I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Larry]

Am I wrong, or is this the same shocking claims of alteration that was discussed, and explained, like two weeks ago?

[s0crates]

Sometimes I think twa is doing satire . . .

[twa]

sometimes reality seems satire

[twa]

Am I wrong, or is this the same shocking claims of alteration that was discussed, and explained, like two weeks ago?

 

I believe that was on the past adjustments and time change, this one addresses more

 

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

 

 

The data is constantly adjusted and massaged....with the purest of intentions of finding correct readings overall.

 

if ya trust them.

 

not like they benefit or collect funding like those big oil hacks 

[Larry]

The data is constantly adjusted and massaged....

In the open, based on well supported reasoning and scientific support.

And then, years later, Internet bloggers try real hard to convince people that they've just uncovered shocking proof of widespread fraud, committed for the purpose of concealing the damning proof.

And said intentionally fraudulent blog gets posted in Tailgate. And twa announces that well, it's OK, I guess, if some people chose to trust the open, honest, work of actual scientists, over the writings of intentionally dishonest bloggers.

[PeterMP]

Here's what people are arguing about:

 

 

Wow, that really affects my opinion of the situation!

 

Here's a graph of all of the data sets, including satellite data:

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7504710

[twa]

it is just a small matter of degree, like AGW 

 

making a mountain out of a molehill.

[MEANDWARF]

Can we still sue McDonald's for having tooooo hot coffee?

[Larry]

Here's what people are arguing about:

 

 

Wow, that really affects my opinion of the situation!

 

Here's a graph of all of the data sets, including satellite data:

 

Your graphs also illustrate another point, too.

When High Lord Muckety Muck announces that "there has been no global warming", what he's actually saying is "if you cherry pick the biggest high temperature outlier I can find, and compare it to the most recent low outlier, there's not much difference".

[No Excuses]

In the open, based on well supported reasoning and scientific support.

And then, years later, Internet bloggers try real hard to convince people that they've just uncovered shocking proof of widespread fraud, committed for the purpose of concealing the damning proof.

And said intentionally fraudulent blog gets posted in Tailgate. And twa announces that well, it's OK, I guess, if some people chose to trust the open, honest, work of actual scientists, over the writings of intentionally dishonest bloggers.

twa has already conceded that this is all a giant conspiracy.

His opinion in this thread is as useful as Ken was in the vaccination threads.

[twa]

THIS being AGW to the degree the majority of models projected or what the data shows?

 

 

Don't bother answering, your mind is closed,science settled.

 

 

LOL

[twa]

why do the ARGO buoys show different trends than the NOAA adjustments ?

 

Why do satellites?

 

Why do other established sets?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/

 

 

“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

[PeterMP]

why do the ARGO buoys show different trends than the NOAA adjustments ?

 

Why do satellites?

 

Why do other established sets?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/

 

 

“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

 

The Argo buyos nor the satelite data are measuring SURFACE temperature trends.

 

(Note, the satellite data and the other global data sets do show the same general trend.  Look at the picture I posted above and pick the line that doesn't show warming.)

 

I've been waiting for years for the skeptics to put together a temperature data set that doesn't show warming.  I expect I'll be waiting forever.

 

You don't like what the NOAA has done.  Create your own adjustments from the raw data, publish the method, and explain why its better.

 

That's how science works.

 

it is just a small matter of degree, like AGW 

 

making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

That's going to depend on the number of degrees.  I don't know anybody that thinks 3 degrees (for doubling CO2) is a small matter.

Edited June 10, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

ARGO measures near surface temps, you trying to say the heat stays above them?

 

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

how about just pointing out obvious flaws in methodology instead.

 

add

 

are you suggesting we do not get ocean surface temps from satellites?

 

what is this the 70's?

Edited June 10, 2015 by twa

[PeterMP]

ARGO measures near surface temps, you trying to say the heat stays above them?

 

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

how about just pointing out obvious flaws in methodology instead.

 

add

 

are you suggesting we do not get ocean surface temps from satellites?

 

what is this the 70's?

 

That would even be useful, but I haven't even seen that.  

 

What flaw in the methodology have you pointed out?

 

All I hear/see is we don't like the changes so they must be wrong.  Even that they don't agree with other data sets isn't really evidence that is wrong.  Different does not equal wrong.

 

Realistically, the change is essentially insignificant to the point that it isn't even worth discussing as indicated by the figure I already posted.  This discussion is just a bunch of dumb noise.

 

We get lower tropospheric temperatures from satellites.  Not surface temps.

 

The satelite data (lower tropospheric) and surface show clear differences in a number of factors, including the response to El Nino's were El Nino's clearly affect lower tropospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and there are factors that affect surface temperatures (e.g. urban heat islands) that don't affect lower tropospheric temperatures as much.

 

However, they both show a general warming trend.

 

These are differences that we know of and understand.  There are possibly other ones.

 

I know less about heat convection between layers of oceans, but I can certainly imagine mechanisms by which heat wouldn't be conducted well to near surface ocean water and the Argo buyo data isn't a good indicator of actual surface water temperatures.

 

Generally interfaces tend to act oddly.  That water that is part of a water/air interface would act differently than water a little bit lower that isn't on a water/air interface wouldn't surprise me (note, realistically the water/air interface over at least parts of the ocean probably isn't really a water/air interface because hydrophobics and trash in a lot of case float so that you'd have areas that are a water/hydrophobic/air interface and that would be different than more true water/water interfaces that happen below the surface wouldn't shock me at all).

 

Maybe you know more than I do.

 

Can you rule out that the heat isn't being well conducted away from the surface water?

[twa]

you obviously did not read the link to ask which flaws.

 

insignificant would be the warming trend.

[PeterMP]

you obviously did not read the link to ask which flaws.

 

insignificant would be the warming trend.

 

Look at the lines on the graph I posted above and tell me which line doesn't have a significantly positive slope.

 

All of them show a significant warming trend.

 

Quote it?

 

She doesn't like the fact that the ocean temperature changed?  That isn't evidence that its wrong.

 

Her paper is older than the new data set.

[twa]

the ocean temperature did not change like that according to the other (less imaginative) data sets.

 

so how long have the other data sets been wrong? 

[PeterMP]

the ocean temperature did not change like that according to the other (less imaginative) data sets.

 

so how long have the other data sets been wrong? 

 

I don't the other data sets are wrong.

 

The NOAA might be wrong.

 

Let me try this.  From your link that quoted:

 

“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

 

Spencer is skeptic.  He runs one of the satellite data sets that recently adjusted temperatures down to show less warming.

 

People didn't round around essentially accusing him of the scientific misconduct because they didn't like what he did.

 

And realistically, it doesn't matter to me.  All of the data sets, including the satellite data and even related, but non-temperature data sets (e.g. sea level increases) indicate essentially the same long term temperature increase.

 

Really, they changed the long term temperature trend from +.103 degree C/decade to +.105 degree C/decade.

 

Just by eye ball, I can pretty guarantee you both the satelite data sets have the trend at over .1 degree C/decade too.

 

For the conversations that we have here, they are all close enough.

[twa]

but why hasn't the rate increased?....simply ocean oscillation?

 

I'm not accusing the NOAA guys of misconduct, simply pointing out the problems associated with measuring temps(especially to that fine a line)

 

there are gonna be questions anytime ya change where and how you get readings......and different readings obviously.

especially when you add data such as the polar that is different sourced than NOAA's other data.

 

Spencer corrected the corrections, not added/changed sources

 

the sea level increase/land sinking will mean more heat absorbed

[PeterMP]

but why hasn't the rate increased?....simply ocean oscillation?

 

I'm not accusing the NOAA guys of misconduct, simply pointing out the problems associated with measuring temps(especially to that fine a line)

 

there are gonna be questions anytime ya change where and how you get readings......and different readings obviously.

especially when you add data such as the polar that is different sourced than NOAA's other data.

 

Spencer corrected the corrections, not added/changed sources

 

the sea level increase/land sinking will mean more heat absorbed

 

1.  You are posting and quoting things that are essentially accusing of them of scientific misconduct.  Spencer is accusing them of creating a temperature data set to show what they want, and you posted the link and quoted from it.  You didn't say it, but you put quotes of people saying it in your posts.  

 

Are you really going to play word games at that level? I didn't accuse them of scientific misconduct.  I'm just quoting from stories where other people did?

 

2.  What fine of a line?  Not to the relevant fact- that the Earth is in a long term warming trend because all of the data sets including the temperature show that.  If it there was too fine a line then different data sets would show different things.  And we also see it in different data.  We see it in surface temperatures, we see it in the satellite data, we see it in a sea level data, we see it in terms of plant flowering times (they are moving earlier into spring), we see it in the zones that plants occupy (plants that grow in warmer climates are moving into more northern climates).

 

If the methods were too fine to support the conclusion, the data wouldn't all suggest the same thing.  People would be able to construct data sets that didn't show warming.

 

But that doesn't happen.

 

3.  Now from there, we can ask why is the Earth warming.  Now it is possible that there is some long term natural variation that we don't understand, but to invoke that when you have a cause for warming based on basic physics staring you in the face isn't very scientific.

 

You have an observation (the Earth is warming).  You have something you expect to cause warming based on basic physics that goes back hundreds of years now (CO2).  Why would you invoke some unknown mechanism?

 

And isn't like people haven't and aren't looking for causes of natural variation and haven't failed to find source(s) to explain (all) fo the warming we've seen over the last 100 years.

 

3.  Why would the rate be increasing?  The rate of CO2 out put doesn't appear to be increasing recently (at least recently it appears to be linear).

 

Is this connected with the idea that water absorbs more heat?  That statement is at least too vague to go forward.  Water absorbs more heat than what?  It actually tends to absorb heat more slowly.  On a hot day, a pool gets warmer more slowly than black top.  Now, once it absorbs the heat, it tends to hold onto it better.  But if you think of I'm constantly heating something, the water is going lag behind (though, that's overly simplistic for the real world).

 

4.  More generally, nobody is claiming on the more local time scales that there is a single major driver of climate.  In 2009, a paper was published saying we were going to see a 30 year pause in warming.  It was published in a respectable journal and one of the authors even wrote a commentary for Real Climate, which is (an extremely) pro-AGW web site.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

 

Their argument is that there are 30 year cycles and we can see them in the climate data.  The CO2 affect is than revealed by looking at the data from ~1950 to ~2000.  That's about .5 degrees for the whole time period or about 0.1 degrees C/decade (similar to the graph above).  Over that time CO2 increased by about 25%.

 

 

http://co2now.org/

 

Doubling CO2 then gets you 2 degrees increase or so.  That's well with in the IPCC expected range.

 

These people are essentially saying that the IPCC can be right and simultaneously we can see a 30 year pause.

 

Now, the idea of a 30 year isn't/wasn't widely accepted, but they weren't laughed at either (e.g. They were asked to a guess commentary on the Real Climate site).

 

That's because everybody understands that there can be other factors that at least on the shorter time scales can drive climate.

 

The idea that because one factor or even a small number of factors have changed that over shorter periods of time we should see some particular change in temperature is wrong.

[twa]

is confirmation bias scientific misconduct or just bad science?

[Mad Mike]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

is confirmation bias scientific misconduct or just bad science?

Is willfull ignorance of danger merely stupid or the product of a profound learning disability?

[twa]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

Is willfull ignorance of danger merely stupid or the product of a profound learning disability?

 

 

I'm well aware of the dangers of making the wrong choices

 

see California and the drought planning..

 

See NASA 

 

Ignorance comes in many flavors

 

add

 

take this brain fart for example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3113908/How-world-s-biggest-green-power-plant-actually-INCREASING-greenhouse-gas-emissions-Britain-s-energy-bill.html

Edited June 12, 2015 by twa