Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 Next
Comments 17951 to 18000:
-
Rbrooks502 at 03:50 AM on 27 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
I searched the website for an article by Gary Novak and came up empty. Self proclaimed Independent Scientist. Over the past 72 hours I read several papers and articles both for and against. Articles from NASA, the above mentioned "It's the Sun", reports from the Sierra Club, Lomborg.com, Naturalnews.com, the IPCC, EPA, David Biello of Scientific America and Yale, as well as others. I would like to see the response regarding Gary Novak's paper listed below. There are two links regariding his work.
Honeycutt @43 You are right regarding Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
"The great thing about science is, it's true whether or not you believe it." But since we are talking about a constant influence of a new set of eyes, Science will show that this statement was wrong. If he had said this back in 1100 AD, 1400 AD, 1600 AD, and virtually any other time we would see that Science has been proven wrong consistantly. After all, the earth is not flat, and the earth is not the center of the universe. Science's job is to evolve and get smarter if you will. It is not to take hard black and white stances that can not see further than the current technologies or limited modelling. So here is Novak's work.I also discovered that looking at the list of papers by Biello over the last 10 years or so, and overlaying it on the data that I have consumed both here and other locations, it would appear that we are too late, and if the EIA is correct looking towards 2040, we should expect that we are screwed anyway based on thier findings. So should I pack my bags and move to the south pole with a bag of seeds?
I dont think I will look into this further, I would like to find the measureing sites that are used to CO2 for example as well as looking at the math. So far it is only cursory in my searches but I am held to the thought that if someone like myself who is novice and enters into this line of research, wouldnt it be wiser to be less derogitory to us and more instead be more supportive and offer more solutions than the Paris Accords. Solutions that are not only logical but are cost effective and motivator skeptics like myself to get on board with your agenda. For me, you have to walk us through the science better and more convincingly.
The last charts that I could find for example regarding what countries are producing what in terms of CO2 date back to 2009. Almost a decade old. Along with that is this logic that seems to permeate the research saying that we contributed 336 million tons CO2 from 2000-2006. Making it 1/3 of the maximum amount that we can produce up to 2030 when we must show a reversal. Meaning that if 2007-2013 represents another 1/3 of the maximum amount, and again from 2014-2020, we are just 2 years away from being screwed anyway. Witht that being said, Biello's report show that we are just not going to make the cut off regardless of what we do now short of turning off virtually all polluting products like trucks, cars, farming equipment, concrete manufacturers etc.
So allow me to take you up on your offer regarding the challenge of me being willing to learn. Can we start with Novak's articles and move forward from there so that I can stay linear in my research.
Moderator Response:[DB] Your links were breaking the format of the page in width. I have shortened them for you. Please learn to do this yourself with the link tool.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 27 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Way to use words Tom13. This thread is about the use, or abuse, of information, and dissemination of information that concerns an area of science, so OPOF comment is not inappropriate. Some nations have had a ministry of propaganda, using the same methods as the Mail, which have been found to be condemnable. Would that be better?
Talking about that, I like Robert Lustig's definitions: Putting forth favorable descriptions of anything using actual facts would qualify as marketing. Doing so with false information, or in blatant disregard of actual facts, is called propaganda. The ability to spew propaganda without any adverse consequence is a far cry from free speech. We're talking about lies, misinformation, misrepresentation, deception, dissimulation, all used for the purpose of advancing one's short term financial interest at the expense of pretty much everything else. That kind of propaganda does not deserve the protection of free speech. Free speech is intended to protect people from tyranny, not screw them with lies.
Of course, in the US, the very definition of facts and what is a lie has been wringed to death, and one can have an endless argument over what fact is out of context, what constitutes a lie, etc, etc. So lies could take center stage, boosted by the enormous financial means of their backers, under the full protection of free speech, and the liers laughed all the way to the bank. That's a perverted system.
There is a valid argument to be made that the liers deprived others of their right to free speech by drowning the entire scene with their message; that left no room and no attention span from the masses for anything else.
It's not free speech that we had. It was for pay speech, and it quickly got expensive, allowing only a certain class to be heard on a large scale. The right to free speech became the right to shout louder than everybody else. The whole enterprise was made easier by the dismal state of education, which does very little to teach the functioning of institutions, and even less to train citizens to recognize mind manipulation methods.
I'm talking in the past because now everything has been thrown into a whole new world by the internet and social media. Anything goes, there is no absolute value of information, and no relative value either. The disconnection from reality is almost complete; the noise and frantic turnover drown virtually anything. A good system of troll farms can make it look like a great number of people adhere to some ideas, even if that is a complete fabrication. The emotional impact of internet bursts is always far above any correction realized afterwards, just like people remember the headlines but never see the errata in the papers. This is well understood by the clever users of the system, who have fostered the collapse of journalistic standards.
The risk/benefit analysis of well protected free speech was not even given time to pan out on the long term, it has now entered a phase that none the thinkers who crafted it could have imagined. We'll see what happens next. Don't be too confident that you'll enjoy it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:35 AM on 27 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Tom13,
This is a blog about increasing the awareness and understanding of climate science. It includes many OPs related to the challenge of doing hat because of how easy it is for misrepresentation of information to be 'popular' and how that misleading promotion of the popularity of unjustified beliefs is motivated by Private Interest in maximizing personal benefit any way that can be gotten away with. This specific item is exactly that type of item."So the popularity and profitability of unethical unjustified Free Speech in pursuit of personal benefit contrary to the Public Interest is what needs to be restricted. People cannot be allowed to 'believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'."
That is how I ended my comment, For Good Reason.
The unethical pursuit of personal benefit from unrestricted pursuits of unjustified popularity and profitability (and unjustified making up of laws or selective distorted enforcement of laws by unethical Winners of the power to do such things) must not be able to be successfully excused. Claiming that such restrictions are contrary to 'Free Speech' is a Poor Excuse.
All Science is about increasing awareness and better understanding what is going on. The ability to propagandize dogma based beliefs that are harmful to the public interests are undeniably a threat to the Public Interest, a threat to the future of humanity. That should be a new Amendment clarification of the First Amendment in the USA with similar changes made to clarify the Fundamental Proper Ethical Basis of Rule of Law everywhere.
If that better understanding had been globally clarified earlier there would be little need for a website like this one.
-
knaugle at 02:49 AM on 27 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
#3 Randman
Well, one source I've found when talking about media reporting is the Media Bias/Fact Check site. Compare and contrast the London Daily Mail and the NY Times:
Media Bias Fact Check - Daily Mail
Media Bias Fact Check - NY Times
As can be seen, the Mail is right biased and has a mixed record on its facts, while the NY Times and Wash. Post are center-left and get high marks for their facts. Big difference.
-
Tom13 at 01:37 AM on 27 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
#11 - One planet -
So the popularity and profitability of unethical unjustified Free Speech in pursuit of personal benefit contrary to the Public Interest is what needs to be restricted. People cannot be allowed to 'believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'.
This is supposed to be a science blog - are you stating the there should be a repeal of the first amendment - Are you saying there should be a "ministry of Truth"?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:25 AM on 27 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Expanding on my original comment, and responding to the discussions regarding Free Speech:
More advanced societies develop Regulation or Professionalization of activity that is 'learned/discovered' to have significant potential for 'Harm because of a less/improperly informed Public'. Some people may see the potential to get away with personal benefit from behaviour that is not in the Public Interest. It becomes understood that the Public Interest is served by having constraints on those activities.
As John Stuart Mill warned in “On Liberty” ... “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
It is now undeniable that the 'easy to make popular and profitable (easy ways to Win, at least temporarily) development and delivery of misleading information' has massive potential to harm the Public Interests, especially if Public Interest is understood to include the sustainable improvement of the future of all humanity as it should be (Tabloid Rags are no longer restricted to the 'relatively inconsequential to the future of humanity' invading the privacy of, and damaging the lives of, selected/targeted Celebrities who now have some legal power in some nations to penalize such callous pursuits of advertising revenue).
My preference would be for the Independent Press Standards Organization to be the self regulating body overseeing the actions of Professional Press. The Government would be an observer with the responsibility and power to remove members of IPSO who can be proven to not have been responsibly overseeing the actions of the IPSO members, not properly protecting the public interest.
The Canadian Professional Engineers are an example of how this would work. Individual engineers can be permitted to practice as well as organizations of multiple engineers and their related support staff. The individuals and the organizations have the responsibility to self-regulate their activity to Protect the Public Interest. The overseeing body has the power to remove the 'permission' of any of its members or organizations to act as engineers or engineering organizations if they are discovered to have deliberately acted contrary to the Public Interest. If what was done by The Mail was discovered to have been done by a Permitted to Practice Engineering Organization the overseeing body would like have censured all of the Professional Engineers involved and removed the Permit to Practice from the Organization for failing to properly monitor and control what happened in their organization. A Professional IPSO would have shut down The Mail.
However, even professional self-regulation can be imperfect, especially in place where private interests gain significant power in public institutions. Like political elections, it is possible for the leadership of a self-regulating profession to be taken over by private interests. At one time the association that oversees engineering in Alberta ended up with a President who declared that the public interest was served by engineers defending and maximizing the profitability of their clients. That individual was swiftly censured by the Responsible Membership, but such actions by responsible membership may not occur. And if the government has been taken over by private interests it would fail to act responsibly. That is when the power of public legal actions exposing unacceptable behaviour could be required.
So the popularity and profitability of unethical unjustified Free Speech in pursuit of personal benefit contrary to the Public Interest is what needs to be restricted. People cannot be allowed to 'believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'.
-
citizenschallenge at 23:30 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
For a more detailed look (dissection) of Bate's actual maliciously contrived complaint, might I suggest -
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/search?q=bates
March 24, 2017
¶1 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affairhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/1-behind-curtain-of-bates-facade.html
¶2 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair
¶3 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair
Looking at how Lamar Smith used Bates:
BatesMotel#4 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected.http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/4usrep-smith-karl15-noaa-dissection.html
BatesMotel#4B - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected - APPENDIX
The real question is how to expose and shame the GOP's dependence on out and out lies and libel and slander to continue their outrageous denial of geophysical reality. There the real question is how to wake up all those rational liberal minded folks, who continue sitting mum on the sides lines.
-
Tom13 at 23:06 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Here is John Bates original statement which he posted at Judith curry's website.
judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
His post is a 3,100 word statement. Bates is later quoted with the following statement "I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people."
With the quote cited above, some are arguing that Bates essentially repudiated his prior 3100 statement. I find it doubltful that Bates actually repudiated his carefully crafted statement.
-
Eclectic at 21:22 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Nigelj @7 , I suspect things won't change regarding untruthful reportage by our "Free Press". Big business interest groups pay and control the editors of papers and the producers of radio/television programs. Politicians are reluctant (for many selfish reasons) to push real punitive measures against MSM that tells lies about climate science / vaccination science / or other important issues. (Lies by omission, lies by commission, and lies by severe "spin".)
In a very recent cause celebre, a certain well-nourished young Australian actress was awarded USD$3.6 million by the courts, as damages [and punitive damages] in compensation for lies told by an Australian print magazine. Ouch! (Though the decision may still be appealed, to reduce the quantum.) The previous capped legal award limit, I gather, was only USD$200 thousand . . . and thus not at all bothersome to a big company. So the courts can sometimes punish lies — but that sort of accountability is not going to happen with say the lies told by any MSM company about global warming. There's no clearcut individual or company that can point to an indisputable "loss" resulting from those particular lies/misrepresentations . . . and the whole thing would get bogged down in legal technicalities & wrangling about ambiguities of interpretation etc etc. Plus, Murdoch Press (et alia) are working a long game of innuendo uncertainty & doubt.
It won't happen : but (in my dreams) I see the only punitive accountability being visited upon newspapers, as an enforced requirement to print the corrigendum/correction/retraction on the entire lower-half of the front page of the [daily?] paper in large print (and for 3 consecutive days!). Yeah, As If !! The current system of corrections, if they occur at all, are typically limited to fine print covering two square inches on the bottom of Page 2 or Page 38, and published weeks later . . . completely under the radar of 99.9% of readers.
I don't even bother to dream of corrections/apologies being mandated for 30 or 60 seconds of prime time radio/television — for that would fly under the radar of 98% of the total potential audience.
Rearding the MSM, in practical terms our most likely success will come passively, with the natural attrition of the already very elderly [and very wealthy] individual Dinosaurs who are fighting such a strong rear-guard action against the interests of younger generations. And in the case of Oil and MSM corporations, will come from an increasing level of shareholder revolt by the (currently) younger generations.
-
bozzza at 21:19 PM on 26 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Thankyou, OPOF,
It's resource intensive to get these numbers, for sure, but we are getting to the pointy end of the deal and markets need to start making changes or it will be too late.
I push for the multi-year sea ice statistics to be made known to the public because I think these are of the most significance. These are the kinds of numbers the consumers and suppliers in the market place need to make informed decisions about what this world should be doing from this point forward.
When do multi-year sea ice numbers get updated? Are there different sources for these numbers?
We absolutely must make these numbers more known to the public... if they aren't bad then that is fair enough but if they are then we need to start acting and that can only happen by conusmers and suppliers knowing what the facts are.
The fabled free-markets exist on such assumptions as perfect information... not knowing relevant information makes the whole system shonky and 'inefficient'.
-
stevecarsonr at 19:34 PM on 26 September 2017Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
A new article with some background at Science of Doom:
Impacts – XIV – Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change 1
Kevin Walsh and coauthors in 2016: "At present, there is no climate theory that can predict the formation rate of tropical cyclones from the mean climate state"
In general, relative SST (local sea surface temperature minus the tropical mean sea surface temperature) being more important than absolute SST for TC development has the weight of climate scientists behind it.
Climate models struggle to reproduce the more intense TCs (tropical cyclones) in the recent climate and papers come with many caveats about the difficulties of predicting the future.
-
MA Rodger at 17:43 PM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman @504.
You implore me not to "not miss the forest for the trees." Then you entirely dismiss my comments @501 saying "I addressed some of this in another post." It would be interesting to see if you could find that "other post" amongst this tangled comment thread you weave here. It is not evident to me.
Nobody can understand the "forest" without examining the "trees" and in your case you appear incapable of doing that.
Let us consider just one tree - the testimony of Hansen to the 1988 Senate Committee.
You have provided a newspaper articleof 5/7/88 which purports to inform their readers that Hansen told the Senate Committee about the 1951-80 anomaly base, that the average global temperature of that period was 59F. Yet have you ever heard the old adage "Don't believe everything you read in newspapers."? In this case it is good advice.
The newspaper quote looks quite definite. From The Day we read:-
"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."
All in black&white from a 1988 newspaper report. But for your purposes it isn't worth the paper it's written on! For a start, this is not what the NYT reported on the matter. From the NYT we read:-
"Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations around the world, had previously reported that four of the hottest years on record occurred in the 1980's. Compared with a 30-year base period from 1950 to 1980, when the global temperature averaged 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature was one-third of a degree higher last year." (My bold)
And we also have the actual testemony of Hansen (as linked @501 had you cared to read that comment). Her it is - LINK. Nowhere does Hansen ever report to that 1988 Senate Committee, either in writing or verbally, that there was an average global temperature of "59 degrees Fahrenheit". Nowhere! That part of the newspaper report was incorrectly inserted into the account by the newspaper.
So that particular tree was rotten to the core. All the other "trees" are just as unreliable. If you like, we can address them tree-by-tree, but that would require you to actually read the comments people are responding to you with, to read and take on board what they are saying. But so far down this thread I see no sign of you doing that. So my advice here will likely fall on deaf ears.
-
nigelj at 16:25 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Randman @5
"Who decides those rules? "
First the question here is accuracy and balance ( telling both sides of the story fully and withount manipulation). To repat I have no problem with media backing some particular point of view if they wish.
My country already has a voluntary code of practice on accuracy and balance, made in consultation with various media and government. This is how many laws and codes are decided, so nothing novel there.
But because its voluntary it lacks many teeth and punishments are light. I think it should be a mandatory code for all with tougher penalties, ideally.
But I'm a strong advocate for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so its a balancing act. Such codes need to be implemented in practical and non trivial ways where theres a genuine avoidable error or clear missrepresentation, but I think it could be done. I acknowledge Eclectics comments about a lack of accountability historically, but I think things need to change a bit without going to the other extreme either.
As to what are the facts? You would need a panel to enforce a media code and decide what the facts are. There are well recognised ways of establishing facts such as verifiable evidence, logic. etc. Courts of law do it, the world of science does it, people who write text books do it. I'm not sure why the media are that much different. Just the threat of some real accountability will help clean things up.
As to your comment about lack of quality in the mainstream media, so convenient that you left out fox news, now why did you do that? I don't want to get into a competition of who is worse, but I think we could at least improve the situation as I have outlined.
However Breitbart and comparable fringe media are just laughable and wouldn't know a thing about facts or balance. They genuinely live in a fantasy world, where they routinely print fake news and conspiracies of their own making. The internet has given every nutter a platform to make a noise.
-
Eclectic at 16:15 PM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman @509 , the objective evidence "tells" that you are talking rubbish.
Hard-core science-deniers such as you, will go to their graves before they will admit to the evidence in front of their eyes — though I suspect that some deniers will eventually back-pedal and try to re-write their history and will try to tell their grandchildren: "No, no, I was never one of those deniers — it's just that I had a few little doubts during the early stages of AGW".
-
Eclectic at 16:02 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Randman @3 and @5, in this thread we are of course talking about factual matters determined objectively (for example, as determined by scientific methods) — not talking about what people opine as "facts" / "factoids" / "Alternative Facts" / or deluded fantasies e.g. Flat-Earthism.
My first response (my gut feeling) is to agree with you [in #3] about the so-called "MSM" : in that they float & promote too many part-truths. But really, here we shouldn't be talking about the usual scattered low-incidence of accidental misreporting, but rather the deliberate reporting of untruths e.g. the infamous Breitbart. There always has been and always will be no real accountability or punishment of "sins" of reportage committed by the MSM in the liberal democracies of the world. (The MSM in totalitarian or dictator-lead nations, being a quite different matter!)
However, on reflection, your statement is much too vague and "hand-wave-y".
To validate your point, please supply a number of typical examples representative of the range of "sins" committted by the MSM (and not just a few cherry-picked examples to suit a particular bias).
It almost goes without saying — but please don't bother to select any examples from the "rubbish" end of the MSM spectrum (such as FoxNews*, Daily Mail, and similar), for the list would be unending! Please choose from what is usually considered the "Quality" end of the MSM spectrum.
I am interested to hear your detailed views on the censure/accountability of media outlets. The topic is worth some analysis!
[ * the Murdoch media being a fine/egregious example of poor reportage — not that their efforts are enormously more sloppy than most, when it comes to random "accidental" bits of misinformation — but I am talking of their long-term deliberate policy of deceiving the public by telling 99% lies about global warming subjects. ]
-
randman at 15:56 PM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
To the mod, read some of it. Will read more again later. Initial thoughts on this stuff is that the response to genuine questions appear to be "trust us", we know this and you do not. We can teach you, etc, etc,...and somewhat avoding the straightforward issue raised. I am not referring to you individually but rather the whole proponent industry.
The thing is every marker and everything many of us have learned about human behavior tells us, those on the fence or skeptics, that all of this has the hallmarks and "tell" of a sham. Now you can blast me, ban me or whatever. At this point I am not really trying to win an argument but just share how it comes off.
In fact, with the public, I think you guys have already lost but may not know it yet.
There are certain "tells" one learns to see in life. Over time, you see those patterns and learn. Of course you want to make sure, ask the right questions, hear the response and so forth. Be open-minded but the one thing you can't do is ignore the warning signs and there are a whole bunch of them here.Moderator Response:[PS] Obviously we cannot help the wilfully ignorant.
-
randman at 14:21 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Who decides those rules? That's an important question. I suspect what I would deem honest and what you would are very different. People believe very different sets of facts as far as what they think is reality.
-
randman at 13:29 PM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
To the mod:
Of course, but there still has to be some reason for the varying differences in the mean (1950-1980). What are those reasons?
Are they using different weather stations for one run and another?
Have they adjusted the past data? If so, why?
Is the algorythmn different?
A combination of these factors and others?
For some reason, there appear to be different means from a past time-frame and so anomalies are a separate topic. Sure, you calculate anomalies from each weather station or buoy but why then, if the same data points used, do you come up with a different mean over the past 30 years?Moderator Response:[TD] Read this then this then this. Then section 6 starting on page 190 of this.
[PS] No you dont get different means. That never changes. You are continuing to conflate "mean of baseline" with absolute temperature despite everyones efforts. What is so hard to understand about this?
And yes, they do adjust the data. Read the article. Do you seriously think you should not adjust data if say a screen is added over thermometer; the station is moved; or read at 3pm instead of 9pm? Even so, you can see that adjusted versus unadjusted data makes little difference. The biggest adjustment is to sea surface temperature and the adjustment reduces the trend not increases it. If science is some conspiracy to make you poor, why would they do that? Stop believing nonsense.
-
nigelj at 13:27 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Randman @3
I agree no media are perfect, but the Daily Mail has a well known record for publishing complete nonsense. They stand out from the crowd imho.
The point is its not an imposition on free speech to ask media to tell both sides of stories, not half the facts, and to be accurate with basic facts. The rules need to be tighter on accuracy and balance, and applied to all obviously, maybe with fines or something because unless it hurts a bit nothing will change.
The media are still always free to come down and support one side of a debate if they wish, in their "opinion editorials" . However they will make themselves look silly if they support pseudo scientific nonsense, and the Daily Mail have a record of this.
-
randman at 12:16 PM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
I don't anything about the Daily Mail's reporting but freedom of speech does include the freedom to publih half-truths. If not, the entire MSM in the US, including the NYTs and Washington Post, MSNBC and the major networks would be illegal. They actually publish fabrications at times.
Probably the same with the British media. -
Sarah at 12:13 PM on 26 September 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
David- thanks for sharing those memories of Andy.
You were lucky to have known him for so long.
Even those of us who knew Andy mainly online, and met him only fleetingly in person, felt his keen intelligence, wry humor, and deep humanity.
-
nigelj at 11:14 AM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
Well done to Bob Ward and Ipso. The Daily Mails behaviour has been appalling on this climate issue, among many other things. Freedom of speech and of the press does not equal avoidable mistakes, or telling only half the important facts, leaving out things that don't fit a narrative.
Agree with comment by OPOF that lack of genuine penalties and fines doesn't help. Things wont improve unless it hurts a bit.
The Daily Mail has a history of blunders and dont seem to learn. They claimed in 1912 that the Titanic had sunk, no lives lost.
-
barry1487 at 08:16 AM on 26 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
OPOF,
Yes, the results would likely be less tight using different/longer time periods, and the uncertainty greater. But I think that would be good science. 2014/2015 were subsequent hottest years in the record. That's going to skew results.
From the opinion piece:
These analyses show that during 2015 and 2016, the heat stored in the upper 2,000 meters of the world ocean reached a new 57-year record high (Figure 1). This heat storage amounts to an increase of 30.4 × 1022 Joules (J) since 1960 [Cheng et al., 2017], equal to a heating rate of 0.33 Watts per square meter (W m−2) averaged over Earth’s entire surface—0.61 W m−2 after 1992.
It seems they consider the data useful enough for earlier periods, but perhaps not for the calculation they performed. ARGO became fully global in 2007, for example. But they did not include 2016 - presumably because of the el Nino skewing results.
If data limitations 'forced' them to use the one 12-year period, that limitation might also have earned a comment, and perhaps some added uncertainty. I was a little surprised to see no commentary on why this particular choice of time period and not another, like 2003-2014, for example. 2003-2014 has 50% lower trend than the period they chose. The actual trend may not make a difference, but it would have been good to see that discussed, as the trend they chose had 2 consecutive record warm years at the end. But even the noise might be peculiar to the period selected.
Had it been a study rather than an 'opinion', I expect they'd have explored these things.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:56 AM on 26 September 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
As I understand it there is no financial penalty for The Mail (or any of the CopyCats). And it does not seem that the Mail Retraction/Correction will have to be Front Page News or be reported as many days and ways the original Fake News was reported. (And the CopyCats will not be required to Copy the Retraction)
This deliberate damaging decelption by 'people who undeniably put self-interest above the interests of others' will continue as long as participants in News Media and Political/Business Marketing are not constrained by the responsibility to "Act Professionally" to properly raise awareness and promote better understanding of what is going on.
Like all other Professions the responsibility of Informaton Providers needs to be the Public Interest, which is undeniably the interests of Humanity, which are probably best presented in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals.
In a Profession, anyone found to be lacking in the proper perfomance of their duties and obligations can be denied recognition and be denied the 'priviledge' to perform as a professional. There is no 'Freedom to beleive whatever you want and claim and do whatever you please' in Professions like Engineering or Medicine or even Accounting (though this last one is questionable). Those professions are intended to protect the from the potential harmful consequences of pursuers of profit who would abuse unjustified marketing and claim-making for personal benefit.
Maybe global legal changes are needed, maybe embedded in Free Trade Agreements, so that anyone in Business or Politics trying to Market or Promote any interests that are contrary to achieving the SDGs is able to be legally denied the 'permission to continue doing so until they prove they have changed their minds and decided to become Helpful rather than Harmful'.
-
randman at 07:21 AM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Meant to write 58 degrees. That was 2009. The reference to 1975 through 2008 refers to years on the graph, not the mean those years were compared to. That mean is 58 degrees, not the average of 1975-1982 as can easily be seen by viewing the graph.
This is relevant since we are discussing changes in the mean, the years 1950-1980.
Note just a few years later, probably 2015 as the data stops at year 2014, I believe:
""They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.)"https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
So Nasa states here the "base period of 1950-1980" is estimated at 57 degrees, not 58 degrees.Moderator Response:[JH] The answer to your question can be found in NASA's posted Q&A, The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT).
The Preface of his Q&A provides context:
The GISTEMP analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km.
The final Q&A of the post:
Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. 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 and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
My bold above.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:17 AM on 26 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
barry,
The slope/trend of the OHC line has clearly become steeper since the early 1990s. And the uncertainty band is also clearly larger in the OHC data prior to 2000. Given the same level of noisiness of the data the shallower the trend line the longer it takes to 'identify a trend'. And larger noisiness prior to 2000 may also be due to the uncertainty of the methods of data evaluation prior to 2000 rather than actual changes of OHC. So earlier sets of data would be expected to have a longer time required to identify the trend, but that would not be very relevant to the future evaluations using current or more certain methods of determining OHC.
A better test of what you are concerned about may be to evaluate longer time periods ending in the most recent year of data (maybe 2016) to identify how far back you have to go to see a significant change from the '4 year value' determined in the analysis that is being reported, without going back into time periods of significantly higher uncertainty.
Note that the same would apply to the 27 years for GMST. That duration would likely be longer if an earlier 12 year period was evaluated. The relative durations between the OHC and GMST may maintain the ratio of 27/4 between the GMST duration and OHC duration, and should since the OHC an Sea Level Rise do not have the levels of noisiness of values that occur in the GMST data.
-
randman at 05:02 AM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Note the reference to the mean as 59 degrees or 14.5 Celsius in 2009.
"Figure 1: The world's surface air temperature change ("anomaly"), relative to the world's mean temperature of 58° F or 14.5° C, averaged over land and oceans from 1975 to 20082."
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.htmlModerator Response:[JH] In your first sentence, you incorrectly state "59 degrees". It should be "58 degrees".
Also note that the baseline period for Figure 1 is 1975 to 20082, not to 20082.
What relevance does this factoid have to your prior comments?
-
DavidSmythe at 04:00 AM on 26 September 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
Dear Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues at Skeptical Science
Can I add a few words about my dear friend and fellow geophysicist Andy, since he seems to have been too modest to leave anything behind in the form of a CV or an autobiography?
I probably knew him for longer than anyone else in his profession. He joined my little applied research group at the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh in 1977 or so, where he and his wife Annick quickly become close friends with myself and my then partner. He had a degree in geology from Sheffield University, a Masters degree in geophysics (Newcastle I think), and before coming to Edinburgh had worked for a geological service company for a year or two.
Our day-to-day work was mapping and interpreting the UK sector of the NW European passive margin (the Rockall-Faeroe region) using the mass of confidential offshore seismic and well data made available to the BGS via the Department of Energy. By thinking more widely and deeply than your average hydrocarbon exploration geologist of the era, we were able to apply the still youthful new science of plate tectonics to our daily detailed research, and thereby make some significant advances. Although our ability to publish was rather limited, due to the confidential nature of the data at our disposal, we did manage to get a few papers published. These are listed among Andy's publication list on his blog.
One of his posts reveals Andy's keen and long-standing interest in the philosophy of science. This interest developed during his time at Edinburgh. Names like Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and so on may be familiar to researchers in physics or climate science, but in the 1970s or 80s - or even today - precious few solid earth scientists were aware of, or interested in, the philosophy underpinning their research. Our little philosophical trio was completed by Mike Russell, then head of the applied geology department at Strathclyde University, Glasgow. Andy embarked on a part-time doctoral research programme, registered at Strathclyde, supported by the BGS, and with Mike and myself as joint supervisors. But Andy resigned from the BGS in 1981, and emigrated to join the oil industry in Calgary, so his PhD studies fell by the wayside. Mike Russell, a polymath and world leader in the emergence of life, now at the JPL, NASA in California and still active at 78, once described Andy as "the best research student we never had".
Andy was appalled at the polarised and bi-partisan nature of the scientific debate on fracking in the UK (my own little niche in the more general battle against fossil fuel exploitation), and scathing of the low standards of the majority of the UK earth scientists active in that field, who are funded by the industry while claiming to be impartial. I referred to Andy's incomplete doctoral work in a blog I published a year ago, which includes a contemporary photo of Andy. I never quite got to the bottom of why he quit his quasi-academic post in the UK for an oil industry job in Canada, but his generally low opinion of UK academic earth science researchers certainly played a part.
I will miss our frequent email exchanges of recent years, the occasional visits to France by Andy and Annick when they stayed with us for a few days, or even a month at a time, and the occasional long phone call. I knew his time was limited when he sent me for review a draft of his final blog (Exit, Pursued By a Crab - a characteristically drole title of his) just over a month ago - a typically thorough Andy touch - but I did not realise how close to death he already was.
Andy Skuce - I was privileged to have known him for forty years. Dear Andy - a thoughtful, reflective and incisive mind, overlain with the healthy scepticism required of a true scientist.
-
randman at 03:46 AM on 26 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Ok, let's stick with NASA.
"They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.)"
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
This appears to be from 2015 since the last year on the graph is 2014.
In 2010, we see 59 degrees given as the global mean at that time. The nature of the comment suggests to me 59 degrees is an approximate.
"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/page1.php
Nasa reported 2010 as 1.13F degrees "warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980."
"The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.13°F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. "
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
If the global mean from 1951-1980 were 57 degrees as they said it was in 2015, then 2010 would be 58.13 degrees, right?
But we just saw where they said it was approximately 59 degrees in 2010, not 58 degrees. Kind of a big deal.
Clearly, the baseline mean of 1950-1980 has not remained consistent in these calculations. Why?Moderator Response:[JH} See NASA's History of GISTEMP.
-
randman at 02:34 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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.
-
randman at 02:22 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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?
-
randman at 02:19 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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."
"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.
-
MA Rodger at 02:18 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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.)
-
randman at 01:41 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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 -
randman at 01:36 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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.htmlModerator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
bobbyj at 01:33 AM on 26 September 2017Hansen'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.
-
randman at 01:16 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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.
-
randman at 01:10 AM on 26 September 2017Temp 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 26 September 20172017 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.
-
MA Rodger at 19:15 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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?
-
LightSpeed at 18:30 PM on 25 September 2017Models 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.
-
Eclectic at 17:17 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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!
-
randman at 15:31 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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? -
Tom Dayton at 15:25 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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.
-
randman at 14:59 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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"? -
randman at 14:53 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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? -
randman at 14:45 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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.
-
randman at 14:37 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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? -
Tom Dayton at 14:15 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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.
-
Tom Dayton at 14:08 PM on 25 September 2017Temp 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.
Prev 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 Next
