Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

LoonyTunes said:

It was a 'secret' project that Watts/Heartland didn't admit to until they were caught out.

If he hides even that small amount of funding what else is he hiding?

I believe I said all of this before being banned from that thread.

Any evidence it was "secret"? Is there a full disclosure law I haven't heard about?

It was secret in that he never admitted funding for anything from the Heartland Institute prior to the leak.

A project he himself describes as a "special project".

But this is the science thread and as I don't want to be reported AGAIN I'll not talk anymore about politics on here as some AGW denier will undoubtedly use it as an excuse.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

It was secret in that he never admitted funding for anything from the Heartland Institute prior to the leak.

A project he himself describes as a "special project".

But this is the science thread and as I don't want to be reported AGAIN I'll not talk anymore about politics on here as some AGW denier will undoubtedly use it as an excuse.

Doesn't make it a secret though. Most people I know don't advertise their funding sources or even how much they earn - these are not secrets.

[kerplunk]

LongQ said:

Likewise the modern era of satellite monitoring to capture proxies for temperature calculations and other indicators like sea level changes and ice cover,. etc., etc., is not without its problems. Equipment inaccuracies, sensor failures, and partial coverage of the globe to name a few.

So why are we not chucking loads of money at eliminating the shortfall - especially in coverage?

Is it really more important to put another rover on Mars or a lander on the dark side of the moon or multiple GPS systems into orbit around the planet than it is to come up with some decent information that might advance our knowledge of planetary climate and its real effects (if any) over planetary time scales?

Would it be completely impossible to put up some distant satellites with consistent reporting of temperature proxies that could be used as an "average" and be read from all angles 24/7. After all, if the global average temperature is such an important measure that the trend we can deduce has to be used today for very long term (in human terms) projections into the future, should we not be using the latest technology to assess it more comprehensively rather than the elderly satellites and the partial coverage currently available?

Yes I do realise that would give problems of data continuity - but then as things stand, so what? It would not be a new problem.

Now maybe these things are happening as part of the response the existential threat but if they are they don't seem to be getting much coverage. One would think the scientists and politicians would want to be out there in public waving their virtue flags telling us how they were going to save the planet. It seems not to be the case.

Oh well, at least Saint Richard Branson, well known planet saving activist along with his son, is doing something about putting humans into space but quite how that will help to save the planet seems to be unclear.

E. Musk, Esq. heading off to Mars might prove to be a more beneficial use of planetary resources.

Here you go, satellite improvements with more on the way:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaau00...

New generation of U.S. satellite microwave sounder achieves high radiometric stability performance for reliable climate change detection.

Abstract

Observations from the satellite microwave sounders play a vital role in measuring the long-term temperature trends for climate change monitoring. Changes in diurnal sampling over time and calibration drift have been the main sources of uncertainties in the satellite-measured temperature trends. We examine observations from the first of a series of U.S. new generation of microwave sounder, the Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS), which has been flying onboard the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/NASA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) environmental satellite since late 2011. The SNPP satellite has a stable afternoon orbit that has close to the same local observation time as NASA’s Aqua satellite that has been carrying the heritage microwave sounder, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A), from 2002 until the present. The similar overpass timing naturally removes most of their diurnal differences. In addition, direct comparison of temperature anomalies between the two instruments shows little or no relative calibration drift for most channels. Our results suggest that both SNPP/ATMS and Aqua/AMSU-A instruments have achieved absolute stability in the measured atmospheric temperatures within 0.04 K per decade. This uncertainty is small enough to allow reliable detection of the temperature climate trends and help to resolve debate on relevant issues. We also analyze AMSU-A observations onboard the European MetOp-A satellite that has a stable morning orbit 8 hours apart from the SNPP overpass time. Their comparison reveals large asymmetric trends between day and night in the lower- and mid-tropospheric temperatures over land. This information could help to improve climate data records for temperature trend detection with improved accuracy. The SNPP satellite will be followed by four NOAA operational Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) satellites, providing accurate and stable measurement for decades to come. The primary mission of JPSS is for weather forecasting. Now, with the added feature of stable orbits, JPSS observations can also be used to monitor changes in climate with much lower uncertainty than the previous generation of NOAA operational satellites.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 24th January 13:02

[kerplunk]

The Berkley Earth 2018 result is out:

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

The Berkley Earth 2018 result is out:

Lovely. Can we have the 45,000,000,000 -160 years as well. Then we'll see the true picture.

[gadgetmac]

Why would you want the temperature of the Earth when it was molten?

[Flibble]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

The Berkley Earth 2018 result is out:

Lovely. Can we have the 45,000,000,000 -160 years as well. Then we'll see the true picture.

The first ~32 billion of those are going to be tricky, given they predate the big bang.

[stew-STR160]

kerplunk said:

The Berkley Earth 2018 result is out:

From the paper/article-
In our estimation, temperatures in 2018 were around 1.16 °C (2.09 °F) above the average temperature of the late 19th century, from 1850-1900, a period often used as a pre-industrial baseline for global temperature targets.

So, the end of the LIA...wow, shocker.

Both 2015 and 2016 were warmed by an extreme El Niño event that peaked in Nov/Dec of 2015 and was reported by NOAA as essentially tied for the strongest El Niño ever observed. That exceptional El Niño boosted global mean temperatures in 2015 and 2016. By contrast, 2018 began with a weak-to-moderate La Niña event. Such conditions would be expected to have somewhat reduced the global mean temperature in 2018. Internal variability, such as El Niño and La Niña, generate year-to-year variations in temperature that occur in addition to the long-term warming trend.

OK, so strongest El Nino recorded would definitely boost the temps, sure. But it has a lasting effect...cue the following years being 'hottest ever recorded'. 2018 La Nina bringing the temp down a bit to near average again.

We estimate that 4.3% of the Earth’s surface set a new local record for the warmest annual average. Most significantly in 2018, this included large portions of Europe and the Middle East.

Then
In 2018, no places on Earth experienced a record cold annual average.

Erm, I'm pretty sure there was...


That's just a quick look. I've not got much time this morning so will pick it up later.



Waiting to see Gadget et all slathering all over it though.

[durbster]

stew-STR160 said:

From the paper/article-
In our estimation, temperatures in 2018 were around 1.16 °C (2.09 °F) above the average temperature of the late 19th century, from 1850-1900, a period often used as a pre-industrial baseline for global temperature targets.

So, the end of the LIA...wow, shocker.

Both 2015 and 2016 were warmed by an extreme El Niño event that peaked in Nov/Dec of 2015 and was reported by NOAA as essentially tied for the strongest El Niño ever observed. That exceptional El Niño boosted global mean temperatures in 2015 and 2016. By contrast, 2018 began with a weak-to-moderate La Niña event. Such conditions would be expected to have somewhat reduced the global mean temperature in 2018. Internal variability, such as El Niño and La Niña, generate year-to-year variations in temperature that occur in addition to the long-term warming trend.

OK, so strongest El Nino recorded would definitely boost the temps, sure. But it has a lasting effect...cue the following years being 'hottest ever recorded'. 2018 La Nina bringing the temp down a bit to near average again.

We estimate that 4.3% of the Earth’s surface set a new local record for the warmest annual average. Most significantly in 2018, this included large portions of Europe and the Middle East.

Then
In 2018, no places on Earth experienced a record cold annual average.

Erm, I'm pretty sure there was...


That's just a quick look. I've not got much time this morning so will pick it up later.



Waiting to see Gadget et all slathering all over it though.

Are you aware of cognitive dissonance?

Wiki said:

When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

From the paper/article-
In our estimation, temperatures in 2018 were around 1.16 °C (2.09 °F) above the average temperature of the late 19th century, from 1850-1900, a period often used as a pre-industrial baseline for global temperature targets.

So, the end of the LIA...wow, shocker.

Both 2015 and 2016 were warmed by an extreme El Niño event that peaked in Nov/Dec of 2015 and was reported by NOAA as essentially tied for the strongest El Niño ever observed. That exceptional El Niño boosted global mean temperatures in 2015 and 2016. By contrast, 2018 began with a weak-to-moderate La Niña event. Such conditions would be expected to have somewhat reduced the global mean temperature in 2018. Internal variability, such as El Niño and La Niña, generate year-to-year variations in temperature that occur in addition to the long-term warming trend.

OK, so strongest El Nino recorded would definitely boost the temps, sure. But it has a lasting effect...cue the following years being 'hottest ever recorded'. 2018 La Nina bringing the temp down a bit to near average again.

We estimate that 4.3% of the Earth’s surface set a new local record for the warmest annual average. Most significantly in 2018, this included large portions of Europe and the Middle East.

Then
In 2018, no places on Earth experienced a record cold annual average.

Erm, I'm pretty sure there was...


That's just a quick look. I've not got much time this morning so will pick it up later.



Waiting to see Gadget et all slathering all over it though.

Are you aware of cognitive dissonance?

Wiki said:

When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm also able to read and not take things on faith.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

stew-STR160 said:

From the paper/article-
In our estimation, temperatures in 2018 were around 1.16 °C (2.09 °F) above the average temperature of the late 19th century, from 1850-1900, a period often used as a pre-industrial baseline for global temperature targets.

So, the end of the LIA...wow, shocker.

Both 2015 and 2016 were warmed by an extreme El Niño event that peaked in Nov/Dec of 2015 and was reported by NOAA as essentially tied for the strongest El Niño ever observed. That exceptional El Niño boosted global mean temperatures in 2015 and 2016. By contrast, 2018 began with a weak-to-moderate La Niña event. Such conditions would be expected to have somewhat reduced the global mean temperature in 2018. Internal variability, such as El Niño and La Niña, generate year-to-year variations in temperature that occur in addition to the long-term warming trend.

OK, so strongest El Nino recorded would definitely boost the temps, sure. But it has a lasting effect...cue the following years being 'hottest ever recorded'. 2018 La Nina bringing the temp down a bit to near average again.

We estimate that 4.3% of the Earth’s surface set a new local record for the warmest annual average. Most significantly in 2018, this included large portions of Europe and the Middle East.

Then
In 2018, no places on Earth experienced a record cold annual average.

Erm, I'm pretty sure there was...


That's just a quick look. I've not got much time this morning so will pick it up later.



Waiting to see Gadget et all slathering all over it though.

Are you aware of cognitive dissonance?

Wiki said:

When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.

So your answer to a reasoned answer to the article is a personal attack ?

[stew-STR160]

Let's just set the bar here-
I do not deny climate change. To do so is stupid.
I do not deny there has been a temperature rise globally since the start of the industrial revolution, which also coincides nicely with the end of the LIA.
I do not deny that CO2 has risen.
I do not deny that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are going through a cycle stage of melting.


I do however object to the extremely poor science and scientific practices displayed by those of the AGW faith and political persuasion.
I do object to the assertion that humans are entirely at fault for any changes in the last 150 years.
I do have serious objections that the last 150 years are the main focal point of the AGW faith, as that displays clear bias.


This could go on for a while, but I've got work to do.

[jet_noise]

stew-STR160 said:

Let's just set the bar here-
I do not deny climate change. To do so is stupid.
I do not deny there has been a temperature rise globally since the start of the industrial revolution, which also coincides nicely with the end of the LIA.
I do not deny that CO2 has risen.
I do not deny that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are going through a cycle stage of melting.


I do however object to the extremely poor science and scientific practices displayed by those of the AGW faith and political persuasion.
I do object to the assertion that humans are entirely at fault for any changes in the last 150 years.
I do have serious objections that the last 150 years are the main focal point of the AGW faith, as that displays clear bias.


This could go on for a while, but I've got work to do.

Another for your list stew:
If one is going to choose a "global temperature" before industrialisation at which to target any stasis attempt why choose a cooler one, why not a warmer e.g MWP rather than LIA?

[robinessex]

jet_noise said:

stew-STR160 said:

Let's just set the bar here-
I do not deny climate change. To do so is stupid.
I do not deny there has been a temperature rise globally since the start of the industrial revolution, which also coincides nicely with the end of the LIA.
I do not deny that CO2 has risen.
I do not deny that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are going through a cycle stage of melting.


I do however object to the extremely poor science and scientific practices displayed by those of the AGW faith and political persuasion.
I do object to the assertion that humans are entirely at fault for any changes in the last 150 years.
I do have serious objections that the last 150 years are the main focal point of the AGW faith, as that displays clear bias.


This could go on for a while, but I've got work to do.

Another for your list stew:
If one is going to choose a "global temperature" before industrialisation at which to target any stasis attempt why choose a cooler one, why not a warmer e.g MWP rather than LIA?

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Are you aware of cognitive dissonance?

Wiki said:

When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.

So your answer to a reasoned answer to the article is a personal attack ?

Erm, that's not a personal attack.

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

OK, so strongest El Nino recorded would definitely boost the temps, sure. But it has a lasting effect...cue the following years being 'hottest ever recorded'. 2018 La Nina bringing the temp down a bit to near average again.

Near average? It's warmer than any El Nino year before the most recent one.

stew-STR160 said:

We estimate that 4.3% of the Earth’s surface set a new local record for the warmest annual average. Most significantly in 2018, this included large portions of Europe and the Middle East.



Then
In 2018, no places on Earth experienced a record cold annual average.

Erm, I'm pretty sure there was...

I'm pretty sure that's not a substantive refutation

stew-STR160 said:

That's just a quick look.

Indeed

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 28th January 10:19

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

Let's just set the bar here-

I do object to the assertion that humans are entirely at fault for any changes in the last 150 years.

Strawman? Citation required.

stew-STR160 said:

I do have serious objections that the last 150 years are the main focal point of the AGW faith, as that displays clear bias.

Another strawman.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 28th January 10:20

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

Another for your list stew:
If one is going to choose a "global temperature" before industrialisation at which to target any stasis attempt why choose a cooler one, why not a warmer e.g MWP rather than LIA?

The +1.5C target is as warm, if not warmer than MWP isn't it?

[stew-STR160]

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

Let's just set the bar here-

I do object to the assertion that humans are entirely at fault for any changes in the last 150 years.

Strawman? Citation required.

stew-STR160 said:

I do have serious objections that the last 150 years are the main focal point of the AGW faith, as that displays clear bias.

Another strawman.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 28th January 10:20

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Are you going to argue over the ~5%?

Which point of the second quote do you draw issue with?

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

Let's just set the bar here-

I do object to the assertion that humans are entirely at fault for any changes in the last 150 years.

Strawman? Citation required.

stew-STR160 said:

I do have serious objections that the last 150 years are the main focal point of the AGW faith, as that displays clear bias.

Another strawman.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 28th January 10:20

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Are you going to argue over the ~5%?

WG3 is the adaptation and mitigation chapter so there won't be any attribution statements in there I think. If there is you need to point to it cos I'm not gonna spend time hunting a thimble that probably isn't there. WG1 would usually be the place for attribution statements.

stew-STR160 said:

Which point of the second quote do you draw issue with?

It's more the implication that nobody cares/studies/discusses paleo climate. You are probably right that 'by volume' the main focus is on the last 150 years.