Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

"Wonderful climate researchers"? From what I've read of the MWP, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the Idso family, that's a 180 degree reversal of the attitude of the scientific community towards them

Wrong set of climate researchers, not the same people

"...there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming:..."

The old warmist circular reasoning trick. You guys always say you only want to believe the science, but whenever someone presents science that disagrees with your point of view, you can't trust THEIR science. Because, uh, it's not your science. Circular reasoning.

Their conclusion that there is no compelling reason to beieve that the rise in temperatures was caused by the rise in CO2 is based on the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists, from over 600 different scientific institutions over the course of decades. Yea, they're REAL whack-jobs, believing all that "sciency stuff".

They're 'More CO2 is Good' loons. They haven't changed their published formal positions since the late 1990s

Wow. In the running for the most unscientific thing I've read on this thread, and there's a lot of competition. CO2 IS good. GREAT in fact. Anyone who doesn't think so is a loon. Oh, and by the way, they wouldn't need to change their position, a la Michael Mann, etc, since their position is based on, ya know, science. Plus, there hasn't been any statistical increase in global temperatures for over 18 years, so there's that (big increases in CO2 in the last 18 years, funny how they don't seem to correlate).

Meanwhile, the've taken in funding from Exxon, Peabody Energy and proxies/lobby groups of other oil, gas and power companies. In the order of millions

Another cheap trick from the dishonest leftist smear mongers. The fact is that Idso has been working on and publishing his beliefs since the early 1980s. Once his work was done, THEN Exxon, seeing there was real science going on, donated to the project. They aren't FUNDED by big oil, big oil donated to them.

And oh, by the way, what's wrong with Exxon, etc? I mean, seems like a pretty good company to me. Have you ever went to the gas station and put gas in your car and your car didn't run? And why shouldn't companies like Exxon be able to donate to science? Oh, and why don't you do a graph on how much funding is received by those who are skeptical of the global warming crap vs. the funding of those who are true believers. The HUGE disparity of money going to the warmists is staggering.

But you know what, I don't share your belief that fossil fuels are evil, but I support your right to believe it. So much so, that I'll make you this pledge: You be a man, stick to your guns, and stop being a hypocrite and vow right now in front of everyone not to use any fossil fuels or any products that come from them. If you do that, and write about it here everyday, I promise I will read every word of it. Deal?

I'm all for scientific argument and debate, but even as a layperson on this subject, I find this sort of astroturfing disingenuous. In the extreme.

Funny, I felt exactly the same after I read your post. Ok, not exactly, I wouldn't have thought to use the word astroturfing. Points for that.

 

[fargonic]

The Medieval Warming Period Project, with it's 1000+ peer-reviewed scientific papers, disproves virtually everything you believe about all of this

Andy, not to nit-pick but there aren't 1000 peer reviewed papers, there are 1000 citations.

It would be like me claiming my dissertation results were based on 300 independent scientists work. When, in fact, it would be based on ONE person's work who just happened to cite 300 scientists peer reviewed work.

What the Medieval Warm Period Project appears to be is something called a meta-analysis of the data.

While this is a valid approach to assessing the concept, since this isn't a peer-reviewed article and it ISN'T the work of 1000 scientists, it really still needs to be vetted.

Here's an example from my own youth: when doing my MS thesis I ran across another scientists previous article that showed some interesting trends in isotherms in a basin. My thesis was built on the idea of warm basinal brines moving up out of this basin and emplacing mineralization in a nearby interbasin area. I saw that his isotherms cut across the subsurface contours of the formation. So I reasoned that this was a case where warm basinal brines were moving up out of the basin. They thermally matured the material coming up out of the basin!

Then a little while later I met this scientist and threw this idea out. He VEHEMENTLY disagreed with my interpretation of his data.

Now I'm not saying that this blog study you cite is ipso facto going against all the science it cites, nor am I saying it is necessarily "wrong". Just that one should be very careful of citing a blog as being "1000 peer reviewed studies".

Just sayin'.

 

[andypro7]

Andy, not to nit-pick but there aren't 1000 peer reviewed papers, there are 1000 citations.

It would be like me claiming my dissertation results were based on 300 independent scientists work. When, in fact, it would be based on ONE person's work who just happened to cite 300 scientists peer reviewed work.

What the Medieval Warm Period Project appears to be is something called a meta-analysis of the data.

While this is a valid approach to assessing the concept, since this isn't a peer-reviewed article and it ISN'T the work of 1000 scientists, it really still needs to be vetted.

Here's an example from my own youth: when doing my MS thesis I ran across another scientists previous article that showed some interesting trends in isotherms in a basin. My thesis was built on the idea of warm basinal brines moving up out of this basin and emplacing mineralization in a nearby interbasin area. I saw that his isotherms cut across the subsurface contours of the formation. So I reasoned that this was a case where warm basinal brines were moving up out of the basin. They thermally matured the material coming up out of the basin!

Then a little while later I met this scientist and threw this idea out. He VEHEMENTLY disagreed with my interpretation of his data.

Now I'm not saying that this blog study you cite is ipso facto going against all the science it cites, nor am I saying it is necessarily "wrong". Just that one should be very careful of citing a blog as being "1000 peer reviewed studies".

Just sayin'.

I meant it is the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists. I'm pretty sure I said that, but I might have messed up once.

 

[[serious]]

"Wonderful climate researchers"? From what I've read of the MWP, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the Idso family, that's a 180 degree reversal of the attitude of the scientific community towards them

Wrong set of climate researchers, not the same people

I'm seeing two possibilities here:
1. There are two MWPs and all of us aren't aware of the one you are referencing. If you aren't talking about the one from CO2 Science, maybe you could link which one you are talking about.

2. You somehow missed that CO2science.org puts Copyright Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. at the bottom of every page, lists it's name as "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" on the about us page, has tweets from Craig Idso, lists Sherwood B. Idso as President, Craig D. Idso as Chairman, and Keith E. Idso as Vice-President.

Meanwhile, the've taken in funding from Exxon, Peabody Energy and proxies/lobby groups of other oil, gas and power companies. In the order of millions

Another cheap trick from the dishonest leftist smear mongers. The fact is that Idso has been working on and publishing his beliefs since the early 1980s. Once his work was done, THEN Exxon, seeing there was real science going on, donated to the project. They aren't FUNDED by big oil, big oil donated to them.

Is there some sort of shade of meaning I'm missing here? 501(c)(3) organizations are funded through donations. "Funded by" and "Receives money from" are interchangeable in my eyes.

And oh, by the way, what's wrong with Exxon, etc? I mean, seems like a pretty good company to me. Have you ever went to the gas station and put gas in your car and your car didn't run? And why shouldn't companies like Exxon be able to donate to science? Oh, and why don't you do a graph on how much funding is received by those who are skeptical of the global warming crap vs. the funding of those who are true believers. The HUGE disparity of money going to the warmists is staggering.

No one is saying they shouldn't be able to donate money to groups, but it kinda goes without saying that identify who is funding a think tank can inform you about possible conflicts of interest. "Follow the money" isn't really a controversial concept.

I'm all for scientific argument and debate, but even as a layperson on this subject, I find this sort of astroturfing disingenuous. In the extreme.

Funny, I felt exactly the same after I read your post. Ok, not exactly, I wouldn't have thought to use the word astroturfing. Points for that.

What do you think "astroturf" means exactly?

 

[andypro7]

I'm seeing two possibilities here:
1. There are two MWPs and all of us aren't aware of the one you are referencing. If you aren't talking about the one from CO2 Science, maybe you could link which one you are talking about.

2. You somehow missed that CO2science.org puts Copyright Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. at the bottom of every page, lists it's name as "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" on the about us page, has tweets from Craig Idso, lists Sherwood B. Idso as President, Craig D. Idso as Chairman, and Keith E. Idso as Vice-President.Is there some sort of shade of meaning I'm missing here? 501(c)(3) organizations are funded through donations. "Funded by" and "Receives money from" are interchangeable in my eyes. No one is saying they shouldn't be able to donate money to groups, but it kinda goes without saying that identify who is funding a think tank can inform you about possible conflicts of interest. "Follow the money" isn't really a controversial concept.
What do you think "astroturf" means exactly?

Once again, the findings and beliefs of CO2 science were well established long before they got money from Exxon. It's the same old trick used by the warmists - the money they get is from concerned citizens who want nothing more than to help the planet, the money any competing viewpoint gets is dirty money. There is plenty of oil money funding both sides. Heck, I'm pretty sure that the Climategate emails reveal attempts by the Hadley CRU to get money from BP, I think.

And as far as astroturfing, they actually have a page at CO2 Science that explains their funding, including mentioning Exxon.

 

[Heissonear]

So, in your mind, linking to an article from a known warmist cult site is more scientific than:

THE PEER-REVIEWED WORK OF OVER 1000 INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS?

Which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today AND WAS GLOBAL (why do you think I linked to that GLOBAL Map first?)

Now, go explain to me how the peer-reviewed work of over 1000 individual scientists is wrong, and you are right.

You're not a science denier, are you?

.

Well said, Andy.

When faced with facts warmist move the goal posts to account for their theory - rather than follow facts.

When warmists sweep facts under the rug it shows their Extremism, not science.

.

 

[Heissonear]

.

I'm still waiting for the "Global Value" in the amount of total precipitation on Earth that occurred for the year 2014.

Will the Global Value be within an inch in accuracy, or better yet, to the second decimal place?


.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

I'm still waiting for the "Global Value" in the amount of total precipitation on Earth that occurred for the year 2014.

.


Why would someone be ignorant enough to think that precipitation is temperature (the subject of this thread), Heissonear. If you are interested in this irrelevant fact then go away and found it out for yourself.


Are you still obsessing with the simple fact that averaging any set of numbers can produce a number that has multiple decimal places?
Consider 1 , 1 and 2. Their average is 4/1. This is 1.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...

 

[andypro7]

.


Why would someone be ignorant enough to think that precipitation is temperature (the subject of this thread), Heissonear. If you are interested in this irrelevant fact then go away and found it out for yourself.


Are you still obsessing with the simple fact that averaging any set of numbers can produce a number that has multiple decimal places?
Consider 1 , 1 and 2. Their average is 4/1. This is 1.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...

If you had bothered to read the original post, POSTED BY HEISSONEAR, by the way, you'd understand that his point was the absolute assurance of accuracy that is given by the climate zealots.

And again, if you would have bothered to read his original post, you'd see that, unlike you, he doesn't have a problem with math, but rather the level of assurance given by the climate-heads.

When you average the sum of numbers, you can find the average to whatever degree you'd like, since it's math. You can't go outside your house right now and tell me what the temperature is to the hundredth degree, even if you had the best equipment.

That was his point, which you totally missed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I don't understand you, I thought you liked and revered climate science, but now you're linking to a known attacker of climate scientists

That is a lie about Skeptical Science, andypro7
They are a known attacker of invalid bad climate science backed by citing the actual climate science.

I like and am impressed with climate science. That is why I like a source that comments coherently on climate science with links to the scientific literature.

ETA: There are no working climate scientists at CO2 Science. Sherwood B. Idso has published on climate and got it very wrong - a climate sensitivity of 0.3!, CO2 does not clause warming!

Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui is an commentary on a web site
Hoskibui points out
* the use of graphical tricks to emphasize MWP warming:

•Hide the temperature scale and/or the temperature values
•Pick one area or location of the world
•Cut out or ignore recent warming

* the ignorance of citing papers that have nothing to do with MWP temperatures.
* the "misinterpretation" of published papers.
Hoskibui is charitable - in the example he gives they lie about a graph in Oppo et al 2009. The paper has 2b in figure 6 where the mean annual SST for 1997-2007 was higher than the rest of the graph. This becomes "medieval warming was 0.4 ° C higher than the current warming" at CO2 Science

A blog from Nature Climate Change:
Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

 

[andypro7]

Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

Why do you continue to link to a site known to be a scam site with no science at all that has a proven track record of attack climate scientists?

If you don't like science, then just say it. But please stop supporting and linking to sites that make a habit out of publicly attacking scientists for their unappreciated hard work.

 

[RealityCheck01]

If you had bothered to read the original post, POSTED BY HEISSONEAR, ..snipped "zealots" rant...

I read the original post, POSTED BY HEISSONEAR , and it is really ignorant about basic science.
If you take a set of data and average it you will get multiple decimal places.

You need to revise your mathematics, andypro7. When you average the sum of numbers, you find the average exactly. The choice is then how many decimal paces to report that number?
Consider 1 , 1 and 2. Their average is 4/1. This is 1.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... !
Should this be reported as 1.3, 1.33 or 1.33333333?

The scientific answer is to propagate the errors in the original numbers to the average. Climate scientists generally quote temperature anomalies to 2 decimal places. Sometimes 3 decimal places:
Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies - Land and Marine Instrumental Records

The global and hemispheric averages are now given to a precision of three decimal places to enable seasonal values to be calculated to ±0.01°C. The extra precision implies no greater accuracy than two decimal places.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
...usual denial of science....

That reply ignored that there are two commentaries on the bad CO2 Science web site:

1. Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
2. A blog from Nature Climate Change: Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

It looks like you are comfortable endlessly denying the science in these blog entries, andypro7.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Some questions that need answering:

1. 3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?
2. Are you still in denial that 4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!
   For example: 5th March 2015 andypro7: Wahl et al 2007 analyzed the Mann data with and without principal components (the main issue in the McIntyre and McKitrick papers) and found insignificant difference.
3. 5th March 2015 andypro7: If you know EXACTLY how that graph shows that Holocene temperatures before ~1900 are significantly different from the Marcott et al. paper then tell us.
4. 5th March 2015 andypro7: Please quote where Science says that Marcott et al was "proof of great 20th century warming".
5. 10th March 2015 andypro7: Please list the data that was purposely adjusted to produce a warming trend ("their conclusions").
6. 11th March 2015: Is 1880 500 years in the past, andypro7?
7. 12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).
8. 15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.

Points of ignorance:

1. 9th March 2015 andypro7: The GISP2 ice core was drilled in 1993, is local and starts in 1855 (top of the ice core)!
2. The current science about the MWP is that the current temperatures are greater: 8th March 2015 andypro7: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
3. A web site containing a Gish Gallop of MWP papers that are sometimes irrelevant, mostly outdated and that the authors misrepresent is not a good source as pointed out by scientists:
   1. Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
   2. A blog from Nature Climate Change: Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)
4. What Steve McIntyre's graph on his blog page actually contains: 5th March 2015 andypro7: Steve McIntyre's [URL="http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/"]graph shows similar Holocene temperatures to the Marcott et al. paper and so confirms the conclusions. [/URL]
5. which are 5th March 2015 andypro7: Two conclusions of the Marcott et al. paper (current global temperatures as in HadCRUT3 are ~72%/82% of the Holocene)

 

[andypro7]

You need to revise your mathematics, andypro7. When you average the sum of numbers, you find the average exactly. The choice is then how many decimal paces to report that number?
Consider 1 , 1 and 2. Their average is 4/1.

First of all, that's what I said. You CAN know in mathematics, but you CAN'T know to that degree of accuracy in climate voodoo. It's the point of the original post.

However, I do find it terribly ironic that you are lecturing me on math, since I have a degree in math. But even more ironic is you stating that the average of those three numbers is 4/1. Uh, no, it's 4/3.

You're not very good at math, you should stick to what you do best: posting links to science denier web sites that attack scientists, the vast majority of which I'm pretty sure know that the average of 1, 1, and 2, is 4/3, not 4/1. (which by the way equals 4, which means you got a number that's 3 times greater than the actual number, which tells me you work for Micheal Mann).

 

[RealityCheck01]

The old warmist circular reasoning trick.

Oh dear, andypro7, the "old climate denialist denial trick" of denying basic English and climate science!
Here is CO2 Science stating that "...there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2.". This is a denial of the climate science that shows there are compelling reasons to believe that CO2 is causing the current global warming.

They are real whack jobs if they as you assert think that the MWP means that CO2 is not driving current global warming.
This is based on "the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists, from over 600 different scientific institutions over the course of decades."

CO2 IS good.

Wrong andypro7: CO2 is very bad as far as temperatures are concerned .
The only place that CO2 could be good is as plant food and that is mixed:
CO2 is plant food

The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors

 

[RealityCheck01]

You CAN know in mathematics, but you CAN'T know to that degree of accuracy in climate voodoo. It's the point of the original post.

The point of the original post is the posters ignorance about science.
You must know that climate science is a science, andypro7 !
Climate scientists take temperature readings with known instrumental errors and pass them through a rather complex process to get global temperature anomalies with error limits. This is a much simpler version of what undergraduate physics students do in labs every day (P.S. that was me for 3 years and then a couple of years as a teaching assistant).

And yes I can write the wrong text. Fixed just for you:

Consider 1 , 1 and 2. Their average is 4/3. This is 1.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...

I have an advantage over you - I have a degree in math and physics . A good thing about postgraduate research is learning how to evaluate sources.

 

[andypro7]

The point of the original post is the posters ignorance about science.
You must know that climate science is a science, andypro7 !
Climate scientists take temperature readings with known instrumental errors and pass them through a rather complex process to get global temperature anomalies with error limits. This is a much simpler version of what undergraduate physics students do in labs every day (P.S. that was me for 3 years and then a couple of years as a teaching assistant).

And yes I can write the wrong text. Fixed just for you:


I have an advantage over you - I have a degree in math and physics . A good thing about postgraduate research is learning how to evaluate sources.

Where in your postgraduate work did they tell you to source people who are know liars who attack hard-working scientists?

 

[Gene2memE]

Another cheap trick from the dishonest leftist smear mongers.

You know so little about me if you think I'm either leftist or a smearmonger.

The fact is that Idso has been working on and publishing his beliefs since the early 1980s. Once his work was done, THEN Exxon, seeing there was real science going on, donated to the project. They aren't FUNDED by big oil, big oil donated to them.

The Idso family business has turned into a climate change denial paper mill. Exxon saw a useful patsy to throw doubt on the issue and they bought Idso up.

And oh, by the way, what's wrong with Exxon, etc? I mean, seems like a pretty good company to me. Have you ever went to the gas station and put gas in your car and your car didn't run?

I don't own a car. I cycle.

And why shouldn't companies like Exxon be able to donate to science? Oh, and why don't you do a graph on how much funding is received by those who are skeptical of the global warming crap vs. the funding of those who are true believers. The HUGE disparity of money going to the warmists is staggering.

I don't have a problem with Exxon, or any other company, donating to valid research on climate change.

I do have a problem with them using their money to create groups that actively mitigate against taking proper action against climate change, which is what they're doing with their support for the Idsos' et al.

But you know what, I don't share your belief that fossil fuels are evil, but I support your right to believe it.

Funny, I never stated I believe fossil fuels are evil. I never even implied it.

That's you making an unjustified assumption.

So much so, that I'll make you this pledge: You be a man, stick to your guns, and stop being a hypocrite and vow right now in front of everyone not to use any fossil fuels or any products that come from them. If you do that, and write about it here everyday, I promise I will read every word of it. Deal?

Lovely strawman placement there:

"Gene2meme, as you think fossil fuels are so evil, why don't you completely withdraw from civil society. As a pay-off, I'll deign to read about it"

Love your logic here too. If I stopped using products derived from fossil fuels - say, the majority of the energy I consume, most plastics, ect - then writing about it online would be a virtual impossibility.

I'm not arguing against the use of fossil fuels. I'm not arguing for us to cease all use of coal, oil and natural gas. My job would cease to exist overnight if I did.

I'm arguing that humans, as a species, need to develop methods to eventually wean ourselves off these things and develop alternatives. And, we need to do it quickly.

The US, as the world's major industrial power, SHOULD be leading these efforts. Its energy companies SHOULD be seeing business opportunities in renewable energy markets and new technologies. They SHOULD be afraid of the long-term outcomes of climate change on their businesses.

Unfortunately, they're too busy being concerned with quarterly shareholders returns and annual executive performance bonuses to make more than a fig-leaf greenwashing of their efforts. R&D on alternative energy by the US major energy companies is PATHETIC and getting worse, not better.

That's why its independent scientists and government organisations that are leading on this. Because they have the necessary perspective, not in quarters, or years, but decades or longer.

What humans are doing to our climate is going now is going to affect human civilisation for CENTURIES to come. We've sailed past 400 million ppm CO2 concentration and its increasing at a rate of 2 million ppm.

Stop sticking your head in the fast-warming sand and shouting 'lalalalala, I can't hear you" and get on the team that's bloody well trying to do something positive.

 

[fargonic]

I meant it is the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists. I'm pretty sure I said that, but I might have messed up once.

Just because someone CITES another person's work does NOT mean that those 1000 other citations came to the same conclusion as the overall meta-analysis.

The problem is that when you talk repeatedly about 1000 peer reviewed articles and 600 institutions it sounds like you think there are 1000 peer reviewed articles and 600 institutions that believe the MWP was warmer than today and that somehow means something meaningful about the global temperature.

The question about the MWP that is still outstanding was: was it global? And if so what were the forcing mechanisms?