperature data isn't nearly enough to know anything.

Re:Deniers?

[Sique]

No, they weren't. One guy was complaining in quite uncomplimentary words that a scientific journal was accepting articles with quite unscientific claims, and another one proudly told the world that he found a new way to recalibrate tree ring data with thermometer data and called it a neat trick.

And those mails then got trumped up as a proof that the climate scientists were routinely manipulating data and shunning people not aligned with the group think.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same stance here. It's a serious hindrance that so many political activists are involved. It's even worse that so many scientists are political activists. One thing that's worth noting is the current warming could just be because we're still coming out of the last ice age. The skeptical scientists don't see much proof for the warming being man-made and plenty of proof for it being natural. The big problem they have is with the CO2 hypothesis. That's why there's such a big fuss about The Pause and why so many activists have tried to deny it exists -- because it disproves the CO2 hypothesis.

Re:Deniers?

[argStyopa]

Thanks for confirming PRECISELY what the OP was saying: look at the tone of the various replies.

Plus, really, a stoner calling me dumb is...unconvincing.

Re: Deniers?

[Bartles]

We haven't seen one degree difference in average temperature since the 1960's

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the US of A. The rest of the world unanimously accepts that we have caused global warming to a substantial extent.

Re: Deniers?

[Sique]

No. Of course it is less than that since the 1960ies. The 1 degree is the warming since 1900. But even 0.2 degree warming mean a height difference of about 60 m or 200 feet, and if you have a slope of 10% (which is usually a "family ride"), it means 600 m more from the ski lift station to the actual glacier. If you have to walk 600 m over dry ground with your skiing equipment shouldered, you will notice the difference. And you will notice 200 feet of rock sliding down the slope in the summer.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsurprisingly, there's an enormous amount of energy industry and other money involved in climate change; admitting climate change is a real thing implies that something needs to be done about it, and that would hurt the people holding this enormous amount of money, so of course they'll squash it if they can. Then there's also the religious types that believe God just wants us to do whatever we want with the Earth, and that the End Times are soon now anyway, so it doesn't matter -- and that bringing about the End Times sooner is a good thing anyway, all part of 'Gods plan'. Then there are also people who just don't give a damn about anything that happens after they're dead anyway, so long as they get their profits and power right now.

Re:Deniers?

[tbannist]

Frankly, your personal observations may be subservient to what you expect to see. The changes from climate change are generally going to be so gradual that you may not even notice that you've moved the bar.

Re:Deniers?

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

If you really are not a troll: start here.
It is the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the IPCC. It is very readable and neutrally written. But despite what climat change deniers would like to imply it shows very clearly what the expected impact is with mostly a high degrees of certainty.
The conclusions in this report are (with the indicated uncertainties included) very reliable.
If you do that you have a choice:
* I want absolute certainty before I want to believe anything about climate change ==> Climate change denier (science doesn't work that way).
* Not everything is cleared out but the conclusions are clear if you look at the total amount of evidence ==> your average neutral observer

Re:Deniers?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

One need only look at the difference between North and South Korea to see government influence on the economu can be far worse for the average person than the worst of global warming.

It's the often unspoken assumption brakes must be slammed on things that is the real danger, not attempts at amelioration here and there.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard for me to take "really no difference" statements seriously when we are talking about 1deg over 100 years.

Re: Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately I find CO2 irrelevant. There are plenty of much less controversial reasons to move to new energy sources. If we spend half of the effort promoting these and removed the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers and stopped the artificial inflation of the global economy via fiat currency (think of ho w much CO2 was generated by China building those ghost cities) the problem would go away on it's own.

Re:Deniers?

[Wraithlyn]

Here is a graph (similar to the one you presented) showing CO2/temperature correlation over 400k years: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

1) Notice how the CO2 never goes over 300ppm.

Now here is a graph of what CO2 levels are doing today: http://photos1.blogger.com/blo...

2) Notice how the CO2 has shot way past 300ppm and is still climbing to the fucking moon.

Now please explain again why there's no difference between today and the historical "spikes"?

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawman, the post.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a liar or you have bad internets. The first link at least works fine. Here's a cut and paste of it:

IDEAS & TRENDS (CONTINUED); A DIRE LONG-RANGE FORECAST
By JAMES GLEICK
Published: May 12, 1985

As global nightmares go, the greenhouse effect has managed not to keep policy makers awake nights devising plans of action. Scientists see an assortment of theoretical catastrophes just over the horizon, but the more dire their predictions, the more difficult it seems to find an appropriate response.

A new scientific study has confirmed a swiftly changing view of what causes the greenhouse effect -heightening both the urgency of the problem and the difficulty of controlling it. The study finds that the leading role in the earth's warming belongs not to carbon dioxide, as long believed, but to an assortment of rare, mostly artificial gases, many never seen in the atmosphere before the 1960's.

That supports the view of atmospheric scientists that the world is rushing toward global climate change on a startling scale. Already the changes in the atmosphere are thought to have changed the balance of incoming and outgoing energy, holding in infrared radiation the way the glass of a greenhouse does.

Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries. Storm patterns will change, drying out some areas, swamping others and generally throwing agriculture into turmoil. Federal climate experts have suggested that within a century the greenhouse effect could turn New York City into something with the climate of Daytona Beach, Fla.

But the new view of the greenhouse effect, as much as the old, highlights the difficulty of finding practical weapons against what remains an uncertain demon.

So far, the greenhouse effect has not been clearly felt. In the generations since scientists first theorized that increased carbon dioxide would alter the earth's temperature balance by trapping heat in the atmosphere, no one has been able to measure a significant warming. Scientists have explanations for that, and they believe their temperature curves will soon soar off the scale. But for now the greenhouse effect remains part of a hypothetical, if not so distant, future.

Even if officials were moved by the urgency of the problem, it would be hard to know what they should do. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated last year, for example, that a drastic 300 percent worldwide tax on fossil fuels to discourage their use - a tax conceivable in a world of scientists, if not in a world of politicians and business executives - might make a tiny difference of about five years.

So the Government waits. ''It's a creeping problem, an incremental problem, and we're very bad at dealing with incremental problems,'' says Stephen H. Schneider, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. ''There always seems to be an intermediate problem of higher value.''

Until recently, the culprit seemed to be strictly carbon dioxide, which has been increasing steadily for the last century. But the new study, to be published next month in the Journal of Geophysical Research, confirms that an even greater greenhouse effect is likely to come from 30 or more trace gases, mostly emitted by industry and agriculture. These gases are more efficient at trapping heat on its way out to space, and they are increasing much faster than carbon dioxide.

That seriously complicates the problem of finding effective controls. And it suggests to climate experts that they should be giving more credence to the high end of the most recent predictions. But those predictions have great uncertainty built in. ''Whenever you work with a climate model, you are trying to play God,'' says V. Ramanathan, one of the authors of the new study. For example, as the bright polar icecaps melt, they might reflect significantly less sunlig

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

1 degree LESS warming in the adjusted data. If you prefer the raw data then you need to accept that the Earth has warmed MUCH more than we believe it has.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the stakes are the future of the human race, so it's pretty understandable.

Re:Deniers?

[iONiUM]

For the record, all 3 links open just fine. Not sure what the issue you had was.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a gigantic unstated assumption in what you wrote and that unstated assumption is WRONG. That unstated assumption is that the temperature is relatively constant.

Over any given time frame, the climate will be either warming or cooling. There will always be a trend one way or the other. Since the climate will always be either warming or cooling, to actually prove that C02 is having a catastrophic affect you have to nail down TCR and account for any other variable that might be impacting the climate.

This is very hard.

Since there are things out there that we don't understand at all, the climate models use fudge factors. For example, the climate models suck at clouds, clouds are too small to model well but we *know* they have an impact on climate.

"In doubled atmospheric CO2 equilibrium experiments performed by mixed-layer ocean-atmosphere models as well as in transient climate change integrations performed by fully coupled ocean-atmosphere models, models exhibit a large range of global cloud feedbacks, with roughly half of the climate models predicting a more negative CRF in response to global warming, and half predicting the opposite (Soden and Held, 2006; Webb et al., 2006). "

In other words, 'We don't even know if clouds are a positive or negative feedback....'.

Yet you will run around and calling people deniers for pointing out what the (honest) scientists themselves admit.

Re:Deniers?

[Bartles]

Then really if the changes are so gradual and slight that I won't even notice, I really have nothing to worry about.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

People get nasty when you discuss global warming no matter which side you're on or even if you just ask questions. It's like discussing religion or politics.

Actually, a global warming discussion is a discussion of religion AND politics.

Re:Deniers?

[Ferretman]

Well said sir...you hit it on the mark.

Ferret

Re:Deniers?

[Ferretman]

Wow,.....you PRECISELY showed what the problem is.

Ferret

Re:Deniers?

[KeensMustard]

There is a gigantic unstated assumption in what you wrote and that unstated assumption is WRONG. That unstated assumption is that the temperature is relatively constant.

Previously I've had denialists tell me that the temperature is constant and that the temperature record has been faked to make it look like the temperature has risen. There's at least example of that assertion on this very thread. So which version of your hypothesis is correct - has the temperature risen, or hasn't it?

If the other guy is wrong, and the science is indeed correct (that the temperature fluctuates due a number of forcing factors) why do you accept the part of the science that says the temperature fluctuates but not the part that says why the temperature fluctuates?

If the other guy's assertion is incorrect, what have you adjusted in your methodology to ensure that your previous mistakes are not just carried forward into your current assertions - in other words, you were wrong before and didn't explain why, so why should we trust you now?

Since there are things out there that we don't understand at all, the climate models use fudge factors. For example, the climate models suck at clouds, clouds are too small to model well but we *know* they have an impact on climate.

So, therefore, the climate models could be underestimating the feedback mechanisms: which would lead to the warming effect being more dramatic than predicted?

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

First thing: realclimarescientists is just a name like angeloknowsitalltrusthim.
Why you quote such a web site is beyond me.

Secondly data is not really corrected, its interpretation is corrected. Temperatures are usually meant to be read in 'shadow'. And if possible in 'nature'. If you figure later that a certain thermometer was not placed 'in the shades' but somewhere where it was stroked by sunlight, possibly an reflection from windows on the other side, you try to correct that.

Thirdly, your quest is helpless or hopeless or both. Why should there be any 'error margins'? If I read a temperature I can read it with bare eye to an accuracy of 1/20th of a grade. Minimum. Likely closer to 1/80th of a centi grade. That is the temperature I would write in my note book.

There are no error bars, for what would they be useful when we are in fact talking about rare data and not projected future events?

When a pilot ejects at speed X at a certain coordinate in a certain hight in a plane with a certain speed and a given wind direction and speed: I know exactly where the pilot ejected under what conditions

However: I only have limited clue about his landing, for the landing position, there I will have an error bar.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

What is 'ice water'???

Water of a random temperature mixed with ice of a random temperature?? What exactly did you want to calibrate with that??

What you want is very cold water, with ice and: lots of salt. The 'brine' will quickly settle around 0 degrees fahrenheit, and stay there very long (and this is below the freezing point of water).

Or did you simply try to approach 0 degrees centigrade? Then you need a thermometer to check if the ice water indeed has that temperature.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

"I dismiss anyone who talks about "saving the planet". The planet was just fine with palm trees growing in Antarctica."

It is probably worth noting that the continent Antarctica was not at the 'south pole' when it was covered with palms and jungle.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

The arab spring an ISIS are complete opposite movements ...

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

There are no CO2 spikes every 120k years. Where should they come from?

If you tried to find raw data, why did you not google for it? Every meteorological institute offers its date as free download, that is an international treaty, most countries on the world signed it ... 30 or 40 years ago. Outdated data can be requested via email.

You are an idiot, actually a liar, you never ever even tried to get data you claim you need to base your opinion on.

Re:Deniers?

[ishmaelflood]

Thank you for the link. I'll have a read and a think.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

Satellite models don't agree with each other There are no satellite models, facepalm. There are only measurements by satellites.

So, how does a satellite measure the temperature of the atmosphere in lets say 15km or 75km hight?

You don't know? Yeah ... start reading here perhaps: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

So, we now collect data with satellites that track GPS satellites. This is the raw data. From that data we conclude temperatures and other parameters, like humidity or ice crystals.

In ten years we realize that our 'knowledge' how to deduce temperatures etc. was wrong. So we have to go backward and 'fix' the temperatures we once deduced in relation to our knew understandings.

I see nothing wrong with 'correcting data' because usually not the data is corrected but the conclusion drawn from it.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

The changes from climate change are generally going to be so gradual that you may not even notice ...
Depends on what you look.
For one of the rare times during last years we have temperatures in mid January below zero. (Used to be -10 on a regular base down to -30).
So I was driving to a friend in France, late afternoon, slight snow fall, a hint of snow all over the country. What is the big bird flying there? Oh ... a crane. It obviously misjudged this winter. They used to fly to Africa before winter when I was a boy. Now they try to stay here.

Re:Deniers?

[david_thornley]

The basic science strongly suggests AGW. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We've known from the late 1800s that increasing it would probably warm things up. We've put a lot of it into the air, bringing it up from about 280ppm to 400ppm. If we weren't getting global warming, we'd have to figure out why not. Also, in any such situation, I tend to believe the smart people who've studied this stuff for years over the ones who resort heavily to calling the whole science corrupt, without showing why except that it comes to conclusions they don't like.

We've got a very large amount of temperature records, and have to make sense of them. Some of them were affected by growing urban heat islands, for example, so the raw data takes a lot of adjustment to represent what actually happened. Recently, it appears that water temperatures were gathered increasingly by buoys and relatively less by ships, and buoys measure cooler than ships, so that distorted some measurements. What the climate scientists are trying to do is cancel out all these effects to come up with the most accurate temperatures they can, because accurate data is

I took a glance at the site you mentioned, and I wonder why anyone would think it's credible. It's a bunch of random statements that provides no sources for the interesting claims, and it uses epithets freely. If they had actual facts, they could provide links, and it would be unnecessary to call scientists "criminals".

Re:Deniers?

[david_thornley]

You want a nice simple scientific explanation?

We know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We've watched the carbon dioxide increase from 280ppm to 400ppm. We can roughly estimate what we put into the air, and the isotope distribution indicates a lot of carbon that's been sequestered, and we're the ones digging it out. In addition, we've seen temperatures go up.

There's lots of loons on both sides. The scientists aren't the ones making wild predictions, in general.

Let's assume that we've got a spike that is the sort of thing that you say happens roughly every 120K years. We're screwed. Human civilization has developed from nothing in that time. We've built port cities where the sea level is appropriate. We've adapted crops to situations where they'll grow. There's a tremendous amount of adaptation to things the way they are, and a change is going to cause massive disruption. If the reason it's different this time is only because we have civilization and such this time, it's still going to cause a lot of serious problems.

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

Carl Mears, the guy who developed the RSS satellite reconstruction says: "they are not thermometers in space. The satellite data were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.

And yes, you need a model to convert the information to temperature trends. There are many confounding factors that the model needs to account for. I agree that there is nothing wrong with correcting for known issues, but to suggest that satellite data is somehow a gold standard, untouched by those sneaky scientists, is wrong. It is also wrong to suggest that the satellite data agrees with the uncorrected surface data. it does not. In fact, the two satellite records do not even agree with each other.

Re:Deniers?

[chipschap]

Well, yes, everything proves AGW!

Re:Deniers?

[ishmaelflood]

He appears to be plotting balloon surface altitude vs RSS lower troposphere. That is not correct, he needs to use 850 mb or interpolate to match the lower troposphere definition. Also he could have looked at UAH.. Also he appears to be using an old RSS dataset, because they have a spike in 2015 which should show through on the 5 year MA.

So that's a few things worth checking. However it is great, now I've got the balloon data to play with as well. So to summarise, thanks for the blog link, but it is not definitive.

Re:Deniers?

[Agripa]

A thermistor, with its highly nonlinear R=f(temp), is difficult to use to make an accurate thermometer. A thermocouple is better, but you need the cold junction reference.

Neither thermistors nor thermocouples would be used for precision electronic temperature measurement. RTDs are much better even without non-linear signal conditioning which itself is trivial to implement even in the analog domain.

Re:Deniers?

[riverat1]

Tamino said the RATPAC data extended through July 2015. Looking at the WoodForTrees plot of RSS data for 2015 only the spike in temperature didn't show up until after July. I'm not sure what your mean by "balloon surface altitude" so I won't comment on that.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature, and the balloon dataset for correlation. These are both fairly robust measurements of temperature, in that urban heat island effect etc do not have to be 'adjusted' out (or not).

Yeah, do that and you'll notice (unless you are Ted Cruz) that they have been drifting apart for some years now. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Re:Deniers?

[serbanp]

RTD's Achille's heel is the fact that, in order to actually determine the temperature, one needs to trust the absolute value of another resistor in the circuit. This is tricky without regular re-calibration and definitely doesn't qualify for "100 years repeatability".

I had no idea though that they're as popular in industrial applications as they seem to be, at least compared to thermocouples.

Re:Deniers?

[joelsplace]

Which satellites were they using for data in 1880? Who monitored data at the North pole? Obvious problems with the claims in just the blurb on /. A good question to ask is "Who benefits from AGW?" It leads to more government control and more $ for "scientists". http://www.thenewamerican.com/...

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

People get nasty when you discuss global warming no matter which side you're on or even if you just ask questions. It's like discussing religion or politics.

That's because global warming / climate change is very much a religion.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he lied. He's AmiMojo.

He figures that if a point is worth proving, it's worth lying for. He's a fairly-consistent shitposter with one of the most fucked-up moral compasses I've ever seen, yet he somehow figures that he should serve as the moral compass for Slashdot.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

Different satellite records don't agree with each other because they use data obtained by different means and different algorithms to convert that data into temperature.

I think what you call a model is what we call an algorithm. If you say model in context of this discussion, people hear 'climate model' ... satellites certainly have no climate model, use one or produce one.

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

different means and different algorithms to convert that data into temperature

Right. Which one is correct? The GGP says that we should trust satellite reconstructions over ground station reconstructions because the satellite records agree with the unmodified surface station data. That is not true. The satellite records do not agree with surface station data. They do not even agree with each other. You know what does agree with the unmodified surface station data? The modified surface station data. They are indistinguishable over the satellite period: https://climatecrock.files.wor...

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

Satellites usually have nothing to do with surface data, they measure atmospheric stuff.
I have actually no idea about what you want to argue.
Data is not 'modified' the conclusion drawn from it might be modified ofer the course of the years.

If you have satellite records that don't agree which each other, why don't you post your findings and conclusions to a peer reviewed material instead of bugging /. with an opinion no one here can verify?

I have no clue how you even came to that data and how you figure the different data sets don't agree which each other.

Re:Deniers?

[acrimonious howard]

I had the same experience as AmiMoJo:
Acne - 404
Longer plane flights - Daily Mall
agricultural land increase - No data received - ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE

That site tries to make a bunch of red herrings. Poorly, imo.

Re:Deniers?

[Agripa]

I made my post just to point out that thermocouples and thermisters are unsuitable for precision temperature measurement compared to RTDs and that has been the case for decades. But even with their complexities like cold junction compensation and lower accuracy, thermocouples are preferred to RTDs because of their temperature range and price. RTDs have the advantage of at least an order of magnitude better accuracy. They do make "precision" thermocouples by using purer metals but accuracy is still limited by the cold junction compensation and they cost as much as an RTD solution making them only suitable for when you need increased accuracy outside of the temperature range where an RTD can be used. I was not addressing the use of RTDs 100 years ago but I can.

The need for a stable reference resistance is not unique to RTDs and it is hardly a problem; we have been building resistors out of Manganin which are stable over temperature and time for more than a century using the same construction techniques used to build RTDs. I have a pair of ESI impedance bridges which use wrapped wire (probably Manganin) over mica resistors (ESI made these in house) built in the 1960s which are still accurate to 3 or 4 significant digits. It is not real clear how accurate the bridges are because they are as good or better than any 0.1% resistor (or capacitor) that I have tested them with and that is about the limit of their precision anyway.

An accurate RTD thermometer without amplification or stable voltage or current sources could have been made 100 years ago using a balanced bridge, Kelvin Varley divider, and galvanometer. As a matter of fact, my old ESI impedance bridges work in exactly this way for DC resistance measurements; no stable reference voltage or current is needed and no amplification is needed.

This would have been pretty cumbersome way to measure temperature because you would need to balance the bridge for every reading and consult a chart to remove the non-linearity of the RTD so if you only needed 0.1F resolution, a mercury thermometer would have been better if only because of its ease of use in an adverse environment.

Re:Deniers?

[serbanp]

Thank you for the informative post!

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

It is hardly a secret. If you don't know something, then you should not hesitate to ask. That is always a better option than being obnoxious. (you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar don'tcha know.) A quick look at woodfortrees can verify: Look at the divergence at about the year 2000. Look at the difference in the trends: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...

Here is Carl Mears who developed the RSS Satellite reconstruction: "...surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)." - http://www.remss.com/blog/rece...

The guy who developed one of the two satellite reconstructions says that the surface station record is more reliable. So no, we shouldn't disregard the surface station data in favour of the satellite data. The satellite records do not agree with the raw surface station data as the GGP had asserted (but the corrected surface station records DO), in fact, the satellite data do not even agree with each other.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a gigantic unstated assumption in what you wrote and that unstated assumption is WRONG. That unstated assumption is that the temperature is relatively constant."

Previously I've had denialists tell me that the temperature is constant and that the temperature record has been faked to make it look like the temperature has risen. There's at least example of that assertion on this very thread. So which version of your hypothesis is correct - has the temperature risen, or hasn't it?

Different AC here ...

You were told unambiguously by the AC that temperature (generally) is either increasing or decreasing. AC seemed accepting that we appear to be increasing. You ignored this, failed at reading comprehension, and elected to continue arguments with strawmen not present to defend themselves.

Again - it is very simple - it is not sufficient to establish a trend of increasing temperature.

Re:Deniers?

[KeensMustard]

You were told unambiguously by the AC that temperature (generally) is either increasing or decreasing. AC seemed accepting that we appear to be increasing. You ignored this, failed at reading comprehension, and elected to continue arguments with strawmen not present to defend themselves.

It's not me that failed reading comprehension. Read it again.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

You are a moron.

The satellite data is not for the surface but for upper atmospheric levels.

No idea what you, or the silly links you post, want to argue about. Surface data is relevant for the surface. Satellite data is relevant for the upper and mid atmosphere.

No idea why you want to place that into the same basket

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

Bravo! It looks like you agree with me! The post that I was responding to says: "Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record?"

I responded: "Satellite models don't agree with each other let alone with the uncorrected surface trends" and provided a link showing that the two satellite reconstructions don't agree with each other.

You jumped in with: "There are no satellite modes" (wrong!)

Then you acknowledged "I have actually no idea about what you want to argue." (Well then maybe read through the post you inserted yourself into before taking such a hard stance?)

Then you further acknowledged: "I have no clue how you even came to that data and how you figure the different data sets don't agree which each other." (Well, maybe click the link in my original post that shows the two data sets side by side?)

Then you say: "No idea why you want to place that (surface station and satellite reconstructions) into the same basket" (clearly I don't. That was spelled out in my first post.)

It looks like all of your questions are answered by my very first post. Maybe read before vomiting into the middle of a conversation?

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

Having different satellites measuring different things, and construction from the resulting data by what ever means 'temperatures': that does not make this a satellite model
So, no. In my opinion there are no 'satellite models'. Who ever coined the term is an idiot. A model is something you use to make predictions with. With the data we have measured so far the model shows us X, and as we see X is always coming out as an result with this set of parameters. So we are confident that our model 'works out', at least to a 'certain degree'. Now we change the input slightly and now we get X' as output, that is a prediction based on a model.
As soon as we measure parameters similar to our variation, and the se resulting X" we can decide if our model correctly predicts X versus X' versus X".

Neither ground based thermometers nor space based satellites do that. They only provide raw data, no models.

So: why the funk should I read links about topics that are not relevant to the fact that satellites don't have models? If those links contain the word model: they are wrong by definition.

If those links want to 'model something' (which is something completely different than 'being a model') and the resulting modeling leads to different conclusions: that is funky normal if different technologies measure different things and have to use different math/models/algorithms to conclude/calculate the data (temperature in this case) from it, they actually wanted to measure but can't directly.

Again: for that I don't need to read any link you provide.

I hope you finally grasp that simple concept. E.g. you add to your car two sensors, one that measures the temperature of your engine, and one that measures the usage of gasoline per second. Now you sent me the data and the GPS position of your car. Within limits I now can calculate the temperature of your surroundings based in the fuel consumption of your car. However: I had slight errors coming from brand of car, tire pressure, air condition or heating usage, extraordinary strong sound system. Point is: the raw data you send me is not 'temperature', my 'satellite' has to use some beefy algorithms to get to 'temperatures'. Now simple facts as switching the car brand need adjustments. Hence my friends satellites working on Fords and mine working on Toyota: 'won't agree!' Until both of them are worked out and refined enough to become reliable. And then they will agree.

And again: that is not a climate model, that is just a stupid set of algorithms using loosely related data they gather to draw conclusions about temperatures which are finally fed into a climate model.

So: for the last time: there are no satellite models. You might disagree, but you would be wrong. And I for god sake don't care who or what is written in your links.

Thank you.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I did.

The quotes unambiguously come from you. You erect a number of strawmen you label as "deniers", then fail to engage in the other AC who didn't mimic a single strawman but had a different point of view ... which clearly sailed over your head. You don't want to engage with contrary opinions but for your own strawmen. It is the weakest level of critical thought, the intellectual equivalent of "6 myths about X ... that YOU didn't know".

It is not sufficient to establish an increase in temperature. It is not even sufficient to unambigously tie that increase to mankind (although that is pretty good since CO2 is more likely than heat island effect and other things we do - like smog - often have the opposite affect). But MORE SO, it becomes necessary to prove some fraction of the "doom and gloom" that has been predicted. By "doom and gloom", I mean body bags. Graph the deaths from AGW or make a prediction of the same. I realize *some* people are already blaming war and migrations on AGW, so that makes it difficult. However, a task being difficult doesn't dismiss it from being necessary.

I might also add the need to discuss other claims like 'a stitch in times saves nine'. That giving such-n-such money NOW saves money LATER (or replace 'money' with 'resources'). There are ways people make those claims, track those claims, and suffer or prosper based on the outcome. We call those investments. Do I trust 'awareness campaigns' to be good 'resource investments'? Fuck no!

Re:Deniers?

[KeensMustard]

and I did

Apparently not.

It's pretty simple: one denialist tells me the temperature hasn't risen - another tells me that it has but through some means that they can't explain.

These versions of the hypothesis are completely contradictory. The evidence (which oddly, denialists don't seem to want to share) can only point to one of these being true. So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

In my opinion there are no 'satellite models'.

Your opinion is not worth much. Scientists who study this disagree with you: https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk

They only provide raw data, no models.

And how do you turn the raw data into a representation of global average temperature anomalies? Hint: You need a.... starts with an 'M'. Rhymes with coddle.

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

You might disagree, but you would be wrong. And I for god sake don't care who or what is written in your links.

I love that you've taken a position that you will not be swayed by facts. To the extent that you will not even look at them.

Re:Deniers?

[jwhitener]

I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore

Don't listen to the news or 'science writers'. Listen to the scientists, 99% of whom have one opinion "A", and 1% have another opinion "B".

"A" has a range of probabilities with margin of errors. What to actually do about "A" is a political and economic cost/benefit analysis question.

Re:Deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not.

It's pretty simple: one denialist tells me the temperature hasn't risen - another tells me that it has but through some means that they can't explain.

These versions of the hypothesis are completely contradictory. The evidence (which oddly, denialists don't seem to want to share) can only point to one of these being true.

You are (name)calling completely different (DIFFERENT - do you know what that work fucking means) people "denialist" and expecting them to have the same opinion. Different people have different opinions. Just because I call you an asshole and a bunch of other people assholes, doesn't mean that ALL assholes have the same opinion. Different assholes have different opinions. This is true for any word you sub for "assholes" be it "denialists", "progressives", "motherfuckers". Any word.

So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?

The nice thing about being a skeptic is that I don't have to explain or prove anything. That said, you didn't give a timeframe. Without a timeframe, the temperature could be said to be rising or falling. You don't get a second chance on that one (you really ought to include it in the question). Also, temperature rising/falling is one of the least interesting - IMO - aspects of the climate debates.

Re:Deniers?

[KeensMustard]

You are (name)calling completely different (DIFFERENT - do you know what that work fucking means) people "denialist" and expecting them to have the same opinion. Different people have different opinions.

Is denialism (a) factual or (b) subjective opinion with no link to reality?

So: which is it? Is the temperature rising, or isn't it? If it is rising, what is causing it to rise, if not CO2 and other GHGs? If it is not rising, why does the data say otherwise?

The nice thing about being a skeptic is that I don't have to explain or prove anything.

You aren't a sceptic. If you don't prove that your theory - be it either (a) that the temperature is not rising despite what the instruments say or (b) the temperature has risen for reasons that can't be observed - if you don't prove your theory, whichever it is, then we have no reason to believe it.

Re:Deniers?

[angel'o'sphere]

And how do you turn the raw data into a representation of global average temperature anomalies? Hint: You need a.... starts with an 'M'. Rhymes with coddle.

And this is not a "satellite model" but a climate model, fed with data from satellites.
QED.

Re:Deniers?

[Layzej]

No. You do not use a climate model to determine global average temperature anomaly. Climate models are used to generate projections about our future and understand our past.

Record El Niño

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny and sad how short sighted the global warmists are. I look forward to the next 10 years of decline. Of course they'll try to hide it as they've done before, but eventually they're going to run out of room. When you're using manipulated numbers to get you new records less than the margin of error just to get headlines you're just making it that much harder for yourself in successive years...

Re:Record El Niño

[AlterEager]

Yay! An actual "global warming stopped in 2015" post!

Global warming is a myth!

[Michael Woodhams]

The average global temperature hasn't risen since 2015!

I just wanted to be the first person to make that argument. When this argument becomes popular in 2025, remember you saw it here first.

Re:Global warming is a myth!

[riverat1]

I (and many others) predicted the "No warming since 2015" meme months ago but I'm not sure you can make it official until you see if 2016 is cooler than 2015. Based on past behavior of of large El Ninos it's often the 2nd year that is the warmest (like the 1997/1998 El Nino) so I expect 2016 will be warmer unless there's a major volcanic eruption. So at the end or 2017 you can probably honestly start saying "No warming since 2016".

Re:Global warming is a myth!

[AlterEager]

Some AC above just made exactly that claim!

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8642569&cid=51341155

Re:Global warming is a myth!

[angel'o'sphere]

El Nino affects a rather small part of the planet.
For measuring global average temperatures it is irrelevant.

Re:It's a trap

[gstoddart]

I could not, would not, give you a stump.
I could not, would not, vote for Trump.

That hair, that hair, it just goes fwump.
Who the heck would vote that chump?

That Palin Chick,
did Donald Hump?

Are we just randomly rhyming stuff?

Denialism

[Ol Olsoc]

Its the new creationism.

Before anyone decides to mod me down as a troll, consider that teh denialists still deny when even one of their stalwarts of denial - Exxon - has known for years that AGW was real, but decided on a tactic of "sowing doubt" http://insideclimatenews.org/n... while their own researcers concluded AGW was real.

Not being able to produce credible research to prove their denialism, they are left with a smaller and smaller set of cherrypicking data, character assassination, and the always popular "I looked out the window and its cold today - so much for global warming!"

So in moves remarkably similar to tobacco idustry lawyers managing to deny that there was proof that tobacco caused cancer when there was ample evidence in the 1800's, or creationists claiming that dinosaurs and humans romped merrily together - but nol earlier than 4004 b.c.e. - based on long discredited fossil tracks in places like http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... Paluxy, Texas - Indeed, Ken Hamm's Creationism museum has that as biblical proof of young earth creationism - the denialists are getting backed into a smaller and smaller corner, soon to be left only with fingers stuck in their ears, and chanting "Neener never never - I can't hear you!"

So if anyone has the disproving research I'd love to see it. If not, just mod me down to oblivion, and prove what I just wrote.

Re:Denialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.

Re:Denialism

[Bartles]

The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.

The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.

Re:Denialism

[Ol Olsoc]

Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.

I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.

Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.

Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?

Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events

17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.

Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00

8 March, 2007

Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)

28 July, 2003

Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.

Source: Independent Institute report 2003

2 May, 2007

Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"

Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.

Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics

This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.

But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that

Re:Denialism

[Ol Olsoc]

The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.

The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.

Go read my demolishment of one denialists Research proof. If you are going to be skeptical, you have to be skeptical of yourself as well. His proof - which was a reportage on an anomaly, which teh so called skeptics merely took as refutation of AGW, and didn't question a thing (that's faith in your book as well) later noted that the Tropospher was warming and teh discrepencies were solved.

Old debunked data that is proven wrong some how becomes Fact for denialists, who give the name skeptic a black eye.

But hey, prove me wrong, and give me more of this research that proves AGW as wrong.

I triple dog dare ya!

Re:Denialism

[Anonymous Coward]

From one AC to another:

Denialist research [wattsupwiththat.com]
If this is what you consider research, then I would tend to agree with the label denialist. The link provided is to a very short essay (read opinion piece) of one part of a presentation given at a governmental hearing on climate change.

Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done.
While I don't see where the OP stated that comparing actual data to predictions "can't be done," I do see where the OP asked for disproving research (see point 1).

No character assassination, I leave that up to you,
Irony meter overload, hypocrisy shock wave approaching.

I've only presented factual data.
This was the part that had me saying, "OK, lets see this factual data." Unfortunately, after reading the essay, I was reminded of that old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?" (see the next point)

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown.
I would love to debate the "data shown" except that there isn't any data. The essay only had one thing that even remotely might be considered data, a nice little graph with no references whatsoever to any underlying data it might have been based on. Try that in your peer-reviewed research submission.

The graph has wonderful labels like "Average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 Climate Models" (which models, who knows?), "Squares - Avg 2 Satellite datasets," and "Circles - Avg 4 Balloon data sets." Wait! What! Balloon data sets!!!

Balloon datasets - that's when I decided to post a response to your post.

In the essay, the graph that has no references to any underlying data is about supposed climate models' predictions of temperatures in the lower atmosphere.

While you haven't provided any data to be debated, I will still call and raise you a link to a rebuttal of this specific claim - one that actually has several graphs with actual references to sources and data.

Please read at your earliest convenience

Re:Denialism

[riverat1]

The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.

The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.

If you're worried about how much you're being asked to pay now (not that much really, less than 5%) you should be really worried about what it's going to cost you when some of the things we know are going to happen like sea level rise really start to kick in. Miami Beach, FL is spending some $400 million to install pumps and build some seawalls to stave off the effects of king tides that are flooding the lower areas. Those areas didn't used to flood as often when sea level was 6 or 7 inches lower than it is now. The pumps might save them for 25-50 years but I won't last because sea level rise is inexorable.

Re: Denialism

[Bartles]

When was the sea level 6 or 7 inches lower than it is now?

Re: Denialism

[riverat1]

About 90 years ago, around the time Miami Beach was founded.

Re:Denialism

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of skepticism is to find the truth for yourself, assuming you are intelligent enough to.

The point of skepticism is not, as you seem to believe, to be arbitrarily contrarian, full stop.

Re:Denialism

[Anonymous Coward]

lol skepticalscience that site is funny as fuck..

it''s not skeptical or science!!!..

Re:Denialism

[AmiMoJo]

One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation.

This is untrue, and a gross mis-characterization of the green movement and climate scientists. There are actually two issues here.

1) Climate change will cost us in the long run, so it is prudent to do something about it now. Fortunately, doing something often improves our quality of life, e.g. by having better buildings that provide a more pleasant environment to live and work in, and which suck up less of our money for heating and cooling.

There is also the issue of migration due to climate change, which could become a severe problem when a billion people decide they need to move next door to you because their former home is under water or otherwise uninhabitable.

2) Pollution and the moral aspect. Pollution harms people directly, while often benefiting the person who is polluting. This is a simple matter of what society considers reasonable behaviour, given what we know of the harm being done. Sorry, but your desire to pollute in order to save money or increase your wealth must be balanced against other people's health and right to live in a reasonably habitable environment.

The moral aspect is extended to the longer term effects of climate change on people in other parts of the world. Either their homes will be negatively affected by your actions, or they will want to benefit from the same polluting you and your ancestors did in the west, and damn the consequences. Thus, some consideration and assistance seems warranted.

Re:Denialism

[drinkypoo]

One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices

Actually, no. Only the most egregious wasters need even notice a difference. But here you are, a temporarily embarrassed millionaire...

Re:Denialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I showed the IPCC models wrong, you failed to acknowledge it. Instead you went into a bunch of personal attacks and strawmen about stuff that wasn't discussed earlier.

I understand for science to be valid a prediction has to match observation otherwise its not science, end of story. What you are practicing is called religion, faith in something that can't be proven.

Re:Denialism

[Ol Olsoc]

I understand for science to be valid a prediction has to match observation otherwise its not science, end of story. What you are practicing is called religion, faith in something that can't be proven.

Sorry Coward, but it's obvious you didn't read any of what was posted. The observations were wrong. The observer said as much in the end.

Re: Denialism

[Bartles]

I wish. If I were a millionaire I'd spend my time flying to climate change conferences in my Gulfstream.

Re: Denialism

[drinkypoo]

I wish. If I were a millionaire I'd spend my time flying to climate change conferences in my Gulfstream.

You are drowning in the Kool-Aid. (Yes, yes, possibly apocryphal attribution. The point remains.)

Re: Denialism

[Bartles]

What's the problem?

Re: Denialism

[Bartles]

Much of Miami beach was built. In other words before we decided we needed a city there it was open water or mangrove swamps. The land was created by us.

Re:Denialism

[Bartles]

1) Thanks for reinforcing my point.

2) CO2 is not pollution. If you think it is, then stop breathing immediately. Removing it from the environment would cause all life on Earth to die. Gases that actually are pollution do not contribute to warming.

Re:Denialism

[Ferretman]

I like how we didn't get two posts into this thread without the Alarmist throwing out the "denier" term......

Ferret

Re: Denialism

[riverat1]

Unlike some others I don't get my hair on fire over sea level rise. It's usually a slow process. But I also think 100 years from now the Miami area will be largely abandoned because of the inexorable sea level rise. It will have costly effects on coasts around the world.

Re: Denialism

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah, that is really a problem with people who are bad with big numbers and being bad with big numbers implies being bad with math which implies being bad at science ...

A Gulfstream costs more than a million, or a few millions.

A single flight with it, depending on distance, will cost you $20,000. A mere millionaire can do 50 flights with one single million dollars ... so: happy traveling. (That does not include crew ... landing fees etc.)

Considering that you might look at a 'flight' as a both way travel, your simple one million will you allow 25 trips to an event and back.

Actually I pity simple millionaires that are that bad at math ...

Re:Denialism

[david_thornley]

When almost all the actual evidence points one way, and another side uses unsourced claims that can be found to be false, and uses personal attacks on climate scientists and institutions for the rest, I think it fair to call that side denialists. There are also skeptics, who can actually be convinced by the evidence. They aren't denialists.

Re:Denialism

[david_thornley]

Plants use solar energy to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. I eat the plants, directly or indirectly, and then I breathe the carbon out again. As an organism, I'm carbon-neutral.

Ever hear the saying "The dose makes the poison?" A little extra carbon dioxide isn't going to hurt anybody. Raising it a lot is. Similarly, water is not a problem because we need it to live - until you're drowning.

Re:Denialism

[Ol Olsoc]

When almost all the actual evidence points one way, and another side uses unsourced claims that can be found to be false, and uses personal attacks on climate scientists and institutions for the rest, I think it fair to call that side denialists. There are also skeptics, who can actually be convinced by the evidence. They aren't denialists.

And how. I hear how "Michael Mann is an asshole, therefore there is no such thing as global warming" BS all the time. First off, his personality is not the determinant true or false of the laws of physics, and second, he actually isn't an asshole. He fights back.

Being skeptical is a true positive trait. But the intellectual dishonesty of people who call themselves "Global warming skeptics" is not even wrong. As pointed out in the thread, one replied to my query for some true evidence, gave a link and strut around like a little cock-a-hoop showing the tool that I am as wrong.

And all it took was about 45 minutes to go through the completely unattributed graph to find out who made it, look up his information and publications, and find out that the graph that supposedly proved AGW as bullshit not only did no such thing, all it did was cast possible doubt on the model used by scientists , and then some time later was found that the measurements were in error, not the model.

And duly noted as such by the author of their so called incrminiating evidence against AGW.

But there they are using flawed and outdated data , brandishing it as a bludgeon against the forces of evil as they blindly see it.

No skeptics these, merely useful tools for those who have a pecuniary interest in the continued use of the largest greenhouse gase emitters.

The times have changed - the internet is a fine research tool to fact check. And a skeptic fact checks, not blindly accepts data that agrees with how he wants physics to operate.

Re:Denialism

[Ol Olsoc]

I like how we didn't get two posts into this thread without the Alarmist throwing out the "denier" term......

The other terms for denialists are not terribly polite.

Are the laws of physics alarming for you?

Awaiting your proof it isn't real.

Re:Denialism

[Bartles]

OK, then at what level does CO2 become poisonous?

Re:Denialism

[Bartles]

And also, don't be giving the EPA any ideas. Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

Re:Denialism

[david_thornley]

Sure. However, if we put more water vapor in the atmosphere it rains and snows more. If we take some out, more water evaporates. It's a very stable process.

While there are carbon dioxide sinks, they tend to operate on much greater timescales. Therefore, we can introduce carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and it's staying there for lifetimes. When we introduce water vapor, it's gone in a few days or weeks. The exception is that the lower atmosphere can hold varying amounts of water depending on temperature, so water vapor tends to amplify the effects of carbon dioxide.

As far as poison goes, last I looked 5000ppm was considered the maximum safe limit for 8-hour exposure. However, far less than that will raise the temperature by a really bad amount.

Re: Denialism

[toddestan]

The sea levels rising are real, but a lot of Florida's problems come from them pumping too much fresh water from the ground which is causing the whole state to pretty much sink. Building things on top of swamps, often without any plans to handle the displaced water, didn't help either.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

The "records" co-called are forgeries derived through political manipulation of the actual records in order to achieve a political statement.

Follow Richard P. Feynman's remarks on the Scientific Method!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

If there is an anthropogenic driver of the surface temperatures, then why do the monthly maps show no correspondence to human population centers!

Why do the "increase anomalies" occur as a global economic recession begins after 11-years of global economic stagnation!

That is because the "data" pro-ported by NASA&NOAA are forgeries. Forgeries to appease a political agenda. The dying gasps of a political regime.

Ha ha

Re:No

[riverat1]

If there is an anthropogenic driver of the surface temperatures, then why do the monthly maps show no correspondence to human population centers!

That's got to be one of the silliest questions ever. Let me guess, you think global warming is caused by the heat humans create by burning fossil fuels. But that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the incoming solar energy. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow the rate at which the heat absorbed from that incoming solar radiation is radiated back off the Earth causing warming. That's why even before anthropogenic global warming came on the scene the average Earth temperature was about 58 F instead of around 0 F which is what it would be without any GHGs in the atmosphere.

Uncharted Terrirtory...

[hackus]

Certainly is if they can convince enough people to pay Carbon Taxes to the World Bank to form their own bueracracy to seed a new governmental authority with its own Army and answers to no one.

But don't worry its too keep you all safe and to prevent that carbon dioxide (a known toxic gas that kills life on earth) from getting out of hand.

We need to remove all Carbon Dioxide from the planet to protect the future of humanity and Carbon Taxes will save the planet.

Re:Uncharted Terrirtory...

[AlterEager]

You are insane. Please see a mental health professional.

Nobody has ever suggested paying carbon taxes to the World Bank. All countries with carbon taxes pay them to their own governments (and they are usually offset by reductions in other taxes).

anecdotal or statistical

[Anonymous Coward]

We say that anecdotal evidence can't be trusted because it is based on a single data point and is therefore inaccurate. So we rely on statistical evidence instead saying it is more accurate. However, statistical evidence is just an aggregation of anecdotal evidence. Since anecdotal evidence is already deemed inaccurate, statistical evidence only multiplies this inaccuracy by the number of data points. Therefore, statistical evidence of global warming is more inaccurate than the anecdotal evidence we all see when we note that the high temperatures in the summer were not nearly as bad as 10 years ago. I remember a year in the early 00s when we never got a hard freeze in the winter and pests survived the winter due to the warmth. No snow, only rain that year. I find it hard to believe that it is warmer now than it was that year. As I write this, the outside temperature is 20 degrees Fahrenheit and snow is on the ground. I wonder how the ice caps look right now? How did they look last summer? How did they look 200 years ago, 250 years ago?

Re:anecdotal or statistical

[Michael Woodhams]

However, statistical evidence is just an aggregation of anecdotal evidence.

No, sorry, completely wrong.

Statistical data comes from a well defined sample which is designed to be representative of an entire population. Anecdotes have no well defined selection criteria (my grandmother smoked until she was 100, and because I don't want to believe smoking is harmful, I remember and put great importance on this, and forget all the other people I have a connection to who were damaged by smoking) or (often where the selection criterion is 'stuff that happened to me') too little data to draw a conclusion (I've never crashed while driving drunk, so it must be safe.)

"I remember really hot days 10 years ago, hotter than now" holds very little weight. It is your experience (perhaps for every person like you there are 100 with the opposite experience), it is subject to biases of memory, and you've chosen the example retroactively to support a given position. The statistical data is thousands of thermometers measuring temperatures every hour over decades.

Re:anecdotal or statistical

[ninjagin]

I was glad to see this point made by someone here, and so succinctly. Thank you.

I wonder how confident they are this year?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.

Meanwhile non-homogenised satalites (2 networks) and billions of weather balloon launches over the last 50 years all agree - the land based temperature network is not reporting the same information.

Anthony Watts has a new paper in peer review which explains why NASA et al always seem to record temperatures 33% hotter than any other temperature measurement network on earth.

And that is even before we start to discuss the new methodologies with how container ships measure temperature vs ARGOS measurements.

If you can follow any of that then you deserve a career in politics. Where for art thou science?

Re:I wonder how confident they are this year?

[riverat1]

Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.

Berleley Earth says "2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence." I can't find percentages for the other two but I imagine they're in the same ballpark.

Re:I wonder how confident they are this year?

[AlterEager]

Meanwhile non-homogenised satalites (2 networks)

UAH and RSS use the same satellites (and come up with different warming).

What about the BUSes?

[nytes]

You mean the Blizzards of Unusual Size? I don't believe they exist.

Re:It's a trap

[ClickOnThis]

Whoa, Ted Cruz is posting on Slashdot! And once again, he's channeling Dr. Seuss.

Re:It's a trap

[Anonymous Coward]

No, with a Jizzle

State run organizations show need for regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

What a shock.

Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

This behavior hasn't been seen since 1998? I wonder if there's a reason for that.

Wasn't there a tiny mexican boy responsible for strange weather events in 1998?

NSAmabinladen

[Anonymous Coward]

All religious and political administrations do eugenics to their adherents to make them bred supporters. By now, most people have been bred to seek gods and leaders. Thinking that they're going to heaven, they will vote for a nuclear war their leaders propose.

Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.

Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.

Re:Too much recalibration

[riverat1]

The past gets adjusted up more than it gets adjusted down.

NOAA has a dataset that they and NASA/GISS use (each with their own adjustments) but there are also datasets that are independent of them like HADCRUT, JMA and Berkeley Earth.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/d...

yeah... one site... and you know there are a fucking million of them that are independently arriving at the same conclusion because if you actually look at the old data and compare it to the new data... you see "this".

If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature and that chemical composition is not especially relevant. I mean... its really easy. Look at any planet in the solar system. and match it with another solar system at equal air pressure. That is... look at the temp data at 1 atmosphere say on Venus and compare to Earth at 1 atmosphere... What you'll find is that Venus while hot is not actually that much hotter than earth. Factor for distance from the sun and the two harmonize. You can do the same thing for Jupiter or Uranius... and if you match at fractions of an atmosphere you can match Mars to earth etc.

Here you'll again tell me "but we did experiments where if you filled a chamber with CO2 it would absorb more heat than if it didn't have CO2"... Great. And did those tests factor for water vapor being a common denominator in both situations? From what I've seen they didn't.

I mean if you want to talk painted window, we can compare the chemical spectrums of CO2 with every other gas in the Earth's atmosphere and subtract from CO2 anything that is already being occluded. What is left as I'm sure you know is a tiny sliver of CO2's full spectrum and given that CO2 is itself not an especially prevalent gas you're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

It doesn't make sense. And that's why this is an issue that despite all the arrogance and "the science is settled" stupidity... you are losing the argument.

I know, its all the evil oil companies that lie about it... never mind that you have the UN behind you, the US government behind you, and the EU behind you... but you still will probably claim to be the underdogs here. Negative.

Re:Too much recalibration

[drinkypoo]

If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature

What is it that you think changes the air pressure on earth? It's a function of gravity and mass of the atmosphere. The only way to get more air pressure is to release more gases, preferably ones heavier than air like CO2.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the data itself is suspect, then you can go take your own measurements. You could even go design your own satellites to take the measurements; the Russians would be happy to launch them for you. Then you could independently asses whether or not the NOAA / NASA data is good or garbage.

Nobody is stopping you from doing this. There is plenty of space up there to place more satellites in.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

So, I need the resources of a nation state or I'm not entitled to a contrary voice?

Riddle me this, guru... why do you have a right to an opinion? Did you launch any sats recently? No?... kay... you're in the same boat I'm in then.

That's the problem with arguments that have no counter... they can get reversed on you and you're no better at surviving them than anyone else.

And that's assuming I find the argument valid... but here's the thing... if I did find your argument valid, then it would mean you wouldn't have a right to an opinion either... and if I don't... then the whole argument is meaningless.

So it is heads you lose and tails I don't care. Just saying.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

So you're saying the problem with CO2 is that it increases atmospheric density?... Do you have any stats on changes in atmospheric air pressure over time?

What is more... The comparative mass of the CO2 to the existing atmosphere would require us to release a great deal more CO2 into the air than we really could to get any kind of significant difference.

And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.

People keep trying to pretend that CO2 is some kind of toxic chemical that our biosphere doesn't know how to deal with... its comical.

Is CO2 going up? Sure. Emissions are going up. If emissions flatline, then CO2 will likely hold. If human emissions of CO2 stop then CO2 levels will return to natural equilibrium in about 33 years.

We are on the cusp of a lot of technological changes. Flipping our fucking wigs about this is not productive.

Re:Too much recalibration

[drinkypoo]

So you're saying the problem with CO2 is that it increases atmospheric density?

No, there is not one problem with CO2. There are several.

The comparative mass of the CO2 to the existing atmosphere would require us to release a great deal more CO2 into the air than we really could to get any kind of significant difference.

Yes, that's why talking about this is stupid.

And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.

Red herring. Irrelevant if we are producing so much that it cannot be safely sinked.

People keep trying to pretend that CO2 is some kind of toxic chemical that our biosphere doesn't know how to deal with... its comical.

People who talk about things the biosphere "knows" how to deal with are comical. It's not a life form. This is not Final Fantasy, we do not have to placate Gaia before she releases her Materia energy and washes us away. This is the really real physics-based world, in which the rate at which we are producing CO2 has exceeded the planet's natural CO2-sinking abilities, and in which our destruction of old forest growth has diminished those abilities because (counter-intuitively) old growth fixes more CO2 than new, young trees because the trees are so massive and because their growth does not tend to slow in old age. Most trees just keep growing until they fall over... or are cut down to make toothpicks and toilet paper.

Is CO2 going up? Sure. Emissions are going up. If emissions flatline, then CO2 will likely hold.

And if you wish hard enough, maybe God will send you a unicorn.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I need the resources of a nation state or I'm not entitled to a contrary voice?

No. You can have your own opinion of the data, but if all you are doing is calling it crap because you don't like the conclusions that came from it then you are just armchair quarterbacking it. You have an opportunity to go out and collect your own data, or to go and analyze the existing data for yourself and publish your findings. You have chosen to do neither of those things.
 
 

Riddle me this, guru... why do you have a right to an opinion?

Personally? Me? I can't speak for the AC who wrote the previous comment but I happen to agree with the findings of the climate data. I've likely looked at it much more closely than you have, and I see the conclusions as being very logical and well supported. If I wanted to posit an alternate hypothesis I would need data to support it, and I have not seen any that can do that.

Now, of course the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Perhaps the entire network of satellites were making faulty observations or the observations were based on faulty calibrations. Or perhaps as some have suggested this warming is part of an unavoidable cycle that our planet would have entered around this time even had our species never evolved in the first place.
 
 

Did you launch any sats recently? No?... kay... you're in the same boat I'm in then.

No, not at all. You are challenging the conclusions of the existing satellites, but you have no data to support your challenge. I have viewed the data and the conclusions and seem them as sound. You have the opportunity to challenge it, will you take that opportunity or will you just keep typing instead?

Re:Too much recalibration

[Xyrus]

The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.

Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.

Wow. What a crock of shit.

There are multiple data sets, with almost all of them publicly available. Also publicly available are the papers that utilize said data, the methods used to adjust the data, why the data needs to be adjusted, error margins, so on and so forth. There's even a big section of the IPCC delegated to such topics, but since you're clearly ignorant on the subject of climate science I don't suppose you follow the research.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

As to the problems, list them.

As to it being stupid to discuss this... you mean CO2 at all or you just don't like me pointing out problems with your premise that you can't respond to by reading off a card. Because I'm doing that on purpose because it filters out the parrots.

As to red herrings, its not a red herring if we're talking about how long something is going to stay in the atmosphere. And as to it not being safe to sink it... I assume you're talking about ocean acidification which is a silly thing to worry about when you consider the chemistry of the oceans is balanced by the chemistry of the ocean floor and the mineral run off from rivers. Something which anyone knows that has maintained a large aquarium is that you have to be very careful about what sorts of rocks you put in the water. A lot of rocks you just pick off the ground will not be stable at your desired pH. There are tests you can do with the rocks to make sure its safe to use it, etc. But the point is that the ocean floor is covered with minerals like "LIMESTONE" which is inherently basic and the more acid you put into the water the more these rocks are going to react. They react all the time. Trying to acidify the ocean is basically betting that you're creating more carbonic acid in the oceans than the oceans can cancel with the mineral deposits that interact with the oceans. Now... THAT is stupid. That's like saying an insect flying along at 30mph is going to damage a semi truck. Don't be silly. Here you might say "but we've seen recently the oceans have grown more acidic!" Sure. And that has happened in patterns since always. We have ocean pH records that go back at least 100 years and you can see sort of sine wave pattern in the pH values. It goes up and then goes down. There is no trend up.

As to the biosphere not knowing... well... it has evolved to deal with it. If you want to argue that an evolved adaptation is not learned or known that is fine... however, it is an effect that resembles knowledge and learning closely enough to make it a suitable analogy. That said, if you are "triggered" by things that are not literally literal... we can avoid turns of phrase and talk like robots. Not my preference but... whatevhs.

As to wishes and unicorns... in regards to what? As I said, the residency is 33 years. So... given my premise... and given the residency period... I'm not seeing how wishes are required.

Re:Too much recalibration

[drinkypoo]

As to the problems, list them.

Greenhouse effect. Oceanic acidification. Impact on living creatures; at relatively small increases it causes anxiety. It also causes idiots to talk mad shit about how it's not happening.

As to it being stupid to discuss this... you mean CO2 at all or you just don't like me pointing out problems with your premise

No, I mean your idiotic assertion that air pressure has anything to do with this, because air pressure is related only to what the gravitational constant is, and what the atmosphere is made of. You don't even know what we're talking about any more, even though you said it. I guess that makes it hard for you to stay on topic, but try anyway.

As to red herrings, its not a red herring if we're talking about how long something is going to stay in the atmosphere.

It's a red herring because we already know that it stays in the atmosphere long enough to cause problems when levels are this high, so it doesn't actually matter how many days that happens, whether it's 3 or 30 or 300. That's the basis of the math, but you're not doing the math. You're just chanting out numbers, as if they meant anything. Just shouting numbers doesn't mean anything, which is why your bringing that number up is irrelevant.

I assume you're talking about ocean acidification which is a silly thing to worry about when you consider the chemistry of the oceans is balanced by the chemistry of the ocean floor and the mineral run off from rivers.

It's not a silly thing to worry about, because that's not happening quickly enough to balance it.

ut the point is that the ocean floor is covered with minerals like "LIMESTONE" which is inherently basic and the more acid you put into the water the more these rocks are going to react.

What, are you new? The reason the ocean is acidifying is that they already react at their maximum rate. Oceanic acidification occurs when the natural processes that stem it, primarily the reaction with limestone, cannot occur rapidly enough to solve it.

As to the biosphere not knowing... well... it has evolved to deal with it.

NO. Biospheres do not evolve. Species evolve. Earlier you anthropomorphized the biosphere, and I called you on that, and now you're doing it again.

if you are "triggered" by things that are not literally literal... we can avoid turns of phrase and talk like robots.

If you are waving your hands, it's tempting to talk like an idiot. But that's what you're doing. Don't blame me for pointing that out; just don't do it. Then people won't think you're an idiot.

Here you might say "but we've seen recently the oceans have grown more acidic!" Sure. And that has happened in patterns since always. We have ocean pH records that go back at least 100 years and you can see sort of sine wave pattern in the pH values. It goes up and then goes down. There is no trend up.

Bullshit. It hasn't been this high since The Paleoceneâ"Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was a mass extinction event. Your argument is that the cycle has been perturbed before; the obvious counter-argument is that when it has, the earth has not been suitable for supporting us. That is an argument against, not an argument for.

Re:Too much recalibration

[riverat1]

If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature and that chemical composition is not especially relevant. I mean... its really easy. Look at any planet in the solar system. and match it with another solar system at equal air pressure. That is... look at the temp data at 1 atmosphere say on Venus and compare to Earth at 1 atmosphere... What you'll find is that Venus while hot is not actually that much hotter than earth. Factor for distance from the sun and the two harmonize. You can do the same thing for Jupiter or Uranius... and if you match at fractions of an atmosphere you can match Mars to earth etc.

Of course the distance from the Sun makes a difference but I'll start taking your air pressure hypothesis more seriously when many scientists do rather than just a handful of cranks.

As far as the limited amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if it makes just a 1% difference that's nearly 3 degrees C of change.

Re:Too much recalibration

[riverat1]

And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.

An individual CO2 molecule might have a residence time of about 33 years but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has more to do with the balance between the various reservoirs of the carbon cycle. Increase the total carbon in the carbon cycle and you increase the level in all those reservoirs, increased CO2 in the atmosphere, ocean acidification as dissolved CO2 increases in the water and yes, some increased plant growth. Even if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere today it would take thousands of years for geologic processes to remove carbon from the active carbon cycle.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

Care to elaborate on any of that or did you want to vaguely reference everything and expect me to go through all of that in detail?

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

Green house effect implies that there is something special about CO2 when there isn't. There is nothing unique about CO2 that causes it to be more relevant in the atmosphere. And given that the vast majority of its spectrum is shared with water vapor it is if anything less relevant than most chemicals in the atmosphere.

Ocean acidification as previously noted requires the comparatively marginal input of carbonic acid to overwhelm the minerals in contact and in solution with the oceans to be overwhelmed. This is frankly impossible if the source of our emissions continues to be fossil fuels.

As to effects on living things, we're no where near that threshold and will not cross it. So that isn't relevant either.

As to air pressure, you need a gas to compress to have an atmosphere. While it is obvious that larger gravitational bodies tend to have atmopheres if only because they do not permit gases to escape... the point is that if you match air pressures and then compensate for distance from the sun... each atmosphere in our solar system is predictable indifferent to its chemical composition. You don't need to know Jupiter's, Mar's, Venus's, or the Earth's chemical composition to know the temperature of its atmosphere. All you need to know is the distance from the sun and the air pressure. Do you want me to show you graphs and the mathematics? See, if CO2 were so relevant then Venus would be hotter than the earth AFTER doing those calculations. But it isn't. Match air pressure and then compensate for the difference in solar radiation.

As to things being a red herring because numbers don't matter... Numbers matter. If the numbers don't matter then lets just stick bones in our noses and shake sticks at each other. Numbers matter. You say you know we have a problem "now"... but we don't. Right now we're fine. That is self evident. What you're claiming rather is that we'll have a problem in the future. Very well... lets say that is the case for the sake of argument. if things actually start to show some kind of problem... which is not what we have now... then we know how long it lasts in the atmosphere indifferent to how much is there... and we thus know that the time horizon for correcting an error is at most 33 years. Which on a geological time scale is not even an eye blink. The "you must do something now before we're all dooooomed!" talk is silly alarmist nonsense.

As to the limestone already reacting at its maximum rate... That's not how an acid base reaction works. If I expose limestone to an extremely acidic liquid it will react faster than if I expose it to a less acidic liquid. What is more there are minerals that are largely inert at given pH but will react at other pH reacting with either bases or acids. The oceans CANNOT become acidic. it isn't possible. Its like a gnat colliding with a freight train and expecting the freight train to be effected. One of the elements not examined with this nonsense is water temperature and currents. Cold water can contain more CO2 than warm water. A flow of cold water welling up in a warm area will cause CO2 outgasing from the ocean and will cause a LOCAL drop in pH. However for that to happen there has to be a FLOW and the net pH of the ocean is not especially relevant to the issue because it can go up or down and the same effect can be seen at that given locality.

As to biospheres not evolving, then oxygen would not be as prevalent in our atmosphere. It is because of an evolutionary adaptation which altered our atmosphere. What is more bacteria, algae, fungi, and animal life have gone through dramatic economical shifts throughout the history of this world. At no point am I saying the planet is AWARE of anything. Rather, I am saying life on this world... especially simple life has adapted to survive on this world and has experienced far more radical climates than anything our species has experienced. These life forms have adapted... you don't want to call that "learning" okay. But claiming that I am anthropomorphizing the biosphere is frankly ju

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

As to your opinion basically being a political question of "I'll believe this when X people believe it"... fine... that's not a scientific position. Its a political position.

As to air pressure... let me help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

At around 1 bar you can see the temp is around 345K. Earth's norm at 1 atmosphere is about 290K. Relative distance from the sun is 108.2 (10^6 km) versus 149.6(10^6 km). Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2613.9 for earth and 1367.6 for venus with a ratio of 1.911 between the two. I'm grabbing this stuff from wikipedia and NASA.

You can see some of the equations to play with this here:
http://www.springerplus.com/co...

And beyond that, it was common knowledge in the 1960s that temperature was basically distance from the sun + atmospheric density. its only recently that that has been challenged... and the basis for the challenge is specious.

And since you have already played the political card of "but but but I have a consensus"... You actually don't. The 97% thing was a fraud and I rather suspect you know it.

Do you honestly think I can't get a gaggle of esteemed scientists to gainsay your position? Because it isn't hard. And if do note that it has not gone unnoticed that many of your "supporters" in these institutions aren't even scientists. This is especially true within the UN where many of the authors were not scientists. But it is seen elsewhere as well.

You can't brow beat me. I am not insecure. I am not uneducated. I am not stupid. Bravado and bluster will work with some... not I.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

Green house effect implies that there is something special about CO2 when there isn't.

No, it doesn't imply any such thing. If you want to complain about the term, you're wasting your time, it's merely a use of a common item with which people are familiar to describe a particular process. It's easier to use than some more technical term for the layperson.

However, you can be assured, that scientists who actually think about this are not confused themselves, as they have done a considerable amount of work and analysis regarding what is called the Greenhouse effect, and don't foolishly think what you seem to believe they do about CO2.

Do you know how we know? Because we can read any number of science books over the elementary school level and see it for ourselves. I won't say none of them are in error, but I wouldn't expect there to be a shortage of ones that are sufficiently correct.

There is nothing unique about CO2 that causes it to be more relevant in the atmosphere.

Nope, nobody thinks CO2 is per se, absolutely unique because of its own properties. Well, no more than any other particular molecule is itself unique. Which they all are, for a variety of reasons. But it's not the only greenhouse gas, and individually, yes, we know it's not that great.

It's human industry that makes it matter. And fortunately, SF6 is not produced in great quantities in absolute terms.

Unlike CO2.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

Well, acidification isn't an issue because of the vastly more powerful pH equilibrium which is maintained by the various minerals the oceans rest upon. Most issues of decreased alkalinity can be more easily explained by upwellings of cold water which carry a higher concentration of CO2. This is why the seas outgas at the equator and intake as they go to the poles.

As to thousands of years, the seas shouldn't have a problem with it. As to the land, as you say... good for plants.

The only negative consequence you're likely to even try to cite here is ocean acidification which is actually the red herring you keep looking for. The oceans are alkaline and there is no way that you're going to make them acidic. Less alkaline? Maybe... but the variation from what I can see is something like between 8.2 and 7.5 globally and that is from what anyone can tell entirely determined either by local run off and pollution of rivers... or upwellings of cold water in the region. Absent either of those... I'd like to see the data. And if we really want to get serious about the acidification discussion, I'm going to cite the pH records that predate the 90s. You'll see the sine wave.

Also, because its funny:
https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

Then you agree the term "green house gas" is redundant because any gas will function that way in sufficient quantity. Which is to say vastly beyond whatever we've done thus far or shall do by burning fossil fuels.

As to your presumption to browbeat by throwing around the term "layperson" as if no one can grasp the concepts. Presume what you will about the general public. However, as you address me, I would prefer if you didn't try the lazy argument of "Oh I would explain it but you're too stupid to understand so I'll just pretend i know what I'm talking about" argument. If you've got something, then lets hear it. Otherwise, for all anyone knows you're ironically a member of the very ignorant masses you presume to be above.

As to CO2 being relevant because of human industry... the change in the atmosphere of it would have to be a great deal greater than it is for us to care unless there were something special about it. As is... snooze.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you agree the term "green house gas" is redundant because any gas will function that way in sufficient quantity.

Nope, not any gas. For example, N2, O2, Ar. They are not considered greenhouse gases.

Which is to say vastly beyond whatever we've done thus far or shall do by burning fossil fuels.

Not at all, the nature of a greenhouse gas has no direct association with the burning of fossil fuels, or human activity. A greenhouse gas is still a greenhouse gas, whether produced naturally or through human activity.

When it comes to regulation though, it's merely that we are concerning ourselves with human action rather than natural events. Human industrial activity being well within our responsibility and within our control. But were we to have a number of say, Krakatoas occurring each year, then we'd probably have to worry about them.

Fortunately we've been spared that worry. For now.

Can't say the same thing about our industrial production.

As to your presumption to browbeat by throwing around the term "layperson" as if no one can grasp the concepts.

That's not browbeating, that's explaining to you the prevalence of the term in the common conversation rather than some more technical term, as you didn't seem to be aware of why it existed, but were ascribing some attributes to it that it does not actually posses.

It's not that nobody can grasp the actual concepts, scientists very much do. They just use "greenhouse effect" as it's easier to understand than some more technical term. As do many laypersons, such as drinkypoo above may be.

It's an issue of language, which you do not seem to be cognizant about, hence your ire over it. You expressed your sentiments already, but they were based on false premises as I already showed you. That's telling you to stop trying to browbeat others, not browbeating you.

But if you do have some legitimate concern, and if you want to go reform the communications of the public as a whole, good luck to you, you'll need it. You'll have a lot of work ahead of you.

Presume what you will about the general public. However, as you address me, I would prefer if you didn't try the lazy argument of "Oh I would explain it but you're too stupid to understand so I'll just pretend i know what I'm talking about" argument. If you've got something, then lets hear it. Otherwise, for all anyone knows you're ironically a member of the very ignorant masses you presume to be above.

Man, get off your persecution complex. It's not that you're too stupid to understand it, the idea was that you wouldn't be so stupid as to get worked over it. Apparently that's not the case, due to the conclusions you have regarding the use of the term greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas. People don't use the terms as if CO2 was somehow chemically unique. People don't think it's the only greenhouse gas.

You're not ignorant, you're obtuse. That's even worse. Especially since you want to pretend you're somehow the victim here. No, sir, you're trying to be a bully.

But if you want to look at some of the language used:

Greenhouse Effect:
Trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the earth's surface. Some of the heat flowing back toward space from the earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then reradiated back toward the earth's surface. If the atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases rise, the average temperature of the lower atmosphere will gradually increase.1 See greenhouse gas

Greenhouse Gas (GHG):
Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).1 See carbon dioxide, methane, nitr

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

Why are they not green house gases? You don't think if we had a dense oxygen atmosphere that we would retain that heat?

Why is something a green house gas and something not? From what I'm seeing here they should be roughly analogous.

So you're worried about naturally produced green house gases... hmmm... I guess we're going to have to send some emissions credits to the swamps and volcanoes then... also oceans because water vapor has to be a green house gas.

As to laypeople, the problem is that when you talk down like that you use terms that while perhaps easier to understand are not correct. What is more, most laypeople don't grasp things because they don't care... I mean... its a matter of time spent trying to understand which is typically low with things that people don't care about. When you ask for trillions of dollars people care... lay or not. And using that term in that context only creates confusion, makes the people using the term sound like con artists, and generally isn't helpful. The more correct and scientifically defensible position is what should be used... to the exclusion of whatever some PR wonk might think is a better product to sell. Keep in mind, people trust scientists... they do not trust sales people, marketing people, public relations people, or politicians. So... don't let them form the argument if you want it to be above reproach.

As to my persecution complex... its not a complex if its earned. And it is. :)

As to heat trapping, the greater the energy differential between two things in contact with each other the greater the flow of energy between them shall become. There are resistances but given that gases expand when heated... I question whether this will work exactly the way they think it will. I can think of a lot of buffering and countering elements that are not addressed in these discussions.

As to energy being reflected back towards the earth... it is still absorbed by the atmosphere and radiated up through the atmosphere one way or another. You can slow that energy transfer but you can't stop it. Now the notion here is that you're slowing it enough that you're retaining and building up heat. I question that because as the energy differential increases the rate of transmission has to increase... and then you have all sorts of things going on with gases that are heated. Air can insulate ... but... as any man standing next to a fire will say... he's getting plenty warm standing where he is... I grant you can have certain chemicals that will slow the transmission of energy... I just question whether that is relevant over long spans of time.

As to doctorates... don't drop that and then get upset when I accuse you of browbeating. You're earning it.

As to quibbling over numbers... sure... I mean, I would also agree there would be a point where if we brought enough rocks back from space that it would increase the earth's gravity to such an extent that it would become unpleasant for our species or have other negative effects. My quibble as you put it is that this is not a reasonable thing to worry about at this juncture as the threshold in the "numbers" is so far beyond what is currently happening as to make the question a nonsense.

As to temper tantrums... pot kettle black... stones and glass houses. Your clearly fishing for a SOCIAL excuse to walk away from this discussion... looking for some social slight that gives you the ability to feign offense and walk away. If you want to abandon your position and leave the discussion... you just had to say that. No need to sink to these pretenses, friend.

As to me being too "emotional"... You have no idea what my emotions are... unless you're now pretending to have magical powers on top of knowledge of a subject that so far you've done no more than quote verbatim from the most basic texts without any particular depth.

Whatever... as you will. *yawn*

Re:Too much recalibration

[david_thornley]

Yeah, any liquid will kill you, much like any gas is a greenhouse gas. It does make a difference whether it's water or neurotoxin, though. As it happens, increasing carbon dioxide significantly increases the temperature significantly. It isn't the main greenhouse gas, even, but it's the one that is going into the atmosphere far faster than natural processes can take it out. It isn't even raising the heat energy of the atmosphere that godawful much; starting at something like 300K we're looking at serious problems with 2K of increase.

As far as "layperson" goes, if you're going to claim you're not too stupid to understand you need to read and understand what people (including drinkypoo) are saying. You have been misunderstanding him and ignoring the points he is making, and making it clear that either you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion or are not capable of it.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

Well sure... potency is an issue. But you can't quantify that and whether or not CO2 is even doing anything besides what it would do if it were any gas in the atmosphere in relation to temperature is controversial.

The numbers cited for what it does even among true believers are all over the place.

As to laypeople, anyone can claim superiority and then drop the mic claiming to have won. If that's what you want to do... go for it. The requirements to make that argument are roughly zero... aka someone that knew nothing could make the same argument. For the sake of argument... if you're right and I'm such a fool... grasp that I could make the same argument you just made there... I could claim "oh you just don't understand" and then claim victory and walk. So forgive me if I don't find that argument to be especially compelling.

If you'd like to chime in, your opinion would be more than welcome. However, know that if you are attempting to support someone rhetorically or politically... your support will be taken as rhetorical or political support... not scientific support.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the issue of what is and is not science. Science is not a logical fallacy. Science is not a circle jerk of "well more people agree with me so the world must be flat".

Science isn't about voting or opinions. Its about figuring out how the universe works. Its about humbling ourselves before the cosmos itself and patiently attempting to grasp its nature. Who you are or who I am is immaterial. The whole pathetic layperson argument was a sad attempt to legitimize an ad hominem. And you're right... to fallacies, pathos, and various appeals to popularity... I don't listen to it... in a scientific argument... because those points are irrelevant in this context.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they not green house gases?

Because of their atomic makeup means they don't fit the definition of a greenhouse gas because they don't behave the way a greenhouse gas does.

And don't come crying to me over this being a tautology, I'll get to the definitions in a bit.

You don't think if we had a dense oxygen atmosphere that we would retain that heat?

Not as a greenhouse gas, no. If you believe there's a concern about somebody increasing the density of the atmosphere, well then, ouch. That'd be as bad as somebody adjusting the orbit of the Earth ala Killface.

Why is something a green house gas and something not?

What kind of answer do you want? Do you want an explanation of why certain combinations of molecules absorb certain bands of light or what? Or are you just still unclear on the definition of a greenhouse gas? Given that you were in error just a bit ago about the origins, I suppose it is possible that it is the latter.

Try here for a more technical definition:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf

From what I'm seeing here they should be roughly analogous.

That might be your problem, understanding by analogy is fraught with peril, it often leads to misunderstanding and needless argument.

It is often useful to illustrate, but like any light, sometimes it can blind you.

Note also how you're complaining about the term of "Greenhouse Gas" and getting all muddled yourself.

So you're worried about naturally produced green house gases...

I would, yes, if they're at levels that are a concern. So if you find a source of naturally produced Sulfur Hexafluoride in great quantities, do tell us.

It will be VERY important.

hmmm... I guess we're going to have to send some emissions credits to the swamps and volcanoes then... also oceans because water vapor has to be a green house gas.

Yes, we do have to worry about swamps, volcanoes, and oceans. And deserts, and grasslands, and forests, and mountain ranges, and glacier fields. And whatever other terms you might want to use. In the sense that it helps to understand the entire picture. And see if it there are any concerns that it is appropriate to address. And heck, there are numerous reasons beyond any GW effect to worry about these things, so it's not like the effort isn't addressing a myriad of concerns.

As to laypeople, the problem is that when you talk down like that you use terms that while perhaps easier to understand are not correct.

No, the problem is you're arguing with me over something that started over a century ago. If you want to address the problem, I told you the route you should take to fix it.

Instead you keep tilting at a windmill.

You can yammer at me all day over it, I'm not responsible, and if you were to present yourself before some body that does matter, I'd support you having a chance to make your case.

But bring it up to me? You might as well be complaining to me about the decisions of the Académie française.

It'd be one thing if you were suggesting some term yourself, but you're not even doing that.

What is more, most laypeople don't grasp things because they don't care... I mean... its a matter of time spent trying to understand which is typically low with things that people don't care about. When you ask for trillions of dollars people care... lay or not.

Ever heard the phrase, penny-wise, pound-foolish? Save a nickel to spend a dime?

My experiences with people is that they care to their detriment over the slightest of things today, without looking to tomorrow.

And I've had sales people and auditors and actuaries say the same. Can't get people to install better windows. Can't get people to install their roof properl

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

As to whether I'm worried about density etc... I'm not worried. Other people are trying to say I should be... but I'm not.

As to why something is a greenhouse gas... more an issue of not seeing why it matters. The heat will be conducted regardless. I mean sure... lets say you absorb short wave radiation... great. But that doesn't mean you retain the heat which is the actual issue in the lower atmosphere. Molecules are going to bump into other molecules. I could grant that heat might take longer to transition out of the lower atmosphere but the issue here is whether temperatures are built up over long periods of time... not... short periods of time. And over the long term the heat should work its way up. And the greater the differential the more vigerous will be the transfer of energy. I mean... think of a tea kettle. The heat isn't going to stay in the lower atmosphere. And its worse than that because obviously the hotter the lower atmosphere gets the more the gas will expand assuming the heat is trapped for some magical reason... which would mean the lower atmosphere would expand... because its a gas... and gases expand when they're heated unless kept under pressure... in which case the pressure just goes up... but in this case it would just inflate like a balloon. But that's assuming the heat would be trapped... which I don't buy.

Seriously, how do you trap the heat in the lower atmosphere in the first place? saying "oh it absorbs short wave radiation" doesn't some how make CO2 a perfect insulator or something. The heat won't be trapped. I mean again... how?

Lets say I put on a space suit... and I surround that space suit with a bubble of CO2... and then I walk around in some place horribly cold... pick a pole... Am I some how not going to freeze to death? Obviously absent some sort of heating element... I will freeze fucking solid given time. I grant that the CO2 might resist the transfer but I don't see how that is relevant over long periods of time. ... Skipping over the various insults you use to disguise no meaningful responses and logging all such points as sustained until addressed more substantively.

I will note you seem to be claiming some familiarity with me and presuming by that extraction to make judgements of me. While at the same time I'll note that you're logging in under an AC account and thus no one knows anything about you. If you've talked to me before, then I can only assume you've already been chided for having a double standard where you presume to question my history while of course hiding your own.

I think I'll just respond that since you're a confessed child molester, you probably don't have a lot of room to be judgmental there. Absent you actually logging in... I'll just assume the worst. Seems fair.

As to your sad attempt to defend your claim that you have telepathic powers... I can only roll my eyes. You can't read people's minds over the internet... and you can't fly... and you don't have laser vision. Doubt me? Jump off the highest building you can find and tell me how that works out for you. Absent that, stop claiming to have super powers... unless you're Tom Cruse and apparently Scientology does give super powers. In which case... it must be awesome to be you.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, any liquid will kill you, much like any gas is a greenhouse gas.

I'm afraid you're mistaken, and probably going to be increasing the confusion Karmashock has with this, so I'll just point out to you that that is not the case.

Greenhouse gases are defined in a specific way. Not all gases fit the criteria. It requires the absorption and emission of infrared radiation, in particular those of the Earth, which certain gases do not do.

That's why as I said, O2, N2, and Ar are not counted as greenhouse gases.

It isn't the main greenhouse gas, even, but it's the one that is going into the atmosphere far faster than natural processes can take it out.

I think instead of "main" you might want to express it as say "most potent" as CO2 does indeed have a relatively low GWP, but of course, that does not consider volume or time period.

As far as "layperson" goes, if you're going to claim you're not too stupid to understand you need to read and understand what people (including drinkypoo) are saying. You have been misunderstanding him and ignoring the points he is making, and making it clear that either you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion or are not capable of it.

That has nothing to do with being a layperson or not, that's just Karmashock revealing his character.

Karmashock doesn't realize that nothing the usage of the term "Greenhouse Gasses" is not a personal judgment, but an assessment of the origins of the term, and a description of why it remains in common use.

Instead, Karmashock attempts to portray it as an ad homimen when people use it. No, it's used all over the world, it's nothing personal.

OTOH, the persecution complex? Yeah, that is individual and particular. It becomes obvious with a little examination to see the pattern.

Re:Too much recalibration

[riverat1]

Ocean acidification has caused oyster farms on the Oregon and Washington coast to have problems growing their spat, so much so that they've moved that operation to Hawaii until they get large enough to move back to the coast.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

As to whether I'm worried about density etc... I'm not worried. Other people are trying to say I should be... but I'm not.

Well, I'm not saying you should worry about it, but you're the one who brought up "You don't think if we had a dense oxygen atmosphere that we would retain that heat?" and my response is that unless you spot some space giant coming to Earth and sucking up the Earth's Atmosphere, or they start adding some massive volume of gasses, don't worry about it. It's not happening.

If it were to happen, though, then yes, we should start worrying about it. I'm not sure what to do though.

At least it's not terribly hard to act on anthropogenic actions.

As to why something is a greenhouse gas... more an issue of not seeing why it matters.

So you know why people are more concerned about some gases than others. And some gases not at all.

Or if they are worried about the gases, it's not because of their status as a GHG. CO, for example, is a concern for breathing and anybody doing combustion will be well advised to take steps to mitigate it, but its GWP is not a concern.

the issue here is whether temperatures are built up over long periods of time... not... short periods of time.

Nope, that's not the issue. The issue here is whether there is a problem that is an issue over a period of time that is a concern for humans.

You're really not onto the point yet.

And over the long term the heat should work its way up. And the greater the differential the more vigerous will be the transfer of energy. I mean... think of a tea kettle.

A tea kettle is just an empty vessel, for thinking of it to be useful, let's try some comparisons. And there are a surprising amount of variations.

Try comparing a tea kettle where you are boiling water to an open pot where you are doing the same. Then consider an induction cooktop, or a circulating water heater. Then consider a steam cooker versus sous-vide.

Not exactly equivalent to what is going on with the discussion of greenhouse gasses, but if you want to talk the heating of water, these are all things considered.

It's an interesting subject on its own.

The heat won't be trapped. I mean again... how?

Lets say I put on a space suit... and I surround that space suit with a bubble of CO2... and then I walk around in some place horribly cold... pick a pole... Am I some how not going to freeze to death? Obviously absent some sort of heating element... I will freeze fucking solid given time.

Yeah, that's why with spacesuits, they define an operational time period. Let me see...looks like 7 to 9 hours.

I don't know how they'd work for an excursion on the poles though, they're not designed for that usage. I'm sure there are some commonalities, but there may be some things that aren't useful, but become a hindrance. For example, Spacesuits actually have a cooling apparatus in them, as there are problems with heat build-up in space, and I'm sure the design would be one meant to work in vacuum, not in atmospheric conditions. Same reason you don't use Gore-tex everywhere. It's not always useful.

Of course, for your example, we can also see that cold-weather survival suits, whether for dry-land or in the water, also have time periods for which they work, with factorization based on various conditions.

I'm not sure how much a bubble of CO2 would help you, but if you want, it's effect as an immediate insulator could be worked out, and compared.

It may be done already, certainly Mercedes has been concerned about the thermal properties of CO2, as they're planning on using it as a refrigerant. And there are some people who build sealed-panels for insulation, they may have done some testing. I think they went for a vacuum though.

Of course, it won't tell you much about the effects as a Greenhouse Gas, which is a different

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

... A place in the ocean is too acidic... so they moved the operation to another place in the ocean... that is less acidic... because the whole ocean is becoming too acidic?

Do you see the problem here?

No doubt some portions of the ocean become less alkaline. I already addressed that. However, since the issues are localized... the issue is localized.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Anonymous Coward]

Homogeneity seems failed.

Re:Too much recalibration

[riverat1]

Well you can't browbeat me either. A lot of scientists have spent a lot of time studying climate. The climate models we currently use for Earth started out as models used by astrophysicists for the atmosphere of other planets including Venus and Mars. I'll give your atmospheric pressure hypothesis more credence when scientists who have spent their scientific life studying climate give it some credence. Maybe there is correlation between atmospheric pressure and temperature but it could be a coincidence without more evidence than I've seen.

As far as authors not being scientists, I challenge you to name one non-scientist author of the IPCC Working Group I report. There are non-scientist authors in the WG II and particularly the WG III reports but not the WG I which lays out the scientific basis of our understanding of climate.

Re:Too much recalibration

[Karmashock]

As to scientists studying things... yes and they also disagree about stuff. So... that's a wash. The issue is more controversial among scientists than you're admitting. This is especially true of the details. That X or Y does something is generally not in contention. However, the extent, cause, and solutions are highly variable. And suggesting that there is a consensus when everyone knows the 97% study was a farce is not helpful to this discussion.

As to you not considering something until scientists take it seriously... I think I gave you a study that literally said what I just said. So you are now either taking it seriously or you are contradicting yourself. Choose.

As to the various IPCC working groups... remove the second and third working groups and we can talk about science alone. Keep them there and we're going to maintain an element of politics. I mean... listen to these idiots:
""
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worldâ(TM)s resources will be negotiated.

        â" Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Working Group III Chairman
""
  -The New Zurich Times
http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik...

Frankly, I'd like to just not talk about the UN because if we do then it is just going to be a lot of political crap because I have a basically endless list of reasons for not feeling comfortable with them as a source. We can talk about any other source... but if you really want to do the whole IPCC thing then I'm going to hammer the politics until you stop it.

What?

[KenHansen]

They took a 30 year span (1951-1980), averaged the temperatures around the world in those 30 years to establish a 'baseline' - well, at least they didn't pick an arbitrary 'baseline'... Then, 30 year average baseline in hand, they gather 135 years of temperature readings, ranging from 1880 to 2015 and discover - what? That global annual averages are trending up (and 'shattering' previous records!?) based on the arbitrary 'baseline', ever since Al Gore lost his run for the Presidency... Seems totally legit.

Data

[zapadnik]

Percentage of USHCN Stations to reach 35 C
https://i2.wp.com/realclimates...

Average Percentage of Days over 35 C for All USHCN Stations
https://i2.wp.com/realclimates...

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

The 1930s and 1940s were much hotter. This data is NOT in dispute.

Re:Data

[riverat1]

The US is not the world, in fact less than 3% of it.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

True, but utterly irrelevant. Both sets of satellites (UAH and RSS) do not show it is the 'hottest year evah!" and ground records show that it has been hotter in the USA and many other countries in the past.

NASA and NOAA have been putting in unexplained adjustments into their data, by cooling the past and warming the present:
https://i1.wp.com/realclimates...

This is the greatest (anti-)scientific fraud in history. And you are defending the fraudsters.

Don't believe NASA scientists would like to keep funding going? Richard Feynman disagrees with you (1986-06-11):
https://i1.wp.com/realclimates...

Re:Data

[riverat1]

NASA and NOAA have been putting in unexplained adjustments into their data, by cooling the past and warming the present:
https://i1.wp.com/realclimates... [wp.com]

That's comparing two different adjusted datasets. When you compare adjusted data to unadjusted data the adjusted data actually shows a lower warming trend.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

WRONG! You cannot even interpret a simple graph. This is the adjustment that NASA have made to their OWN data between 2001 and 2016. They have altered the SAME data set to increase the warming - but cooling the past and warming the present. This is FRAUD. But you don't even know how to read information shown on the graph so you support the FRAUD in your ignorance. Please stop talking and LISTEN and LOOK to what people are trying to show you, to cure you of your dreadful ignorance. Sheesh.

Re:Data

[drinkypoo]

The 1930s and 1940s were much hotter. This data is NOT in dispute.

Yep. The 1930s and 1940s in the USA were hot as shit because of anthropogenic national warming.

Re:Data

[riverat1]

Adjustments to the temperature always start with the unadjusted data sets.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

You don't understand that graph at all. Try again, because at the moment it is clear you have ZERO clue as to what that graph is showing.

Re:Data

[riverat1]

The Top Weather Stories post went dead, no more replies allowed, so here is my reply to your last post:

Then there is nothing magical about 1979. Because of AGW we will never see a year like 1979 in the lifetime of anyone alive today and probably for many thousands of years.

I've looked at the stuff from Watts, Goddard and Salby before. For the most part it's bullshit. Watts' surfacestations.org was a bit of a service because it caused the scientists to look more closely at their adjustments for the UHI effect. Turns out they were doing a good job.

OBSERVATIONAL DATA shows that the Earth continues to warm, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise and the oceans continue to acidify, all things predicted by current climate theory and the rise of carbon in the carbon cycle. We could quibble about numbers but all of those things continue to happen and I expect they will for the foreseeable future.

BTW no one has been able to find any causal link between magnetism and climate. About 41,000 years ago during the Laschamp Event there was a reversal of the Earth's magnetic for about 440 years. There are no climate effects found in the paleoclimate record for this time. The Earth's magnetic field (at Earth's orbit) is over 100 times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.

I would guess your political leanings are toward the Libertarian side preferring minimal government regulation of business. But I could be wrong. Based on the time of your replies and other statements by you I think you must be in Australia or New Zealand (or somewhere near there).

Re:Data

[riverat1]

I think I understand the graph just fine. It shows the 10th of January 2016 version of GISS global surface temperature minus the 2001 version. They were both adjusted versions of the data. You can claim it is fraud because the past was cooled and the present warmed rather than just dismissing it out of hand I'm interested in the difference between the adjustments in 2001 and 2016 and the reasons those changes were made.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

I'm interested in the difference between the adjustments in 2001 and 2016 and the reasons those changes were made.

Was the organization so massively incompetent in 2001 that such radical adjustments were required? if so, then surely the quality of their work is in question? why is there no explanation for the changes? why are the adjustments not normally distributed but systematic in nature, which produces the claimed trend? does the data look like the satellite and weather balloon data sets if the adjustment is not made? Did you not think to ask these, because these are critical to your claim of AGW ?

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

Then there is nothing magical about 1979. Because of AGW we will never see a year like 1979 in the lifetime of anyone alive today and probably for many thousands of years.

Based on what? The GISS data I've already shown you again and again shows your statement is nonsense and has no basis in observed data. Furthermore, you have NEVER explained why the weather needs to be returned to the conditions of 1979. Never. As the ultimate Reactionary you hate the thought of the climate changing from that data - but based on irrationality, refusing to acknowledge the massive benefits increased CO2 and modest temperature rises bring, as Burt Rutan and Freeman Dyson and Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever have all examined and explained.

For the most part it's bullshit.

Because it confronts your climate religion? be specific. Explain why, and you can use all the physics you like. What was wrong with Salby's correlation analysis? (could you even follow the argument, probably not).

Turns out they were doing a good job.

Notice I always specify "well-sited" stations. Thanks to Watts we know about 80% of stations are ok, and these also show no net warming. The other 20% are affected by UHI and other effects and these do show the apparent warming. In addition, Goddard/Heller showed that the amount of estimate data is large and increasing - and removal of estimate data also removes any warming trend. This is the REALITY that you want to deny.

OBSERVATIONAL DATA shows that the Earth continues to warm, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise and the oceans continue to acidify, all things predicted by current climate theory and the rise of carbon in the carbon cycle. We could quibble about numbers but all of those things continue to happen and I expect they will for the foreseeable future.

Warming is not evidence of AGW. You don't seem to grok that at all. It is only evidence of AGW if ALL OTHER CAUSES OF WARMING HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. This is the burden of proof required by the Scientific Method. Do you not understand this?

BTW no one has been able to find any causal link between magnetism and climate. About 41,000 years ago during the Laschamp Event [wikipedia.org] there was a reversal of the Earth's magnetic for about 440 years. There are no climate effects found in the paleoclimate record for this time. The Earth's magnetic field (at Earth's orbit) is over 100 times stronger than the Sun's magnetic field.

WOW! you don't understand the solar magnetic effect and the resulting climate mechanism researched by Svensmark, AT ALL. The fact you wrote this paragraphs which is UTTERLY IGNORANT of the mechanism I have explained to you again and again is a complete EPIC FAIL on your part. You clearly understand nothing of the physics, no matter how many times you've been led to understand of the most likely candidate to explain observed climate warming and cooling. A complete fail on your part.

I would guess your political leanings are toward the Libertarian side preferring minimal government regulation of business. But I could be wrong. Based on the time of your replies and other statements by you I think you must be in Australia or New Zealand (or somewhere near there).

No matter what part of the World I live in, the FACT is your ad hominem about my following the Scientific Method instead of your irrational Climate Cultism being politically motivated is FALSE. However, you are not self-aware enough to look at yourself in the mirror - where your own political leanings lead you to reject objectivity and ignore observational data (that is, reality) you don't like. Hence you have extremely strong views about things you actually know very little about. Your paragraph about Earth's magnetism shows you know nothing about the actual physical processed being discussed. I'm embarrassed for you.

Re:Data

[riverat1]

Not going to respond any more. I had that reply ready before I discovered the other post was closed.

Re:Data

[riverat1]

WTF you talking about? Science advances as time goes on. We know more now than we did before. There is only a limited amount of stuff scientists can do at any one time. Usually they start with the big easy parts and add the details as science advances. There is no reason to suspect incompetence or fraud, just the normal progression of science. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they are wrong.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

Nope. I'm looking at ALL the data. You are looking at one suspect data set and a bunch of models. I am following the Scientific Method. You are not. But no matter how much data you are given you CHOOSE not to understand what it is saying - because you are a zealot in the Cult of Climate science. Only the observational data matters, and it falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

I believe in Free Speech. I believe you should always have you say, no matter whether I agree with it or not. The more Climate Cult nonsense you post just gives me more opportunity to highlight and debunk the anti-scientific rejection of the Scientific Method that you've been displaying. The observational data falsifies the AGW hypothesis. This is why at least half of the World's scientists reject AGW as either a valid hypothesis or significant, and that number is increasing every day as more and more and more people stop taking the Climate Cult press announcements on faith and start looking at all the OBSERVATIONAL DATA for themselves - and once they do that (especially looking at the satellite data) then they ALWAYS conclude that AGW is falsified. This is why you will not talk about the mass of observational data, except for the one adjusted set cherrypicked to promote the Climate Cult narrative. Fare well - hopefully one day you might learn the Scientific Method and apply it to what you think you know - but I see that as unlikely in your particular case.

Re:Data

[riverat1]

Time will tell.

Re:Data

[zapadnik]

It has already been 18 years according to the satellite. How many more people and birds are you prepared to kill with your alarmist scam? your windmills murder endangered birds by the tens of thousands, and your push toward energy poverty is already killing the poor and elderly in Britain and Europe (who freeze to death as they cannot afford the tripling of heating energy costs that comes through your 'green' energy projects). So how many more people and animals are you prepared to kill with this CAGW nonsense before you finally admit that the satellites are correct and CAGW is falsified ?

Source data and your data "massaging" methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

Can i have your source data and an document describing your data "massaging" methodology? No? They you my friend is full of shit.

Come to Australia. Wanna buy some coal cheap?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear they don't live in Australia our current politicians would set them right about the error of their science.

Re:Ignore them

[riverat1]

What about Berkeley Earth? Their findings are much the same as NOAA and NASA as are all the other major world temperature series.

Misrepresentation

[aepervius]

A better representation and a godwinning to boot would be that the denialist deny the holocaust in spite of plenty of evidence and the other side has all historical data to show holocaust happened. Climate scientist are not about accepting stuff at face value they have research to back it up. At some point being skeptic of that research without having any evidence that the research is flawed is pure "religious" denial. Your attempt to paint climate change as religion and denialist as skeptic has been noted, and the sadness of seeing a +5 insightful on that also noted. The problem with that stupid rewriting of history is that denialist never have peer reviewed solid article about how climate change is wrong. Climate change scientist do have solid peer reviewed article. Denialist always have the same stupid objection which have been shown to be wrong 100 times over to the point that there is a web site dedicated to listing those objection and why they are wrong. Try to paint yourself as skeptic, but the truth is plain to see.

Re: Misrepresentation

[Bartles]

People with strong science supporting their argument don't need to link their opponents with holocaust deniers, as every climate change fnantic is known to do.

Re: Misrepresentation

[Plumpaquatsch]

People with strong science supporting their argument don't need to link their opponents with holocaust deniers, as every climate change fnantic is known to do.

Yeah you are right, they shouldn't call you "deniers", but simply "morons". That way you can't pretend to be likened to "Holocaust Morons".

Ugh...

[wkwilley2]

What a crock of shit.

Re:Ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftist activists trying to promote foist their hippy lifestyle on the rest of us.

Re:Ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you admit that you have a problem.

Re:Ignore them

[Sique]

NOAA is still responsible for your daily weather forecast. I wouldn't believe any weather forecast if I was you. And if they predict 20 F for tonight and it really is 20 F tonight, then it must have to do with some wellknown effect (like the Sun not shining) which just by chance yields the same result the weather forecasters predicted but which they never thought about to include in their models.

Selection

[ThatsNotPudding]

There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race...

This is the one selected by the Koch Brothers and their cabal. Citation: Wisconsin and Kansas tax polices that then cause the entire social safety net and all public employees (including teachers) to be deemed as 'too expensive' to keep. Darwinian economics takes care of the trash left over.

(30)

Re:Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race...

This is the one selected by the Koch Brothers and their cabal. Citation: Wisconsin and Kansas tax polices that then cause the entire social safety net and all public employees (including teachers) to be deemed as 'too expensive' to keep. Darwinian economics takes care of the trash left over.

Said the unemployed hipster wannabe from his parents basement.

GW, but not solely AGW?

[CoderFool]

Depending on which way your filter bubble is oriented, this will come out as pro GW or anti GW...
Everyone knows about the ice ages, but how many know about weather cycles that last decades or the ones that last centuries?
There is evidence of a warming/cooling cycle that lasts about 500 years. We are currently in a warming cycle that started about 1850. Before that we were in cooling cycle starting around 1300 (Little Ice Age). Before that was warming starting around 800 (Medieval Warm Period).
Briefly, during the Medieval Warm Period, marginal land became productive, british wine was of a quality it was cutting into the market for french wine, the Vikings established a colony in Greenland, and the Vikings found grapes growing in Newfoundland.
Soon after 1300, it got colder. Marginal land became unproductive again. The Vikings abandoned Greenland, The british wine industry tanked. And the glaciers in the european alps grew again. Eventually, since the Thames kept freezing solid enough, the british started having Frost Fairs on it. One show describing all this is 'Big Chill: The Little Ice Age' that is shown occasionally on Discovery/History/Science channel. This is history, not tree rings, satellite data, or arctic/antarctic ice cores.
I suggest all the weather observations of the past hundred years have been on the upslope of a natural warming cycle.
Not to say that humans aren't having an effect, with all the pollution we are pumping into the atmosphere. Another show I saw was Nova: Dimming the Sun. In it they talked about some measurable effects of human pollution. In this show they studied how much solar radiation reached the ground before /after and during the air industry shutdown after 9/11. They studied the atmosphere and how much solar radiation is reaching the ground when there were no jet contrails crisscrossing the sky. The also studied a thousand mile island chain off of India. In comparing the north and south ends of this chain they saw the northern end, typically covered by pollution from India, received much less sunlight than the southern end of the chain which is pristine. They discussed the difference between clouds made of water droplets condensed around natural particles versus manmade particles. The ones from manmade particles reflect ten time more sunlight than clouds made from water droplets formed around natural particles.
You may have heard one of the schemes to cool the earth is to inject sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere to form more reflective clouds. I remember in the 70s and 80s when there was a big push to clean up the smoke stacks and get the lead out of gasoline because of acid rain and fears of global cooling. The recent scheme of injecting sulfur into the atmosphere made me think we could just take the pollution filters off the smokestacks and accomplish the same things. Either way, we will have acid rain again.
While I am for being ‘greener’, I don't think we know enough about climate change and what is feeding into it to make wise decisions about geoengineering our planet. And before one of you throws in an 'occams razor' comment, I must point out that razor only works if you have sufficient information and sufficient understanding of that information to draw a reasonable conclusion.
We don't know all of what is feeding into the climate, from solar output, to pollution, to volcanoes, to the recent discovery that the mid-ocean ridges are more volcanically active that previously thought.(http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/12/222234/the-40000-mile-volcano?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed). While I think we can reasonably do more to pollute less, I think we should do a lot more to help Brazil, China, and India curb their pollution (which far outweighs ours).

Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my GOD, a record shattering 0.23 degrees? The world is on fire, we're all DOOMED!!!

"We've had similar natural events in the past"

[ledow]

"We've had similar natural events in the past"

And thus it's probably not the doomsday scenario it's been prophesied as?

amazed

[Phantom of the Opera]

I am amazed at the people here who do not think changing the stoichiometry of a gas mixture affects its thermodynamic properties.

Re:amazed

[Anonymous Coward]

If only stoichiometry were involved you might be right. Atmospheric CO2 stimulates plant growth, effecting reflectance; stimulates carbonate formation, and may other things. Even if you had a global network of sufficient CO2 scrubber machines, to what merit function would you control? You and the other global warming hysterics don't have a clue. 7 billion people, going on 10 will have an impact.

Re:amazed

[Phantom of the Opera]

Ha! Don't be silly. I doubt you even know what stoichiometry is.

Re:amazed

[Phantom of the Opera]

And even if you do, you are bringing up a raft of unfounded assertions.

You are taking it on ~faith~ that the ecological systems are self correcting and very very stable against all shocks. You are taking it on ~faith~ that older temperature measurements are somehow inaccurate, and if they are inaccurate, you are going to assume they are merasuring cooler rather than hotter ( a rash assumption ).

The fossil records show that when huge events unfold, there is usually a mass dying off of old species and the introduction of new ones. So this will not be the end of life on earth, but it will likely be the end of the environment as we know it and a huge threat to the human species in general.

You have the following evidence against you :

    * physical properties of gasses
    * temperature measurements over time
    * theoretical models are being tested that agree with available data and have harsh predictions

What you need in order to make your case :

    * you have to show that old measurements are inaccurate and present a case more solid than "because they are old"
    * you must develop theories to show how ecological systems reverse the effects of large changes.
    * you have to explain away recent data as well, and explain away recent shifts in weather patterns.

Ignore the temperatures; understand the principles

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore the temperature data. That is to say, what the planet is doing at any given moment is less important than the underlying physics, and unfortunately we have a very good idea of what the underlying physics say. We know from very basic atmospheric physics/thermodynamics that the Earth must be warming. You should also completely ignore what any bloggers say about temperature trends; if they had valid critique they could get published, or at the very least they could get the original articles retracted. There's also no such thing as a replacement hypothesis from the denier camp: if increased CO2 and H2O are not warming the planet, why not? And if there is some mechanism that removes the excess heat, why do we not observe it in other atmospheres?

My advice is to start with the basics: The History of Global Warming. We've been trying to prove AGW wrong for over a hundred years already, and the history of these experiments and discoveries should answer many questions you have about what is happening and why.

Re:Ignore them

[Anonymous Coward]

Anthony Watts and his denier cronies were so sure that Muller's comprehensive reanalysis of the data would show just how wrong the "alarmists" were and how unscrupulously climatologists have adjusted, massaged or discarded data.

And then the project published their findings. It turns out that reality has an alarmist bias.

Re:Ignore them

[tbannist]

Leftist activists trying to promote foist their hippy lifestyle on the rest of us.

Damn those hippy Koch brothers!. Get a hair cut!

Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly independent; NOAA and NASA are both agencies of the fascist government in Washington DC...

Krypton

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of Krypton stories. No one believed until it was too late...

Man Made Global Warming Is Fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought to you by the banks who want to tax you for your 'carbon footprint'.

Create carbon as a natual byproduct of living on earth? Too bad! The bankers need their carbon tax to save poor dear old mother earth.

Funny, The IPCC was totally discredited as liars, and NASA and the NOAA are closely in bed with them (That is why you don't see IPCC much anymore in headlines). Funny how people think NASA is a credible organization who never routinely lies about the nature of our universe.

Purple Hair Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the purple hair theory?
If aliens came to Earth to eat people, and scientist and others found out that the aliens wouldn't eat people with purple hair you would think that scientist and others would be the first to have purple hair.

But, with "climate change"(which we call weather) we aren't seeing that at all.
Al Gore the top guy that has pushed this down everyone's throat still pays $30,000 per MONTH to heat and cool his home.
You would think that he would be paying less money per month than most people in the US make per year.

But

[Anonymous Coward]

But WHY is it so cold out?

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

12,000 years from now: humans gonna be like, "oh no! We causing global cooling."
Dotslash (everything is backwards in the future) will be posting this same article but reverse and my great*960 grand kids gonna be like "yeah and 12,000 ago we was complaining about being too hot.

Ask them yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you confused about climate science? The widget you are using now connects you to people all over the world. Many of the researchers are on twitter. Many do regular AMA's on reddit. Jump in, follow the action. I find it a refreshing dose of reality to follow the action without all the crap. Climate science is hard stuff. @ClimateOfGavin seems sane. Have a look at realclimate.org.
 

More BS about "global warming"

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the ignorant are buying, and there are plenty of them.

And it's clear?

[ebvwfbw]

Let's see, last time was almost 20 years ago. We've had a huge increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just now we're seeing an increase? Could it have simply been a statistical high? Of course not, they've been waiting 20 years for this "Proof" in spite of predictions over a decade ago.

What do you call that? Whatever it is, it's not science. There is no hypothesis, there is no experiment showing CO2 is the actual cause. If there were, we surely would have seen it by now.

Think I'm wrong - show me. Show me where they PROVE using the scientific method that CO2 is causing GW and this is not a natural occurrence. I can show over thousands of years this is natural. Ice/melt/ice/melt... We WILL be going into an ice age geologically speaking - "Soon".

Except it WASN'T

[Anonymous Coward]

You see there is this little problem of math and NOAA says that the previous super el-nino was the warmest year ever. Considering that the US CRN and the 2 satellite (RSS & UAH) all show 2015 as third I'll say third.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-in-1997-noaa-claimed-that-the-earth-was-5-63-degrees-warmer-than-today/

Temp vs Populaltion

[Anonymous Coward]

High school science tells me an adult human creates about 70w of heat.

Population has gone from 1B to 7B in 200 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That's a lot of heat.

Not 99 to 1

[laing]

If it were truly 99-to-1 then there wouldn't really be any sensible reason to continue the debate. The actual numbers are more like this.