Global Warming & Earths Global Temperature Measurement

amanuensis63 · Mar 21, 2015

Heissonear said:
We should fear the Lord not unreal catastrophes being promoted by natural man.
.

You know what I fear? I fear people who leverage ignorance to make loud declarations against observable facts.

I fear aggressive ignorance which parades around and lambastes those who are seriously trying to make a good world for everyone.

I fear people who demand others listen while never listening to others.

[serious] · Mar 21, 2015

amanuensis63 said:
You know what I fear? I fear people who leverage ignorance to make loud declarations against observable facts.

I fear aggressive ignorance which parades around and lambastes those who are seriously trying to make a good world for everyone.

I fear people who demand others listen while never listening to others.

What fun is a debate when two people can talk?

eclipsenow · Apr 8, 2015

And now The Guardian will divest $800 million pounds away from fossil fuels, and top academics are calling for all the world's universities to do the same to make a moral point.
Top academics ask world's universities to divest from fossil fuels | Environment | The Guardian

Face it. Global Warming is real. The physics of CO2 refracting thermal energy are demonstrable beyond doubt. The oceans are warming up. The temps are warming up. The oceans burp out massive El Nino's on a regular cycle, and are becoming quite terrifying. And the planet is slowly showing signs of cooking. Natural variation? Really? By what means? And why are YOU (the dear denialist) the one that spotted the mechanisms of natural variation while the vast majority of peer-reviewed climatologists are saying natural variables are not really that active at the moment?

Oh dear, the stubborn refusal to tinker with one's politics, even a bit, has blinded so many people to the demonstrable claims of science. It's just sad.

Heissonear · Apr 8, 2015

eclipsenow said:
And now The Guardian will divest $800 million pounds away from fossil fuels, and top academics are calling for all the world's universities to do the same to make a moral point.
Top academics ask world's universities to divest from fossil fuels | Environment | The Guardian

Face it. Global Warming is real. The physics of CO2 refracting thermal energy are demonstrable beyond doubt. The oceans are warming up. The temps are warming up. The oceans burp out massive El Nino's on a regular cycle, and are becoming quite terrifying. And the planet is slowly showing signs of cooking. Natural variation? Really? By what means? And why are YOU (the dear denialist) the one that spotted the mechanisms of natural variation while the vast majority of peer-reviewed climatologists are saying natural variables are not really that active at the moment?

Oh dear, the stubborn refusal to tinker with one's politics, even a bit, has blinded so many people to the demonstrable claims of science. It's just sad.

.

Pure Alarmism.

Read the above again for what it is - Alarmism.

Global Warming has been dominant by natural factors, as in all of time past.

The natural forces and processes that controlled Earth's past temperature, weather, and climate change over time, called natural variability, has not changed.

There is no evidence presented showing Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through GHG Effect has increased Earth's temperature.

Period.

There is the physics. But applied in a intricately coupled complex parameter controlled open thermodynamic system there is no evidence - only pure hypothetical claims.

The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. It is called the Modern Warm Period.

By observations, not speculation, we can firsthand see natural factors controlling Earth's temperature, as easily recognized by the current no increase in Earth's temperature for 15 plus years.

No increase in Earth's temperature in 15 plus years. What has caused that? Remember that natural variability has not magically disappear.

And we do not need to continue to go hypothetical and speculative that the "heat is going into the oceans" for the past 15 years.

Some do not get it, even to examine mother nature and her works first. Natural variability explains things nicely.

Now if others want to jump off of an economic cliff, so be it.

If others want to view energy from buried hydrocarbons as wicked and dirty, so be it.

But Alarmism needs to be exposed as it ramps in hype and "duty", i.e. the now rising Climate Justice progression.

.

eclipsenow · Apr 8, 2015

Heissonear said:
.

Pure Alarmism.

Read the above again for what it is - Alarmism.

Peer reviewed science has educated us about many risks, from smallpox to radiation to lead poisoning. Relevant legislation and policies have been passed in all these categories. Alarmism? In some areas the policy might have over-reacted to these risks (such as limiting radiation to ridiculously low levels: EG: Residents of Kerala, India, experience 3 times the radiation of most of the Fukushima exclusion zone).

Global Warming has been dominant by natural factors, as in all of time past.

In the past, yes.
Since the industrial revolution, no. We're tinkering with one of those natural variables, big time.

The natural forces and processes that controlled Earth's past temperature, weather, and climate change over time, called natural variability, has not changed.

Has too! So there! (If you're going to submit posts without evidence and just mere assertion, then we can reply in kind).

There is no evidence presented showing Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through GHG Effect has increased Earth's temperature.

Period.

The oceans are soaking up heaps of extra heat, and burp it back out in ever hotter El Nino events. Period.

There is the physics. But applied in a intricately coupled complex parameter controlled open thermodynamic system there is no evidence - only pure hypothetical claims.

There is the physics, and mathematics, and evidence from a variety of earth science responses such as retreating ice caps, glaciers, ecosystems, and seasons. But other than entirely changing the face of the earth, it's all hypothetical!

The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. It is called the Modern Warm Period.

Sorry dude, but you don't get to say anything about climate science after writing "But applied in a intricately coupled complex parameter controlled open thermodynamic system there is no evidence - only pure hypothetical claims."
You don't know why it's warming. It's all hypothetical, remember? You've just shot yourself in the foot. Oh the humanity!

[serious] · Apr 8, 2015

Oh yeah, looks like global warming totally stopped forever and/or is due to unspecified natural cycles.

[serious] · Apr 8, 2015

Heissonear said:
.

Period.

.

Yeah, well:

Period.

.

Period.

eclipsenow · Apr 8, 2015

Heissonear said:
.
Please also notice what mankind is facing is resource taxation, not abuse.

Peak oil, gas, and coal all mean that while there is still lots of coal still in the ground, it's the more expensive half of the fossil fuel era. Harvard estimated that burning fossil fuels costs America something like 0.3 to 0.5 $TRILLION a year in additional health costs due to particulate pollution. You want to talk about a resource tax? COAL COMPANIES "EXTERNALISE" these costs onto us! They tax you in your health bill and taxes. Lovely, aren't they?

But the reality is we've had breeder reactor technology for decades. GE is ready to build out their S-PRISM reactor commercial prototype (NOT proof of concept, but actual commercial prototype). In other words, America can turn her nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of fuel AND stop mining coal AND save $300 to $500 BILLION a year AND put that into American jobs and electric cars and trains and trolley buses and New Urban development, etc.

What will you get? Clean air, healthier citizens, and more jobs! Gee, this environmental thing just has TERRIBLY subversive goals!

And those who do not know Him have been led astray, and are trying to lead others astray, even the foolishness of catastrophic events coming due to increased atmospheric CO2. We should fear the Lord not unreal catastrophes being promoted by natural man.

Many climate scientists are Christians. Many climate writers are Christians. The first head of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, is a Christian.
John T. Houghton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't about swapping out our reverence for God for reverence for nature. It's about obeying the Great Commandment Jesus gave us: love the Lord first, then love our neighbour! By hardening your heart against peer-reviewed climate science in complete and utter illogical contradiction to the evidence, you're failing to love your neighbour, especially the poor. But up there with this failing, you're also embarrassing the cause of Christ by denying the obvious and making us Christians all look like fools. I reject this stubbornness and politically induced climate blindness with all my heart! It is NOT Christian, but foolish self-centred pride. You're just too proud to change your politics and / or heart on this, and it's appalling.

eclipsenow · Apr 10, 2015

This is powerful stuff. Summary by my Reverend mate Byron Smith.

Tim de Christopher spent 21 months in a US prison for his creative climate activism. Upon his release, his top priority was studying theology. He argues here that there are four stages of deepening church response to our climate predicament.
1. The church recognises that climate change is a moral issue: those most vulnerable to harm are those least responsible for causing it.
2. The church responds with the dominant consumer culture through ethical consumerism: e.g. solar panels and buying green products.
3. The church gets beyond mere consumer activism to join the climate movement in more ambitious actions as citizens: from rallies and open letters through to divestment and civil disobedience.
4. The church deepens its faith and deepens the climate movement through the abandonment of false optimism and the rediscovery of deep hope amidst despair in order to provide genuine moral leadership, not merely the addition of clerical garb for a photo op.
The Church Should Lead, Not Follow on Climate Justice

Heissonear · Apr 11, 2015

eclipsenow said:
This is powerful stuff. Summary by my Reverend mate Byron Smith.

.

Humm. We are to act?

If it is about CO2 emissions degrading the world then you are wrong.

We are talking about Man Induced Global Warming by CO2 GHG Effect

Or are we talking about sinful man's course of polluting and changing the world's environment - through land change (deforestation, open soil farming), industrial pollution, manufacturering of environmentally harmful materials and compounds, dams on major tributaries, concrete rich mega-cites, and the like???

We need to know what to steward. Or is this meassage really about CAGW Bandwagon following "Climate Change" leading to "Climate Justice"?

Is it the environment or climate, mate?

The later is emphasized by CAGW Alarmism. CAGW is based on an unproven hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing calamities.

But CO2 is a plant nutrient, the very heart of plant chemistry and the world of Earth’s vegetation health, and like atmospheric H2O a useful GHG - who ever said CO2 is a pollutant and harming the earth?

.

eclipsenow · Apr 11, 2015

Heissonear said:
.

Humm. We are to act?

If it is about CO2 emissions degrading the world then you are wrong.

We are talking about Man Induced Global Warming by CO2 GHG Effect

Or are we talking about sinful man's course of polluting and changing the world's environment - through land change (deforestation, open soil farming), industrial pollution, manufacturering of environmentally harmful materials and compounds, dams on major tributaries, concrete rich mega-cites, and the like???

We need to know what to steward. Or is this meassage really about CAGW Bandwagon following "Climate Change" leading to "Climate Justice"?

Is it the environment or climate, mate?

The later is emphasized by CAGW Alarmism. CAGW is based on an unproven hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing calamities.
.

It's about the environment AND climate. Every other issue you just raised is a dangerous threat in its own right: global warming just exacerbates every single one of them!

But you have still to explain your contradiction: how you "just know" today's warmer temperatures are a "natural cycle" when you vilify the very discipline that could tell us that! "But applied in a intricately coupled complex parameter controlled open thermodynamic system there is no evidence - only pure hypothetical claims." (From 8th April 2015 09:43 PM)

But CO2 is a plant nutrient, the very heart of plant chemistry and the world of Earth’s vegetation health, and like atmospheric H2O a useful GHG - who ever said CO2 is a pollutant and harming the earth?

Just had to sneak in another denialist half truth while you were at it?

Just saying “Co2 = plant food, therefore more plant food will be good for them and force them to grow bigger” is about as sensible as saying “Pizza is human food, therefore more Pizza will be good for them and FORCE them to grow bigger!”

We might in truth get bigger. But the trite summary above ignores diabetes, heart disease, circulatory problems and ... death. Plants are also vulnerable to various problems if they get too much 'plant food'. It messes with their self-defence toxins. Some produce too little; others too much.

Less toxic makes them more vulnerable to bug attacks.
The “CO2 is Good for Plants” Crock. Turns out — not so much. | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

More toxic renders them inedible to us or livestock.
How plants respond to increasing carbon dioxide - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Also, let's not forget the carbon impacts on atmospheric temperatures and increased moisture movement. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased floods and famines.

Heissonear · Jul 13, 2015

Was the year 2014 the "warmist ever" on record? How many decimal places were used?

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/05/3607735/2014-hottest-year-by-far/

Earth's Global Temperature for 2014, as per physics Prof RGB.

"rgbatduke on July 13, 2015 at 5:24 am

"There is a fundamental problem with the analysis, especially extended back to 1850. Specifically, the error estimatet for the present is around 0.1, but around is not the same as exact. Furthermore, the basis for the error estimate itself is an estimated basis — it has a number of assumptions built into it and it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the standard deviation of a set of independent and identically distributed samples drawn from a stationary distribution. It does not have an axiomatic basis — the error estimate itself has biases in it that cannot be independently estimated because they are based on assumptions that cannot be independently tested.

"To make this clear, let’s consider HadCRUT4, as it is a dataset I have on hand — including its error estimates. Here is the line for 1850:

1850 -0.376 -0.427 -0.338 -0.507 -0.246 -0.542 -0.211 -0.518 -0.239 -0.595 -0.162

"The first number is the “anomaly”. I don’t want to discuss the difficulties of using an anomaly instead of an absolute estimate of global average temperature but IMO they are profound. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that this is what we are doing in the discussion above, Bob, because the uncertainty in the actual global average temperature is “around” 1 C, not 0.1 C. So when the article asserts “warmest year” what it really means is “highest anomaly” computed “independently” of the actual global average temperature which is paradoxically much less precisely known.

"The last two numbers are the supposed lower and upper bounds on the temperature estimate. One has to assume that these bounds are some sort of “95% confidence” interval, but of course they are not, not really, because the error estimate is not based on iid samples and hence there is no particularly good reason to think that the central estimate is normally distributed relative to the true temperature, oops, I mean “anomaly”. It is also the case that the other entries are supposedly error estimates as well that are somehow combined into the last two numbers, and hence the uncertainty in the uncertainties is likely compounded. Nevertheless, we see that the anomaly in 1850 could have been as low as -0.595 and has high as -0.162. A bit of subtraction and we see that HadCRUT4 estimates the anomaly in 1850 to be with approximately symmetric error estimates. 0.216 is not particularly close to 0.1 — in fact it is over twice as large.

"Let’s consider the line for 2014:

2014 0.555 0.519 0.591 0.532 0.578 0.456 0.654 0.508 0.603 0.445 0.666

"This line may not be current — they keep tweaking the numbers as the next global meeting to address global warming draws near — but it is what I downloaded at my last opportunity. Note that the anomaly is pretty close to . Each year comes with its very own error, and the errors vary from 0.08-ish to 0.12-ish in the 2000s and not quite twice that in the 1800s.

"This is a serious problem. Error estimates for 1850 of only 0.2 C compared to contemporary error estimates of 0.1 C are simply not credible. They are in-credible. One, the other, or both are absurd. To put it bluntly, there is no way that we know the global average temperature, or the global average temperature “anomaly” — almost as precisely in 1850 as we do today (where within a factor of 2 in the error estimate is absolutely “almost as precisely”. For one simple thing, a rather enormous fraction of the Earth’s surface was still terra incognita in 1850. Phenomena such as El Nino and the Pacific Hot Spot that dominate the temperature estimates for 2014 would have passed unmeasured in 1850 — El Nino itself had not yet been observed or named. Antarctica was basically totally unexplored. The North Pole — far more accessible than the South — was not reached until the 20th century, although attempts to reach it date back into the 19th. Africa, South America, much of Australia, western North America, Siberia, China, Southeast Asia, and the bulk of the Pacific and South Atlantic Ocean — rarely visited to totally unexplored, and certainly not routinely sampled with reliable equipment and methodology for temperature. Look how much NOAA changed its anomaly this year on the basis of “corrections” to SSTs measured by ships (ignoring the one source of truly good data, the ARGO buoys). Now imagine the measurements being made in wooden sailing ships by indifferent ship masters along whatever sea routes happened to be travelled in any given decade.

"In my opinion the error estimates for the anomaly in the 19th century are understated by at least a factor of 3. The error estimates for the first half of the 20th century are understated by a slightly smaller but still large factor, perhaps around 2. I’m not entirely happy with error estimates of 0.1 C for contemporary measurements — not given the long list of “corrections” that have been and continue to be made that produce variations of this order and the spread in the different anomaly estimates. This might be a standard deviation (if this has any meaning in this context) but it certainly is not a 95% confidence interval, not with a spread of anomaly estimates that differ by this general order.

"All of this becomes painfully obvious if one actually looks at and compares global average temperature estimates instead of anomalies. We do not know the current global average temperature within a full degree C, not at 95% confidence. The temperature record we have is sparse over much of the globe today, although with ARGO it is finally starting to become less sparse. This record has been “adjusted” to within an inch of its life, to the point where if one plots the adjustments against carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere, they are linearly correlated with $R^2 \approx 1$, which a sensible person would interpret as (literally) statistically incontrovertible evidence of substantial bias in the adjustment processes used. Because it is impossible to use it to form an accurate estimate of global temperature, it is manipulated to return an “anomaly” with respect to an arbitrary and supposedly self-consistent baseline that itself is only known to some precision.

"I agree with Nick’s assertion that perhaps no year has a better claim than 2014, but I have to categorically reject the assertions of precision in the computation of probabilities. The claim of 2014 is nowhere near 40% likely to be correct. I’d be amazed if it were 5% likely to be correct.

rgb

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/13/a-return-to-the-question-was-2014-the-warmest-year/

[serious] · Jul 13, 2015

Heissonear said:
.

.

I thought you had stopped with that silliness.

[serious] · Jul 13, 2015

Heissonear said:
Was the year 2014 the "warmist ever" on record? How many decimal places were used?

Who is on top in the republican primary? If Bush leads Trump by 2 points, and the margin of error for the poll is 5 points, does bush no longer lead trump by 2 points?

Heissonear · Jul 14, 2015

[serious] said:
I thought you had stopped with that silliness.

Who's silliness is exposed!!!? Now go look at your temp over time graphs and tell everybody they are real.

Heissonear · Jul 14, 2015

We live in an age where climate science developments have become bias and manipulated. For example, a graph posted earlier:

Corruption. All they did was raise data points in the 1800's and lowered some in the early 1900's, and presto, "made to order science" is among us.

Paulos23 · Jul 14, 2015

Heissonear said:
Corruption. All they did was raise data points in the 1800's and lowered some in the early 1900's, and presto, "made to order science" is among us.

I don't see what you are seeing. I am seeing a trend up even without the average.

What are you going on about?

Heissonear · Jul 14, 2015

Paulos23 said:
I don't see what you are seeing. I am seeing a trend up even without the average.

What are you going on about?

Read RGB's post above and the first post.

How accurate can the Earth's Global Temperature be measured? What ways is it being measured and stated? Are "anomaly databases" sufficient? Is one temperature value caculated and used for the Earth's average temperature for a day, week or year period accurate and mean anything? When plotted aside other "Global Earth Temperature values" (for a period of time like a month or year) have any accuracy to mean anything?

Why have climate scientists produced such? Why haven't climate scientists openly debunked such data and methodology, listing the glaring uncertainties and how the graphed data can be misleading?

When we hear "warmest year ever" and notice two decimal places needed for proof, who is up to what and why?

[serious] · Jul 14, 2015

Heissonear said:
Who's silliness is exposed!!!? Now go look at your temp over time graphs and tell everybody they are real.

.

I'm talking about the dots.

.

That serve no purpose

.

[serious] · Jul 14, 2015

Heissonear said:
Read RGB's post above and the first post.

How accurate can the Earth's Global Temperature be measured? What ways is it being measured and stated? Are "anomaly databases" sufficient? Is one temperature value caculated and used for the Earth's average temperature for a day, week or year period accurate and mean anything? When plotted aside other "Global Earth Temperature values" (for a period of time like a month or year) have any accuracy to mean anything?

Why have climate scientists produced such? Why haven't climate scientists openly debunked such data and methodology, listing the glaring uncertainties and how the graphed data can be misleading?

When we hear "warmest year ever" and notice two decimal places needed for proof, who is up to what and why?

You are once again complaining, "how could they have one temperature for the whole globe!!!1" and we had to explain over and over again that no scientific organization uses a single global average temperature, but rather the average temperature anomaly. Over, and over, and over again.

But let's try again. Let's compare it to a house with a really old heating system. One room is 58 degrees, another is 72, a third is 65. What is the average temperature of the house? we don't know since rooms might be measured near a hot or cold spot, or with different thermometers, etc. Instead, we establish an average temperature for each room. Room one we take a measurement every day, and get 58, 60, 57, 59, 61. We then say our baseline temperature for room 1 is 59 degrees for that time period. We do that for all the rooms. then we can look and say, Room one is now 2 degrees warmer than baseline, room 2 is 4 degrees warmer than baseline, room 3 is 3 degrees warmer than baseline, the house appears to be 3 degrees warmer than baseline.

Global Warming & Earths Global Temperature Measurement

Newbie

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Never tell me the odds!

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Global Warming & Earths Global Temperature Measurement