Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trakar said:
Goddard is being disingenuous to fool the ignorant and gullible, those who repeat his lies, are most often con-men or conned men.
Click to expand...

Lol, you guys calling people con men. Lol

The question would be, has there not been any warming when you consider the last 58 years?
 
Reality Check said:
That blog entry is certainly bad science from Goddard.
  • The bad act of joining a graph from 1977 (data from 1957 to 1977) to one from 2015 (data from 1979 to 2015) with no sign of evaluating whether the 2 graphs are plotting compatible data.
Click to expand...

  • So you're saying there's no way to evaluate the last 58 years together?

    The data is obviously not compatible - the 1977 data was adjusted according to the knowledge available then. A point of this blog entry is that the 2015 data was adjusted differently!
    Click to expand...

    So is there a way to make them work?

    [*]The denier myth about temperature records being purposely adjusted to make them warmer when there are valid scientific reasons to adjust temperature records.
    Click to expand...

    It does kinda mess up the data.

    No one says that global warming has progressed at a constant rate over the last 58 years because the rate of CO2 increase was not constant.
    Click to expand...
    Question is, if you take the last 58 years together, has the planet warmed?
 
logger said:
So you're saying there's no way to evaluate the last 58 years together?
Click to expand...
I said that Goddard incorrectly butted two graphs together without understanding what they contained. The correct and not lazy or ignorant way would be use actual data from Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) which starts in 1958.

logger said:
It does kinda mess up the data.
Click to expand...
No, logger - it makes the data better and more data available.
Homogenization allows us to double check that instruments are working correctly. Have a look through the Berkeley Earth description of their analysis. Stations are used against each other to check the trends.
Without these adjustments we would have throw away data every time an instrument changed and would have literally no data from before the early 1990s (when lots of weather stations changed to electronic instruments) :p!
Even the radiosonde data that Goddard "analyses" could largely be thrown away if we go for his delusion about not adjusting data.

logger, the answer is of course the planet has warmed over the last 58 years - that is called global warming!

ETA: One thing I missed out about how ignorant Goddard is about those graphs.
The NOAA graph is for data up to ~40,000 feet (200 millibar). The 1977 paper graph is for data at 100 millibar which is ~53000 ft. Goddard is comparing data for different heights. The NOAA graph dopes not contain any data that is comparable with the 1977 graph!
 
Last edited:
logger said:
And the Antarctic is growing.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant and wrong, logger.
Irrelevant because the temperature records show that the Earth has warmed over the last 58 years (and longer!).

Wrong because the Antarctic is not growing. There is more sea ice because of local conditions.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
Click to expand...

What about a rant on a random blog, logger?
People took up the use of the imprecise terms 'pause' or 'hiatus' because that was how the less steep (not a pause or hiatus!) warming trend over the last couple of decades was known by the public.
A author lying about climate science should not impress anyone.
  • There are different versions of HADCRUT because data and data analysis techniques improved.
  • The NOAA dataset was adjusted because there were valid scientific reason to adjust it.
  • Problems with the RSS satellite data analysis have been pointed out for years and the RSS team eventually found "huge errors" and fixed them.
  • Ignorance about the scientific process.
    Papers are often rejected by journals. In fact the harder it is to get a paper in a journal, the better a journal is considered to be!
    Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-15-0744.1, in press
    Submitted first to the Journal of Geophysical Research and rejected for an unknown reason.
  • Citing the dubious Watts Up With That blog which seems to be going a bit crazy.
    For example see Scientific Elitism Is Fundamentally Destructive To Science where Tim Ball tries to defend Immanuel Velikovsky's obviously crank ideas (Venus erupted from Jupiter because of Greek myths, etc.) as science.
    An analysis here: Crank magnet WUWT defends pseudo-science and promotes Velikovskyism "in the context of learning"
 
Funny sort of "growth"...

20121230_Icesheet_mass_balance_2009_fig2.gif


Antarctic ice mass accelerating according to GRACE reanalysis, Pine Island Glacier in sustained retreat
Click to expand...

http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/antarctic-ice-mass-accelerating.html
 
macdoc said:
Do you have some climate science or just more crap from the deniosphere.

Anyone in denial of AGW these days is pathological. :rolleyes:

What don't you understand about these MEASUREMENTS ....or is it all some conspiracy brewed up in weak minds?...


[qimg]https://4warnweather.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/blog-2016globalnumbers_horserace_2015jan-dec.jpg?w=640[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You missing the good news for deniers in that article. Now they have a new year to cherry pick as the start of a period without global warming. I can hear it now:

"There has been no warming since 2015.":boggled:
 
macdoc said:
Do you have some climate science or just more crap from the deniosphere.

Anyone in denial of AGW these days is pathological. :rolleyes: What don't you understand about these MEASUREMENTS ....or is it all some conspiracy brewed up in weak minds?...


[qimg]https://4warnweather.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/blog-2016globalnumbers_horserace_2015jan-dec.jpg?w=640[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

The AGW Hypothesis is dead in the eyes of the world. No one is going to do anything serious about it....like actually demand that it be seriously studied and accurately reported. Much less do anything real to mitigate it (if it is actually happening, at all).

Although I think we (as a planet) should be studiously funding research into the AGW Hypothesis, we won't. People have grown tired of being "Blamed" - especially those people who control the funding purse strings, and who also drive huge SUVs and fly around the world in Private Jets.

Is AGW a serious threat? "Could be" as far as I am concerned, but slinging insults will get you nowhere. Not ever. It's not helping the cause.
 
Jules Galen said:
The AGW Hypothesis is dead in the eyes of the world. No one is going to do anything serious about it....
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why the Canadian Prime Minister and the US President are getting together this week to address climate change? Because it's dead in the eyes of the world??

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is winning praise from the White House for his leadership on climate change ahead of this week's visit to Washington where that issue will be high on the agenda."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-house-state-visit-trudeau-obama-1.3480672

"Barack Obama wants to be remembered as the president who saved the world from climate change.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/climate-change-obama-paris-216716#ixzz42URDAqrn
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

The Pope's encyclical was used to promote the dangers of climate change.
Leonardo DeCaprio used his Oscar speech to tell people to fight climate change
Bill Gates just pledged 1 billion dollars to fight climate change
Sir Richard Branson has funded the Carbon War Room for years
Elon Musk is building electric cars

You are correct that not enough is happening but there are far more people that are starting to wake up. It's too bad that sound science doesn't convince people of your ilk, as evidenced by you ridiculous posts.

No one is doing enough because of people like you!
 
Last edited:
Also that many companies are working to convert to renewable energy sources and increased efficiency. We may actually meet the Paris targets simply because it makes good business sense. Can't find the link at the moment, but the largest area of new power generation in the US last year was solar (PV and CSP).

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
logger said:
And the Antarctic is growing.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. There's just more of it coming to light as Antarctic ice melts. Meanwhile ocean heat content has risen enormously, glaciers have retreated, and premafrost is melting.

How about this?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/how-the-pause-was-made-to-disappear/
Click to expand...
Do you understand how the mythical Pause was invented? It's a sorry story, but only to be expected given all the real stuff that's been happening.
 
Jules Galen said:
The AGW Hypothesis is dead in the eyes of the world.
Click to expand...
That is a seriously wrong post, Jules Galen.
  • There is no imaginary "AGW Hypothesis".
    AGW is an observation. There is strong physical evidence for AGW. It can even be explained in simple terms - GW exists and it matches the predictions from rising levels of CO2 which we are causing: Thus the A in AGW. Scientists take the existence of AGW seriously (97% of climate scientists). Politicians take the existence of AGW seriously. There are ignorant (or even deluded) bloggers who blindly deny the evidence of AGW - they are not the eyes of the world :p!
  • The climate was and is being "seriously studied and accurately reported". Over 150 years of temperature records. At least a century since the role of C02 and other gases in governing the temperature of the atmosphere was recognized (the greenhouse effect). Thousands of researchers and papers.
  • Reducing C02 is a real thing to do to mitigate global warming.
  • Climate research is "seriously funded".
  • Repeating the denier fantasy of the funders controlling research is not good, Jules Galen.
  • Pointing out that bloggers are writing ignorant blogs about climate is not insults.
    If the bloggers insist on displaying ignorance then we should advice people to keep clear of them because of that ignorance. When the bloggers descend to lies about science then we should comment on that. Ditto for not recognizing pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom