Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[RealityCheck01]

...usual propaganda rant...

Wrong, Heissonear as usual !
There are several papers that show that the consensus of climate scientists is >95% that AGW exist.
Cook et al paper is the third paper to find that this % is about 97% .
The world facts that I link to:

So we can see the difference between you claim and mine I have a list of published papers that support the actual claim: 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening!
You have the MWP Project web site is full of thousands of papers and you have no idea if any of then support your claim

Another small difference is that scientists recognize that they may be wrong. That is why they tend to make the data that they have available for other people to inspect and even do their own analysis. the data behind 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening! is available and searchable at The Consensus Project

Now where is the MWP Projects database of data that they extracted from all of those papers?

 

[RealityCheck01]

My claim is that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening. This is backed up by the paper in which it was published and other papers
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

Ok, let's see what the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS cited in the Cook et al paper say, when asked if Cook et al accurate portrayed their position:.....

Let us see the total denial about the contents of Cook et al. (2013), andypro7 !
Read The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust. This is a survey of 12,000 climate papers. These 12,000 climate papers are analyzed according to set criteria to grouped them (basically into no position, for AGW and against AGW). It is idiotic to think that 4 scientists disagreeing with how 4 papers were grouped would change the result measurably when there are 12,000 climate papers in the dataset. That is 0.03% !

Read The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust and see that the Cook et al report is the third report to conclude that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists.

15th March 2015 andypro7: Is this a claim that 6 misclassified papers out of 12,000 papers invalidates Cook et al. (2013) and Doran & Zimmerman (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010)

 

[RealityCheck01]

You know absolutely nothing. Do you even know what Doran/Zimmerman is???

Wrong, andypro7:
This is Doran & Zimmerman (2009) (PDF).
This was a web survey with a list of 10,257 Earth scientists invited (probably by email!). I suspect that the person who set the web site up was a graduate student because that is what graduate students are for - doing the donkey work for professors (been there, done that!).

The survey contained 9 questions (the above report is about 2 of the questions)

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?

Like all surveys, not all people contacted replied .

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1).

Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change (climate scientists) replied 97.4% to question 2, andypro7 This dropped to 90% from anyone who published on climate change, 89% for publishers on any topic, 88% for climatologists in general.

Cook et al surveyed climate change papers, i.e. were written by climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.

Now read what I wrote, andypro7:

Followed by
* Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004
* Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research.
* Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts.

A further indictor of consensus is the widespread endorsing of AGW by scientific organizations, e.g. National Academies of Science.

(my emphasis added)

And let us unleash your great mathematical skills in this :
The report states that there were
* 79 specialists (climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) in the survey.
* 76 answered "risen" to question 1.
* 75 answered yes to question 2.
* 2 did not answer question 2
15th March 2015 andypro7: What percentage of specialists agree that AGW exists, i.e. "think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"?

P.S. Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

Uh Oh, latest research shows the oceans are cooling, not warming.

Heissonear - I hope we are reading and weeping about the delusions spouted about this paper on Watts Up With that !

Here is the science: Liang et al. (2015) Vertical Redistribution of Oceanic Heat Content. The paper is talking about a redistribution of heat content in the deep ocean - not loss or gain of the entire ocean heat content. They look at the roles of advection and mixing in this redistribution.
When the measured heat content of oceans is plotted it is a curve that increases: Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content

Here is a climate science denier lying about the paper's contents (Bob Tisdale) on a blog. The paper says nothing about the change in the total heat content of oceans :eye-poppi!
Notice what is missing is a graph of the heat content of the oceans (see above). Are you trusting someone as ignorant about climate science as Bob Tisdale, Heissonear?
The story of my visit at Bob Tisdale's blog "Climate Observations"


See the difference between science and lying about science, Heissonear?

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

Why has Reality-Check promoted Alarmism about the oceans are heating?

.

Why is Heissonear persisting in the non-physical assertion that the heat content of oceans is not rising when it is measured to be increasing?
Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content

The oceans may be lulling us into a false sense of climate security

A paper published last week in Science casts more light on oceans and how they may have contributed to a false sense of security about what we face in the future. The paper, coauthored by Byron Steinman, Michael Mann, and Sonya Miller, approached the problem in a new way that connected real-world observations with state-of-the-art climate models. What the authors find casts severe doubt on other work which had oversold the role of natural climate’s ability to halt global warming for the next 15 years. Instead, by correcting others’ errors, the new paper shows that things may be worse than we thought.

.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I assert that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today and was global. As proof, I offer up the Medieval Warming Period Project, which collected the peer reviewed work of over 600 scientists which shows that the MWP was much warmer than today and was global in nature.

The problem is that the last part might be a lie, andypro7, because there is no such thing (so far) at the MWP Project. You seem to be misinforming people about the MWP Project. It is not a collection of just the papers that show that the MWP was much warmer than today and was global in nature. It should be a collection of papers that has ever been published on the MWP including any about local MWP(s) that were colder than now. Otherwise what you have is a biased propaganda machine, not science.

My response was for you to produce the evidence for that assertion !

12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).

P.S. Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

And yes, andypro7, a blog that is partially backed by oil companies is slightly dubious but that does not matter if they have actual scientific results .

 

[andypro7]

This is Doran & Zimmerman (2009) (PDF).
This was a web survey with a list of 10,257 Earth scientists invited (probably by email!). I suspect that the person who set the web site up was a graduate student because that is what graduate students are for - doing the donkey work for professors



Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change (climate scientists) replied 97.4% to question 2, andypro7 This dropped to 90% from anyone who published on climate change, 89% for publishers on any topic, 88% for climatologists in general.

Cook et al surveyed climate change papers, i.e. were written by climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.

* 79 specialists (climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) in the survey.
* 76 answered "risen" to question 1.
* 75 answered yes to question 2.
What percentage of specialists agree that AGW exists, i.e. "think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"?

Notice here that RealityCheck did another warmist trick. He brought up Doran/Zimmerman, ONCE AGAIN not realizing that it's been widely discredited, just like Cook et al.
And after I EXPLAIN IT TO HIM, he repeats what I said as if he's explaining it to me. Laughable, simply laughable.

But here's the kicker, he says this:

Cook et al surveyed climate change papers, i.e. were written by climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.

Once again not realizing that googling something from warmist propaganda sites isn't the same as science. And now, once again, I'll have to educate him:

The way they determined if someone was a climatologist who is active publishers on climate change was if over 50% of their published work was on climate change.

However, it was later revealed that Doran/Zimmerman left out SEVERAL climatologists who qualified under that standard. Not coincidentally, all those left out answered NO to question #2.

More fake, lying, fraudulent hockey stick math from RealityCheck.

And oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't understand why citing a consensus is not the least bit scientific in the first place.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The ONLY thing that should matter is the data and where it leads, but the pro-warming movement has put forth this fallacy for decades now that it somehow makes a difference which group of people believe in it and which don't.

I agree with the first bit - a pity that you have not been able to deliver on that data and where the data leads !
The second bit is a a fallacy, andypro7.
There is no "pro-warming movement" for the simple reason that warming would be bad for us and thus no one would be idiotic enough to be for it.

Every scientist in the world has put it out there that the sources of funding can bias results. This is an unfortunate fact about the real world. This is why revealing conflicts of interests is a rule for some journals and why Willie Soon may be in trouble.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Notice here that ...snipped lies and insults....

Which implies that you cannot do simple arithmetic, andypro7 !
15th March 2015 andypro7: What percentage of specialists agree that AGW exists, i.e. "think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"?

But a new unsupported assertion needs answering first
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please support that D&A left out climatologists so the result is <97% of climatologists think AGW exist.

ETA: * 2 specialists did not answer question 2.
In case you cannot do the math : 75*100%/77 = 97.4% so none of the 75 were left out.

ETA: Oh and by the way you are wrong yet again andypro7: I understand that an increasing consensus is an increasing confidence that the science is correct. This does not make science correct. Look at Newtonian gravitation - a couple of centuries of overwhelming consensus and it turns out to an approximation to GR.
Science is never correct. The job of scientists is to continuously challenge established science.

 

[sculleywr]

It takes a bizzare worldview to claim to be scientifically minded and then focus only on 18 years, despite the fact that 18 years is not how long they have been tracking climate change.

 

[andypro7]

But a new unsupported assertion needs answering first
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please support that D&A left out climatologists so the result is <97% of climatologists think AGW exist.

Why should I bother? You've already shown that you have no problem with something like Cook et al LYING about scientists in order to come up with a fake consensus number.
And your "it was only 5 guys" crap doesn't fly. If we know he lied about 5 guys, then the BURDEN OF PROOF is now on you to PROVE that he didn't LIE about all the others.

ETA: * 2 specialists did not answer question 2.
In case you cannot do the math : 75*100%/77 = 97.4% so none of the 75 were left out.

Once again, I SAID THAT, and now you're acting like you thought of it. That was MY WHOLE POINT, that in a survey sent to over 10000 scientists, with over 3500 responding, and SEVERAL HUNDRED responding "No" to the 2nd question, they chose to use only 77 answers.

And that's what you call science. Pathetic

Science is never correct. The job of scientists is to continuously challenge established science

Except in this case, where you claim the science is correct, and call those who continually challenge it 'deniers', while all the while making excuses for known fraud, and lies, and other hockey stick mumbo-jumbo.

 

[sculleywr]

Andy pro is so obsessed with hating on the Cook studies that you'd think he thought that was all there ever was in the world of people who accept climate change as reality. Could we stop splitting hairs and focusing on the cherry picked argument of Cook et al? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[RealityCheck01]

[Why should I bother?

So I do not have to conclude that you are lying about D&Z leaving out climatologists, andypro7 @
I really do not want to do that. If you have evidence that they did then produce it. Otherwise be honest and say that you have no evidence that they did.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please support that D&Z left out climatologists who fit the 50% published work on climate change criteria so the result is <97% of climatologists think AGW exist.

FOR THE FIRST TIME: YOU DID NOT SAY THAT. You said that they left out climatologists who fit the 50% published work on climate change criteria, i.e. specialists in their language

ETA: * 2 specialists did not answer question 2.
In case you cannot do the math : 75*100%/77 = 97.4% so none of the 75 were left out.

These things are different.

Wrong yet again, andypro7:
* My claim is that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists. That is not that the science is correct. It is that we can have a high level (97%) of confidence that the science may be correct.
An analogy: We have a horse race. A group of rabbit breeders predict the winner A. A group of aircraft enthusiasts predict the winner B. A group of horse breeders pick the winner C. I would bet on horse C. What horse would you bet on, andypro7 :
* I call deniers of climate, science climate science deniers because they blindly deny science!
* I call people who are skeptical about climate science, climate science skeptics because they have legitimate concerns.

I call people who continuously lie about the hockey stick graph, climate science deniers because their denial of climate science has lead them to lie about climate science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You've already shown that you have no problem with something like Cook et al LYING about scientists in order to come up with a fake consensus number.

Wrong, andypro7: We know you cited some guys in a blog article asserted that they were misrepresented. They may have been lying. You are the one with the continuous insults about Cook et al. This is your theory. You need to provide the evidence that their results are wrong.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.

ETA: The usual bad scholarship of no link to these statements in your post, andypro7!
What we have is an obviously biased reporter writing on Popular Technology.net:
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

And who does the reporter list out of the hundreds? sampled - 7 people, 4 of them climate scientists and so probably in that 97% !

1. Craig D. Idso: "An outspoken global warming skeptic ..."
2. Nicola Scafetta: Not a climate scientist.
3. Nir J. Shaviv: An astrophysicist and climate scientist with the usual bais of the Sun/cosmic rays drives global warming.
4. Richard S.J. Tol: an economics professor!
5. Nils-Axel Morner: A climate change skeptic ("Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming.[5]")
6. Willie Soon: A climate change skeptic with some conflict of interest problems currently.
7. Alan Carlin: an economist.

Think logically about this, andypro7: Not one person listed replied that their paper(s) were classified correctly. That is physically impossible with a random sample. If the classification was as bad as say 50% off then some (50%!) people must have replied that their paper was correctly classified. There are some possibilities

• Reporting bias: The reporter is lying by only listing incorrect classifications.
• Selection bias 1: Only people who thought that their paper was incorre3ctly classified replied.
• Selection bias 2: Popular Technology.net has a biased reputation in climate science and so only people who agreed with its bias replied.

Or an insane choice - the classifications that has been published and checked with 2000 self classifications is somehow wrong.

 

[andypro7]

Andy pro is so obsessed with hating on the Cook studies that you'd think he thought that was all there ever was in the world of people who accept climate change as reality. Could we stop splitting hairs and focusing on the cherry picked argument of Cook et al? Or is that too much to ask?

Fine, as soon as you answer just one simple question, and then we can move on:

Who do think is more trustworthy, Cook, or the scientists that say that Cook lied about their position?

Simple question.

 

[andypro7]

* I call deniers of climate, science climate science deniers because they blindly deny science!

You mean like the people that deny the fact that there has been no statistical temp increase for over 18 years, based on un-fudge-able satellite data? Are those the science deniers you're talking about?

Or maybe you mean that the deniers are the ones that deny the over 1000 scientists whose peer reviewed work shows that the MWP was global and was much warmer than today?

Yea, I hate those science deniers too.

 

[andypro7]

Wrong, andypro7: We know you cited 4 guys in a newspaper article asserted that they were misrepresented. They may have been lying. You are the one with the continuous insults about Cook et al. This is your theory. You need to provide the evidence that their results are wrong.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.

I don't need outside analysis. Here are THE VERY SCIENTISTS that COOK HIMSELF COUNTS, IN THEIR OWN WORDS:

(and yet somehow you STILL won't believe that Cook lied)


When [FONT=&quot]Popular Technology[/FONT] asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When [FONT=&quot]Popular Technology[/FONT] asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told [FONT=&quot]Popular Technology[/FONT] that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

 

[RealityCheck01]

[You mean like the people that deny the fact that there has been no statistical temp increase for over 18 years, based on un-fudge-able satellite data? Are those the science deniers you're talking about?

I mean the people who lie about that there has been no statistical temp increase for over 18 years, based on un-fudge-able satellite data, by cherry picking the satellite and data and ignoring the equally un-fudge-able surface data !
Any graph starting in 1997 or 1998 is suspect because 1998 was one of the warmest years on record (fifth by memory).
RSS MSU lower trop. global mean from 1997 (decrease)
UAH NSSTC lower trop. global mean from 1997 (increase)
And the surface temperatures:
GISTEMP global mean from 1997 (increase)
HADCRUT4 global mean from 1997 (increase)

P.S. IMO: Surface temperatures are more reliable than satellite temperatures because they are actual tempertures which are then adjusted to reduce errors, Satellite temperatures also have adjustments for errors but are indirectly derived from modeling how the atmosphere reflects light..

I mean the climate change denier who seems to have lied about the MWP Project showing that the MWP was global and was much warmer than today:
12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).

Actually I pity those science deniers because of their obvious denial of the real world.

12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).

P.S. Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[RealityCheck01]

I don't need outside analysis. ..repeating a blog post...

Once again you do not know what science is - it is not opinions expressed in a blog entry from what looks like a biased (and maybe even cherry picked) list. andypro7 !

15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.

You may have missed the ETA:

ETA: The usual bad scholarship of no link to these statements in your post, andypro7!
What we have is an obviously biased reporter writing on Popular Technology.net:
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

And who does the reporter list out of the hundreds? sampled - 7 people, 4 of them climate scientists and so probably in that 97% !

1. Craig D. Idso: "An outspoken global warming skeptic ..."
2. Nicola Scafetta: Not a climate scientist.
3. Nir J. Shaviv: An astrophysicist and climate scientist with the usual bais of the Sun/cosmic rays drives global warming.
4. Richard S.J. Tol: an economics professor!
5. Nils-Axel Morner: A climate change skeptic ("Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming.[5]")
6. Willie Soon: A climate change skeptic with some conflict of interest problems currently.
7. Alan Carlin: an economist.

Think logically about this, andypro7: Not one person listed replied that their paper(s) were classified correctly. That is physically impossible with a random sample. If the classification was as bad as say 50% off then some (50%!) people must have replied that their paper was correctly classified. There are some possibilities

• Reporting bias: The reporter is lying by only listing incorrect classifications.
• Selection bias 1: Only people who thought that their paper was incorre3ctly classified replied.
• Selection bias 2: Popular Technology.net has a biased reputation in climate science and so only people who agreed with its bias replied.

Or an insane choice - the classifications that has been published and checked with 2000 self classifications is somehow wrong.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You also ignored the existence of the Consensus Project:

So we can see the difference between you claim and mine I have a list of published papers that support the actual claim: 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening!
You have the MWP Project web site is full of thousands of papers and you have no idea if any of then support your claim

Another small difference is that scientists recognize that they may be wrong. That is why they tend to make the data that they have available for other people to inspect and even do their own analysis. the data behind 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening! is available and searchable at The Consensus Project