Official Global Warming thread (merged)

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.
You're all over the place. Are you drunk? But Doc and others brought up the drought because that is all you have been doing that last six months. Stop being evasive. You've been posting California and wildfire posts in this thread for months as if has had anything at all to do with this thread. Doc posted one too. I posted a chart of the historical Western Mega Droughts so Doc would understand that this drought is nothing new. It isn't hard to understand Bart.

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

You are either drunk or stoned. You are the one who brought up what effect El Nino might have in 2016. Not me. I said no one knows what effect it will have or if it will even be here-it's the weather. I didn't say it wasn't here. We can't predict the future. But, maybe you can.
Yes, after the orbital decay “ADJUSTMENT” (*snicker*) in 1998 the trend was +0.07. Fast-forward to this millenium (also in the wiki):

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?

Could you explain how the 0.07/decade rise equates to a 0.3C rise since 2000? But, that 0.07 decade rise was calculated for data prior to 2000. Now that we have a pause we should see that 0.07 number decrease. Or is that too logical for you?

NOAA before 2000 didn't know what the hell they were doing in those ancient times? Now they need to "adjust" all that data. Yeah right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
You're all over the place. Are you drunk? But Doc and others brought up the drought because that is all you have been doing that last six months. Stop being evasive. You've been posting California and wildfire posts in this thread for months as if has had anything at all to do with this thread. Doc posted one too. I posted a chart of the historical Western Mega Droughts so Doc would understand that this drought is nothing new. It isn't hard to understand Bart.
This drought was not on the figure you posted, which ends in the year 2000. That was my only point. You've just been rambling in an attempt to avoid conceding even this minuscule point. It's ok, I won't berate you for it. I'm done with this dumb tangent.
You are either drunk or stoned. You are the one who brought up what effect El Nino might have in 2016. Not me. I said no one knows what effect it will have or if it will even be here-it's the weather. I didn't say it wasn't here. We can't predict the future. But, maybe you can.
You climate skeptics are bad at predicting the future, I agree. Maybe try using science? I don’t know if you’re aware but the point of science is to be able to make predictions about the natural world.
Could you explain how the 0.07/decade rise equates to a 0.3C rise since 2000? But, that 0.07 decade rise was calculated for data prior to 2000. Now that we have a pause we should see that 0.07 number decrease. Or is that too logical for you?

NOAA before 2000 didn't know what the hell they were doing in those ancient times? Now they need to "adjust" all that data. Yeah right.
You’re very confused.

Look at the UAH graph. There’s been about 0.3 C warming since 2000. The UAH trend for 1979-2013 was 0.136 C/decade. By my math, the UAH warming trend for 2000-2015 is about 0.3 C/15 years = 0.2 C/decade. How is that a pause?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
This drought was not on the figure you posted, which ends in the year 2000. That was my only point. You've just been rambling in an attempt to avoid conceding even this minuscule point. It's ok, I won't berate you for it. I'm done with this dumb tangent.

You climate skeptics are bad at predicting the future, I agree. Maybe try using science? I don’t know if you’re aware but the point of science is to be able to make predictions about the natural world.

You’re very confused.

Look at the UAH graph. There’s been about 0.3 C warming since 2000. The UAH trend for 1979-2013 was 0.136 C/decade. By my math, the UAH warming trend for 2000-2015 is about 0.3 C/15 years = 0.2 C/decade. How is that a pause?!

Too bad no one recognizes Bart's math.
 
Too bad no one recognizes Bart's math.
Long division is hard...

I take it you see now that UAH has warmed since 2000? The only reason I got into this was to point out your hypocrisy in loving the UAH temperature series while decrying NOAA's "adjusted" data. You must understand why that's silly by now.

Sadly, I expect it won't be long before you're back making the same snide conspiratorial insinuations. So it goes

:peace2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Long division is hard...

I take it you see now that UAH has warmed since 2000? The only reason I got into this was to point out your hypocrisy in loving the UAH temperature series while decrying NOAA's "adjusted" data. You must understand why that's silly by now.

Sadly, I expect it won't be long before you're back making the same snide conspiratorial insinuations. So it goes

:peace2:

No I don't agree UAH has warmed since 2000. Maybe we can email Dr. Spencer and ask him. He could change my mind. It isn't hypocrisy in my opinion because UAH scientists Spencer and Christy are real scientists with integrity. Spencer has been on Stossel a couple of times and willing to debate anyone from the AGW crowd and no one has taken him up on it. His work is completely transparent. There are not all these arbitrary manipulations to his data and he explains his methodology and his calculations. For instance the orbital decay was just a height and angle adjustment but still using the same algorithm. He doesn't throw out inconvenient data or arbitrarily substitute other data if he doesn't like the look of it. He doesn't decide some guy on a ship thirty years ago let a bucket sit too long because the temperature reading isn't what he thought it should be.

P.S.-I'll bet no one would have pointed out the orbital decay problem if it had lowered the warming.
 
Last edited:
No I don't agree UAH has warmed since 2000. Maybe we can email Dr. Spencer and ask him. He could change my mind.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

You don’t have to ask him, just look at the damn graph from his website. Read off the temperature in the year 2000, then check the temperature in 2015. Smh
It isn't hypocrisy in my opinion because UAH scientists Spencer and Christy are real scientists with integrity. Spencer has been on Stossel a couple of times and willing to debate anyone from the AGW crowd and no one has taken him up on it. His work is completely transparent. There are not all these arbitrary manipulations to his data and he explains his methodology and his calculations.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I’m not commenting on Spencer’s integrity. The hypocrisy is that UAH has experienced far more significant adjustments than NOAA. And NOAA’s methods are all public domain, too.
P.S.-I'll bet no one would have pointed out the orbital decay problem if it had lowered the warming.
#conspiracy

If you look at the UAH adjustments table, you’ll see about half of them lowered the warming...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Obama, Xi lay out joint vision for global climate agreement
U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping outlined their common vision for a global climate change agreement on Friday, including new steps they will take to deliver on pledges made last year to slash their greenhouse gas emissions. Those included Xi's announcement that China will launch a national carbon cap-and-trade system in 2017 to help contain the country's emissions, which will build on seven regional pilot markets already operation in China. Such systems put limits on carbon emissions and open up markets for companies to buy and sell the right to produce emissions.

The statement aimed to show "the determination of both countries to act decisively to achieve the goals set last year." China is already the world's largest carbon emitter, but its status as a developing country has meant it is under no obligation to promise carbon cuts, a situation that has irked U.S. politicians and other industrialized nations. For Obama, securing a new global agreement on climate change that erases some of the divisions between industrialized and emerging economies is a key priority. The deal with China strengthens his hand ahead of a global summit on climate change in Paris in December.

China also announced on Friday that it would channel 20 billion RMB ($3.1 billion) to help developing countries combat and adapt to climate change, a significant financial pledge from an emerging economy. Development charity Oxfam called it a "game-changer" and the environmental group World Resources Institute said it was a "watershed moment" in decades of climate agreement negotiations. For its part, Washington reaffirmed a pledge it made last year to channel $3 billion into a U.N.-backed Green Climate Fund. But Congressional wrangling over the federal budget threatens to delay the implementation of the pledge.

China, which is the second biggest lender to overseas coal projects, also announced for the first time that it will join the United States, Britain, the World Bank and other countries and institutions to "work towards strictly controlling public investment" in high-carbon projects overseas.

China and the United States also agreed on the need for an "enhanced transparency system" in a United Nations climate agreement to ensure trust and confidence in the framework to be agreed in Paris in December. They also said a new global climate deal should require countries to "ramp up" their national emission reduction commitments periodically.
Not to be outdone, over the weekend France and Britain increased their offerings by a combined $13 billion. Private contributions are up too and now even Wall Street is calling for a strong climate deal. Then Brazil, the world’s 7th largest economy and CO2 emitter, committed to reducing their emissions 37% by 2025 (pretty much on par with the EU -- another significant move for what was once considered a 'developing economy' like China). And last but not least, Shell announced they will cease drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.

Tough weekend for VolNation but a great weekend for climate change progress :good!:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
Unfortunately our “leaders” aren’t doing as well on the domestic front...

Republicans are becoming the party of climate supervillains
As Politico recently reported in a news story that seems better suited for bad a Hollywood movie script, Republican Party leaders are actively trying to sabotage the critical international climate negotiations that will happen in Paris at the end of this year.

Top Republican lawmakers are planning a wide-ranging offensive — including outreach to foreign officials by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office — to undermine President Barack Obama’s hopes of reaching an international climate change agreement that would cement his environmental legacy.

Republican Party leaders have often argued that the United States shouldn’t take action to curb its carbon pollution unless China and other countries do as well.

Now these countries are working to reach an international agreement in which all cut their carbon pollution, and Republican leaders are trying to undermine it. It’s as though they’re just looking for excuses to prevent the United States from reducing its fossil fuel consumption. As Jonathan Chait wrote,

In any case, the old conservative line, with its explicit or implicit promise that international agreement to reduce emissions might justify domestic emissions cuts, has suddenly become inoperative. The speed at which Republicans have changed from insisting other countries would never reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions to warning other countries not to do so — without a peep of protest from within the party or the conservative movement — says everything you need to know about the party’s stance on climate change.
I can’t imagine they’ll listen to the Pope, but I wonder if the rhetoric will change again.

rubio-planet.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

You don’t have to ask him, just look at the damn graph from his website. Read off the temperature in the year 2000, then check the temperature in 2015. Smh

Damn, you're all over the place. And, you're a scientist supposedly? So, that's how you do it? You pick the point at one end of the graph and the point at the other end of the graph and whatever the slope is of those two points then that is what it is? If you take all the points into account it's flat.


You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I’m not commenting on Spencer’s integrity. The hypocrisy is that UAH has experienced far more significant adjustments than NOAA. And NOAA’s methods are all public domain, too.

#conspiracy

Conspiracy-It only takes two. NOAA's methods are public domain? Yes and so are NASA's. And, they both came to the same conclusions with the same adjustments at the same time. Conspiracy? Nah.

If you look at the UAH adjustments table, you’ll see about half of them lowered the warming...

Again, you're all over the place. We were talking about the orbital decay adjustment that occurred in 1998 that adjusted it up 0.1 plus, the largest of the adjustments. I said I bet they wouldn't have pointed it out if it were negative. And, you're right all the adjustments added up aren't a big deal. Very little change. That was my point all along. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Damn, you're all over the place. And, you're a scientist supposedly? So, that's how you do it? You pick the point at one end of the graph and the point at the other end of the graph and whatever the slope is of those two points then that is what it is? If you take all the points into account it's flat.
You said, “I can honestly say looking at the data that there is a pause in the warming since 2000 even without the El Nino.” Literally every year in the UAH data since 2000 has been hotter than the year 2000! Thirteen of the 14 hottest years in UAH happened over 2001-2014 (the hottest year being 1998, of course). You’re being ridiculous.
Again, you're all over the place. We were talking about the orbital decay adjustment that occurred in 1998 that adjusted it up 0.1 plus, the largest of the adjustments. I said I bet they wouldn't have pointed it out if it were negative. And, you're right all the adjustments added up aren't a big deal. Very little change. That was my point all along. Thank you.
Again, altogether the adjustments to UAH have changed their trend on the order of +0.1 C/decade, whereas NOAA’s adjustments have had a net effect of about +0.0001 C/decade. You have no basis for smearing NOAA.

I’m done with your nonsense; I’ve made my point. You may have the last word on this. Make it special
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Some interesting figures:

Yet another survey suggests the climate change ‘debate’ is settled among scientists
Carlton and his colleagues sent surveys to nearly 2,000 biophysical scientists at universities in the Big 10 conference (which primarily includes universities in the Northeast and Midwest). The scientists surveyed included experts in a broad range of disciplines, including biology, chemistry, physics and geosciences, and also included some climate scientists.

The inspiration for the survey came partly from the idea that many prominent climate change doubters in the scientific sphere come from disciplines other than climate science. The driving question, according to Carlton, was, “Are these people representative of what scientists believe about climate science?”

The surveys included questions about four major issues: what the scientists believed about climate change, what they believed about climate science, where they got their information and what kinds of cultural and political values they had. Out of the sample, 698 scientists responded.

The survey results indicate that a firm majority of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. The researchers found that 93.6 percent of respondents believe that global temperatures have risen since their pre-1800s levels. Out of these, 98.2 percent said they believe that human activities are contributing to the rise in temperatures, meaning that altogether 91.9 percent of the respondents believe in anthropogenic climate change.


A 2012 study in Nature Climate Change found that the most scientifically literate members of the public were likely to be the most culturally polarized. So the researchers wanted to find out if scientists were “also affected by some of the same things that we know affect the public’s belief in climate science,” Carlton said.

In fact, cultural and political values do seem to play a role among scientists. Those who believed that global temperatures are rising were more egalitarian, more communitarian and more liberal than those who did not, the survey revealed. There were also differences among those who said they believed in anthropogenic climate change. For instance, 100 percent of egalitarian communitarians said they believed in a human contribution to climate change, compared with 90.3 percent of hierarchical individualists.

“There is this idea that something like belief in climate change is purely a rational or knowledge-based thing,” Carlton said. “These results show that it’s not. It’s the intersection of knowledge, your values, your identity — it’s somewhere in the intersection of all these things.”

That said, Carlton pointed out that the effects of cultural values on climate beliefs were less pronounced than past research has indicated they are in the general public. This is an effect he also found unsurprising, given that many biophysical scientists do “interact with climate change indirectly or directly.”

Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real Threat
A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to a new survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.

The results echo a number of other recent surveys concluding that despite the talk of many of the party’s candidates, a significant number of Republicans and independent voters are inclined to support candidates who would back some form of climate action.


The new survey found that 73 percent of all voters and 56 percent of Republicans do believe the climate is changing. Fewer than a third of Republicans think the climate is changing because of purely natural cycles, and only 9 percent think the climate is not changing at all, the survey found. It also found that 72 percent of Republicans support accelerating the development of renewable energy sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
You said, “I can honestly say looking at the data that there is a pause in the warming since 2000 even without the El Nino.” Literally every year in the UAH data since 2000 has been hotter than the year 2000! Thirteen of the 14 hottest years in UAH happened over 2001-2014 (the hottest year being 1998, of course). You’re being ridiculous.

Again, altogether the adjustments to UAH have changed their trend on the order of +0.1 C/decade, whereas NOAA’s adjustments have had a net effect of about +0.0001 C/decade. You have no basis for smearing NOAA.

I’m done with your nonsense; I’ve made my point. You may have the last word on this. Make it special

Really?
 

Attachments

  • measuredvsreported.gif
    measuredvsreported.gif
    19.8 KB · Views: 1
You posted the figure in response to DocVOLiday’s comment about the California drought.

:eek:k:

Here’s your precious UAH

UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2015_v6.png


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).

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…

UAHcorrections.jpg


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?!?!

Let's see, based upon your Chart you keep touting:

-.03+.03+.1-.07+.008-.004+.035=.069C/decade correction. Please excuse me if I don't round up. You did learn that in your physics class right? Your rounding up changed the answer by almost 50%.
 
Bart strikes me as the type of guy that stands on a street corner with a big graph that says the "end is coming".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Let's see, based upon your Chart you keep touting:

-.03+.03+.1-.07+.008-.004+.035=.069C/decade correction. Please excuse me if I don't round up. You did learn that in your physics class right? Your rounding up changed the answer by almost 50%.
Oh hey you finally decided to look at the numbers! I suppose I’ll respond again. I actually said “on the order of” to make the math easier for you, but I guess you don’t understand orders of magnitude.

Let’s do the math then, shall we? The table doesn’t include every adjustment to UAH but let’s just take your number for the total: +0.069 C/decade. NOAA’s adjustments over the same time changed the trend +0.00013 C/decade. Take the ratio and you’ll see UAH has adjusted their trend 530 times more than NOAA.

So instead of there being 3 orders of magnitude difference (1000:1 ratio), it’s more like a 530:1 ratio. You’re coincidentally right, that is different by almost 50%! Small victories, eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

Advertisement



Back
Top