Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's a scam, Trump/Palin 2016!
It's not happening where I live therefore it must not be happening anywhere!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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
Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.
TP
Trump is a chump!
Dump the Trump!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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.
...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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Trump is a chump!
Dump the Trump!
Vote for Billary!
They'll wipe the slate clean.
What? You mean with a towel?
[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.
Did somebody's mommy buy them a "scientist" outfit for his birthday?
I don't respond to AC's.
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...
<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>
I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Here are corrected and the unadjusted data side by side. Both tell the same story: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
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.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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/...
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
[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.
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?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
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
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.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
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?
You mean the Blizzards of Unusual Size? I don't believe they exist.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Whoa, Ted Cruz is posting on Slashdot! And once again, he's channeling Dr. Seuss.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If it weren't for "global warming", we'd be in the ice age.
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.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
We're still in an ice age according to the definition that geologists use, just in an interglacial period. /pedant
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.
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.
Back when Florida was about 1000 miles wider than today.
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?
We shouldn't pay attention to thermometers anymore because a satellite was expensive? What?
They flat out don't seem to realize where snow comes from.
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.
It's too cold in here- let's light some explosives to "save" us!
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.
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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.
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.
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...
My guess is they added a new correction scheme to the satellite data around the year 2000.
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...
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."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Wait... I thought they were a constant?
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...
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.
How do you track sensor degradation? With only one satellite you would not even know if it was occurring.
Actually that should read RATPAC, not satellite. Anyways, the data is constant, the method of adjustment is always in flux.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Well it depends where you live I guess. The Sahara could well become a rain forest.
Each satellite uses multiple discrete systems for measuring temperature.
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.
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.
...At different altitudes.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
What about Berkeley Earth? Their findings are much the same as NOAA and NASA as are all the other major world temperature series.
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.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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.
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.
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!
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.
[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...
Stephan
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.
Stephan
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).
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.
So, what's your take on the satellite record, often adjusted, using multiple incompatible instruments?
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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.
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.
The last time, the Sahara was green (about 6000 AD), it was a savanna, but not a rain forest.
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"?
-- 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/
This was just before it was found that Christy and Spencer had got the sign wrong in their manipulation of the data.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"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".
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!".
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and you continue to push misinformation from spencer.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That's a fact.
Nope.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"We've had similar natural events in the past"
And thus it's probably not the doomsday scenario it's been prophesied as?
I am amazed at the people here who do not think changing the stoichiometry of a gas mixture affects its thermodynamic properties.
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yay! An actual "global warming stopped in 2015" post!
What does record temperature directly?
Sounds good. But its not true in practice. There's pictures of all sorts of poorly sited stations.
I was glad to see this point made by someone here, and so succinctly. Thank you.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Leftist activists trying to promote foist their hippy lifestyle on the rest of us.
Damn those hippy Koch brothers!. Get a hair cut!
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
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.
Stop trying to confuse people with data.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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.
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
Every time they run the adjustment algorithms the start with the unadjusted data.
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.
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 ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually going as a scientist on Halloween would be quite scary for the neighbourhood, would you not agree?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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".
Great minds think alike (especially, I suppose, if Jane is right and they share the same head).
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.
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:
Conclusion: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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
"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?
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.