Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[sculleywr]

Besides, Rick Scott has already pulled the censorship out of the dock in Florida by outlawing climate research, or at the very least defunding it. Please send me $1000 to continue posting here. If you don't, you are engaging in censorship.

What happens when you remove money from a project? Oh yes, it shuts down when it runs out.

If you really believed in science, you would want them funding research that might prove you wrong. You want that research to continue because if you're right, then it will prove you right. But if you're wrong, then you have something to fear. Then you have to submit your ego to the fact that you might be part of a movement that is destroying the world.

So. Are you a scientist or a pundit? You sound like a pundit to me.

 

[sculleywr]

And here's more of what happens to America

https://www.facebook.com/thinkprogress/posts/989676641043806

 

[andypro7]

If you really believed in science, you would want them funding research that might prove you wrong.

Wow, what a hypocrite.

I guess that means that if you really believed in science, then you would want them funding research that might prove you wrong, right?

But no, you say they should be censored, or outlawed, or whatever. I can't find the exact quote you made, because I think YOU REMOVED IT.

Wow, that it climate voodoo in a nutshell. Made bold proclamations, and when they are proven wrong, erase them from the record.

Classic hide the decline move.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not all blogs, just that one:
...more Skeptical Science ranting snipped...

Let us see just how much truth you know about the Skeptical Science blog, andypro7.

andypro7: Who is paying for this "paid propaganda" on Skeptical Science?
andypro7: Please list the lies that have been published on Skeptical Science.

Someone seems to be lying to you about a letter signed by "129 climate researchers". That is a lie because that letter was not signed by "129 climate researchers" . It was signed by scientists in various fields.
The contents of the letter were very ignorant about climate science as listed in:
The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science Posted on 1 December 2012 by dana1981

 

[RealityCheck01]

Everything you said....

Everything you wrote in that post is still wrong, andypro7:
9th March 2015 andypro7: The GISP2 ice core was drilled in 1993, is local and starts in 1855 (top of the ice core)!

Then there is - andypro7: Is a century 10,00 years long ?
ETA: Do you want this to be added to Outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and remaining ignorance from andypro7 ?

The fact is that you can pick a date in the past and get any trend that you want. Pick an Ice Age and you get a warming trend. Pick many point sin the Pliocene epoch and you get a cooling trend. Pick 13.7 billions years ago and you get a really steep cooling curve !

Climate scientists are not stupid enough to think that the current global warming started 10,000 or a million years in the past. They are smart enough to look at What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

 

[RealityCheck01]

CO2 has risen over 10% since 1996, but there has been NO statistical warming.

This is wrong, andypro7.
Since you keep on insulting scientists presenting climate science, what about looking at some actual data?
Wood for Trees allows users to interactively graph various temperature datasets. Plot the HADCRUT4 global dataset from 1996 and add a linear trend. You will see an increase of ~0.15 degrees !
RSS MSU lower trop. global mean from 1996 is ~0.03 degrees.
UAH NAATC lower trop. global mean from 1996 is ~0.18 degrees.

That is just the surface temperatures - there are also the oceans. This basic climate science is explained in What has global warming done since 1998?

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Feel free to stop worrying now. Unless it's about the cold.

Doubly wrong, andypro7.
We need to worry about the predicted effects of AGW since they will potentially affect millions of people. Read the IPCC reports sometime or the scientific literature.

What climate science says about the Little Ice Age is that it will not happen again if we continue pumping CO2 out at the current rate. For example a possible aggravator of the LIA (its cause is unsure) is the Maunder Minimum. Add a Maunder Minimum to the climate models and you get at most a decrease of 0.3°C in the predicted warming of 3.7°C to 4.5°C by 2100 (Feulner 2010).
You will probably deny this science even exists, andypro7, because it is cited here: Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yep. Statistical analysis from RSS/UAH

Yep. WUWT being ignorant about climate, andypro7 !

1. WUWT do not know that climate is defined as weather averaged over the long term and the standard term used is 30 years (not 18). This is a WMO standard.
2. WUWT do not know the role oceans play in global warming.
3. WUWT cherry pick the dataset.
   • RSS has a small cooling trend in the weather.
   • HADCRUT4 has a warming trend in the weather.
   • GISTEMP has a warming trend in the weather.
   • UAH has a warming trend in the weather.
4. WUWT pick 1997 as the start date which means that the next year is 1998 - one of the warmest years on record.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

...How can you reconcile "it's catastrophic what is going to happen" with:

.


We can reconcile predictions about the effects of global warming with the real world, Heissonear, where

1. Scientific predictions can be made

2. We have measured the effects of an additional ~114 ppm of CO2 since 1850 and that is global warming .
1850: 285.2 ppm, today we are getting close to 400 ppm.

 

[andypro7]

.

No offense, but I checked out on you long ago, when the only thing you were doing was going to science denying smear web sites that attack climate researchers.

Feel free to keep posting at me, but I'm not reading any of it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You left out THE most important step - the adjustments of the global warming movement to make the raw data fit their conclusions.

Oh dear, andypro7, an outright lie ?
I had better check whether you are telling the truth or not:
andypro7: Please list the data that was purposely adjusted to produce a warming trend ("their conclusions").

The most important step in analyzing any data is identifying and fixing sources of error. Climate scientists are not idiots. They know that weather stations change over time and have come up with tested methods to identify and fix these sources of error.

What you ignored for this possible lie:

I am sorry that you think that blogs presenting climate science are "denying hate sites that attack climate scientists", andypro7. This will unfortunately prevent you from easily learning about valid climate science. For example Skeptical Science is running a good series of posts about the instrumental record:
Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Understanding Time of Observation Bias

 

[RealityCheck01]

No offense, but I checked out on you long ago, when ..snipped fantasy...

No offence, but I knew that you had checked out on climate science days ago when the only response to a blog describing and citing climate science was insults of the blog and the scientists writing it.

I will keep on posting so that people who read this thread will know that you are arguing from a stance of ignorance/denial/misconceptions about climate science.

Outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and remaining ignorance from andypro7

 

[Heissonear]

andypro7: Please list the data that was purposely adjusted to produce a warming trend ("their conclusions").

.

Some will whitewash every, that is, all erroneous ploys CAGW agenda driven people promote.

Whitewash one item after another to appear "no problem, adjustments are proper", "Hockey Stick was good science", "Climategate was nothing", .................

Living to defend the ploys of the warmists.

Whitewash is whitewash. It's a cover up. You can put your brush down now. It's time to face the music.

.

 

[andypro7]

It's so funny that they claim to love science, but what they really do is take observed data, change it around to show EXACTLY the opposite of what it really shows, and then tell you their new hockey-sticked pseudo-data show a warming trend:

Here are but two examples of hockey-sticking, I could post 1000:

 

[sculleywr]

It's so funny that they claim to love science, but what they really do is take observed data, change it around to show EXACTLY the opposite of what it really shows, and then tell you their new hockey-sticked pseudo-data show a warming trend:

Here are but two examples of hockey-sticking, I could post 1000:

Here's the actual adjustments from the NDCC:

As you can see, it's still rising in both cases. The adjustments don't change a cooling trend to a heating trend. It changes a slow heating trend to a slightly faster heating trend. And as you can also see in the graphs, it lines up with Berkeley. It also lines up with other sources:

And for comparison, here is CO2 correlation with the temperatures. Though correlation doesn't necessitate causation, there will be more later:

And here is explanation of why the correlation exists and evidence of causal relationship: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes

 

[andypro7]

Here's the actual adjustments from the NDCC:http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

You didn't understand the problem, specifically

They take the raw temp data, swirl around in their little hockey stick machine, and THEN give us the adjusted data.

EVERYTHING you post here is data that has been adjusted. Posting the adjusted data shows us nothing, unless you place it beside the original data.

I've shown what happened in two small examples. At the Darwin station, the difference is nearly TWO DEGREES. Not 2/10 of a degree, TWO DEGREES!

On the US gif, we see that the original data showed that approx. 1933/1934 was over a degree warmer than ANYTHING we've seen since. With the hockey-sticked data, we now get...Warmest Year Ever!

Those are two examples. There are thousands. Yet somehow you still trust them.

Post what you want, tell us all how terrible it is, it won't mean a thing, since your assessment is not based in the factual reading of the temperatures.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's so funny that ...

It is not so fumy, andypro7, that you still do not know what scientific literature is . Or what the hockey stick graph is!

Hockey stick graphs present the global or hemispherical mean temperature record of the past 500 to 2000 years as shown by quantitative climate reconstructions based on climate proxy records. These reconstructions have consistently shown a slow long term cooling trend changing into relatively rapid warming in the 20th century, with the instrumental temperature record by 2000 exceeding earlier temperatures.

(my emphasis added)

You claim to have a degree in mathematics so: Is 1880 500 years in the past, andypro7?

 

[RealityCheck01]

You didn't understand the problem, specifically

We understand the problem, andypro7, specifically it is the dumb idea of ignoring the fact that weather stations change instruments, structures, locations, surrounding (urban heating!) and even identity and so their data has to be adjusted for those changes !
Do you really expect a very hypothetical weather station on top of Mt Everest to give the same temperatures if it was moved (hypothetically!) to the Sahara Desert?

To take a local example: A weather station was moved from near sea level to 125 m above sea level. Yet a climate skeptic just joined up the data
NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist

Look again at Treadgold’s graph. He makes no distinction between the blue and green lines — he just joins them up. Temps before the mid-20s were recorded at Thorndon, near sea level, but then the recording station moved to Kelburn at 125 m above sea level. It’s pretty basic meteorology that temperatures fall as you move above sea level, so the two stations are not directly comparable. Treadgold affects not to know this… But there’s no need to throw out all the old data, you can apply a correction. Here’s how NIWA (and Salinger) went about it: ...

P.S. Kelburn is where the Met Service is based - I probably walked past that weather station on my way to a job interview there many years ago.

 

[andypro7]

Yep, nothing to see here, move along, my warmist minions:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

C3: Newest Research: NOAA Adds Extreme Global Warming Bias To U.S. Climate Records

Scientific Scam: Temperature Data “Adjusted” To Push Global Warming Lies

Forget Climategate: this 'global warming' scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

Blog: Another alarmist temperature lie

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph

C3: The Curse of Modern Climate Science: Seeking The Truth Replaced By 'Kardashian-Science'?

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

C3: Climate Fraud/Lies, Climategate, Fakegate

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yep, ...list of ignorant people...

Citing ignorant people who have the delusion that scientists should always use raw data no matter how the instruments collect that data change does not reflect on well on you, andypro7 .

These ignorant people would not use satellite temperature readings because they are not raw data. That are recordings of light that are "adjusted" to be temperature readings

These ignorant people would throw away over a century of temperature readings because there have been adjustments from the 1990's as weather stations have been automated.

These ignorant people would really scream incoherently about the "adjustments" done turning proxy measurements into temperatures.

11th March 2015 andypro7: Should raw data from weather stations be adjusted for instrumental, positional , environmental, operational, etc. changes?

SIx outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7