Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[anonymous-user]

kerplunk said:

The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Record global temps you say? Since when?

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Clearly just a base denier. The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Identikit covid referencing - quell surprise. Paranoia. You don't need no stinkin models - it can't be done. But you just, somehow, *know* the outcome. You have eyeballs that see.

Yaaawn

Correct me if I am wrong but don't they calibrate the satellite temperatures from surface observations , ergo they are the same?

[kerplunk]

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Record global temps you say? Since when?

Since records began which is different for different datasets. But in any case it's all of them

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Clearly just a base denier. The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Identikit covid referencing - quell surprise. Paranoia. You don't need no stinkin models - it can't be done. But you just, somehow, *know* the outcome. You have eyeballs that see.

Yaaawn

Correct me if I am wrong but don't they calibrate the satellite temperatures from surface observations , ergo they are the same?

Not according to Dr Roy at UAH

"Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch"

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-tempera...

[anonymous-user]

kerplunk said:

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Record global temps you say? Since when?

Since records began which is different for different datasets. But in any case it's all of them

Do you mean the warmest since since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850?

Or do you mean warmest since the Medieval Warm Period which ended around 700 years ago, or the Roman Warm Period which ended around 1600 years ago, where the global temperature averages were at least 2 deg warmer than today?

So when do records begin exactly?

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Not according to Dr Roy at UAH

"Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch"

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-tempera...

OK so are we staying they are only calibrate on launch and after that there are no further checks on accuracy ?

[kerplunk]

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Record global temps you say? Since when?

Since records began which is different for different datasets. But in any case it's all of them

Do you mean the warmest since since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850?

Or do you mean warmest since the Medieval Warm Period which ended around 700 years ago, or the Roman Warm Period which ended around 1600 years ago, where the global temperature averages were at least 2 deg warmer than today?

So when do records begin exactly?

The oldest global indices are since 1850 but I didn't have any particular one in mind.

You can assume for all time that when I say 'record' breaking in relation to modern obs I'm referring to modern records from thermometers etc.

Where did you get the idea that RWP was at least 2 deg warmer than today? That would give RWP to LIA cooling of ~3.5C - over half way back to the depths of the last glacial period. That's quite incompatible with the widespread view that the holocene has been a period of relatively stable climate

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Not according to Dr Roy at UAH

"Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch"

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-tempera...

OK so are we staying they are only calibrate on launch and after that there are no further checks on accuracy ?

Not sure, I believe I've heard of some form of on board checking where they point the sensor at a black body, or something like that.

Whatever you can see by comparison that satellite obs mirror the surface short term variations quite well

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Record global temps you say? Since when?

Since records began which is different for different datasets. But in any case it's all of them

Do you mean the warmest since since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850?

Or do you mean warmest since the Medieval Warm Period which ended around 700 years ago, or the Roman Warm Period which ended around 1600 years ago, where the global temperature averages were at least 2 deg warmer than today?

So when do records begin exactly?

The oldest global indices are since 1850 but I didn't have any particular one in mind.

You can assume for all time that when I say 'record' breaking in relation to modern obs I'm referring to modern records from thermometers etc.

Where did you get the idea that RWP was at least 2 deg warmer than today? That would give RWP to LIA cooling of ~3.5C - over half way back to the depths of the last glacial period. That's quite incompatible with the widespread view that the holocene has been a period of relatively stable climate

1850

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

1850

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

[Isotopologue]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

D.S. said:

kerplunk said:

The recent unprecedentedly large margin record breaking global temps have been across the board - satellite data, surface obs and reanalysis data.

Record global temps you say? Since when?

Since records began which is different for different datasets. But in any case it's all of them

Do you mean the warmest since since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850?

Or do you mean warmest since the Medieval Warm Period which ended around 700 years ago, or the Roman Warm Period which ended around 1600 years ago, where the global temperature averages were at least 2 deg warmer than today?

So when do records begin exactly?

The oldest global indices are since 1850 but I didn't have any particular one in mind.

You can assume for all time that when I say 'record' breaking in relation to modern obs I'm referring to modern records from thermometers etc.

Where did you get the idea that RWP was at least 2 deg warmer than today? That would give RWP to LIA cooling of ~3.5C - over half way back to the depths of the last glacial period. That's quite incompatible with the widespread view that the holocene has been a period of relatively stable climate

1850

To be consistent in level of skepticism, any chance you could comment on the three other time periods mentioned rather than only focussing on 1850?

What do you think about the available data covering them?

Thanks

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

1850

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

KP I struggle with that concept, the idea may work but accuracy must surely suffer.
You cannot reliably work with reduced data,
There has been a few times where personally I have experienced a 20°C difference in temperatures over a 400 mile distance , living in the North east we get use to it
Depending on the choice of temperature data (high or low) you are going to get a large variations in result and this is over a relatively small area if you pick a single point.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

1850

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

KP I struggle with that concept, the idea may work but accuracy must surely suffer.
You cannot reliably work with reduced data,
There has been a few times where personally I have experienced a 20°C difference in temperatures over a 400 mile distance , living in the North east we get use to it
Depending on the choice of temperature data (high or low) you are going to get a large variations in result and this is over a relatively small area if you pick a single point.

But that difference over 400 miles will largely be a constant, so it doesn't change anything. Let's say Edinburgh is on average 3 degrees cooler than London, that's going to be the case at any point along the timeline of the last few hundred years at least.

If both cities warmed by 1 degree since 150 years ago, the city you use to measure that trend doesn't change anything. The trend line is the same.

Edit: obviously this is not universal rule and some areas have warmed at different rates (and that can move the needle both ways). Having the actual data is always going to be better. The point is that it doesn't seem very likely that there are areas were so massively hotter in 1850 that they would change the story, that suddenly dropped in temperature for no apparent reason by the time we started recording, and that these all coincidentally happened to be where there were no records.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 25th January 09:55

[Diderot]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

1850

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

KP I struggle with that concept, the idea may work but accuracy must surely suffer.
You cannot reliably work with reduced data,
There has been a few times where personally I have experienced a 20°C difference in temperatures over a 400 mile distance , living in the North east we get use to it
Depending on the choice of temperature data (high or low) you are going to get a large variations in result and this is over a relatively small area if you pick a single point.

But that difference over 400 miles will largely be a constant, so it doesn't change anything. Let's say Edinburgh is on average 3 degrees cooler than London, that's going to be the case at any point along the timeline of the last few hundred years at least.

If both cities warmed by 1 degree since 150 years ago, the city you use to measure that trend doesn't change anything. The trend line is the same.

Edit: obviously this is not universal rule and some areas have warmed at different rates (and that can move the needle both ways). Having the actual data is always going to be better. The point is that it doesn't seem very likely that there are areas were so massively hotter in 1850 that they would change the story, that suddenly dropped in temperature for no apparent reason by the time we started recording, and that these all coincidentally happened to be where there were no records.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 25th January 09:55

The reality is unknowable Durbster. And that’s the point. Supposition, estimation and extrapolation are no substitute for data. And there is no data for most of the global land mass.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

1850

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

KP I struggle with that concept, the idea may work but accuracy must surely suffer.
You cannot reliably work with reduced data,
There has been a few times where personally I have experienced a 20°C difference in temperatures over a 400 mile distance , living in the North east we get use to it
Depending on the choice of temperature data (high or low) you are going to get a large variations in result and this is over a relatively small area if you pick a single point.

But that difference over 400 miles will largely be a constant, so it doesn't change anything. Let's say Edinburgh is on average 3 degrees cooler than London, that's going to be the case at any point along the timeline of the last few hundred years at least.

If both cities warmed by 1 degree since 150 years ago, the city you use to measure that trend doesn't change anything. The trend line is the same.

Edit: obviously this is not universal rule and some areas have warmed at different rates (and that can move the needle both ways). Having the actual data is always going to be better. The point is that it doesn't seem very likely that there are areas were so massively hotter in 1850 that they would change the story, that suddenly dropped in temperature for no apparent reason by the time we started recording, and that these all coincidentally happened to be where there were no records.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 25th January 09:55

"It doesn’t seam likely " does not appear scientific, especially when we are talking about a major change to our lifestyle , without the data it's no better than a guess, without more information, things like urban heat island affect it is just a number that is being applied to a very large area.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

"It doesn’t seam likely " does not appear scientific especially when we are talking about a major change to our lifestyle , without the data it's no better than a guess, without more information, things like urban heat island affect it is just a number that is being applied to a very large area.

Likelihood is very common in science. It's very rare that a study will declare anything with absolute certainty - that's the language of religion.

You can call it a guess if you want but it's based on supporting data and evidence, and it is still useful. If we don't have the data, we don't have the data, so it's the best we can do.

Certainty isn't very practical. Do you think it's wise to wait until it is absolutely certain that a river will flood before you start building your flood defences? Or do you make a guess, based on the data and evidence, that the river will probably flood.

Diderot said:

The reality is unknowable Durbster. And that’s the point. Supposition, estimation and extrapolation are no substitute for data. And there is no data for most of the global land mass.

Poor Diderot's still watching in total confusion as everything in the thread flies way over his head.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

KP I struggle with that concept, the idea may work but accuracy must surely suffer.

Yes of course, the post mentions one way it suffers due to NH sampling bias and it's there in the wider uncertainy bars in the early part of the record.

Diderot thinks it's just flat out 'impossible' however - yet when you run 1850 sampling for the whole period a quite similar picture emerges.

Remember this came up as a result of declarations of 'warmest on record since 1850' as though 1850 sampling makes that a dodgy claim.

[NRS]

D.S. said:

Despite some of the cleverest brains, and the most powerful computers working on it day in-day out, and for decades now, we still can't even predict the weather with any degree of accuracy just a few days from today.

Em, yes we can! Not sure where your idea that we can’t comes from?

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

There has been a few times where personally I have experienced a 20°C difference in temperatures over a 400 mile distance , living in the North east we get use to it
Depending on the choice of temperature data (high or low) you are going to get a large variations in result and this is over a relatively small area if you pick a single point.

Scotland vs England mean temps. Quite similar annual variations and overall trends. England appears to have warmed a bit more than scotland

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

There has been a few times where personally I have experienced a 20°C difference in temperatures over a 400 mile distance , living in the North east we get use to it
Depending on the choice of temperature data (high or low) you are going to get a large variations in result and this is over a relatively small area if you pick a single point.

Scotland vs England mean temps. Quite similar annual variations and overall trends. England appears to have warmed a bit more than scotland

Does that not confirm what I was saying? You cannot apply the data over a large area because of the variability,

if you apply it to somewhere like south America the error bars become so large as to make the data irrelevant.