Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[[serious]]

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.

If he had the equipment, he could tell you what the temperature there was to the accuracy of his equipment.

If another person had similar equipment, they could get get a reading where they were. If thousands of people did, we could get thousands of readings. If we averaged those readings, we could get an average for the dataset, though that wouldn't be terribly useful. If we did this over multiple years, we could get a departure from the mean for each site, or an anomaly. We've been trying to explain that last step to heis this whole thread, but he's having a lot of trouble with the concept.

Here's why that last step is important. Average absolute temperature is not well correlated even relatively small distances away. If we were trying to infer the absolute temperatures between stations to meaningful accuracy, we would need an unreasonable number of temperature stations. Temperature anomaly, on the other hand, IS well associated across reasonable distances. Hence, we can meaningfully average temperature anomaly.

 

[Heissonear]

I'm from Florida. I'm worried about the heat. I bet Jakarta Indonesia is worried too, .............

................. prevent sea level rise from drowning Greek, Italian. French and Spanish port cities ......

.............but the science hater who runs the state and somehow got reelected is banning all research and projects regarding climate change as a reality. ......


.............South Florida is in the most danger, with the massive number of people living along the coast and the extremely flat land.

...............Over 10000 square miles of land could be lost in south Florida alone due to climate change and warming trends over the next 20-25 years.

..............By then, Jakarta will be a memory submerged, only visited by scuba divers and personal submarines.

.

A pretty heavy dose of Alarmism. Real heavy.

CAGW has caused many in our society false concerns

The ideology behind CO2 in the atmosphere will bring Catastrophies has caused many to not think rationally.

The sky is not falling. The amount of "additional" CO2 place in Earth's atmosphere by modern society is about 150 ppm. That is right, 150 ppm.

There have been and still are major natural cycles regulating Earth's climate: locally, regionally, and globally.

You may want to study these cycles and the size of the parameters contributing to "weather" and "climate".

Nature has been controlling weather and climate, not man, for all of the Earth’s past. There is no evidence such has changed and man or CO2 now took over.

Earth, with its dynamic climate cycles, has never remained static in climate, the climate has always changed, like the weather on Earth.

Alarmism is not pretty, has caused people harm, and has no current bases, unless you think you can predict the future . Can you? Can anyone?

Then it may be time to quit spreading fear. Alright?

.

 

[Heissonear]

Temperature anomaly, on the other hand, IS well associated across reasonable distances. Hence, we can meaningfully average temperature anomaly.

.

Incorrect. Limited data is just that, limited data.

Use of limited data can cause speculation and conjecture.

For example, earth's natural climate cycles have been in control of earth's local, regional, and Global climate for all of time past. To presently state we are in "a Pause of CO2 induced Global Warming" is speculation and conjecture.

Another example, let's see your "regional precipitation" numbers for the past three months for the North East of America . If you extend your collection sites to quantify the whole you are fooling yourself. Your "precipitation numbers" will be off by percentages, not to the accuracy of a decimal place.

When are you going to address the error produced and promoted, like your statement above? When? It is all a matter of time before the inaccuracies are clearly understood. Better to clear such up now. Limited data is not complete data to base our understanding of events on, such as the amount of snow, ice and rain in each region of the North East, much less for the entire NE area: and any numbers posted would be speculation, not exact and dependable.

.

 

[Elendur]

Incorrect. Limited data is just that, limited data.
...

You know what, when you do solve that problem, let the world know. Everyone who has dealt with statistics of any mentionable degree will shove money down your throat to get a glimpse of how you did it.

You'd better avoid healthcare, as they base, close to, all of their results on "limited data".

 

[andypro7]

If he had the equipment, he could tell you what the temperature there was to the accuracy of his equipment.

If another person had similar equipment, they could get get a reading where they were. If thousands of people did, we could get thousands of readings. If we averaged those readings, we could get an average for the dataset, though that wouldn't be terribly useful. If we did this over multiple years, we could get a departure from the mean for each site, or an anomaly. We've been trying to explain that last step to heis this whole thread, but he's having a lot of trouble with the concept.

Here's why that last step is important. Average absolute temperature is not well correlated even relatively small distances away. If we were trying to infer the absolute temperatures between stations to meaningful accuracy, we would need an unreasonable number of temperature stations. Temperature anomaly, on the other hand, IS well associated across reasonable distances. Hence, we can meaningfully average temperature anomaly.

You left out THE most important step - the adjustments of the global warming movement to make the raw data fit their conclusions. There's ton of examples, here's just one in Darwin, AU that was written about extensively:

Notice, this isn't just a little adjustment. It takes a cooling trend of .7C/century and turns it into a warming trend of 1.2C/century.

Ah, blessed assurance in our Mann-adjusted temp record.

 

[sculleywr]

18 years? And local data at that? Too bad it doesn't line up with NOAA, NASA, USGS, and virtually every other country in the world Once again, EVERYTHING you say is wrong. I'm beginning to see that you probably don't have the knowledge necessary to continue this conversation. It's 18 years for a reason. Because that's how long it's been with no statistical warming of the planet. Additionally, and this is the big point here, the priests of global warming started making predictions of doom about 25 years ago, and it really started ramping up about 5 years after that. The 18 years of no global warming just so HOW UTTERLY TERRIBLE global warming models are, as we now have over 100 major predictions from the climate-heads that have been proven entirely false. But this is the capper: And local data at that? The RSS/UAH data set is one of the main SATELLITE temperature data sets, or, the EXACT OPPOSITE of local. And, it pretty much lines up with most major temp data sets. But after this last round, I think I've pretty much figured you out. You have your belief, and you will oppose any information that contradicts your belief, even if you don't have the knowledge to do so. I guess that's fine, but I don't have time to keep educating you. Read up for awhile and then come back.

You know. It's funny that NOBODY who actually reports on this stuff is actually seeing what you're seeing. Perhaps it is because of a few options:
1: there's a worldwide conspiracy that involves every civilized country into a theory that has been nothing but a giant money sink for every country and company involved. This theory, if true, has proven to be about as profitable for the money purses of those in charge as shooting one's own foot is profitable for the health of a perfectly healthy person. Never mind that they have addressed the "pause" you are referring to and find that it was neither statistically anomalous nor really true, since water temperatures have been rising, too (a measurable warming trend that has culminated in the destabilization of the jet stream that holds the polar airs in the north, giving us the wonderful polar vortices that we have seen the past few years). Never mind that they have no motivation (other than a tin hat wearing man's hatred of "the man"). They must be working to destroy...something. Not really sure what since they haven't declared it.

2. Or the statistics as a whole do not indicate this 18 year pause of yours, as carbon content has still been flying high. I don't know about you, but what happens when you put a blanket on something? It gets warmer because it holds heat in. The question is almost so simple that you'd expect a five year old to understand. It's not like we have planets to show us what carbon-filled atmospheres do in otherwise livable planets... Oh wait... There goes Venus again.

 

[sculleywr]

. Sounds like you caught the Alarmism bug. Piecing "reality" together at this point is not going to be easy. It is not just propaganda ingestion but now the belief in such Alarmism propaganda. How can you reconcile "it's catastrophic what is going to happen" with: 1. Someone who says they CAN prophecy or predict the future? 2. There is no EVIDENCE that an additional ~150 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere DOES ANY THING (except excite Alarmists)? You do know that ingestion followed by belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda causes one to catch the Alarmism bug, right? .

I tend to trust a couple of things:

People who claim alarmism when something is going wrong with the world in a measurable way are generally sticking their heads in the sand. It isn't alarmist to look at past data and realize that what has happened in the past can happen again. As we are told, those who do not learn from their past are doomed to repeat it. We know there is something wrong when the number of species dying off is five to ten times higher than it ought to be, ranges of plants are no longer the same because they are migrating north and dying in their old ranges (the Johnson Tree can no longer live in its namesake State Park, and the Baltimore Oriole can't live in the latitude where Baltimore is, either, despite having been so common that they became recognized state wide), and air in places like Beijing is completely unbreathable. It's called common sense.

Volcanic eruptions releasing massive amounts of carbon into the air have caused spikes in climate change. This was even recorded by the Egyptians in their early period, and geology shows that around that time period, a string of volcanos erupted in the Pacific Ocean, leading to global warming, followed by global cooling.

You don't need to be alarmist to believe mankind is destroying the earth. You simply need to live near a place that is effected by it. If you're stuck in your western world's ivory tower and don't bother to look outside and smell the methane, of course you're going to assume everyone is alarmist. The predictions have been pretty accurate so far, if not slower than anticipated.

But I tend to like my hometown above water. Jacksonville is a wonderful city, and I would prefer it if Argyle Forest and Chimney Lakes didn't become beachfront subdivisions.

 

[sculleywr]

Warmist year on record? That is pure propaganda, unless you can factually determine Earth's temperature to the second decimal for an entire year measurement. Look it up. And you believe the earth can have one data point that represents it's temperature for an entire year. What else do you want to "believe" in? .

Yes you actually can. Our thermometers can record temperatures to the thousandth of a degree. And averaging together THOUSANDS OF THERMOMETERS is not one data point. It is the average of an aggregation of thousands of data points.

That's not propaganda. That's science fact.

 

[sculleywr]

You know, I have a feeling that we should just outlaw anti-science from being propagandized or used as a political chip. It seems to me that this anti-climate change movement was started and is maintained by people with a science education that ended in 6th grade and was replaced with tin foil hat conspiracy theorism a long time ago.

 

[sculleywr]

. Incorrect. Limited data is just that, limited data. Use of limited data can cause speculation and conjecture. For example, earth's natural climate cycles have been in control of earth's local, regional, and Global climate for all of time past. To presently state we are in "a Pause of CO2 induced Global Warming" is speculation and conjecture. Another example, let's see your "regional precipitation" numbers for the past three months for the North East of America . If you extend your collection sites to quantify the whole you are fooling yourself. Your "precipitation numbers" will be off by percentages, not to the accuracy of a decimal place. When are you going to address the error produced and promoted, like your statement above? When? It is all a matter of time before the inaccuracies are clearly understood. Better to clear such up now. Limited data is not complete data to base our understanding of events on, such as the amount of snow, ice and rain in each region of the North East, much less for the entire NE area: and any numbers posted would be speculation, not exact and dependable. .

It isn't limited data. It's recorded data of thousands of thermometers, satellites, and other data collection devices that are accurate to what actually happened. They aren't weather devices. They are climate. But of course, you know more than the people who dedicate their life to it. What are your credentials, by the way? Why should we believe YOU over someone who studies climate for a living?

 

[sculleywr]

You left out THE most important step - the adjustments of the global warming movement to make the raw data fit their conclusions. There's ton of examples, here's just one in Darwin, AU that was written about extensively: Notice, this isn't just a little adjustment. It takes a cooling trend of .7C/century and turns it into a warming trend of 1.2C/century. Ah, blessed assurance in our Mann-adjusted temp record.

Actually, those adjustments were extremely minute. The difference was still a warming trend, but it was a smaller warming trend. The corrections have already been accounted for, and so your ship sank before it even left port

 

[andypro7]

Actually, those adjustments were extremely minute. The difference was still a warming trend, but it was a smaller warming trend. The corrections have already been accounted for, and so your ship sank before it even left port

Your one paragraph cut and paste hockey stick explanation is no match for the mountains and mountains of data I could produce here that show exactly the opposite. For instance, notice what they did here to the 1930s, exactly what they're trying to do with the MWP.

They adjusted the past temps down, and the current temps up. So, in reality, the 1930s were warmer than today, but with the adjusted hockey stick temps, we get 'WARMEST YEAR EVER' crap

I could spend all day posting all of these temp hockey stick frauds, but I've already learned that you don't really care about science and facts, just your warmist alarmism cult.

The corrections have already been accounted for, and so your ship sank before it even left port

It's very telling that you are gloating about ignoring the science, and explaining it away with warmist propaganda, while yourself presenting nothing. If it was me, I'd wonder if I was deceiving myself, but I guess that's the problem with deceiving yourself, you can't really see it.

 

[andypro7]

You know, I have a feeling that we should just outlaw anti-science from being propagandized or used as a political chip. It seems to me that this anti-climate change movement was started and is maintained by people with a science education that ended in 6th grade and was replaced with tin foil hat conspiracy theorism a long time ago.

Hmmm, let's see, someone wants to OUTLAW scientific inquiry and skepticism. The very fact that you typed this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about science at all. What you are proposing is the exact opposite of science.

Your post is a great cut and paste post for the dangers of the warmist cult. I mean, what's next, if we're going to outlaw the speech, we might as well throw those who speak it in jail, right?

You hilariously said that my ship was sinking. Well, it appears that your ship is censorship.

 

[sculleywr]

Your one paragraph cut and paste hockey stick explanation is no match for the mountains and mountains of data I could produce here that show exactly the opposite. For instance, notice what they did here to the 1930s, exactly what they're trying to do with the MWP. They adjusted the past temps down, and the current temps up. So, in reality, the 1930s were warmer than today, but with the adjusted hockey stick temps, we get 'WARMEST YEAR EVER' crap I could spend all day posting all of these temp hockey stick frauds, but I've already learned that you don't really care about science and facts, just your warmist alarmism cult. The corrections have already been accounted for, and so your ship sank before it even left port It's very telling that you are gloating about ignoring the science, and explaining it away with warmist propaganda, while yourself presenting nothing. If it was me, I'd wonder if I was deceiving myself, but I guess that's the problem with deceiving yourself, you can't really see it.

Your graphs and data focus on local, recent trends that ignore the related data.

Here's a challenge. Be a scientist. This means you should go out of your way to prove yourself wrong.

Take your mountains of data. I'll take the standard scientific model based on galaxies worth of data. Cause that's what proves climate change if your evidence of 18 years of "pause" is mountains. I want to believe you. But facts are facts. And you, sir, can be in denial all you want. Do me and those of us inheriting the world a favor, though. Don't vote on anything related to climate change and environmental conservation.

Benefits of the climate change model that is the norm in EVERY COUNTRY IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD OUTSIDE OF AMERICA:
Better fuels. Before unleaded fuels, people were exposed to five times the safe limits of lead exposure every year. Lead poisoning was a very common ailment and was a contributing factor to SIDS deaths in those years (exposure to lead during pregnancy increases various risk factors related to SIDS). We also now have biofuels, and even one engine that can run on filtered leftover oil from restaurants to fuel an internal combustion engine.
Cleaner air. Before the environmental movement, the city I currently live in was known for its beautiful smog, collected in the Tennessee river valley like water in a basin. Today, I can go to the river park with my girlfriend and see the stars. This is true of many cities. These movements have also been preventing a second Dust Bowl from happening by maintaining large tracts of grasslands untouched by agricultural development.
Growth in new and unique forms of clean energy. In fifteen years time, the world's first fusion-based reactor will fire up. Current technology makes it possible for us to transform our road systems into solar powerhouses if we so wished. Using clean energy, we could theoretically shut down every fossil fuel based power plant and replace them with large scale projects and modern clean power plants within only a few decades. Thousands of jobs that are safer than fossil fuel plant jobs would open up, replacing the jobs from fossil fuel plants.

These are the results of your alarmists. Real, honest change for the better. Aren't we so scary. This is all based off of taking in the bigger picture. Since the industrial era, we have pumped in tons of carbon. So I'll stick with the big picture

 

[sculleywr]

Hmmm, let's see, someone wants to OUTLAW scientific inquiry and skepticism. The very fact that you typed this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about science at all. What you are proposing is the exact opposite of science. Your post is a great cut and paste post for the dangers of the warmist cult. I mean, what's next, if we're going to outlaw the speech, we might as well throw those who speak it in jail, right? You hilariously said that my ship was sinking. Well, it appears that your ship is censorship.

No. We should outlaw ANTI-SCIENCE. Scientific inquiry asks of all the data. What you are calling science is focusing on cherry picking. You want 18 years. I want the last three centuries.

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. NASA has lost funding for climate research from the state, because they aren't supporting your party line.

 

[andypro7]

Your graphs and data focus on local, recent trends that ignore the related data.

What is so hard for you to understand about RSS GLOBAL Satellite Temperatures.

Didn't read a word after that.

 

[andypro7]

No. We should outlaw ANTI-SCIENCE. Scientific inquiry asks of all the data. What you are calling science is focusing on cherry picking. You want 18 years. I want the last three centuries

Looks like you're cherry picking. How about the last 100 centuries, cherry picker?

 

[andypro7]

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.

And by the way, why wouldn't Rick Scott defund it? If I'm not mistaken, he's the governor, and as the state's chief executive, it's his JOB to make sure that the taxpayer money is well-spent. And when it comes to climate research, we now have a 20 year history of them taking oodles of research dollars and being wrong about just about everything.

Not a good allocation of resources.

 

[sculleywr]

What is so hard for you to understand about RSS GLOBAL Satellite Temperatures. Didn't read a word after that.

please. Take an English class. 18 years from is temporally local to us. It's the supposed pause that everyone is telling you is a blip on the scale of the warming trend. 18 years compared to a century worth of data is nothing.

That is also a disputed 18 years that has several graphs from other sources and is contested by the water temperatures, which can't be measured by satellite.

Of course. You won't read anything that disputes you because it's anti science.

 

[sculleywr]

No. We should outlaw ANTI-SCIENCE. Scientific inquiry asks of all the data. What you are calling science is focusing on cherry picking. You want 18 years. I want the last three centuries Looks like you're cherry picking. How about the last 100 centuries, cherry picker?

we have. There is still a hockey stick. The fastest rise in carbon content of the atmosphere ever recorded is right now. The temperatures are rising right now. And if you're so dead set on driving this planet off a cliff, please, feel free to disembark from this planet because we aren't going to let you into the driver's seat