Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

The problem is, you simply do not seem to comprehend the scientific papers.

The links provided give a very good explanation on measuring global temperatures in layman's terms and i'm sure reading them would benefit your understanding greatly.

This is exactly why I urge people to just read the journals instead of allowing themselves to be mislead by biased webpages just trying to draw internet traffic. The scientists are extremely honest and concise, there's really no misunderstanding them.

As far as the site being a "junk" science site, well, it's not. As far as i can tell from comparing the texts there to the published scientific papers linked as sources, it popularizes the findings from mainstream science rather accurately and without bias.

They clearly are junk science. They cherry pick the data and studies to fear monger and sensationalize. Read the journals if you're interested in climate science, it's the best and most accurate source of unbiased and relevant up to date news. The "introduction" and "conclusions" are very easy to understand if you're unsure of the math and physics in the middle.

 

[Furcifer]

There is no '1979 Charney paper'.
Climate sensitivity

Yes there was, the report was presented in 1979. (He didn't just make it up )

What is your point other than climate models give consistent results?
This is not a big surprise. Create models using the known physics and they tend to be consistent.

The models aren't consistent they're riddled with biases.

The reality is that that have been many papers calculating climate sensitivity in the last 30 years using other techniques and confirming that range: A detailed look at climate sensitivity

That's because once you get past the fundamentals the addition of more variables makes things very, very complicated. To the point of being prohibitive.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm talking about the fact that "20th century" in scientific papers always means 1901-2000. Without exceptions.

Nonsense. It's easily refuted by simply considering what the 21st Century average is? Or does that only apply to the 20th Century?
Anyone familiar with science knows it refrains from talking in absolutes.

Yes, you are very unclear. Perhaps that is because you know that none of those referenced papers claims 20th century average to be anything else than the 1901-2000 average.

Nonsense. The Smith Reynolds paper clearly shows the data set, including the years 1880-1899, was used in calculating the average.

So, could you PLEASE provide a clear link, and page number for the source of your odd claim that "20th century" means something else than 1901-2000??

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf

TABLE 6. Rankings of the 10 warmest global and annual averages
from 1880 to 2006 for SR05 (merged.v2) and the improved
analysis (merged.v3).
Rank Merged.v2 Merged.v3
1 2005 0.41 2005 0.40
2 1998 0.38 1998 0.37
3 2002 0.36 2003 0.36
4 2003 0.36 2002 0.35
5 2006 0.35 2006 0.33
6 2004 0.34 2004 0.32
7 2001 0.30 2001 0.29
8 1997 0.27 1997 0.25
9 1999 0.20 1995 0.18
10 1995 0.19 1999 0.17

This is the yearly, the monthly we're talking about (July) is taken from THE SAME DATA SET. It goes from 1880-2006. Is this clear enough? I don't see how you can miss this if you actually read it like you claim.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. The merged v3 uses the years from 1880-2006, depending on the different reconstructions, and it what NOAA refers to as the "20th Century Average". It's not just the years 1900-2000.

 

[Furcifer]

If so, you might be interested to know that .74, .68, .77 are not averages, but rather correlations between merged.v3 and HadCRUT3v. No wonder you don't understand the "tuning" ;-)

Incorrect. (what you've stated makes no sense)
"For the full 1880–2006 period, correlations are highest between 45°S and 70°N, with an average value of 0.74. In addition, correlations are computed using data from 1900 to 1949 and from 1950 to 1999 (notshown). For 1900–49 the average correlation for this region is 0.68, while for 1950–99 it is 0.77.
They're exactly what they say they are, the average of the correlation. What that means is where the two models are similar they took the two values and averaged them. I don't understand the tuning because it's extremely complicated. A little more difficult than figuring out what the average of a correlation is.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes there was, the report was presented in 1979. (He didn't just make it up )

My point was that he did not write a paper eye-poppi). He wrote a report.

The models aren't consistent they're riddled with biases.

The models are consistent. Their results are riddled with consistency such as climate sensitivity estimates.

That's because once you get past the fundamentals the addition of more variables makes things very, very complicated. To the point of being prohibitive.

That has nothing to do with what I said which was:

The reality is that that have been many papers calculating climate sensitivity in the last 30 years using other techniques and confirming that range: A detailed look at climate sensitivity
​

 

[Reality Check]

This is exactly why I urge people to just read the journals instead of allowing themselves to be mislead by biased webpages just trying to draw internet traffic. The scientists are extremely honest and concise, there's really no misunderstanding them.

That is a bit ignorant.
The content of these links (especially the first 2) is not easily found in the journals.

• Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
• Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built
• Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
• Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think

They are in the textbooks.
If you read every climate science paper in every journal that has been written then you would have read the about the techniques used to minimize bad surface station data. This would probably be in a decades old paper.

You do not need to read Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica to learn classical mechanics. You read a textbook.
You do not need to read Einsteins papers to learn special or general relativity. You read textbooks.

They clearly are junk science. They cherry pick the data and studies to fear monger and sensationalize.

Present your evidence that the Skeptical Science articles

• cherry pick their 'data'
• fear monger
• sensationalize

 

[BenBurch]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/25/1640224/Michael-Mann-Vindicated-Again-Over-Climategate

More proof that "climategate" was a pack of lies from a pack of criminals.

 

[CapelDodger]

Correct.

In the ERSST version 3 on this web page we have removed satellite data from ERSST and the merged product.

It says removed, not dropped. Dropped is a synonym for removed.

(My emphasis)

Also :

"The third change was the addition of satellite data to the SST analysis beginning in 1985."

It seems you're concerned with "this web page", in which the absence of satellite is not only mentioned but highlighted to avoid confusion. A brave effort, doomed to failure.

 

[Furcifer]

My point was that he did not write a paper eye-poppi). He wrote a report.

I was under the impression they're the same thing.

The models are consistent. Their results are riddled with consistency such as climate sensitivity estimates.

They aren't, and this is probably the number one reason to avoid socalledskepticalsicence.com. They cherry pick studies to make it appear that way, but if you read the actual journals you'll see it's far from consistent and probably one of the biggest complaints climate scientists make today. You see super models (not the ones you're probably familiar with) and multiple source reconstructions precisely for the reason that they aren't consistent.

 

[Furcifer]

It seems you're concerned with "this web page", in which the absence of satellite is not only mentioned but highlighted to avoid confusion. A brave effort, doomed to failure.

I did highlight it, but it doesn't seem to have worked in reducing confusion. I don't think you understand the implications. It's another example of the poorly statistical methods that plague the pseudoscience known today as climate change.
Where else can you not randomly sample your random sample (Mr. Mann I'm looking in your direction) and discard the data that doesn't fit with you biased notion?

 

[Pixel42]

The Smith Reynolds paper clearly shows the data set, including the years 1880-1899, was used in calculating the average.

This paper is about improvements to the way the whole dataset is analysed. It gives date ranges for all the period averages it mentions. As has already been pointed out to you it doesn't mention the 20th century average, let alone define it.

At one point it does mention the "1971–2000 climate base period" which you could also pretend is what NOAA refers to on its webpages as the 20th century average. You'd be just as wrong.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this.

I hope you mean this is the last time you're going to make this nonsensical claim.

The merged v3 uses the years from 1880-2006, depending on the different reconstructions, and it what NOAA refers to as the "20th Century Average".

There is absolutely nothing in this paper that would lead any sane person to think this is true.

NOAA define what they mean by "20th century average" on the definition page I pointed you to. As none of the referenced papers refer to that particular average, none of them define it.

It's not just the years 1900-2000.

Of course it is. By definition.

 

[Pixel42]

I just clicked on the hyperlink "Summary of Recent Changes in the GHCN-M Temperature Dataset and Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analyses", near the top of NOAA's State of the Climate page, which brought me here:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ghcnm/ghcnm-v3.pdf

There I clicked on the hyperlink "global average temperature" at the end of the first paragraph, which brought me here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

where I found this (my bold):

8.How is the average global temperature anomaly time-series calculated?

The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith et al., 2008). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator. Global-average anomalies are calculated on a monthly and annual time scale. Average temperature anomalies are also available for land and ocean surfaces separately, and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres separately. The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.

I hope this will finally settle this ludicrous argument.

 

[Halsu]

Nonsense. It's easily refuted by simply considering what the 21st Century average is?

No, it's not refuted.

If you bothered to read the earlier posts, you would know that 21th century average generally refers to 2001 - present or 2001 - end of data. Years before 2000 are never included.

This is the yearly, the monthly we're talking about (July) is taken from THE SAME DATA SET. It goes from 1880-2006. Is this clear enough? I don't see how you can miss this if you actually read it like you claim.

The data set may go from 1880 - 2006 but they don't call this whole period 20th century anywhere in that paper.

If the whole data set is used for an average, it's stated as 1880-2006 average, full period average or similar. Not 20th century average - which is still 1901-2000 (actually, i must give in a little as in some occasions 1900-1999 may be used, as it's handy and rhymes with the usual perception of decades).

Anyway, here's an example from the same paper:

"The critical sampling (Crit) is evaluated using the globalMSE
averaged for 1861–99 (nineteenth century) and for 1861–2000 (full
period)."​

As you can see, 19th century is from the start of data to 1899.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. The merged v3 uses the years from 1880-2006, depending on the different reconstructions, and it what NOAA refers to as the "20th Century Average". It's not just the years 1900-2000.

No, you are simply wrong. NOAA does NOT refer to the whole period as 20th century anywhere in that paper, or elsewhere i know of for that matter.

 

[Halsu]

Incorrect. (what you've stated makes no sense).

Sorry, typo: "Are not averages" should have read "are not temperature averages".

From your message and the topic at hand, i assumed you were talking about temperature averages.

 

[Trakar]

That's just a random girdded data set, it's not the land sea 20th Century average.

"Random"?!
Seriously?!

If you read this:
The anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1971-2000 base period. Gridded data is available for every month from January 1880 to the most recent month available. You can use it to examine anomalies in different regions of the earth on a month-by-month basis. The index values are an average of the gridded values (see question #7); however, the anomalies are provided with respect to the 20th century (1901-2000) average.
it reiterates what I said about the gridded data and the anomalies.

No, it uses the words "gridded data" and "anomalies" but it refutes most everything you've argued over the last 3 pages or so.

It has nothing to do with what we're talking about though.

It clearly and compellingly demonstrates how NOAA defines the term "20th century."

I strongly suggest you read the Smith Reynolds paper instead of posting links to random web pages.

"random," seriously, in the same sentence where you are trying to admonish me to read a paper (again) that clearly contradicts and refutes what you claim it supports?

Random - (adjective) lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I assure you there is nothing random in either NOAA gridding of temperature anomaly data, nor in my linkage to their site demonstrating that data.

The climate doesn't follow the calendar...

non sequitor

and truncated data sets aren't always accurate because they cut things like ENSO into pieces and skew the data.

again a non sequitor. You need to decide whether you are going to argue definition or propriety. Definitionally you are irredeemably incorrect. There may be a propriety discussion to have, but it does not include redefining the term "20th century."

There are a few other reasons explained in the paper as well.

Your understandings and explanations are flawed and not in accord with the understandings, meanings and definitions used by these, or any other, knowledgeable researchers in anyway involved with the field of climate science, or for that matter, science in general.

 

[Trakar]

Yes they are, but NOAA isn't on webpage linked, the average is clearly from the ESST v3, which uses the 1880-2006 data set. That's why it's important to read the reference paper instead of the webpage.

And in their use of this data set, they clearly and carefully distinguish between 19th Century, 20th Century and 21rst Century data.

 

[Trakar]

My point was that he did not write a paper eye-poppi). He wrote a report.

The models are consistent. Their results are riddled with consistency such as climate sensitivity estimates.

That has nothing to do with what I said which was:

The reality is that that have been many papers calculating climate sensitivity in the last 30 years using other techniques and confirming that range: A detailed look at climate sensitivity
​

Confirming that general range, at least for short-term sensitivities, ...long-range equilibration sensitivities, however, calculated through paleoclimate comparisons, seem to indicate something more in the range of 6-8^oC for each atmospheric doubling.

GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS ON THE GLACIAL AMPLIFICATION OF
PHANEROZOIC CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/climate_sensitivity_II_AJS.pdf

 

[Trakar]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/25/1640224/Michael-Mann-Vindicated-Again-Over-Climategate

More proof that "climategate" was a pack of lies from a pack of criminals.

OH NOES!!

more evidence of collusion and conspiracy, obviously!

(btw, happy B-Day!!)

 

[Furcifer]

This paper is about improvements to the way the whole dataset is analysed. It gives date ranges for all the period averages it mentions. As has already been pointed out to you it doesn't mention the 20th century average, let alone define it.

This is incorrect, the paper not only mentions the 20th Century average, it mentions the 19th Century and the 21st Century. I know you haven't read the paper, why continue to claim that you have?

I hope you mean this is the last time you're going to make this nonsensical claim.

Of course reading the paper might make things seem less like nonsense. It can't hurt.

There is absolutely nothing in this paper that would lead any sane person to think this is true.

Except they clearly define the data set being used and clearly show it's from 1880-2006. It's given in years, but that's where the monthly averages NOAA uses come from.

NOAA define what they mean by "20th century average" on the definition page I pointed you to. As none of the referenced papers refer to that particular average, none of them define it.

For the precipitation data set, not the combined land sea average. If you'd read as many papers as I have you'd realize there's hundreds of different groupings of figures due to different factors in different years. There's absolutely no consistency. The years vary from as far back as 1854 to yesterday. Some are grouped in 30 year periods, some in 50, some in 100, some in 10.

Of course it is. By definition.

There is no "definition" of the 20th Century average. None. All it is is a name they use to reference a particular data set. In this case it's the years 1880-2006.

If you have an issue with this I suggest you take it up with NOAA. It's pretty clear from reading the web page and the actual study they chose to use the most accurate descriptor to refer to this 1880-2006 data set. It's a small quip in paragraph, there's no need to say "The 19th, 20th and 21st Century average".
If you read an tried to understand the paper you would quickly see this.

 

[Furcifer]

I just clicked on the hyperlink "Summary of Recent Changes in the GHCN-M Temperature Dataset and Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analyses", near the top of NOAA's State of the Climate page, which brought me here:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ghcnm/ghcnm-v3.pdf

There I clicked on the hyperlink "global average temperature" at the end of the first paragraph, which brought me here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

where I found this (my bold):



I hope this will finally settle this ludicrous argument.

Yes, but if you look at the actual paper the change from version 2 to version 3 included the merged datasets from 1880-2006.

That happened in May of this year, but the gridded data for the reference period 1900-2000 hasn't changed. So unless they've gone back and changed all the previous years they haven't updated the current page to reflect version 3. (either that or the merge has had absolutely no effective change in the averages).