It depends where you want to spend your money. The cost of adaptation is greater where there is large uncertainty. You need to prepare for the worse case. If you can narrow uncertainty you can typically eliminate many of the worst case scenarios. Australians have a choice to either pay more for adaptation or further reduce uncertainty. Of course further research could potentially identify an unknown unknown that you wouldn't otherwise have prepared for.
Bad news so far. UAH Ver 6 beta shows January temperatures were up by 0.09C over December to 0.54C, and a full 0.27C over January last year. To put this in perspective, the IPCC has projected about 0.2C warming / decade. We'll have to wait a few days for the UAH5.6 results. RSS-MSU was up from 0.543 in December to 0.663C in January. Just one month, but not a good start.
No. You do not use a climate model to determine global average temperature anomaly. Climate models are used to generate projections about our future and understand our past.
What's all this? Either it is or it's not. If it is, I'm sure it'll be all over the news.
Well, you've confused US temperatures with global temperatures above. Maybe it is a good idea to be specific. UAH is developed by contrarians Roy Spencer and John Christy. I would have thought you would prefer it, but it sounds like you are suspicious of the good folks from Alabama. It seems you are suspicious of RSS as well. We could use land reconstructions from NASA, CRU, JMO, or another, but I understand that you are suspicious of surface station reconstructions. That leaves ocean temperatures which are a great measure of accumulated energy, but from the above it sounds like you are suspicious of ocean temperatures. What does that leave?
If it is all the same to you let's just stay with the bet as specified.
understand that even if there is an increase, a year doesn't prove the point
I suspect that no amount of evidence would be persuasive, but perhaps if you do lose it may be an opportunity to reflect? Temperatures have never been higher. How could you lose?
So what's the bet? That 2016 will be warmer than 2015, is that your assertion? I'd like to make it clear it's not mine. I'm betting 2016 will not be warmer than 2015.
Great. We will use the UAH version 5.6 since you do not trust the surface station record. (6.x is currently in beta and changing too often to make any predictions with). The data can be found here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/pu... - see the "Globe" column. In the event that UAH5.6 is no longer available we will need to defer to the RSS satellite reconstruction. The data for rss can be found here: http://woodfortrees.org/data/r...
You either have no clue what you're doing (one might say you drank too much of the cool aid) or I have a feeling you think you know something I don't.
I think I have an advantage in that you appear to get your science reporting from conspiracy websites. I could be wrong, but based on previous comments I believe it to be the case.
To me there's almost no question. The safe bet is 2016 will not be warmer than 2015.
So will you take the bet? As you say, we at the height are ready to decline. Seems like a sure bet right? We could put real money on it if you want to make an easy buck.
And how do you turn the raw data into a representation of global average temperature anomalies? Hint: You need a.... starts with an 'M'. Rhymes with coddle.
Let's make it $10 Canadian. Easy money right? We can use the UAH satellite record if you like but we'd need to use the currently published version 5.6 as 6.x beta is undergoing constant revisions.
Bravo! It looks like you agree with me! The post that I was responding to says: "Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record?"
I responded: "Satellite models don't agree with each other let alone with the uncorrected surface trends" and provided a link showing that the two satellite reconstructions don't agree with each other.
You jumped in with: "There are no satellite modes" (wrong!)
Then you acknowledged "I have actually no idea about what you want to argue." (Well then maybe read through the post you inserted yourself into before taking such a hard stance?)
Then you further acknowledged: "I have no clue how you even came to that data and how you figure the different data sets don't agree which each other." (Well, maybe click the link in my original post that shows the two data sets side by side?)
Then you say: "No idea why you want to place that (surface station and satellite reconstructions) into the same basket" (clearly I don't. That was spelled out in my first post.)
It looks like all of your questions are answered by my very first post. Maybe read before vomiting into the middle of a conversation?
No. Stop being paranoid. Look at the chart. https://climatecrock.files.wor... The past is substantially warmed by the corrections. The trend is REDUCED by the adjustments.
Quite the opposite. The adjustments actually lowered the overall trend. Here you can see unadjusted and corrected reconstructions side by side. Notice that the two are virtually identical in recent history. https://climatecrock.files.wor...
You should ring him up and place a bet. Honestly. That's what these scientists did when they noticed that someone else's model of the world was hopelessly broken.
I think the problem is that it is not true. Carl Mears who develops the RSS satellite record says "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."
Except the land and ocean temperatures used by NOAA aren't modeled.
That is not true. In order to average geographically dispersed readings without giving undue weight to collocated sensors you need to apply a model. The model for land ocean temperatures is fairly simple - essentially a gridded average + correction for known biases.
You would have a hard time showing that satellite results differ from predictions. There is so much noise in that signal that uncertainty dominates. Since 1998 the trend is somewhere between negative (-0.091C/decade) to much greater than models had projected (0.273C/decade).
There is a distinction between those who reject radiative physics (deniers) and those who hold a view contrary to the mainstream that is at least plausible. The folks from the Global Warming Policy Foundation are interested in advancing policy more than they are interested in understanding truth. To call them contrarians is probably very generous. On the other hand, the solar physicists who bet against Annan were basing their wager on research that they published. They had enough confidence in their research to put up $10,000. There is no crime in being wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends where you want to spend your money. The cost of adaptation is greater where there is large uncertainty. You need to prepare for the worse case. If you can narrow uncertainty you can typically eliminate many of the worst case scenarios. Australians have a choice to either pay more for adaptation or further reduce uncertainty. Of course further research could potentially identify an unknown unknown that you wouldn't otherwise have prepared for.
Bad news so far. UAH Ver 6 beta shows January temperatures were up by 0.09C over December to 0.54C, and a full 0.27C over January last year. To put this in perspective, the IPCC has projected about 0.2C warming / decade. We'll have to wait a few days for the UAH5.6 results. RSS-MSU was up from 0.543 in December to 0.663C in January. Just one month, but not a good start.
No. You do not use a climate model to determine global average temperature anomaly. Climate models are used to generate projections about our future and understand our past.
What's all this? Either it is or it's not. If it is, I'm sure it'll be all over the news.
Well, you've confused US temperatures with global temperatures above. Maybe it is a good idea to be specific. UAH is developed by contrarians Roy Spencer and John Christy. I would have thought you would prefer it, but it sounds like you are suspicious of the good folks from Alabama. It seems you are suspicious of RSS as well. We could use land reconstructions from NASA, CRU, JMO, or another, but I understand that you are suspicious of surface station reconstructions. That leaves ocean temperatures which are a great measure of accumulated energy, but from the above it sounds like you are suspicious of ocean temperatures. What does that leave?
If it is all the same to you let's just stay with the bet as specified.
understand that even if there is an increase, a year doesn't prove the point
I suspect that no amount of evidence would be persuasive, but perhaps if you do lose it may be an opportunity to reflect? Temperatures have never been higher. How could you lose?
So what's the bet? That 2016 will be warmer than 2015, is that your assertion? I'd like to make it clear it's not mine. I'm betting 2016 will not be warmer than 2015.
Great. We will use the UAH version 5.6 since you do not trust the surface station record. (6.x is currently in beta and changing too often to make any predictions with). The data can be found here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/pu... - see the "Globe" column. In the event that UAH5.6 is no longer available we will need to defer to the RSS satellite reconstruction. The data for rss can be found here: http://woodfortrees.org/data/r...
You either have no clue what you're doing (one might say you drank too much of the cool aid) or I have a feeling you think you know something I don't.
I think I have an advantage in that you appear to get your science reporting from conspiracy websites. I could be wrong, but based on previous comments I believe it to be the case.
To me there's almost no question. The safe bet is 2016 will not be warmer than 2015.
Time will tell :)
So, if it's a safe bet, then why not take it?
If you are not into earning easy money, then how about a gentleman's bet?
So will you take the bet? As you say, we at the height are ready to decline. Seems like a sure bet right? We could put real money on it if you want to make an easy buck.
You might disagree, but you would be wrong. And I for god sake don't care who or what is written in your links.
I love that you've taken a position that you will not be swayed by facts. To the extent that you will not even look at them.
In my opinion there are no 'satellite models'.
Your opinion is not worth much. Scientists who study this disagree with you: https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk
They only provide raw data, no models.
And how do you turn the raw data into a representation of global average temperature anomalies? Hint: You need a.... starts with an 'M'. Rhymes with coddle.
Let's make it $10 Canadian. Easy money right? We can use the UAH satellite record if you like but we'd need to use the currently published version 5.6 as 6.x beta is undergoing constant revisions.
Barrett, Earl W. (1971). "Climate Change." (Letter) Science 171: 983.
Here's one from 1968:
Bryson, Reid A. (1968). "'All Other Factors Being Constant...' a Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change." Weatherwise 21: 56-61ff.
Here's one from 1955:
Crary, A. P., et al. (1955). "Evidences of Climate Change from Ice Island Studies." Science 122: 1171-73.
They had great foresight to plant this seed in 1933:
Davis, William Morris (1933). "Climate Changes and the Last Glacial Period." Science Suppl., 10 March, p. 9.
But 1933 had nothing on 1914:
Huntington, Ellsworth (1914). "The Solar Hypothesis of Climate Changes." Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 25: 477-590
Meanwhile, back in reality, NOAA provides the raw data right on their web site: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
Let's see how 2016 does. I bet it'll be back down.
How much?
You should never call global warming "anthropomorphic". It hates that. XD
Bravo! It looks like you agree with me! The post that I was responding to says: "Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record?"
I responded: "Satellite models don't agree with each other let alone with the uncorrected surface trends" and provided a link showing that the two satellite reconstructions don't agree with each other.
You jumped in with: "There are no satellite modes" (wrong!)
Then you acknowledged "I have actually no idea about what you want to argue." (Well then maybe read through the post you inserted yourself into before taking such a hard stance?)
Then you further acknowledged: "I have no clue how you even came to that data and how you figure the different data sets don't agree which each other." (Well, maybe click the link in my original post that shows the two data sets side by side?)
Then you say: "No idea why you want to place that (surface station and satellite reconstructions) into the same basket" (clearly I don't. That was spelled out in my first post.)
It looks like all of your questions are answered by my very first post. Maybe read before vomiting into the middle of a conversation?
No. Stop being paranoid. Look at the chart. https://climatecrock.files.wor... The past is substantially warmed by the corrections. The trend is REDUCED by the adjustments.
Not so massive that you can see it though right? And keep in mind, those adjustments actually REDUCED the trend: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Quite the opposite. The adjustments actually lowered the overall trend. Here you can see unadjusted and corrected reconstructions side by side. Notice that the two are virtually identical in recent history. https://climatecrock.files.wor...
You should ring him up and place a bet. Honestly. That's what these scientists did when they noticed that someone else's model of the world was hopelessly broken.
Here are the adjustments on satellite data: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Except the land and ocean temperatures used by NOAA aren't modeled.
That is not true. In order to average geographically dispersed readings without giving undue weight to collocated sensors you need to apply a model. The model for land ocean temperatures is fairly simple - essentially a gridded average + correction for known biases.
You would have a hard time showing that satellite results differ from predictions. There is so much noise in that signal that uncertainty dominates. Since 1998 the trend is somewhere between negative (-0.091C/decade) to much greater than models had projected (0.273C/decade).
There is a distinction between those who reject radiative physics (deniers) and those who hold a view contrary to the mainstream that is at least plausible. The folks from the Global Warming Policy Foundation are interested in advancing policy more than they are interested in understanding truth. To call them contrarians is probably very generous. On the other hand, the solar physicists who bet against Annan were basing their wager on research that they published. They had enough confidence in their research to put up $10,000. There is no crime in being wrong.
Great minds think alike (especially, I suppose, if Jane is right and they share the same head).