Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Paulos23]

And yet in the PNW we only have 39% of normal snowpack in the mountains and have less cold days then normal. Care to explain that?

 

[[serious]]

Let's see, today Siberia has temperatures ranging down to -45 below °F,

It's cold some where, global warming is teh lye!

 

[[serious]]

Oh, and since Florida and Australia are getting record highs, that cancels out Russia and Michigan

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet in the PNW we only have 39% of normal snowpack in the mountains and have less cold days then normal. Care to explain that?

Ha!! If that were true they would be closing ski resorts left and right!

Summit at Snoqualmie ski area closes for lack of snow | Northwest Traveler | Seattle Times

Oops

 

[eclipsenow]

BREAKING NEWS!

(Yawns, because this has long been an established fact).

This week, that campaign took a serious body blow, as one of its leading pseudo-scientific voices was exposed as a liar and a fraud, having accepted millions of corporate dollars to pose as a climate-change skeptic.

Armageddon for Climate Change Deniers - The Daily Beast

One wonders where Heissonear draws his paycheque?

 

[andypro7]

I think I can bottom line this for everyone: Nancy Pelosi believes in global warming.

Eh, cheap shot. But here's how I see it:

We've been told for decades that the earth would be warming considerably. Those that told us this didn't just suggest it, they emphatically DECLARED it, to the point that the 'science was settled' and anyone who didn't 100% absolutely believe everything they say hates science.

Now, when we look back at their models, we see that they were absolutely, utterly, and entirely wrong, as there has been no statistical global temp increase for over 18 years. The predictions that they've given us are miles off.

Since most of you don't have a climatology degree, and I certainly don't (not enough box tops), we need to just look at this logically. How much sense does it make to believe the 'experts' without question because they tell us we must; when they've been dead wrong for the last 20+ years, while telling us we MUST believe them??

Logic dictates that we must be very skeptical of what's being said by the warmists. But more importantly, science also dictates this skepticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I can bottom line this for everyone: Nancy Pelosi believes in global warming.

Eh, cheap shot. But here's how I see it:

We've been told for decades that the earth would be warming considerably. Those that told us this didn't just suggest it, they emphatically DECLARED it, to the point that the 'science was settled' and anyone who didn't 100% absolutely believe everything they say hates science.

Now, when we look back at their models, we see that they were absolutely, utterly, and entirely wrong, as there has been no statistical global temp increase for over 18 years. The predictions that they've given us are miles off.

Since most of you don't have a climatology degree, and I certainly don't (not enough box tops), we need to just look at this logically. How much sense does it make to believe the 'experts' without question because they tell us we must; when they've been dead wrong for the last 20+ years, while telling us we MUST believe them??

Logic dictates that we must be very skeptical of what's being said by the warmists. But more importantly, science also dictates this skepticism.

I have heard deniers make this claim before. If it was true you should be able to link these predictions that do not match the warming to date. So far I have not seen them. So do you have articles that say that warming would be more extreme than we have observed so far or were you just telling stories?

 

[andypro7]

So far I have not seen them.

I have seen other data deniers like you make this same statement as well.

Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist. I would link them, but I don't have enough posts. But my guess is that you haven't seen them because you haven't looked for them.

But I'm sure we can both agree that there has been no statistical global warming for the last 18 years, right? You know, that thing that your side has foolishly been calling 'the pause'. You know, that period of time with absolutely flat temperatures that absolutely none of the global warming gurus predicted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen other data deniers like you make this same statement as well.

Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist. I would link them, but I don't have enough posts. But my guess is that you haven't seen them because you haven't looked for them.

But I'm sure we can both agree that there has been no statistical global warming for the last 18 years, right? You know, that thing that your side has foolishly been calling 'the pause'. You know, that period of time with absolutely flat temperatures that absolutely none of the global warming gurus predicted.

Data denier? That would be you. Yes, there has been statistical global warming for the last 18 years, though why you cherry picked only 18 years escapes me. Here is a plot going through 2012 and you can see that there was warming for the last 16 years in this graph:

And since the year 2014 was the warmest on record we can add two more years of warming at the end of that graph:

Global Analysis - Annual 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Of course this is one of my favorite graphics:

 

[andypro7]

Doesn't surprise me that Arctic sea ice is one of your favorite graphs. Funny you don't show the Antarctic. Wonder why that is? Eh, who am I kidding, I think we both know.
GLO-BAL. Write it down.

The 18 years (actually 18 yrs 3 months) does seem like cherry picking, I'll admit. But the reason the data is presented that way is because of the warmists claims for the last few decades. Since the late 80s, we've been told that increase in CO2 lead to increases in temperatures. We've also been told, with scary, fake, hockey stick graphs and such, that it would keep getting worse and exponentially worse.

So, in order to prove the deniers like you wrong, we go back whatever period we can to find a flat trend line in the temps (learn about trend lines for your next graph, please).

If my goal is to go as far back as I can to find a trend line that's not going up, that's why I would cherry pick the data. If I was only able to come up with a 6 month trend line or even 3 year trend line, then that could be taken as just natural variation, which doesn't prove much.

HOWEVER, now that we are at 18 years and 3 months, it's significant enough to prove that the warmist claims over the last few decades are wrong. If you take a look at the record of the global warming believers predictions for temperature at through 2014, virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE has predicted temps much higher than were actually recorded in 2015.

By the way, if you're asking if there has been any statistical global warming for the last 18 years and 3 months, you have to use a graph where the trend line is drawn for only that time period.

This article shows that there has been no warming for 18 yrs 3 months. Actually, it's exactly 0.0 deg/decade since 1996. Also on this page you will see the IPCC predicted temps vs. actual temps, just to show how far off they've been. Since I'm not able to post links, you should be able to copy and paste this, and of course replace (dot) with a period.

wattsupwiththat(dot)com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Antarctic ice cap has been losing ice too. It is harder to measure and deniers will find old out of date articles:

New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at 'unprecedented rate' | Environment | The Guardian

In Antarctica, the picture is more complex as the West Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice rapidly, but is growing in volume in East Antarctica.

Overall, the southern continent − 98% of which is covered with ice and snow − is losing 125 cubic km a year.

And of course the 18 year figure that you chose was an attempt to cherry pick. Otherwise one would use rounded figures.

And, you are not being honest. You are the denier. When something is supported by the vast majority of scientists one can't be a denier by definition by agreeing with them. You might want to find another term to use rather than trying to steal the aptly put terms of your opposition.

And no, I do not need to choose a graph that only uses the period that you specified. That is a foolish and unsubstantiated demand. The graph I chose goes for a longer period so many dates could be chosen. Any reasonable dates show a warming trend.

 

[andypro7]

When something is supported by the vast majority of scientists...

As the link I shared shows, those "vast majority of scientists" have been DEAD WRONG about their predictions for the last 20 years.

The DATA from that 18 year graph shows that there has been on increase in temperatures for the last 18 years. I'm not cherry picking the data, it was THOSE SCIENTISTS of yours who have been telling us that the period I chose, from 1996 to present, would be MUCH warmer than it turned out to be.

I'm using those 18 years because those 18 years illustrate their failed models and failed predictions.

Your scientists were dead wrong. It's funny, you call me a denier, but that's what those scientists were saying for the last 20 years, and it turned out those scientists were wrong and the 'deniers' were right.

To sum it up:
1. Your scientists were wrong, while calling us deniers for suggesting that they may be wrong
2. Those same scientists (and you) are calling us deniers for suggesting that they be wrong about the exact same thing they've already been proven wrong about
3. The DATA proves that you and the scientists were wrong.

And thus, you are DENYING actual scientific data in order to believe scientifically proven wrong scientists.

Thus, you are the denier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watt's up with that is hardly a reputable sight. You should try to do better. When you can actually link I might go see it, it is hardly worth the effort for me to do so.

And yes, the 18 year period shows that you were incorrect, so I am still confused with why you tried to cherry pick a date that shows your error.

And what scientists where? Again, reputable sources only. There were several models used when climate change first because a concern. You are probably choosing the model that had the highest rate of growth. It is probably true that the climate is not growing at the fastest rate given, but it is still warming.

And most scientists, as far as I am aware, stuck to the middle values of AGW proposed and so far they are correct.

To sum it up, I showed that your claim of no warming was wrong. Now after the fact you are trying to alter you claim. I showed that your implied growth of Antarctic ice was wrong and you have not owned up to that either. I used to be on your side but people that could not admit when they were wrong was one clue that led me to realize that I was wrong.

You have cherry picked your dates, and it looks like you have cherry picked your models too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This article is a couple of years old but it points out how the UN estimates may have been far too conservative in some fashions:

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative - Scientific American

For example the ice caps are melting faster than predicted. Once the Arctic Ocean, not an icecap by the way, melts completely it will open up the climate to much more warming. The frozen Arctic Ocean used to reflect a lot of heat in the summer. When it is gone the ocean will become a heat reservoir. Greenland is melting much faster than predicted and even Antarctica is melting more than accumulating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got bored and found your article:

The Great Pause lengthens again | Watts Up With That?

Perhaps because it is late at night I could not get his links to his supposed sources to work. I do not trust the writer of that site since he has been caught switching sources when the no longer agreed with him:

BESTed

In March of 2011, Anthony Watts appeared to stake his entire stance on the reliability of surface temperature data on a single upcoming study: the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST), an independent temperature record to be constructed using over 39,000 unique stations. On March 6th, Watts said on his blog:
... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.
However, when BEST's results confirmed the reliability of preexisting surface temperature records, Watts backpedaled.[7] Apparently, he was only willing to stake his claims on an independent study if it came to the conclusion he wanted.

Anthony Watts - RationalWiki

 

[andypro7]

Watt's up with that is hardly a reputable sight. You should try to do better. When you can actually link I might go see it, it is hardly worth the effort for me to do so.
Circular reasoning: Doesn’t agree with you, not reputable. Therefore, if you are wrong, you’ve set up a scenario in which you can never be proven wrong.

And yes, the 18 year period shows that you were incorrect, so I am still confused with why you tried to cherry pick a date that shows your error.
Well, you’ve already admitted that you refuse to see the data. The data that shows no global warming for 18 years. But even though you didn’t see it, and even though it ABSOLUTELY shows no global warming, you use the phrase ‘shows you were incorrect’, as if it's a certainty, EVEN THOUGH you haven't seen it. That’s your global warming religion in a nutshell.

And what scientists where? Again, reputable sources only. There were several models used when climate change first because a concern. You are probably choosing the model that had the highest rate of growth. It is probably true that the climate is not growing at the fastest rate given, but it is still warming. And most scientists, as far as I am aware, stuck to the middle values of AGW proposed and so far they are correct.
Once again, the article I led you to shows SEVERAL of the IPCCs predictions, and it also shows that the current temps are below the LOWEST predictions made. Notice once again that you are assuming facts not in evidence, because you are predisposed to your outcome. You even say ‘You are choosing the model that had the highest rate of growth’. Once again, there is NO WAY you could know that, but you claim it as a certainty. That’s the global warming religion in a nutshell

To sum it up, I showed that your claim of no warming was wrong.
Yet ANOTHER rock-solid, dead certain statement of fact that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to back it up. Where did you show this? I mean, you CAN’T show this, unless you ignore the data, which, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you haven’t even seen


Now after the fact you are trying to alter you claim. I showed that your implied growth of Antarctic ice was wrong and you have not owned up to that either.
I never got to that to ‘own up to it’, but once again why would I even attempt to show you the evidence that you are wrong. I have ABSOLUTE evidence, from one of the 4 major global temp data sets that there’s been no warming for over 18+ years, and you don’t even bother to look at it, yet you are CERTAIN that it’s wrong. Denier.


I used to be on your side but people that could not admit when they were wrong was one clue that led me to realize that I was wrong.
[FONT=&quot]Yes, that’s exactly what this is about. Look at what I sent you and admit you were wrong. If not, I’ll have my “clue”. I mean, seriously, did you just say that to me?? Are you so blindly un-self-aware. Your whole entire post was about you not only not admitting you were wrong, and not only not looking at the evidence, but also claiming to be so certain EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE PROVEN you don't know.

Thats' the global warming religion in a nutshell.
[/FONT]

 

[Inkfingers]

I wonder how many "hockey sticks" we would see if we looked at all of Earth's history in 500 year chunks (instead of looking at the modern era close-up but at deep history in 100,000 year chunks)...

 

[andypro7]

I wonder how many "hockey sticks" we would see if we looked at all of Earth's history in 500 year chunks (instead of looking at the modern era close-up but at deep history in 100,000 year chunks)...

Have you ever seen this:

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

It's actually called 'The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data'

A one minute video of ice core data show the perspective of our current temperature vs. historical. It makes you hope the warmists are right, since it would be much better for us all if the planet got a little bit warmer.

 

[Inkfingers]

Have you ever seen this:

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

It's actually called 'The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data'

A one minute video of ice core data show the perspective of our current temperature vs. historical. It makes you hope the warmists are right, since it would be much better for us all if the planet got a little bit warmer.

Fascinating little vid, thankyou!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watt's up with that is hardly a reputable sight. You should try to do better. When you can actually link I might go see it, it is hardly worth the effort for me to do so.
Circular reasoning: Doesn’t agree with you, not reputable. Therefore, if you are wrong, you’ve set up a scenario in which you can never be proven wrong.

Wrong. That is not circular reasoning. You need to learn what valid sources are.

And yes, the 18 year period shows that you were incorrect, so I am still confused with why you tried to cherry pick a date that shows your error.
Well, you’ve already admitted that you refuse to see the data. The data that shows no global warming for 18 years. But even though you didn’t see it, and even though it ABSOLUTELY shows no global warming, you use the phrase ‘shows you were incorrect’, as if it's a certainty, EVEN THOUGH you haven't seen it. That’s your global warming religion in a nutshell.

Wrong again, I not only posted a link that had the data, I copied and pasted a graph that shows there was warming over that period, or are you being a denier again?And don't claim that I did not see the data, I found and posted a link to your article after this post. It appears before your reply. Once again you are the one in denial. And if you want to be here long don't make false claims about someone else's religion. That is a breaking of the rules that they take seriously here.

And what scientists where? Again, reputable sources only. There were several models used when climate change first because a concern. You are probably choosing the model that had the highest rate of growth. It is probably true that the climate is not growing at the fastest rate given, but it is still warming. And most scientists, as far as I am aware, stuck to the middle values of AGW proposed and so far they are correct.
Once again, the article I led you to shows SEVERAL of the IPCCs predictions, and it also shows that the current temps are below the LOWEST predictions made. Notice once again that you are assuming facts not in evidence, because you are predisposed to your outcome. You even say ‘You are choosing the model that had the highest rate of growth’. Once again, there is NO WAY you could know that, but you claim it as a certainty. That’s the global warming religion in a nutshell

Yes, I found your article and the data was bogus, or did you forget that. I tried to chase down the links to his supposed sources and the first two did not work. I gave up after that.

To sum it up, I showed that your claim of no warming was wrong.
Yet ANOTHER rock-solid, dead certain statement of fact that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to back it up. Where did you show this? I mean, you CAN’T show this, unless you ignore the data, which, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you haven’t even seen

And wrong again. You admitted that you ignored the evidence that I linked, the graph that I posted from NASA, a reliable source if there ever was one, and it showed that you are wrong. You are relying on a fruitbar that was shown to change sources when they disagreed with him.

Now after the fact you are trying to alter you claim. I showed that your implied growth of Antarctic ice was wrong and you have not owned up to that either.
I never got to that to ‘own up to it’, but once again why would I even attempt to show you the evidence that you are wrong. I have ABSOLUTE evidence, from one of the 4 major global temp data sets that there’s been no warming for over 18+ years, and you don’t even bother to look at it, yet you are CERTAIN that it’s wrong. Denier.

No, you at best have cherry picked data from an unreliable source. If you actually had data from the one of "the four major data sets" you would have linked or least attempted to link it directly. Instead you linked a denier's website that claimed he had that data. That makes you a denier. Always go to the source. Never rely on someone else to go to the source for you.

I used to be on your side but people that could not admit when they were wrong was one clue that led me to realize that I was wrong.
[FONT=&quot]Yes, that’s exactly what this is about. Look at what I sent you and admit you were wrong. If not, I’ll have my “clue”. I mean, seriously, did you just say that to me?? Are you so blindly un-self-aware. Your whole entire post was about you not only not admitting you were wrong, and not only not looking at the evidence, but also claiming to be so certain EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE PROVEN you don't know.

I did check out your site. He was not honest. He has been caught changing his sources when it no longer agreed with him. You should have read all of my posts before responding.

Thats' the global warming religion in a nutshell.
[/FONT]

And once again, watch the false charges. I will not report you for this, but it what you have done is against the rules here. Politeness is a must.