Global warming discussion IV

[Belz...]

Is there ANYTHING that would falsify AGW in your view?

Cooling global averages would be a start.

 

[Belz...]

Gezz guys, do you really believe that?

Yeah, geez! You should be deniers, guys. It's so much cooler!

 

[Belz...]

You're the ones with faith, I'm just looking at the satellite record of Earth's global temperature and seeing the huge discrepancy with the models.

Care to explain?

Sure care to. Here: you're looking for discrepancies and ignoring the rest.

 

[Haig]

Sure care to. Here: you're looking for discrepancies and ignoring the rest.

Yeah, but it's mostly discrepancies that are the reality

 

[macdoc]

THIS is reality Haig



It's getting warmer, seriously warmer, we're responsible, the world community is addressing it - not denying it.

ALL models are flawed, some models are useful. Now do you have any climate science for discussion??? or just unsupported commentary to offer.

 

[Haig]

THIS is reality Haig

[qimg]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/201501-201506_zpsmftwxe7f.gif[/qimg]

It's getting warmer, seriously warmer, we're responsible, the world community is addressing it - not denying it.

ALL models are flawed, some models are useful. Now do you have any climate science for discussion??? or just unsupported commentary to offer.

Gezz, the land temperature data fiddled with again!

Show the Global temperature graph for actual data NOT models. The satalite and balloon measurements that haven't been fiddled with ......yet!

 

[lomiller]

just looking at the satellite record of Earth's global temperature and seeing the huge discrepancy with the models.

Care to explain?

Hallucinations? Seriously, how are we supposed to know why you see things that aren’t there.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, but it's mostly discrepancies that are the reality

Dodge noted.

 

[lomiller]

Gezz, the land temperature data fiddled with again!

Funny how the “fiddled with” data always ends up showing a warming trend regardless of which scientists produce it.

Show the Global temperature graph for actual data NOT models.

Raw data from NASA
we just finished the hottest
Dec - Feb
and second hottest
March - May

in human history

The satalite and balloon measurements that haven't been fiddled with

You just finished linking to guys crowing about how they revised their satellite data to make the warming go away. It seems you like data fiddling when it produces the results you want, but dislike removing know errors in the dataset when it produces results you don’t like.

 

[macdoc]

Actual measurements Haig....no model. suck it up. You are floundering.

Just sucks when the world doesn't conform to your fantasies

 

[bobdroege7]

Gezz, the land temperature data fiddled with again!

Show the Global temperature graph for actual data NOT models. The satalite and balloon measurements that haven't been fiddled with ......yet!

See here

http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/GHCN/gwpf/submgwpf.pdf

Fiddling with the data, unfortunately for us scare-mongers, makes it seem not so bad* after all.


*of course, for various values of "not so bad"

Or to make it plain, adjustments makes the trend go down.

and further note that I am submitting a cite to a well known denier organization.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Do you think that scientists should be stupid enough to throw away data

Gezz, the land temperature data fiddled with again!

Geez, the climate denier idiocy that data cannot be adjusted for changes in instrumentation yet again, Haig !

A simple scenario for you. On 1 August 2015 a weather station that was at sea level is moved to a hill top. There are 150 years of records exist for the weather station. Temperatures fall with altitude. The weather station will measure lower temperatures.
11 August 2015 Haig: Do you think that scientists should be stupid enough to just throw away 150 years of data?
Or should they adjust that weather station data for the change in altitude?

Now think about the real world where most weather stations have changed. In the 1940's many were moved from urban area to airports. Many are now automated.

11 August 2015 Haig: Do you think that scientists should be stupid enough to just throw away most of the data collected by weather stations?
Or should they adjust weather station data for the changes?

The satalite and balloon measurements that haven't been fiddled with ......yet!

Wow - that is hilariously ignorant Haig. Do you think satellites stick thermometers into the atmosphere?

Satellite data is already massively "fiddled with". They take readings of the emissions from the atmosphere. Models of the atmosphere are then used to convert the readings into temperatures. There is even the equivalent of weather station adjustments as readings from different satellites in different orbits with different instruments are reconciled.

The other hilarious ignorance is the implication that we have centuries of data from satellites. We have a few decades of data from satellites.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is even the equivalent of weather station adjustments as readings from different satellites in different orbits with different instruments are reconciled.

A point worth emphasising, I think : satellite data is necessarily subject to more homogenisation than land station data.

 

[macdoc]

of course Haig still thinks sun activity is the major driver of climate and expects an ice age .....I mean really - he needs an award for "not even wrong "

 

[Haig]

Actual measurements Haig....no model. suck it up. You are floundering.

Just sucks when the world doesn't conform to your fantasies

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fL9HOv0D6p4/VcjPxQxOVfI/AAAAAAAAOOc/DWen0JWPw9E/s576-Ic42/june-anomaly.png[/qimg]

Looking at the TOA ... there is NO agreement about:

what enhanced the warming we’ve experienced to date,
what will enhance any future warming, and
what the absolute values of the energy imbalance were in the past, are presently and will be in the future.

Think again !

No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models

This post provides an initial look at climate model simulations of the top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy budget and its three components. It includes the outputs of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive (used by the IPCC for the 5th Assessment Report).

There are astonishing differences in the modeled estimates of the past, present and future imbalances and the three components that make up the top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy budget. That is, there is no agreement on the magnitude of TOA Earth’s energy imbalance in the models, and there are even wider disagreements in the calculated components that make up that energy budget, how they evolved in the past, and how they may evolve in the future…all suggesting, among the models, there is little agreement in the modeled processes and physics that contribute to global warming now, contributed to it in the past and might contribute to it in the future.

 

[Belz...]

Tell me Haig, and this is serious question, what set you against the idea of global warming in the first place? Was it a gut reaction to learning about it? Or some piece of evidence that made you doubt something you previously accepted? Or what?

 

[Haig]

Tell me Haig, and this is serious question, what set you against the idea of global warming in the first place? Was it a gut reaction to learning about it? Or some piece of evidence that made you doubt something you previously accepted? Or what?

Fair question and I'll give you a fair reply imo.

I was convinced that CAGW was a real threat since the 1980's. My belief began to waiver after looking into the Climatgate revelations.

I read a paper The Sun Defines The Climate and it made sense, it appeared to me to explain the past, present and future climate of Earth much more realistically than the CO2 Alarmist view.

I started a thread in Feb 2010 called Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? to see what other skeptics (as I thought the forum was supposed to be ) views would be and was genuinely surprised by how narrow minded and blinkered the responses were and still are.

The data and facts have been confirming this view with each passing year - It's not us it's the Sun.

 

[Belz...]

Fair question and I'll give you a fair reply imo.

I was convinced that CAGW was a real threat since the 1980's. My belief began to waiver after looking into the Climatgate revelations.

I read a paper The Sun Defines The Climate and it made sense, it appeared to me to explain the past, present and future climate of Earth much more realistically than the CO2 Alarmist view.

I started a thread in Feb 2010 called Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? to see what other skeptics (as I thought the forum was supposed to be ) views would be and was genuinely surprised by how narrow minded and blinkered the responses were and still are.

The data and facts have been confirming this view with each passing year - It's not us it's the Sun.

If I understand this correctly, you've read some conspiracy-oriented nonsense about "climategate", then read some popular explanation that you, as a layman, found convincing, and now you loof for data that fits that newer conviction. Don't you see a problem with that process?

 

[macdoc]

To fit reality to his theory Haig cannot accept that it's getting warmer

The sun is going one way, global temps are going another.

Ergo it must be a conspiracy.
And he conflates total irradiance which varies very little with sun activity which varies over an 11 year period and has been reduced.
He refuses to accept....despite the evidence that sun activity has a small but easily measurable impact on global temperatures....it is just that...a small impact, a magnitude below the GHG signal.

He's really not going to like the paper that came out last week...

New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity
Aug 7, 2015 11 comments
Sunspots on the solar surface, September 2011

A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought.
Indeed, the corrected numbers now point towards a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries, according to an international team of researchers. Its results suggest that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were discussed today at a press briefing at the IAU XXIX General Assembly currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawaii.

more

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...bal-temperatures-not-linked-to-solar-activity

Of course as any good tin hatter....he will claim they lie.

 

[CapelDodger]

I was convinced that CAGW was a real threat since the 1980's. My belief began to waiver after looking into the Climatgate revelations.

Interesting. How did you go about looking into it, and what did you find?

On a related topic, did you look into the hackers' reasons for only releasing a selection of the stolen emails for you to look into at the time? If so, what did you find? I've never found an answer myself but perhaps you have better sources.

As we all know many lies were told about the stolen emails; have you looked into why that was? In the case of Christopher Monckton lying is compulsive, of course, but most, perhaps all, of the others only do it professionally. The obvious conclusion is that there was nothing in the emails worth being honest about but they had to do something with it, hence the careful selection and the fabrications. Numerous (seven is it?) investigations have concluded exactly that, as indeed have I. Have you reached a different one?