Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'. However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
More recent papers show that the "errors in external forcing" and "model response" contributions are tiny compared to "internal climate variability". (And they missed another possibility that Cowtan et Al, 2015 pointed out -- the comparisons are often done badly).
If I have a forum, housed in the US, and someone from France doesn't like what someone posts, on my forum that is in my country, then France can suck my nuts.
Good for you. But that is irrelevant to the case in hand -- Facebook is a company doing business in France -- French law applies to that business.
It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France.
You don't realy get this "internet" thing, do you. What matters is not where "the site is located" (whatever that means). What matters is where the company is doing business. Facebook does business in France, French law applies.
FACEBOOK FRANCE Societe 530085802 108 AVENUE DE WAGRAM 75017 PARIS FRANCE
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.
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?
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).
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
You are Fucking Ignorant.
" temperatures plummeted to their lowest levels in decades in some locations of the Northeast at the start of Valentine's Day."
Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'.
However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?
Just to avoid the 'but that doesnt happen!' here we have one:
http://drsircus.com/world-news...
The first sentence in that article: "If you live in a handful of cities in the Northeast, [ of the USA ]".
Oddly enough, not everyone does.
Not arguing a side here, just pointing out one of many many obvious logical faults both sides seem to have.
You're pointing out a logical fault by committing one?
It astounds me how high these extremes at both ends of this argument have climbed up their pedestals.
Since you appear to be at one of those "extremes" that's an odd thing to say.
Well, no.
The summary of that paper is:
More recent papers show that the "errors in external forcing" and "model response" contributions are tiny compared to "internal climate variability". (And they missed another possibility that Cowtan et Al, 2015 pointed out -- the comparisons are often done badly).
The last time I checked we could be certain that most of the models were incorrect, because they differed significantly in their predictions.
When did you check? Because that's not true.
Individual model runs can produce different short term (< 30 year) outcomes, but the ensemble means match each other pretty well.
(Individual model runs have to be different -- they include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions and el-Ninos).
Correct... the fallacy that our climate is static is the number 1 reason I dont believe much of this debate
1. There is no "debate"
2. No scientist has ever claimed the climate is static.
the tempa go up, the temps go down, constituent ingredients that make up our atmosphere change,
No. The temperatures change for reasons. The constituent gases of the atmosphere change for reasons.
yet Earth keeps on ticking, there is NOTHING we can do for this,
Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.
we ride on the Earth, hang on tight and make whatever adjustments you need to to survive.
And, in order to survive the adjustment we will have to make is to stop emitting fossil CO2.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Could you take the STUPID race baiting somewhere else?
It doesn't? How do you know that? What's your theory?
Me, I think that if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck?
Gee Whiz DeHat,
You know the current president has made use of "recess appointments" far less than those who preceded him.
Yes, but he's black, so it's bad when he does it.
French court wants to have jurisdiction over what resides on a server physically located in California?
No,French courts want to have jurisdiction over agreements made between a French company and a French citizen.
It was on loan. It's owned by the Musee d'Oray, Paris.
(They got it in return for an unpaid tax bill).
If I have a forum, housed in the US, and someone from France doesn't like what someone posts, on my forum that is in my country, then France can suck my nuts.
Good for you. But that is irrelevant to the case in hand -- Facebook is a company doing business in France -- French law applies to that business.
It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France.
You don't realy get this "internet" thing, do you. What matters is not where "the site is located" (whatever that means). What matters is where the company is doing business. Facebook does business in France, French law applies.
FACEBOOK FRANCE
Societe 530085802
108 AVENUE DE WAGRAM
75017 PARIS
FRANCE
http://www.societe.com/societe/facebook-france-530085802.html
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.
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?
Some AC above just made exactly that claim!
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8642569&cid=51341155
Yay! An actual "global warming stopped in 2015" post!
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).
Meanwhile non-homogenised satalites (2 networks)
UAH and RSS use the same satellites (and come up with different warming).
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, what's your take on the satellite record, often adjusted, using multiple incompatible instruments?
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.
Me, I get a month or so off every year.
Of course, I live in a civilised country.
Yes, but for all you obsessives out there...