Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[sculleywr]

Repeat: Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe

Remove all non-peer reviewed articles and all articles that, when reviewed by peers, were summarily cast out. What are you left with?

 

[andypro7]

Yours assumes an elaborate, unprofitable conspiracy scheme is pushing global warming. Because nobody who supports it is making money like big oil is by pushing your side of things. Climate scientists lose money

Thanks, funniest thing I've heard all day. Why don't you have Michael Mann come and speak and explain it to us. He only charges $10,000 plus expenses.

 

[sculleywr]

I don't think you understand this issue, allow me to explain. A few weeks before the 2004 election, Dan Rather and CBS came out with a fraudulent report about Bush and Vietnam. It was soon exposed as fraud. Rather's explanation was that even though THAT PARTICULAR REPORT was proven to be false, Rather still believed the SUBSTANCE of it. It's the same thing with the hockey stick. If 95% of climate scientists believed that Michael Mann's hockey stick is accurate, then they cease to be scientists. What you mean to say, like Dan Rather, is that they still believe the substance of what the fake, fraudulent hockey stick represents. Additionally climate scientists would not be in any position to determine whether the original hockey stick was accurate, since the issue WAS NOT the climate, but rather the phony, fake, fraudulent, lying STATISTICAL METHOD that was used to present the graph. McIntyre proved, after attempting to replicate Mann's fraud, that virtually ANY numbers you put into Mann's graph produced a hockey stick shape. That's ANY random numbers at all. Now, if you call that science, or if climate scientists call that science, then they and you have disqualified themselves to discuss science.

And with this, you have disqualified yourself. Your evidence from henceforth is considered null and void. Science works this way: if the majority of data gathered supports climate change, it is accepted. The majority, or truly ALL data gathered on a global scale (though we shouldn't say all as scientists), confirms the existence of global warming. The data says it, we accept it, that settles it.

In other words, put up or don't talk. You aren't speaking science until you put up global, peer reviewed AND accepted scientific research.

Until then, you're a pundit. You're as trustworthy as Bill O'reilly talking about being on the ground in the Falklands.

 

[andypro7]

Remove all non-peer reviewed articles and all articles that, when reviewed by peers, were summarily cast out. What are you left with?

Phil Jones, director of the CRU on papers that disagree with him:

“…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

But what are we left with? Only the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists from over 600 research institutions that show that the MWP was warmer than today, and that the hockey stick was a fraud.

Yea, just that.

 

[sculleywr]

Phil Jones, director of the CRU on papers that disagree with him: “…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” But what are we left with? Only the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists from over 600 research institutions that show that the MWP was warmer than today, and that the hockey stick was a fraud. Yea, just that.

Umm. You haven't posted any journal articles that I've seen. I didn't ask for you to pundit about. Go get a non-blog, critically accepted scholarly source that isn't funded in any way by oil companies or republicans.

 

[andypro7]

In other words, put up or don't talk. You aren't speaking science until you put up global, peer reviewed AND accepted scientific research.

Now, I accept your challenge. And when I'm done, you'll eat your own words

GLOBAL:
Interactive GLOBAL map of Medieval Warming Period
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe 4650x2847 mit Graphen und Linien JPEG.jpg

PEER REVIEWED:
List of Scientists whose work is cited to produce MWP Project
CO2 Science

List of Research Institutions involved:
CO2 Science

The only thing left is 'accepted', which is probably what you'll have to rely on since it's ambiguous, and that's why you like it. You're likely going to say that it's not 'accepted'.

And that will just prove that you refuse to accept global evidence and peer reviewed science.

And that would make you a science denier.

 

[andypro7]

The majority, or truly ALL data gathered on a global scale (though we shouldn't say all as scientists), confirms the existence of global warming

Yet another statement that shows that you don't understand the issue. SO WHAT if the majority of ALL data confirms the existence of global warming. I mean, I should hope so, we were mired in a 200+ year Little Ice Age. Thank God for global warming.


Unless I've misunderstood you this whole time. If you're just saying that the planet has gotten a little bit warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age, and that's ALL you're saying, then we can just agree.

However, if you are saying much more than that, please stop citing surveys that ONLY tell us the planet has warmed a little, and then use those studies to "prove" that something catastrophic is happening. That's dishonest.

 

[andypro7]

Umm. You haven't posted any journal articles that I've seen. I didn't ask for you to pundit about. Go get a non-blog, critically accepted scholarly source that isn't funded in any way by oil companies or republicans.

Ok, so now you define "science" as excluding anything to do with corporations you don't like or political parties you don't like? That doesn't sound like science to me, but it does appear you've been making up your own definition of the word.

OK, get ready for some more Word-eating. You must be getting full by now.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) - funded by Koch brothers
Climate Reseach Unit - funded by Shell and BP
Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project - funded by Exxon.

So now, unless you are a HUGE hypocrite, you can no longer use BEST temperatures in your arguments
So now, unless you are a HUGE hypocrite, you can no longer use anything from the Hadley CRU
So now, unless you are a HUGE hypocrite, you can no longer use anything from Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project.

Ok, let's play by these rules now, it'll be fun, since you have almost nothing left (although you probably don't know why)

Now, for the love of God, GO GET YOUR SHINEBOX!!!

 

[eclipsenow]

PEER REVIEWED:
List of Scientists whose work is cited to produce MWP Project
CO2 Science

Oh, right, so CO2science.org is peer-reviewed!

They wrote the following garbage and not even deal with the Radiative Forcing Equation physics of CO2. Seriously? What a bunch of ignoramuses! I'm NOT bothering with anything that website says!
CO2 Science

(It's seriously boring watching Denialists shout and scream that they have 'peer-review' on their side and then quote sources that are so messed up. If they actually have a list of peer-reviewed scientists that discuss the MWP, then by all means, please track down those scientists peer reviewed WORKS themselves! But please don't just link to the DENIAL-O-SPHERE because I'm afraid that the dumbness might be catching. Just by linking to it you might have caught the dumb. Please go disinfect your hands right now! )

 

[sculleywr]

Now, I accept your challenge. And when I'm done, you'll eat your own words GLOBAL: Interactive GLOBAL map of Medieval Warming Period http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650x2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg PEER REVIEWED: List of Scientists whose work is cited to produce MWP Project CO2 Science List of Research Institutions involved: CO2 Science The only thing left is 'accepted', which is probably what you'll have to rely on since it's ambiguous, and that's why you like it. You're likely going to say that it's not 'accepted'. And that will just prove that you refuse to accept global evidence and peer reviewed science. And that would make you a science denier.

When the peers review it and reject it, it's not accepted. And while the MWP USED to be accepted, it has since been refuted and put to the side to rest with the Bohr model of the atom.

However. I wasn't asking for proof of the MWP. I was asking for proof that the adjustments were unnecessary AND produced a hockey stick. From what I can see, your graph has not been released by any peer reviewed article about the adjustments. I can't even find it using google image search.

 

[andypro7]

When the peers review it and reject it, it's not accepted. And while the MWP USED to be accepted, it has since been refuted and put to the side to rest with the Bohr model of the atom.

However. I wasn't asking for proof of the MWP. I was asking for proof that the adjustments were unnecessary AND produced a hockey stick. From what I can see, your graph has not been released by any peer reviewed article about the adjustments. I can't even find it using google image search.

Sorry, the hockey stick graph has now been thoroughly and totally debunked by YOUR OWN WORDS:

Go get a non-blog, critically accepted scholarly source that isn't funded in any way by oil companies or republicans

The hockey stick graph was created by Michael Mann, Mann was at the Hadley CRU, and as you know, the CRU takes big oil money from BP and Shell.

So, the hockey stick is now officially disproved to the satisfaction of both of us: Me because I know the science was bad, and you because it was funded by big oil.

No need to go on about the hockey stick. We BOTH agree it's a fraud.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Repeat:


Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe

Are you referring to the idiotic idea that THOUSANDS (actually MILLIONS) of observations from all over the globe should be thrown away because weather stations change, andypro7?

Let us do an estimate. Let us say that some weather stations have been changed from manual to automatic operation in 1980 (this is roughly when it actually happened over the US). This is known to introduce a change in the temperature measured because of the different instruments. Assume 1000 weather stations that were in operation from 1880 to 1980 were updated. A daily observation for 1000 stations over 100 years gives ~36,500,000 observations to be thrown away because of the idiotic idea that there is no way to adjust for the change

Repeat:


11th March 2015 andypro7: Do you understand that weather stations change, this affects their readings and thus has to be adjusted for?
11th March 2015 andypro7: Can you understand that the Oyler et al paper is not about global warming?
Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[RealityCheck01]

I don't think you understand this issue, allow me to explain. ...a bit of a conspiracy theory snipped....

I do know you have no idea what the documented consensus that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists means, andypro7.
This is little to do with any obsession with the hockey stick graph. This is to do with the evidence for and against AGW being looked at by exports in the field and the balance being that AGW exist. That 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists means is that we can base decisions on a reasonable expectation that AGW exists. Or alternately: anyone who asserts that AGW does not exist needs very good scientific evidence to support this. Not quite "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" but getting close.

The valid hockey stick graph is a minor piece of evidence just for global warming, i.e. several studies have found that the global temperature of the Earth has increased over the period of time that we have had the possibility of changing it, i.e. the last 2000 years or so.
The instrumental record from weather stations and satellites is the main evidence for global warning. That we are the main driver through CO2 emission is more complex but simply put: Greenhouse effect .

And in case you go on about a businessman and economist trying to do climate science yet again, andypro7: Hockey stick graph[/URL

Toronto businessman Stephen McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99, and obtained MBH98 datasets by request to Mann in April 2003.[83] At the suggestion of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of the social science journal Energy & Environment, McIntyre wrote an article with the assistance of University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick,[84][85] which Energy & Environment published on 27 October 2003.[86][87] The McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 paper (MM03) said that the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98) "hockey stick" shape was "primarily an artefact of poor data handling and use of obsolete proxy records."[88] Their criticism was comprehensively refuted by Wahl & Ammann 2007,[89] which showed errors in the methods used by McIntyre and McKitrick.[90]

12th March 2015 andypro7: Can you understand that McIntyre and McKitrick are not climate scientists and their papers have been refuted?
Not being climate scientists does not mean their work is wrong - it means that their work is more likely to be wrong because of inexperience in the field.

 

[RealityCheck01]

IPCC Predicted Temps vs. Actual Temps:

I do think you do not know what science means, andypro7 !
It is not random ignorant images from the Internet!

The first image is an idiot comparing a linear rate of temperature increase with the observations. No one predicts that observed temperatures will increase linearly !

The second image is an idiot thinking that CO2 levels have been measured out to 2100 - "Actual Atmospheric CO2 Growth Trend" ! But the idiocy is more likely that they think that some unspecified CO2 emission growth trend will persist to 2100. Historical data puts the lie to this - CO2 levels do not grow linearly.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Phil Jones, director of the CRU on papers that disagree with him: ...

The final failure of the climate change denier - dragging up the Climatic Research Unit email controversy as if they were totally ignorant about what the result was , andypro7

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]

A climate scientist stating that papers are not appropriate for an IPCC report and joking about how to keep them out is not science. Nor is ignorance about what actually happened, andypro7:

Alleged exclusion of papers from IPCC report
In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by "MM", thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Jones emailed his colleagues saying, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" At that time, Jones and Kevin E. Trenberth were lead authors on a chapter in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Trenberth told the investigating journalist "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature... Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC." He also made a statement agreed with Jones, that "AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process." Jones could have been expected to be aware of the rules as he had been a contributing author for more than ten years, but this was his first time as a lead author with a responsibility for content of the complete chapter.[44][49]

What we are left with is an obsession with a climate change skeptic web site with the idea that collecting every MWP paper that exists shows that the MWP existed no matter what the papers actually say !

 

[andypro7]

The first image is an idiot comparing a linear rate of temperature increase with the observations. No one predicts that observed temperatures will increase linearly

Wow, you are REALLY unprepared for this discussion. In 1990 the IPCC, FUNDED BY BP AND SHELL, made predictions about the warming they thought would take place. Their predictions come in the form of X deg C/century. Those lines of that graph represent their predictions based on the time that has elapsed since those predictions. If I had to guess based on looking, it looks like a .8 deg increase in approx 25 years, which means they were predicting 3.2 deg per century, which matches what they were saying then.

The second image is an idiot thinking that CO2 levels have been measured out to 2100 - "Actual Atmospheric CO2 Growth Trend" But the idiocy is more likely that they think that some unspecified CO2 emission growth trend will persist to 2100. Historical data puts the lie to this - CO2 levels do not grow linearly

Again, you are just clueless. The IPCC made PREDICTIONS, and those predictions go to 'the next 100 years', and they are graphed. As far as CO2 levels not growing lineraly, look at what it says on the graph. 'Actual Atmospheric CO2 Growth Trend'

Notice the word "Trend", as in you draw a "Trend LINE" to represent the growth.

Seriously, dude, I don't have the time to teach you basic math. Maybe your lacking in that area is why you believe global warming in the first place

 

[RealityCheck01]

Now, I accept your challenge....

And once again you do not understand what the challenge is or what the MWP Project or CO2 Science are, andypro7.
We know that they are a web site citing papers from the scientific literature abut the MWP. What is lacking is a list of papers about whether the MWP
* was global and
* was warmer than today's global temperatures.

That is the challenge: To produce the scientific literature to show that the MWP was global and warmer than today.

12th March 2015 andypro7: Are you making the physically impossible demand that we read all of the thousands of papers on that web site ?
For that matter:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Have you read all of the thousands of papers on that web site ?

The alternative is that this is you are just obsessed with the number of papers on that web site and are totally ignoring their content.

 

[andypro7]

We know that they are a web site citing papers from the scientific literature abut the MWP. What is lacking is a list of papers about whether the MWP
* was global and
* was warmer than today's global temperatures.

Again, I don't have time to teach you the basics of math and science. If you want to find out the temp of the MWP, what you would do, IF YOU UNDERSTOOD science, is collect ALL the available, PEER REVIEWED data and papers on the time period.

You would then take in ALL the information at hand, and you would come to a conclusion that was based on the totality of the information.

Which is EXACTLY what the MWP Project did. And they PROVED, looking at ALL the evidence, that the MWP was warmer than today and was global

GLOBAL:
Interactive GLOBAL map of Medieval Warming Period
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MW...ien%20JPEG.jpg

PEER REVIEWED:
List of Scientists whose work is cited to produce MWP Project
CO2 Science

List of Research Institutions involved:
CO2 Science

 

[RealityCheck01]

The first image is an idiot comparing a linear rate of temperature increase with the observations. No one predicts that observed temperatures will increase linearly
...snipped irrelevant text...

andypro7: Insults and fantasies about old reports (1990) do not address:

The first image is an idiot comparing a linear rate of temperature increase with the observations. No one predicts that observed temperatures will increase linearly

Or:
The second image is an idiot thinking that CO2 levels have been measured out to 2100 - "Actual Atmospheric CO2 Growth Trend" But the idiocy is more likely that they think that some unspecified CO2 emission growth trend will persist to 2100. Historical data puts the lie to this - CO2 levels do not grow linearly

Seriously dude , you need to learn about the real world where
* The scientific literature is not ignorant people producing images on the internet.
* CO2 emissions have never had a linear trend.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Again, ...]

Again:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Are you making the physically impossible demand that we read all of the thousands of papers on that web site ?
For that matter:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Have you read all of the thousands of papers on that web site ?

The alternative is that this is you are just obsessed with the number of papers on that web site and are totally ignoring their content.

What you wrote leads to:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did.
Start with their database that lists all of the data that they extracted from the papers to be analyzed. That should be easy - they obviously published this analysis in the scientific literature

I do hope this is not the idiocy of thinking that their interactive map is an analysis.