Recent Comments

Prev  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  Next

Comments 17751 to 17800:

17751. randman at 02:34 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MA Rodger, let's not miss the forest for the trees. I addressed some of this in another post. 
       
       So what is considered the 1950-1980 mean more recently? Here is an estimate and claim of 2015 being the hottest year.

       "The NASA team found that globally averaged temperatures from January through December 2015 were 0.87 degrees Celsius (1.57° Fahrenheit) above the norm (defined as a 1951–1980 base period)."

       https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87359

       If the mean was still 58 degrees, then 2015 would then have averaged nearly 59.57 degrees. 2016, however, is now considered the hottest year ever at less than 59 degrees.

       "NOAA reported an average temperature for the year of 14.83 degrees C (58.69 degrees F) in 2016 – 1 degree C (1.69 degrees F) warmer than the average for the 20th century."

       https://news.mongabay.com/2017/01/nasa-and-noaa-2016-hottest-recorded-year-ever/ 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are comparing apples to oranges. The NASA computation of global mean surface temperature differs from that of NOAA's.  

17752. randman at 02:22 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Not sure how to edit a post. For 502, meant to write by 2010, the mean had been revised downward. Not sure when it happened, sometime between 1991 and 2010 it appears or perhaps it fluctuates?

17753. randman at 02:19 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       " If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today."

       https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
       
       This was put out in 2010. There is an accompanying graph showing a significant rise from 1980 and the the period of 1950-1980 along with this comment:
       
       "By the beginning of the 21st century, Earth’s temperature was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius above the long-term (1951–1980) average. (NASA figure adapted from Goddard Institute for Space Studies"
       
       https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
       
       So we see a mean mentioned in 2010 of "15°C (59°F) that it is today."
       
       This is said to be roughly .5 Celsius above the 1950-1980 mean, which would make the 1950-1980 mean be 58.1 degrees F. As I have shown in other posts, the mean was reported to be 59 degrees in 1988. Obviously, it was adjusted downward.
       
       "One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations."

       http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html

       "Dr. Hansen informed the lawmakers that the first five months of 1988 were the hottest five-month period on record, averaging four-tenths of a degree above a 30-year (1950-1980) norm of 59 degrees Fahrenheit."

       LINK

       "The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was 0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period 1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the British researchers said."

       http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/us/global-warmth-in-88-is-found-to-set-a-record.html
       
       And from 1991:

       "The Goddard group found that the record average surface temperature for the globe was eight-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average of 59 degrees. The British group found it seventh-tenths of a degree higher than the 1951-80 average."

       http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/10/us/separate-studies-rank-90-as-world-s-warmest-year.html
       
       Also note from the same article:
       
       "The British groups, headed by Phil Jones at East Anglia and David Parker of the meteorological office, reported 1990 to be the warmest year since comparable records were first kept in 1850.....

       The Goddard group found that the record average surface temperature for the globe was eight-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average of 59 degrees. The British group found it seventh-tenths of a degree higher than the 1951-80 average."
       
       http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/10/us/separate-studies-rank-90-as-world-s-warmest-year.html
       
       Looks like 59 degrees was considered the 1950-1980 mean in 1991, and in 2010 that was revised downward to 58 degrees.
       
       So what is considered the 1950-1980 mean more recently? Here is an estimate and claim of 2015 being the hottest year.
       
       "The NASA team found that globally averaged temperatures from January through December 2015 were 0.87 degrees Celsius (1.57° Fahrenheit) above the norm (defined as a 1951–1980 base period)."

       https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87359
       
       If the mean was still 58 degrees, then 2015 would then have averaged nearly 60 degrees. 2016, however, is now considered the hottest year ever at less than 59 degrees.
       
       "NOAA reported an average temperature for the year of 14.83 degrees C (58.69 degrees F) in 2016 – 1 degree C (1.69 degrees F) warmer than the average for the 20th century."
       
       https://news.mongabay.com/2017/01/nasa-and-noaa-2016-hottest-recorded-year-ever/
       
       

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link that was breaking page format.

17754. MA Rodger at 02:18 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @497.

       ♣ You ask "how do we know?" If you examine the LOTI documentation (linked @496) you will see it says "GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius - base period: 1951-1980" And while it is fuzzed out past p1, Hansen & Lebedeff (1988) is but an update of Hansen & Lebedeff (1987) and that states "We obtain monthly temperature changes for a given subbox by applying the previously described procedure individually to each of the 12 months, with the zero point for each month being its 1951-1980 mean." So unless there is some ambiguity over the year numbering, it all sounds pretty "knowable".

        

       ♣ You ask "what is that base specifically in abolute temps?" I would quote you the comment from 1988 quoted in one of those NYT articles you have cited up-thread.

       "How hot is the world now? The scientists do not offer a straightforward response, saying that the vast amount of data is still being studied and that comparisons cannot be precise."

       If you insist on a reply, perhaps this NASA article will provide it. It states "For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F."

       This of course is neither an exact answer nor the 59°F/15°C you have cited from a couple of NYT articles, but as I set out @478 above, the NYT 59°F value is almost certainly the result of the journalist (it is each time the same journalist) insisting on using an absolute temperature and effectively putting words into a climatologists mouth, words they do not object to. But it ain't science.

       The Ts=288K you also cite (from Hansen et al 1981) is not applicable to any anomaly base. It is used for the same perpose that Callendar (1938) uses Ts=283k, to quantify the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. It has no association with any defined time-period.

        

       ♣ You state 1988 was "Same year he testified that the 1950-1980 mean was 59 degrees F." This I assume refers to Hansen's tesemony to US Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 23/6/1988. This is not something I am familiar with but if Hansen does testify "that the 1950-1980 mean was 59 degrees F," it will require sharper eyes than mine to see it. Perhaps you can point to the page & paragraph.

        

       ♣ You will note that Hansen & Lebedeff (1987) tabulates the global anomaly record 1880-1985. I cut&pasted those numbers into a spreadsheet alongside todays GISTEMP LOTI 1880-2016. The resulting graph can be see here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment'). There is significant difference between the 1980s record and today's but only pre-1940.

       (Folk get obsessed with the impact such adjustments would have on the implied global warming by popping a LSR through the data. Such analysis 1880-1985 shows the 1980s data implies there has been a little more warming over the period than shown in the modern data, 0.54°C/century as opposed to 0.44°C/century.)

17755. randman at 01:41 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       From 1991;
       
       "The Goddard group found that the record average surface temperature for the globe was eight-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average of 59 degrees. The British group found it seventh-tenths of a degree higher than the 1951-80 average."
       
       http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/10/us/separate-studies-rank-90-as-world-s-warmest-year.html

17756. randman at 01:36 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       "One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations."

       http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html
       
       "Dr. Hansen informed the lawmakers that the first five months of 1988 were the hottest five-month period on record, averaging four-tenths of a degree above a 30-year (1950-1980) norm of 59 degrees Fahrenheit."

       LINK
       
       "The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was 0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period 1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the British researchers said."
       
       http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/us/global-warmth-in-88-is-found-to-set-a-record.html
       
       
       

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

17757. bobbyj at 01:33 AM on 26 September 2017
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       June 23, 2018 will be the 30-year anniversary of Hansen's testimony. Seems a good time to raise public awareness of how well the models have fared, despite their imperfections. 

17758. randman at 01:16 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Eclectic, so you admit the 14 degrees mean is something they calculate? Finally, and yet you pretend I am the ignorant one here?
       
       So we saw in 1981 and in 1988, the mean was 15 degrees, at least for the 1950-1980 base. Now it is 14 degrees. Let's keep this simple and straightforward. How they come up with that isn't really a concern at this stage in the conversation. First, we need an agreement on very basic facts. 
       
       If you won't even admit something was stated, it's kind of silly to get into why and how they came up with the idea, and it seems as if you are trying to suggest something isn't factual and then demand an answer on the details of how such facts should be measured.
       
       First, let's admit what is factual in terms of the statements and historical views here. 
       
       Also, I noted your quoted mean is for the 20th century, which throws a small wrinkle into the discussion as we were talking of the 30 years from 1950-1980 and the years following.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

17759. randman at 01:10 AM on 26 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MA Rodger, few things. First, how do we know the successor temp record still uses "the same 1951-1980" base, and what is that base specifically in abolute temps?
       
       Second,  Hansen is a co-author of the 1988 paper you bring up, right? Same year he testified that the 1950-1980 mean was 59 degrees F. Are you suggesting he wrote one thing in his scientific journals and said something different before Congress or what?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Same year he testified that the 1950-1980 mean was 59 degrees F"

       Source citation, please.

       Sloganeering snipped.

17760. One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 26 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       bozzza,

       Though a peer reviewed publication that accurately analyzes the Arctic Sea Ice data would be the best source, you can sort of check it out for yourself using the NSIDC's updated Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph.

       When you click on any data point along any annual extent line the coloured image of sea ice concentration for that date is opened. The impression I get is that the area of 100% concentration (pure white) at the minimum in 2017 was comparable to, and maybe less than, the area at the minimum in 2012.

       Ice concentration is not exactly the same as 'true multi-year' which would require tracking ice in areas of lower concentration at the end of one year and determining if it remains to the end of the next year and beyond.

17761. MA Rodger at 19:15 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @494.

       You ask of the global mean surface temperature: "why has it been adjusted downward?" The first step in answering that is to identify when it was adjusted downwards. You seem quite adamant that it had not yet been adjusted downwards in 1988.

       With the preview version of Hansen & Lebedeff (1988) we can access the first page of this paper. This paper you argue is using the old 288K estimate for Ts and we can see the resulting global temperature record in Fig 1, from 1880 with an anomaly of -0.40ºC to 1987 with an anomaly of +0.33ºC.

       Happily for us, the successor temperature record, NASA's GISTEMP LOTI, still uses the same 1951-1980 anomaly base. So by examining academic papers citing those LOTI anomalies, it will be easy-peasy lemon-squeezy to spot when this scurilous adjustment was carried out to pervert the climatical reocods of our planet. The adjustment will be very obvious as, with the adjusted anomaly base being calculated to have an average temperature 1ºC lower (14ºC instead of 15ºC), these global anomalies will be boosted upwards by +1ºC.

       A quick look at the latest LOTI release we see that the 1880 anomaly has been adjusted from -0.40ºC to -0.20ºC and that the 1987 anomaly has been adjusted from +0.33ºC to +0.33ºC.

       So when exactly was this GISTEMP LOTI adjustment performed?

17762. LightSpeed at 18:30 PM on 25 September 2017
       Models are unreliable
       

       scaddenp - Let us consider your first question

       Would you accept that if climate science is correct about CC control of water vapour, then Total Precipatible Water should then be highly correlated with surface temperature?

       The short, simple answer to your question, of course, is "yes". Given a certain temperature, there is one and only one value of the H2O vapor concentration that satisfied the CC equation. Equivalently, we may regard the CC equation as establishing the H2O vapor concentration as a function of the single independent variable T (ie. temperature). This being the case, we would expect that the amount of H2O vapor in a column of air above a certain area on the surface to be closely tied to the temperature of this area on the surface.

       There is also, however, another implication if the CC controls H2O vapor. Remember that the CC equation was derived to determine the equilibrium partial pressure (or equivalently concentration) of a vapor when a reservoir of this same substance in the liquid or solid state is present. This equilibrium concentration (determined by the CC equation) also plays the role of a saturation concentration whether any liquid H2O is present or not. The idea is that if the vapor concentration exceeds this saturation value, then liquid H2O will precipitate until thermal equilibrium is once again established between the H2O vapor and liquid present. Therefore, the CC determines the maximum vapor concentration at a given temperature and not the vapor concentration at this temperature. If we use the CC determined H2O vapor concentration as the atmospheric H2O vapor concentration, the implication would be 100 percent relative humidity everywhere. This would preclude deserts or otherwise dry climates anywhere. Also, the H2O vapor feedback, established as the principal mechanism of AGW, would be way overestimated.

       ---------------------------------------------------------------

       Moderators - In posting this message, I am not spamming, trolling, nor being a "sock-puppet". I am merely responding to a question specifically directed to me by scaddenp @1071. By definition, spamming and trolling are unsolicited messages which this is not. Now I don't care if you want to delete this paragraph, but please leave everything above it intact. If you object to me posting any messages whatsoever, you will need to take it up with those commentators asking questions directed at me in their postings.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] This is yet another (of almost 2 dozen) iterative sock puppet of serial spammer cosmoswarrior.  Posting rights rescinded, per Comments Policy.

17763. Eclectic at 17:17 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom Dayton @493 , ~ Quite so.    Even the most intellectually-handicapped member of junior high school classes is capable of understanding the temperatures / anomalies / averages etc which Randman pretends to be confused by.

       But there is a certain entertainment value in seeing the crazy gyrations of the Denialist mind which enjoys displaying itself in public.  A subpontine dweller whose motivation must be at least 50% masochism.

       ______________________________

       Randman @whatever ,

       it's been a while since I last checked the NOAA website, and I thought you might be  pleased to read this extract from their latest :-

       "The global land and ocean surface temperature for the first eight months of the year ranked as the second highest in the 138-year record at 0.88 C (1.58 F) above the 20th century average of 14.0 C (57.3 F) — falling behind 2016 by 0.13 C (0.23 F), but ahead of 2015 by 0.03 C (0.05 F).  Based on three simple scenarios, 2017 will likely end up as the third warmest year on record." (unquote)

       Isn't that a beautiful wording, Randman.  

       The same 14.0 degrees that Hansen clairvoyantly predicted in his 1981 and/or 1988 speech, in order (in his kindly way) to show that he was intending to lower the world temperature (from 15.0) so that you would have some "grist for your mill".   [ Literary note : though it is said that "the mills of God grind slowly" ~ yet the Divine mills grind never so slowly as the Randman mills. ]

       But it seems, Randman, that you have a little problem — despite criticizing the world average temperature, you have not specified how you would like the average to be determined e.g. would you like regional temperatures to be summed up over  all the 300 x 300 nautical mile squares constituting the Earth's surface.  Or possibly 300 x 200 n.m. squares as you move away from the equator? Or the 300 x 100 n.m. squares as you get closer to the poles?  Or something more Geodesic? Or less?

       Or would you prefer, Randman, to use the 150 x 150 nautical mile squares ~ as used by NOAA or maybe NASA (or vice versa) ?   I have a vague idea, Randman, that the (Japanese) JMO uses a somewhat different area measurement basis.  Not to mention the Chinese system.

       So which of these measuring systems is the one that you would choose, Randman? They all give a different result for World Absolute Temperature average.  Randman, you are the One — you must choose for us (the red pill, or the blue pill, or some other color . . . in your case, perhaps the rainbow pill? . . . not that there's anything wrong with that! ) .  Which method of averaging, Randman?

       Oh if only the world were simpler, and we had a consensus of scientists to guide us in these matters!

        

       Oh, er, yes . . . there is one more little problem with your way of "thinking", Randman.   Since you have it somewhere in your head that all of the millions of scientists worldwide are (for decades now) in a Giant Conspiracy to lie to you and deceive your innocence . . . and that you know the Earth is cooling not warming . . . but then how is it that the ice is melting and the sea level has risen several inches since Hansen's pronunciamento in 1981 ?   Just doesn't fit, does it? . . . unless WhatsUpWithThat and Judith Curry are wrong!

       Puzzling, eh!

17764. randman at 15:31 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Please note the source of this:
       
       "The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. The scheme was based on the finding that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. This fact proved sufficient to obtain useful estimates for global mean temperature changes.

       Temperature analyses were carried out prior to 1980, notably those of Murray Mitchell, but most covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s."
       
       https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
       
       So NASA here points to the same 1981 paper I have brought up, which mentions a mean of 288 Kelvin which is 14.85 degrees celsius. They came up with number somehow. Talking of how the process involves individual stations does not change that. This is on their website. This is what they state.
       
       Now it is clear that 14.85 degrees celsius or 15 degrees celsius which Hanson mentions 7 years later in 1988 is not still considered valid. Otherwise they wouldn't be saying annual means of less than that are hotter.
       
       So despite bashing me for bringing this up, exactly how did they come up with the mean of roughly 15 degrees celsius and why has it been adjusted downward?

17765. Tom Dayton at 15:25 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ah, now I understand. "Randman" sucked me in to his game. He can't be that stupid. He's just been jerking us around for his own amusement.

17766. randman at 14:59 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       "The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

       "https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally
       
       So NASA stated their calculations are "an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980."
       
       "Baseline"?  "Global average"?

17767. randman at 14:53 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ok, just googled the NOAA and this just an illustration mind you and clicked on first or near thing that came up.
       
       "Driven by record warmth in the West, the national average summer (June–August) temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 72.7°F, 1.3°F above average and the 15th warmest summer in the 123-year period of record."
       
       https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201708
       
       I don't propose there is anything controversial here. Just posting it to point out an absolute average temperature is mentioned here for the US and specified to be the 15th warmest year. 
       
       Now, I am sure I can look up other announcements from those keeping such records that mention absolute temps. This should not be controversial. It's not out of bounds to talk of things in this manner.
       
       So why did Hansen and Jones think the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees roughly and yet now it is considered to have been 14 degrees?

17768. randman at 14:45 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom you do realize the slope is pretty easily manipulated based on the time-frame involved among other things, right?
       
       The bottom line are the comments of 59 degrees as a mean from 1950-1980 were not arbitrary. I am open to explanations from those involved as to why they were wrong. At the same time, adjusting the past temps down, excluding stations, adjusting temps from stations, etc,...make a very big difference in calculating anomalies, right? They are based on a mean of specific weather stations or measurement instruments. 
       
       So the question is if adjustments are made, why were they made? Are the same standards applied to the present measurements such that there is an honest account of relative changes. Just show the papers and data.
       
       What's the problem here? You guys have a beef with someone like me watching this unfold for 30 years, hearing the mean was 59 degrees or 15 degrees celsius, and then seeing over and over again that such and such year was the warmest with an announcement of the mean for that year less than 15 degrees celsius?
       
       Can't you see how any normal person would take that with a grain of salt. At least show me why and how you changed your view of the data in the past.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Blatant lie and inflammatory snipped.

17769. randman at 14:37 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       So why would the Washington Post mention an absolute temperature and claim the NOAA does?
       
       "The average temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces was 58.69 Fahrenheit, or 1.69 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees, NOAA declared. "
       https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/18/u-s-scientists-officially-declare-2016-the-hottest-year-on-record-that-makes-three-in-a-row/?utm_term=.1a251a1f56ee
       
       Note it is less than 59 degrees. So obviously if in the 80s people like Hanson and Jones believed the cumulative data indicated 59 degrees as the mean from 1950-1980, then there has been an adjustment in that data such that the NOAA can declare less than 59 degrees the hottest year ever since data has been collected.
       
       Where is the explanation and peer-reviewed papers discussing that downward revision?

17770. Tom Dayton at 14:15 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman, you wrote "why is it published and stated and used, by the way, to compare current global surface temps in claims of the hottest year and so forth, something we see a lot of?" You are flatly, objectively, wrong. Absolute temperatures are not used in claims of the hottest year. Relative temperatures (anomalies) are used.

       You wrote "Only way to argue it was the hottest year, as just an example of what I am talking of, is to have an idea what the prior year's were." Yes, you are correct. But the prior year's temperature need not be known as absolute temperature. The temperature relative to any baseline period's temperature is completely, perfectly, logically, mathematically, sufficient, as long as both this year and the prior year's anomalies are calculated from the same baseline time period.

17771. Tom Dayton at 14:08 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman, you wrote

       "statements of, for example, the warmest year ever are not based on mere consideration of a single or a few stations but on an aggregate of all the data, which would include either all stations or a sufficient spread of them to make a reasonable calculation."

       Correct. But then you implicitly made an incorrect conceptual leap. You incorrectly assumed that the "aggregate of all the data" is the global mean absolute temperature. It is not. The data being aggregated are the anomalies. Therefore the aggregate of those anomalies is the global mean anomaly temperature. Not the absolute temperature. The absolute temperature for the globe never is calculated in that procedure. Even the absolute temperatures for each of the individual stations disappear from the data as soon as the individual anomalies are calculated.

       Estimating the mean absolute temperature of the globe cannot be done to any useful precision or accuracy simply by averaging the absolute temperatures of all the individual stations. The operations for doing it instead are very complex, require much more information and assumptions, and inevitably yield an estimate that is an order of magnitude (that's 10 times--move the decimal point to the right by one digit) less certain than an estimate of global mean anomaly. Changing any of that can yield a very different global mean absolute temperature even if 100% of the individual absolute temperature measurements are not changed.

       People have been attempting to estimate global mean absolute temperature since at least Fourier's calculation in the 1820s, which allowed him to realize that the atmosphere was insulating the Earth. There have been, and ongoing continue to be, many estimates, and they have and continue to vary between each other, even when they use exactly the same temperature measurements as inputs. So your claim that "the" estimate of the mean global absolute temperature was changed from 15 to 14 degrees Farenheit, is wrong. There never has been a robust consensus on absolute global mean temperature at high precision nor high accuracy. If you really were interested in absolute temperature, you would have surveyed the considerable literature.

       But you did not. Your citation of the Hansen et al. paper for your 15 degree claim is inappropriate. I believe global mean absolute temperature was mentioned in that paper only once, was only approximate ("~288"), and was mentioned only in passing as context for the rudimentary and obligatory background introduction about the laws of radiation and so on. That paper did not in any way address the precise value, and the authors did not in that paper describe any of their work to attempt to determine that value, because that paper instead described only their work to estimate the trend with anomalies. I would be shocked if estimates of absolute temperature have not  changed over the decades, because climatologists have continued to attempt to improve their estimates. But not for the purpose of better estimating the trend of global temperature change.

       The mean absolute temperature of the globe could be re-estimated to be 40 degrees colder or warmer without in any way affecting the mean anomaly of the globe. It's just arithmetic.

       People interested in global warming are interested in the how fast the global mean temperature is increasing. That is the "trend" in the global mean temperature. The trend is the "slope" of the graph of temperature by time. The absolute temperature is irrelevant to the slope; changing it merely slides the curve up and down the y (temperature) axis, leaving the slope unchanged. Literally, unchanged. Because of arithmetic.

17772. barry1487 at 14:01 PM on 25 September 2017
       It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
       

       OPOF,

       27 years for GMST seems about right to me, too, but I'm not convinced that 4 years is sufficient for OHC. The opinion piece only considered 12 years of data to 2014. Further back in the record are many occasions when OHC did not warm for 4 years and even longer.

       Though the data get spottier further back in time, a statistical test using other periods, rather than just one, would have been more convincing. Why should 2004-2015 be assumed to be typically representative?

17773. randman at 13:57 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       In response to the mod, I am merely asking for the peer-reviewed papers that show the adjustment. If you are requiring something stating 14 degrees celsius at present, I an easily do that. If you are saying that's meaningless, c by the way, to compare current global surface temps in claims of the hottest year and so forth, something we see a lot of?
       
       What's with the press reports stating 2016 was the hottest year, for example, if that's such a dubious claim to begin with? Only way to argue it was the hottest year, as just an example of what I am talking of, is to have an idea what the prior year's were. So if you start saying the mean from 1950-1980 was roughly 15 degrees celsius and then have numerous years you state are less than 15 degrees celsius, obviously you no longer consider the mean from 1950-1980 to be correct, right?
       
       I am not understanding your grievance here. All I am asking for is how that determination to revise downward the mean happened. Where are the papers showing that? Is your position none are needed?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] There is no adjustment. We are trying to understand why you think there is one. Where do you get the idea that absolute temperature is now 14 and was 15 in past? In what context do you see absolute temperature being stated and used? You claim a certain year is hottest because the anomaly has changed x degrees from baseline. The baseline defines zero. There is no need to know what that is in absolute terms. Look at the graphs of various temperature series in the article. They never report a temp. Only the change of the average of the anomalies.

       Our "grievance" is struggling to understand how you have your wires so badly crossed about something that is fairly simple. A temperature station doesnt report that average temperature in 2000 is say 17. It reports that is say 0.8 degrees higher than whatever the average of that stations temperatures was from 1950-1980. Spatially average all those differences from all the stations worldwide and you have the number plotted on all those graphs above.

        

17774. bozzza at 13:20 PM on 25 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       I note how blue, and a strong blue at that, the Arctic is in this map.

       That makes sense given the recovery in the sea ice extent, area and volume numbers.

       What I am therefore very keen for more information on is: the state of the multi year sea ice. I think the whole world is desperate for information on the state of the multi-year sea ice in the Arctic.

       Worldview was so cloudy this melt season that you couldn't see what was going on... although there did seem to be some adventurous cracking before the clouds kicked in at the start of the season.

       They talked about Nares Straight a lot this year being open way earlier than usual: how significant is this point by itself I wonder?

17775. randman at 12:29 PM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       These are quotes from this particular site on how to understand calculations of anomalies.
       
       " The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) defines Climate as the average of Weather over a 30 year period. So if we look at a location averaged over something like a 30 year period and compare the same location averaged over a different 30 year period, the difference between the two is how much the average temperature for that location has changed. And what we find is that they don’t change by very much at all.
       ....
       Rather than averaging all our stations together, instead we start out by looking at each station separately. We calculate its long term average over some suitable reference period. Then we recalculate every reading for that station as a difference from that reference period average. We are comparing every reading from that station against its own long term average. "
       
       So comparing individual station's data "against its own long term average", which means calculating the long-term, maybe 30 year term average is critical to assessing the difference between measurements against that average.
       
       Not very complicated. 
       
       As I stated on other posts, the mean in Hensen's paper for 1950-1980 globally was very close to 15 degrees, and in 1988 he said the mean was 15 degrees and Jones in 1988 said "roughly 15 degrees." Those are facts of what was stated and reported, whether correctly or not.
       
       Some here have accussed me of not understanding the calculations of anomalies. Of course, individual stations are not compared to the global mean. Some areas are warmer or colder than others, for example. That would be ridiculous.
       
       However, statements of, for example, the warmest year ever are not based on mere consideration of a single or a few stations but on an aggregate of all the data, which would include either all stations or a sufficient spread of them to make a reasonable calculation.
       
       It is doubftul Hansen and Jones just made up the number of 59 degrees or 15 degrees celsius. Hope not at least. Hansen was testifying before Congress and arguing global warming was a very serious issue.
       
       One must assume they based their view of the mean from 1950-1980 on actual data, right? They were looking at changes in the temperature record at each individual station and analyzing that. Since then, we see the global mean surface temp announced with claims of one year being warmer than another and so forth.
       
       So if based on studying this data, the claim was the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius, can someone please show the peer-reviewed papers justifying lowering it to 14 degrees? Just asking that once again. Only one person has even tried to answer by suggesting some possibilities, linking to a blog to look further, and yet to me, I would think this is something proponents would have on-hand. I mean, of course, there should be an explanation of such a large shift on the view of what the data indicated, right?
       
       
       

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] The whole point of anomaly method is that absolute temperature average is very difficult to measure with any precision (and is dubious as to whether it is meaningful number in any actual application), whereas change in the anomaly can be measured with considerable confidence. Hansen's number of 15 degree is really a rough estimate.

       As far as I can tell, nobody gets where you have inferred that temperature average has somehow been lowered and you seem to implying nefarious adjustment from this. If you understand that trends are change in anomaly from some baseline, then why are going on about absolute temperature? it is meaningless in this context.

17776. randman at 08:42 AM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, this is the paper by Hansen with 288 Kelvin as the mean. I think you've already seen the press comments by Hansen and Jones in 1988 of 59 degrees F and "roughly 59 degrees" respectively, right? 
       
       LINK
       
       Obviously regardless of looking at anomalies, there is a reason they believed the mean was 59 degrees. The fact climatologists like to look at anomalies does not change that, does it? Not seeing your point.
       
       On a wider note, this appears to be a pattern. 15 degrees was later adjusted down to 14 degrees, which had the effect of making the then present temps appear warmer, whether correctly so or not. 
       
       More recently, we've seen satellite data that showed no sea level rise to speak of "adjusted", perhaps correctly so or not, to now show sea level rise. 
       
       http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312
       
       Prior to that we saw the posited warming hiatus changed by some, which changes including lowering the past means among other things. One climatologists somewhat famously has complained about this, Judith Curry. Some of her comments here:
       
       ""This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set," she wrote. "The global surface temperature data sets are clearly a moving target. So while I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama Administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.""
       
       http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150604-hiatus-climate-warming-temperature-denier-NOAA/
       
       https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/09/recent-hiatus-caused-by-decadal-shift-in-indo-pacific-heating-2/
       
       As I understand it, Curry was a proponent of AGW and perhaps still is in some respect, but has had problems with the way the data has been adjusted and the accuracy of the models among other things.
       
       She's not the only scientist raises these questions. So it's not just laymen like myself who wonder why there appears to be a pattern of data that does not line up with predictions simply being "adjusted." These adjustments are not just one-off things either but a fairly consistent feature here.
       
       

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Blatant lie snipped.  Sloganeering snipped.

       [PS] "Obviously regardless of looking at anomalies, there is a reason they believed the mean was 59 degrees. "

       And just as obviously, you still have not understood that anomaly measurements do not reference a global absolute temperature. Until you bothered to study and understand this, you cannot make progress. Read the material provided.

       [RH] Shortened link.

17777. randman at 08:27 AM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Steve, if interested, this the 1981 paper with 288 Kelvin as the 1950-1980 average.
       
       LINK

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Can I request that you learn how to use the embed function for links? Some long links break our page formatting. It's quite easy to create a short description or title and then embed the link into the text. Thx.

17778. randman at 04:43 AM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Steve, thanks for answering or trying to. Will look at those papers and blog on the oceans. However, not precisely sure estimating past oceanic readings to lower the mean is necessarily valid. At a minimum, it should be a reasonable discussion and debate. We, in the public, are being asked to use governmental power to make wide-raning changes, and yet what appears to me as the answer to reasonable questions is often just to shout people down and call them deniers. Moreover, it really looks very fishy. Bold predictions were made that didn't come true and then the mean in the past is lowered, which coincidentally props up the theory as well as the flow of funding?
       
       Btw, the reference ot 288 Kelvin is from 1981 but will look at the papers you mentioned as well.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Sloganeering removed.

       So far your participation on this forum shows you asking reasonable questions based on a misreading of media reporting, misunderstanding of how temperature series are constructed and now misunderstandings of how and why adjustments are made. Furthermore you "reasonable" questions would seem to suggest that you have uncritically accepted misinformaton from denialist sources. Just because you misunderstand something does not make it wrong.

       If you wish to participate here can I suggest the following:

       A/ Consider the possibility that your understanding of the science may be wrong and misinformed. People here are trying to fix that but it behoves on you to put reasonable effort into understanding the explanation and reading resources provided. Clinging to misinformation because it suits your beliefs is the heart and soul of denial and you dont want to be accused of that do you?

       B/ Cite your sources. Do not make statement without saying what informs your opinion preferably with link or at least a proper cite. Hansen 81 is barely good enough - a title it much better.

       C/ If you wish to claim science is wrong, then first cite the reference where science makes the claim you dispute. (Straw man claims are the heart of denialist blogs). Then cite the evidence which you think disproves the claim. Doing this will get reasonable responses from people here.

       Any further sloganeering will simply result in comments being deleted. The comments policy here is not optional.

17779. randman at 04:37 AM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, where have you explained how the consensus mean from 1950-1980 was considered to be 15 degrees celsius and later changed to 14 degrees celsius?
       
       Nothing you've "explained" explains that. This has signifant ramifications because if the mean was 15 degrees, we've experienced no warming the past 30 years and the whole thing crashes like a house of cards. It'd be like amassing all this evidence someone committed a murder but then the guy supposedly murdered shows up alive. That "evidence" is then moot.
       
       Now you can talk about comparing changes in individual weather stations and amassing those averages and differences all you want or any other technique but that's a separate question. Could be they changed how they do that? Could be they just arbitrarily lowered everything en-masse? Could be the adjustment to 14 degrees is totally honest and the same standards are applied to recent temperatures as to those such that if we went with the old standards, we'd have global means higher than 15 degrees celsius?
       
       But where are the peer-reviewed papers discussing why the mean was lowered, which coincidentally makes the past 30 years look warmer relative to that mean?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Blatant lies snipped.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up (i.e., blatantly lie). We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

17780. Rob Honeycutt at 03:37 AM on 25 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks... At this point I would just restate what I said before. There is no amount of evidence that will convince you that all the world's experts are correct on this topic. The research is all available to you, the same way it's available to me. It is not my responsibility, nor anyone else's, to ensure that you (and people similar to you) understand it.

       The world is moving forward without your agreement. And yes, governments are likely to force you to contribute your 23 cents/day so that we can solve problems you won't acknowledge exist. That's just a reality.

       If there are aspects of climate science that you are curious about, there are a great number of people here who would be more than happy to help you understand it. Dozens here would gladly spend hours showing you the published research and going over the details of what it means. The only challenge is that you need to be willing to learn.

       As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, "The great thing about science is, it's true whether or not you believe it."

17781. Tom Dayton at 01:58 AM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman: You are Gish Galloping. You complained about absolute temperature estimates changing, but you were mixing terms and concepts. Several people gave you information that answered your question and (should have) cleared your confusion.

       Then you were complaining about supposed changes in estimates of temperature changes. Scientists do not measure changes in temperature by differencing one year's absolute global temperature from an earlier year's absolute global temperature. Instead they difference anomalies. After that was explained to you several times you insisted that you fully understood that.

       Now you are complaining about supposed changes in relative temperatures. Again. But you are acting as if you have been discussing the same topic all along, and that I am an idiot for not recognizing that. No. You have been changing topics. Several people have been trying to give you the answers you are asking for, but you are a moving target.

17782. Tom Dayton at 01:49 AM on 25 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks502: The 0.3 degrees cooling is in the first graph of the article that a moderator comment told you to find by searching for Zharkova. So either you can't read a graph, or you did not bother to actually read the article.

17783. Eclectic at 00:28 AM on 25 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks @40 . . . very droll of you.  No, I definitely didn't mean Encapsulated Phsychosis [sic].

       As to "educating the novice" (unquote) : the novice has to have a wish to learn (and not start out by declaiming that all the climate experts are wrong).   SkS website is an excellent website for learning : indeed, SkS has recently received an award from the National Center for Science Education.   You can learn much here, Rbrooks — if you truly wish to.

       Back to the science itself, Rbrooks.   Please read a little more deeply about Professor Zharkova and the 0.3 degreeC of trivial cooling — a matter which entirely fails to support any of the denialists' hype & "bad science".

       Even more on topic (for this thread) is the psychology of Warren Meyer.   Meyer is an intelligent guy : but as Rob Honeycutt's article has shown in much detail, Meyer gets it very wrong.   From your experience, Rbrooks — why do you think that Meyer has allowed himself to be hijacked by his own Motivated Reasoning?   Aye, there's the rub!  Over to you, Rbrooks — how & why do you think Meyer chooses to purvey his nonsense?!   I am definitely interested to hear your opinion on that. 

17784. SteveS at 00:03 AM on 25 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman,

       I don't often comment here, but thought I would this time since I may be able to answer your question on the change in global mean temperature for 1951-1980.

       I suspect that you're mistaken about what paper Hansen used to get that value. I suspect it actually came from  Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987. (There's also an updated version of that paper from 1988, but I can't find a copy of it and it just seems to include the data through 1987, so it probably doesn't change anything.) If you look at Figure 1 in that paper, you'll notice that the paper is missing a lot of data from the oceans. More recent attempts to find global temperatures has included ocean temperatures as well, and I believe that will tend to lower the global temperature values overall. (See also  Victor Venema's blog about station data homogenization. You might read some of the articles on Victor's blog - they may answer some of your questions.)

       I don't think it's particularly surprising to find that, as time moves on, science has found better answers to questions - that is, after all, kind of the point of science. 

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] I fixed the links. You can't type HTML to enter a link. You must click the Insert tab and then the link button. I deleted your followup with the now-redundant links.

17785. Rbrooks502 at 21:36 PM on 24 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Eclectic @39   As predicted above, out come the claws to dress any skeptic down in any way. Ahhhh the grandiose ideology of the academic. There are reasons why they should be taken with a bit of skepticism. Suggesting that I have this superiority complex with an inability to see my own noviceness on the subject has nothing to do with my last statements above.  And I think you meant to say Encapsulated Phsychosis. 

       I dont need you to frame my thinking by your accusations and I could care less if you attempt to define what it is and where I stand. Try getting out of the bubble. 

       Regarding your last statement I quote "Read somewhat more deeply, and you will see that [proposed] Grand Solar Minimum would produce a transient global cooling effect in the region of 0.3 degreesC. In other words, quite trivial (and not cooler than today's hot climate, bearing in mind the ongoing global warming which is occurring currently & in the next few decades."

       This 0.3 degree issue is that you speak of is no where in that article. But the article did predict with a 97 percent rating. 

       There seems to me that there are so many variables both positive and negative and so many unknowns like natural Methane release. volcanic eruptions above and below the surface, that I still hold that the science is far from completion. You might as well say that the science on dark matter is settled. It is not that what you are saying is falling on deaf ears either. I am trying to keep an open mind as much as possible but thus far it is quite difficult based on the reactions that I am getting. I admitted that I am no master of this, but I will argue that you cant produce anyone who has mastered this subject. If you have one, I will greatly appreciate the name and contact information. 
       
       

       I have said this 100 times and perhaps this is a good time to say it again. Social media like this string here are good for starting conversations but are terrible for true communications to take place. For that you need so many other factors involved. I personally think face to face and eye to be the very best. 

       I will part this tidbit. "If everyone is thinking the same way, then someone is not doing thier job" General George S. Patton. 

       Perhaps a little more openmindedness and little less of other things would be helpful for anyone casually looking this subject over. 

       The concept of forced taxation seems to have eluded you my friend. Since you require me to do more reading, i will offer to you to get more involved and read more yourself. Perhaps if you framed your thinking a little different you might spend more time doing some good ole fashion educating for the novice instead pf taking the dressing down tack that you are on. It doesnt help the cause at all. Everything you posted IMHO did nothing to move the conversation forward. IE more negatives than positives.

       Regarding your "B)" comment. You couldnt possibly be more off base and the fact that you find it psychologically interesting, for me, is nothing more than a veiled assertion and an insight into your own phsychology. Yes, I noticed. 

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

       Multiple instances of sloganeering, inflammatory and off-topic snipped.

17786. Eclectic at 20:11 PM on 24 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks @38 & prior ,

       : several points for you to consider :-

       (A) You say in #35 that you "have research in Psychology ..." (unquote).    Yet there is no internal evidence of that to be seen in your posts.   Permit me to recommend you read more deeply into several important psychological topics : Motivated Reasoning ; and Dunning-Kruger Effect ; and Encapsulated Paranoia .

       For greatest benefit with those, you need to read with personal insight.  As the colloquial cliche goes . . . "And good luck with that!"

       (B) In #37 you imply you believe "that forced taxation is theft" (unquote).   It is (psychologically) interesting that you seem to favor only the voluntary payment of taxation.

       Once again . . . "And good luck with that!"   But this is well off-topic for the SkS website, so let's move on.

       (C) Rbrooks @38 , you have also failed to do sufficient reading of very basic concepts in climate science.

       Please note that Professor Zharkova's work showed little more than a "possibility" of a Grand Solar Minimum occuring in the mid part of this Century.

       Read somewhat more deeply, and you will see that [proposed] Grand Solar Minimum would produce a transient global cooling effect in the region of 0.3 degreesC.   In other words, quite trivial (and not cooler than today's hot climate, bearing in mind the ongoing global warming which is occurring currently & in the next few decades.

       __________________________________________________

       ( Rbrooks, you have a lot of reading to do, to catch up with the current circumstances! )

17787. MA Rodger at 18:46 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @461.

       I am struggling to keep up with your wild pronouncements.

       You claim that "Hansen's 1981 paper has the mean from 1950-1980 at 288" with a link to Hansen et al (1981) which says no such thing. It does say "The mean surface temperature is Ts ~288K" but this is not associated with any global average temperature measurements or the period 1950-80. Instead, it is presented to illustrate the power of the greenhouse effect on climate.

       And the second piece of evidence you provide is another NYT article, this one from 1988 which tells us "How hot is the world now? The scientists do not offer a straightforward response, saying that the vast amount of data is still being studied and that comparisons cannot be precise." It is in this context that the article offers an average global temperature from Hansen:-

       "One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations."

       I would suggest the 59ºF being quoted in both the 1988 and 1989 NYT articles results from a journalist insisting on obtaining an average temperature to better inform his readers, a value reluctantly provided by his interviewees. It is certainly no indication of any "consensus" and your insistence that there has been a revision of the temperature record remains entirely unfounded.

       May I also correct some of your confusion @476.

       You describe "the 4 years in the 80s that were supposedly warmer than 1934," the four 80s years being "4 of the warmest years on record were in the 80s" apparently set out in a peer-reviewed article by Hansen. Without sight of that article, I note in yet another 1988 NYT article it is stated that "Dr. Hansen ... had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980's." So of the years 1980-87, Hansen had reported that four of these years exceeded all pre-1980 anomalies. Where have they gone? A quick glance at GISTEMP LOTI shows they (1987, 81, 83, 80) are still there.

       As for 1934, all 1980s years are warmer than 1934 by some considerable degree. However there has been a bit of a kerfuffle involving 1934 it being for some years (and may still be for all I know) the hottest year on record in the "contiguous states."

17788. Eclectic at 17:10 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Randman, it appears you have also not read the Nature news article (with its linked scientific paper by Dieng et al, 2017) which demonstrates the opposite of what you said.  A scientific source which you yourself referenced.  Or perhaps you did read that, and chose to brazenly misrepresent the sea level information.

       Randman, your credibility is zero — though you do score points for black humor and/or orange-haired chutzpah in your promotion of Alternative Facts.

       But you go too far, Randman.  For even the Chief of Alternative Facts knows that more ice melts as conditions get warmer.

17789. randman at 16:15 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, I will try to make this simple. The only constant I see is claiming every decade we see a number of the warmest years. It's their MO.
       
       Hansen published in a peer-reviewed article that 4 of the warmest years on record were in the 80s. I can show you that if you don't believe me. Then when challenged on 1998 being the warmest year, to make a long story short, he moderates and says 1998 was tied with 1934 as the warmest year.
       
       Wait, what happened to the 4 years in the 80s that were supposedly warmer than 1934?
       
       At some point, you gotta say this looks like some bigtime bs. The only consistent thing is the scare-mongering and claims a number of the past 10 years are the warmest ever and pretty soon NYC will be under water or some such. 
       
       Pretty soon it will be 2018 and none of the predictions will have come true but we will still hear the same based on "adjustments" to the data selling the same narrative.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB]  Multiple instances of off-topic, sloganeering and inflammatory snipped.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

17790. Tom Dayton at 16:06 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Randman, you are missing the part of that post that answers your question. It explains and demonstrates the large variability in estimates of absolute temperature. Whichever estimate of absolute temperature from the 1980s that you are fixated on was not the only estimate then and certainly is not the only estimate now. Stop typing long enough to really read that article.

17791. randman at 15:54 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, come on. Let's talk honestly. Of course I get the concept of looking at the changes rather than absolute data (although the absolute data should be shown, imho). 
       
       The issue is they were doing that when they said the data showed 15 degrees was the mean over the time period from 1950-1980. 
       
       Do you get that? 
       
       Why was the mean subsequently adjusted to 14 degrees celsius? If you look at the data based on the prior mean, aggregated I assume from many data points, then we have had no warming. It's pretty simple. There's no way looking at the changes can make 14 degrees equal 15 degrees, right?
       
       There wasn't new data for "reanlysis" as far as I can tell that applied to the period prior to 1979. What you have are assumptions or hopes or professional stances linked to one's career that call for reinterpreting very basic data. The readings people took did not change. 

17792. Tom Dayton at 15:42 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Randman, your answer is in the RealClimate post I linked for you. Actually read it this time, please.

17793. Rbrooks502 at 15:30 PM on 24 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       In the meantime, this prediction is out saying that in 2030 we should start seeing more global cooling. I quote the article. "However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

       From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen."

       Seems to me that even if Warren was completly wrong about any of his assertions, the science community has some bugs to work out. My skepticism will continue, as well as my anger regarding how my taxxes are spent. Enough said?

       http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] No, "the prediction" is not out. Use the Search field at the top left of this page to look for Zharkova.

17794. Rbrooks502 at 15:16 PM on 24 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Your closing arguement is exactly what I was referring to in 1) and 1a). You will find that there are many out there who have a higher respect for that 23 cents a day than evidently you do. And by the way, that is 23 cents a day for every Citizen of all ages in the US every day, every year by the looks of it. It is not your 23 cents, it belongs to the tax payers. The social construct as you so aptly suggest here for its value is not the consensus of everyone. You see I have a problem to the core with the concept that forced taxation is theft. This is something that shows itself in what many call taxation for charity. IE Social Programs. An issue many Americans have a problem with. This is part of the social science that is never applied to any of this.  If this concept of mine eludes you and still feel that it is nothing more than word salad, I have no response for you.

       BTW, Dopler radar is the reason that so many were able to leave Florida. That science was and is a worthy pursuit without a doubt, but I dont see where that has anything to do with Climate Change and or Warren's article. 
       
       

       My neutrality is based on my own perceptions and not yours. I find that often times taking the devil's advocate allows me to see things in broader scope. Surely you have done this once or twice. Being as I am like most people, and can see patterns like all others, the patern that I have seen through out the years is a force feeding of Global Warming, Climate Change, Man's influence, all of which have always pointed to catastrophe. Each and every time that so called science has come up short. In the 70's it was global cooling. Now we are heating up the planet.

       You speak about sciences that are proven, and perhaps that is true if we are measuring Irredium for example to determine if there was a fifth Snow Ball Earth. Perhaps that science has weight and definitive. But surely you can appreciate the skeptic based on past performances.

       Here is what I can say, in the upper corner of the page there is 10 things listed that represent the 10 most used Climate Change myths. To the casual observer, these will continue to be used until someone can put forth a convincing arguement one way or other to the average reader that they should not be included in thier skepticisms. For me the appearance of Sun spots, Solar flares, Solar cycles stand out above all others, and as yet, for every article that I read, it is left out of the equation as if it is not relevant. Mind you I recall the Ohio River freezing over twice in my lifetime, when it only did it once before a century earlier. A reason to be skeptical. Mind you that happened after we built the locks and dams. In 1925 there was less than a foot of water in the mighty Ohio in some places.

       Regarding getting the information out to help luke warmers or deniers, I recall the instance of the Korean War. In the battle of the Chosin Reservoir in 1950 where temperatures in North Korea were 30-40 below F. virtually all the information regarding the battle at the Chosin/Changjin Reservoir was manipulated and managed by the US Marine Corps. It took over 60 years and the tireless work of a few people that show the realities of that battle, that refute virtually all the statements the Marine Corps and the Media put out. Thier data far out weighed that of the Army's in both quantity and scope to the point that virtually no one ever even thought that there were members of the US Army even in the battle. And it would show, after the research was done, had it not been for the Army, the surviving Marines would probabley have been destroyed like the members of the 31RCT and Col. Faith.

       This same logic has and is still playing out on the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change or what ever it is you scientist are calling it these days. You have far outweighed the information output on the subject that anyone with the slightest bit of skepticism wants to take a different tack and try to get thier own conclusions, they are almost immediately dressed down as you have done with your comment regarding "I dont think we need you to agree with us in order to fix the problem". And you wonder why you cant be convincing. Strikes me as working in a bubble.

       You want to be scientific, break down these ten myths one by one and offer your evidence, and show where that evidence was verified by other scientist who were skeptical. If you have no Climate Science degree you will have to forgive me if I take your writing with skepticism.   

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] Perhaps you should actually read the posts about the myths. For instance, "Its the Sun."

17795. randman at 14:37 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Eclectic, why don't you discuss the questions and facts I posed to you? I think they are very clear. The paper states the satellite data did not show sea level rise, right? That just this July they found a "solution" that would show it by adjusting the data.
       
       Now, how long have you believed the satellite data showed sea level rise? Since late July or earlier? Please answer the question.

17796. Eclectic at 14:29 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Randman @466 , your referenced Nature news article (itself citing Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac & Ablain 2017, in Geophysical Research Letters) confirms an accelerated rising sea level globally.  The satellite data is also in accord with the longstanding worldwide tidal gauge data.

       And yet you come out with your complete fantasy that the observed long-term sea level rise worldwide has halted or even reversed [which would require 100's of cubic miles of "re-freezing" to occur in quick order — and something of which there is zero evidence . . . except perhaps in Secret Government Mega-Freezers buried under the Florida swamps & guarded by gators].

       Do you not understand that the world's ice is melting because conditions are getting warmer?  And that the melting is happening — regardless of the presence of any calibrated thermometer within a 10,000 mile radius.

       In effect, Randman, you are stating that all the well-correlated data globally has been manipulated in a century of Giant Worldwide Conspiracy.  More black humor from you, Randman?  

17797. randman at 13:57 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom reading your comment again and more closely, the thought comes to mind then that the only way to lower the global mean is to say the temperature readings in the past which previously said such and such, were changed, right?
       
       Otherwise, there'd be no revision lower from 15 to 14. If the 15 degrees was based on an average of temp readings, and of course looking at the different regional placement of such weather stations and distances, well if you assume they used decent basic analysis in the 80s for the data, how in the world did the data change?

17798. randman at 13:46 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ok, let's use the term "mean" as Hansen does here when he says the mean surface termperature is 288k. 
       
       LINK
       
       How is it in the 80s, the consensus, it appears, is the mean from 1950-1980 was roughly 15 degrees celsius, and then later that was changed to 14 degrees celsius? What the mean "for one particular station" isn't what we're discussing but changing the mean from a 30 year period from 15 to 14, which of course shows a very different picture in terms of anamolies, right?
       
       When you read these papers with graphs showing such and such anomaly, they are discussing more than one weather station with a baseline which is 0. That's why I used the term, baseline.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

17799. Tom Dayton at 13:32 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       No, randman. You are confusing terms and concepts. "Baseline" used for computing an anomaly for one particular temperature station is the average temperature across the baseline period as measured at just that one particular station. The same is done for each of the other stations. The anomaly in each geographic grid cell is the average of those anomalies. The global anomaly is the average of those grid anomalies. Never in that process is the global absolute temperature computed. I was confused by your use of the term "baseline" To mean global absolute temperature.

17800. randman at 13:00 PM on 24 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, I understand that but anomalies are based on differences from a baseline. So the mean is critical to whether warming or cooling or nothing much has occured. If you just change the prior baseline one whole degree celsius from 15 to 14, the picture of recent anomalies greatly changes, right? But unless that change is accurate, that picture of anomalies means very little in terms of reality.

Prev  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  Next