Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Your sources are left wing outlets who cite a government agency that adjust tempature data.

They were links, not sources. I actually heard about it while watching the Weather Channel. So I went looking for a link. Found many, and I stopped with those two.

What are acceptable sources, in your opinion?

An acceptable "source" in this case would be an interpretation of the data gathered about the weather. People can do that for themselves.

 

[Sandvol]

How is that figure even relevant? Your “current western drought” isn’t very current. Without even looking into it, the data appears to go through 2000 and was published in 2004. California’s extreme drought has only been since 2010…

It demonstrates that the current Western Drought is nothing new and is part of a natural cycle of droughts. And, that the pattern indicates it is going to get worse and will last for decades if not centuries.

 

[Sandvol]

What are acceptable sources, in your opinion?

Dr. Roy Spencer and UAH data is acceptable. Also, why not just present the raw data and let people decide for themselves?

 

[Sandvol]

JMA’s August smashed their old record too, by 0.12 C, while NASA only called it the 2nd hottest August just behind 2014. But according to NOAA, we also broke last month’s record for overall hottest month in modern history! And what does the UK’s agency think?

2015 and 2016 set to break global heat records, says Met Office

:matrix:

"Adjusted Data."

 

[BartW]

It demonstrates that the current Western Drought is nothing new and is part of a natural cycle of droughts. And, that the pattern indicates it is going to get worse and will last for decades if not centuries.

No, it doesn't say anything about the current drought at all.

Dr. Roy Spencer and UAH data is acceptable. Also, why not just present the raw data and let people decide for themselves?

"Adjusted Data."

Cherrypick much? You know there are numerous inversions of the satellite data, right? Roy Spencer's UAH just happens to be the one that shows the least warming -- though it still shows significant warming.

We've presented the raw surface temperature data to you multiple times. We've also told you why the adjustments are necessary, even though they don't make much difference overall. I find it ironic how climate skeptics originally pointed out the need for adjustments such as the urban heat island effect, but now those same adjustments are just a big ole conspiracy... And on another level, it's ironic that you only accept Roy Spencer's UAH temperature record. First of all, it still shows global warming. Secondly, it's a measure of tropospheric temperature and not surface temperature. We live on Earth's surface, not in the troposphere. And last but not least, satellite temperature is 110% ADJUSTED DATA!! Calculated using MODELS, which we all know are the devil! Why not just present the raw data, right? :crazy:

I suspect you still don't have a clue how satellites 'measure' temperature. The raw data is a bit different than readings taken directly with a thermometer. Please, read the satellite temperature measurements wiki before we try to have this conversation again.

And inb4 "Wikipedia is socialist, Conservapedia is the only acceptable source." Just get over it; the info is good. You might learn something

 

[BartW]

Catholic Republican congressman will boycott Pope Francis' address

Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican congressman from Arizona who describes himself as a "proud Catholic," is boycotting Pope Francis' historic address before a joint session of Congress next week.

"If the Pope plans to spend the majority of his time advocating for flawed climate change policies, then I will not attend," Gosar wrote in an op-ed on the conservative website Town Hall. "When the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one.

It's unclear what the pope will talk about when he speaks on Capitol Hill on Thursday, making him the first pope ever to formally address the U.S. Congress. Francis, however, has put unprecedented emphasis on environmental matters. Earlier this year, he issued a 184-page encyclical -- the most authoritative teaching document the pope can issue -- on climate change.

In his op-ed Gosar dismisses climate change concerns, noting the climate has been changing "since first created in Genesis."

Lol. On a bright note,

However, a handful of Republicans are in fact following the pope's lead and promising better stewardship of the environment. Rep. Chris Gibson, R-New York, announced Thursday that he and 10 other Republicans are introducing a resolution calling for better environmental stewardship through "economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates."

Gibson, who is Catholic, noted in a press release that the resolution aligns with Pope Francis' visit. Gibson and his 10 colleagues, the release said, worked with faith-based leaders, as well as environmental, business, national security and community leaders, to develop their resolution.

 

[Sandvol]

No, it doesn't say anything about the current drought at all.

Ok, based upon your logic the current drought doesn't say anything about anything other than it is a drought. So, why post it on this thread?

Cherrypick much? You know there are numerous inversions of the satellite data, right? Roy Spencer's UAH just happens to be the one that shows the least warming -- though it still shows significant warming.

And, it shows a pause in the warming.

We've presented the raw surface temperature data to you multiple times. We've also told you why the adjustments are necessary, even though they don't make much difference overall. I find it ironic how climate skeptics originally pointed out the need for adjustments such as the urban heat island effect, but now those same adjustments are just a big ole conspiracy... And on another level, it's ironic that you only accept Roy Spencer's UAH temperature record. First of all, it still shows global warming. Secondly, it's a measure of tropospheric temperature and not surface temperature. We live on Earth's surface, not in the troposphere. And last but not least, satellite temperature is 110% ADJUSTED DATA!! Calculated using MODELS, which we all know are the devil! Why not just present the raw data, right? :crazy:

I suspect you still don't have a clue how satellites 'measure' temperature. The raw data is a bit different than readings taken directly with a thermometer. Please, read the satellite temperature measurements wiki before we try to have this conversation again.

And inb4 "Wikipedia is socialist, Conservapedia is the only acceptable source." Just get over it; the info is good. You might learn something

You're such a condescending liberal. You only know what you read about satellite measurements just like I would. Secondly, UAH data shows a pause. And, all the surface data before 2000 was bad data until it was adjusted? Oh, it only had to be adjusted when it paused? Right? Also, satellite data isn't adjusted data the same way we're talking about and you know it. We both know Satellite data are IR or microwave measurements that have to be converted to a temperature. We both know these satellites are correlated with very accurate temperature measurement methods. STOP LYING! With the surface data they are taking old reliable readings that don't fit their template and changing the numbers. ADJUSTMENT! You are a liberal with an agenda. Nothing more.

 

[Ttucke11]

Hold on, there are actually people that don't think global warming is real? I thought it was only our conservative "leaders" in Congress.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

“New measurements show that temperatures are going up because they now include ocean temperatures,” says Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever. “But for a hundred years the ocean has not been included.”“The temperature of the earth has been constant almost 19 years,” says Giaever. “It hasn’t gone up.”

.

 

[FLVOL_79]

When the Pop s tarts talking about climate change you KNOW its bullsh!t.

 

[Mtntrout]

.

This makes no sense. The climate was warming over the last 19 years. Full stop. Ocean or no ocean included. He's in his mid 80's and clearly off his nut. He also said himself that .8 degrees of warming is meaningless. So which is it? Was their .8 degrees of warming or none?

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Hold on, there are actually people that don't think global warming is real? I thought it was only our conservative "leaders" in Congress.

The fact you believe there are any conservative leaders in congress shows your ignorance

 

[Sandvol]

This makes no sense. The climate was warming over the last 19 years. Full stop. Ocean or no ocean included. He's in his mid 80's and clearly off his nut. He also said himself that .8 degrees of warming is meaningless. So which is it? Was their .8 degrees of warming or none?

It is amazing how many brilliant scientists who actually have integrity that you liberals label as nuts. Look in the mirror.

 

[BartW]

Ok, based upon your logic the current drought doesn't say anything about anything other than it is a drought. So, why post it on this thread?

You posted the figure in response to DocVOLiday’s comment about the California drought.

And, it shows a pause in the warming.

k:

Here’s your precious UAH

Can you honestly, in good conscious, say there’s a trend change in the UAH graph? Try to ignore the explicitly labelled El Nino warming (which UAH will see again in 2016).

You're such a condescending liberal. You only know what you read about satellite measurements just like I would. Secondly, UAH data shows a pause. And, all the surface data before 2000 was bad data until it was adjusted? Oh, it only had to be adjusted when it paused? Right? Also, satellite data isn't adjusted data the same way we're talking about and you know it. We both know Satellite data are IR or microwave measurements that have to be converted to a temperature. We both know these satellites are correlated with very accurate temperature measurement methods. STOP LYING! With the surface data they are taking old reliable readings that don't fit their template and changing the numbers. ADJUSTMENT! You are a liberal with an agenda. Nothing more.

Back when I was a student at UT I actually did some remote sensing research using instruments aboard the Mars Odyssey orbiter, so yes I actually do have a clue as to what we’re talking about. The bolded is wrong -– that was one of the main points of my last post. There is no single correct way to convert radiances to temperatures. And on top of there being numerous inversion methods, there have also been several changes (aka ADJUSTMENTS or CORRECTIONS) to the UAH methodology specifically. Note that the UAH figure above is version 6.0…

In fact, once upon a time the UAH algorithm was so far off that it actually resulted in global cooling (which was why skeptics latched onto it). Now it shows global warming, just like the surface temperature record. These CORRECTIONS actually changed the UAH warming trend much more than the corrections for surface temperatures have! Conspiracy?!?!

 

[BartW]

.

Nonsense. There is a long record of sea surface temperature measurements. The oceans were not just recently included in the measurements, and the measurements didn't just recently start to show warming.

SST – Measurements

Maybe he’s thinking of the more recent ARGO float network that measures temperatures at depth?

It is amazing how many brilliant scientists who actually have integrity that you liberals label as nuts. Look in the mirror.

It’s unfortunate that you can’t tell the difference.

Some Ivar Giaver quotes-

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

“First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Fourth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable”

"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible.”

"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2.”

"Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of "global warming", not CO2? But nobody talks about that."

He may be a Nobel laureate, but he is self-admittedly clueless about climate change. He done gone emeritus (86) and is now working for the infamous Heartland Institute.

Fwiw I’m sure he was brilliant in his day (and in his field)

 

[Sandvol]

You posted the figure in response to DocVOLiday’s comment about the California drought.

k:

Again you keep perpetuating lies. DocVoLiday's post was in response to your continuous posting of the California drought and fires as if they had anything to do with this thread.

Here’s your precious UAH

Can you honestly, in good conscious, say there’s a trend change in the UAH graph? Try to ignore the explicitly labelled El Nino warming (which UAH will see again in 2016).

Yes, I can honestly say looking at the data that there is a pause in the warming since 2000 even without the El Nino. You, nor I nor UAH can predict what the El Nino will look like or if there will be one in 2016.

Back when I was a student at UT I actually did some remote sensing research using instruments aboard the Mars Odyssey orbiter, so yes I actually do have a clue as to what we’re talking about. The bolded is wrong -– that was one of the main points of my last post. There is no single correct way to convert radiances to temperatures. And on top of there being numerous inversion methods, there have also been several changes (aka ADJUSTMENTS or CORRECTIONS) to the UAH methodology specifically. Note that the UAH figure above is version 6.0…

So, you looked for rocks on Mars using images from the Mars Orbiter? Doesn't quite qualify as the same as using algorithms from microwave readings to infer temperatures but the Orbiter was a satellite. I don't know where to start. You're right, all kinds of people look at the Satellite data and they all disagree on the algorithms to achieve inferred temperatures. Yes, and UAH did show a cooling of 0.05C per decade in their 1998paper until they accounted for orbital drift. So what? They did correct it. Their stuff is completely transparent. They are real scientists. They don't take old data and change it to fit a template. And, all the analyses still show a pause. Just damn.

In fact, once upon a time the UAH algorithm was so far off that it actually resulted in global cooling (which was why skeptics latched onto it). Now it shows global warming, just like the surface temperature record. These CORRECTIONS actually changed the UAH warming trend much more than the corrections for surface temperatures have! Conspiracy?!?!

So far off, you're comical. Changed them so much? It went from 0.05C cooling to 0.04C warming. And, it still shows a pause since 2000. Just damn.

 

[Sandvol]

the surface data. How did you come up with that? Must be looking at all those images from the Mars Orbiter damaged your eyeballs.

 

[1972 Grad]

When the Pop s tarts talking about climate change you KNOW its bullsh!t.

The Pope might win over some liberal atheist converts if he preaches global warming. If libs donated to anything, the Pope might get a couple of bucks in the collection plate.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Another fine aspect of the culture that the recent "immigrants" to Europe are bringing with them..

Were U.S. troops told to overlook Afghan abuse of boys? - CNN.com

 

[BartW]

Again you keep perpetuating lies. DocVoLiday's post was in response to your continuous posting of the California drought and fires as if they had anything to do with this thread.

Nope, go back and look again. I suspect Doc posted something about the California drought because he lives in California.

Yes, I can honestly say looking at the data that there is a pause in the warming since 2000 even without the El Nino. You, nor I nor UAH can predict what the El Nino will look like or if there will be one in 2016.

That’s funny, my eyes see that the UAH plot shows global average temperatures being at least 0.3 C cooler back in 2000

El Niño gets upgraded: Forecasters say there is a 95% chance of 'strong' weather system

So if nobody knows what El Nino looks like, why do you think Roy Spencer explicitly labels the ’97-’98 super El Nino on his temperature graph? El Nino transfers heat from the oceans to the atmosphere and UAH is a measure of atmospheric temperatures. Record warm years almost always follow El Nino. That’s why experts predict that 2015 and even 2016 will once again be the hottest on record.

So, you looked for rocks on Mars using images from the Mars Orbiter? Doesn't quite qualify as the same as using algorithms from microwave readings to infer temperatures but the Orbiter was a satellite.

I used infrared emissions to infer thermophysical properties of the surface. The original data are radiances at different wavelengths, just like MSU. There’s quite a bit of processing (algorithms) involved in converting the raw data to something useful.

I don't know where to start. You're right

That’s a good place to start… would’ve been a good place to stop too

all kinds of people look at the Satellite data and they all disagree on the algorithms to achieve inferred temperatures. Yes, and UAH did show a cooling of 0.05C per decade in their 1998paper until they accounted for orbital drift. So what? They did correct it. Their stuff is completely transparent. They are real scientists. They don't take old data and change it to fit a template. And, all the analyses still show a pause. Just damn. So far off, you're comical. Changed them so much? It went from 0.05C cooling to 0.04C warming. And, it still shows a pause since 2000. Just damn

Wow Bart the satellite data has been adjusted more than the surface data. How did you come up with that? Must be looking at all those images from the Mars Orbiter damaged your eyeballs.

UAH went from about -0.05 C/decade to +0.15 C/decade. Over the same time period, NOAA’s corrections changed their warming trend from +0.1654 C/decade to +0.1655 C/decade. Roy Spencer’s got some ‘splainin to do!

(The NOAA numbers come from the raw data I tried to link earlier. Post # was off by 1. Here is the correct link)

 

[Sandvol]

Nope, go back and look again. I suspect Doc posted something about the California drought because he lives in California.

You're the one that started posting all the drought and fire fighting posts are you not? And, you have probably posted at least a dozen of those. Is that not correct?

That’s funny, my eyes see that the UAH plot shows global average temperatures being at least 0.3 C cooler back in 2000

El Niño gets upgraded: Forecasters say there is a 95% chance of 'strong' weather system

So if nobody knows what El Nino looks like, why do you think Roy Spencer explicitly labels the ’97-’98 super El Nino on his temperature graph? El Nino transfers heat from the oceans to the atmosphere and UAH is a measure of atmospheric temperatures. Record warm years almost always follow El Nino. That’s why experts predict that 2015 and even 2016 will once again be the hottest on record.

Didn't say nobody knows what El Nino looks like. I said no one knows what El Nino is going to look like in 2016. Or, if there will even be an El Nino. Why make claims to something that hasn't happened yet or might ever happen?

I used infrared emissions to infer thermophysical properties of the surface. The original data are radiances at different wavelengths, just like MSU. There’s quite a bit of processing (algorithms) involved in converting the raw data to something useful.

That’s a good place to start… would’ve been a good place to stop too

UAH went from about -0.05 C/decade to +0.15 C/decade. Over the same time period, NOAA’s corrections changed their warming trend from +0.1654 C/decade to +0.1655 C/decade. Roy Spencer’s got some ‘splainin to do!

No, don't think so it went to 0.04C. Also, we all know about NOAA's bias.

(The NOAA numbers come from the raw data I tried to link earlier. Post # was off by 1. Here is the correct link)

Also, Christy and Spencer use the same data. And, so does RSS which is different than UAH and NOAA. So what? Still a pause.

 

[Sandvol]

Here is a copy of a blurb straight out of Wiki, your God:

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

I've read 0.04C or K but I'll accept 0.07. Still at the end of the day a pause.

 

[Sandvol]

Also, definitely no correlation with the increase in CO2. IPCC and Dr. Hansen got some splain'n to do if you ask me.

 

[BartW]

You're the one that started posting all the drought and fire fighting posts are you not? And, you have probably posted at least a dozen of those. Is that not correct?

Again, irrelevant. You responded to Doc’s post, not to mine. Doc’s post was not in response to one of mine. Stop digging and move on.

Didn't say nobody knows what El Nino looks like. I said no one knows what El Nino is going to look like in 2016. Or, if there will even be an El Nino. Why make claims to something that hasn't happened yet or might ever happen?

Bro, do you even science? El Nino is already here. Predicting how it will impact weather patterns is what scientists do.

No, don't think so it went to 0.04C. Also, we all know about NOAA's bias.
Also, Christy and Spencer use the same data. And, so does RSS which is different than UAH and NOAA. So what? Still a pause.

Here is a copy of a blurb straight out of Wiki, your God:

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

I've read 0.04C or K but I'll accept 0.07. Still at the end of the day a pause.

Yes, after the orbital decay “ADJUSTMENT” (*snicker*) in 1998 the trend was +0.07. Fast-forward to this millenium (also in the wiki):

To compare to the trend from the surface temperature record (approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is most appropriate to derive trends for the part of the atmosphere nearest the surface, i.e., the lower troposphere. Doing this, through December 2013:

RSS v3.3 finds a trend of +0.125 °C/decade.[25]
UAH v5.5 finds a trend of +0.136 °C/decade.[36]

I’m not sure what it is in version 6.0, but judging by the graph, it’s still a lot closer to +0.15 than +0.04. So could you please explain how a 0.3 C temperature rise since 2000 is a “pause” in this trend?

 

[BartW]

In a blind test, economists reject the notion of a global warming pause

The experts were told that the data referred to agricultural output and were asked questions about whether the agricultural output had “stopped”. In fact, the authors took exact statements from a climate contrarian, except they replaced words associated with global warming with statements associated with agricultural productivity.

In this blind test, the experts strongly rejected the agricultural “pause” conclusion. In fact, they found mention of a pause “to be misleading and ill-informed”. The experts were divided about whether the “pause” statement was also fraudulent.