• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Two Degree Goal Already Achieved

longview said:
The graph looks quite different when the mean is one year, instead of 5 years and one month.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Click to expand...

And different again when the mean is one month instead of 12.

offset:-.437

For all the over-the-top rhetoric coming from some quarters, one could almost be fooled into thinking that GISS and HadCRUT are showing similar results to UAH and RSS; merely measuring surface instead of lower atmosphere temperatures.

However we're usually discussing long-term climate changes on this forum, to which short-term variations such as the 1991 Pinatubo eruption (cooling effect) or the 100-year record El Nino in 1998 (warming) are only of passing interest. Using a longer-term mean is more useful for viewing longer-term climate trends.
 
Mithrae said:
And different again when the mean is one month instead of 12.

offset:-.437

For all the over-the-top rhetoric coming from some quarters, one could almost be fooled into thinking that GISS and HadCRUT are showing similar results to UAH and RSS; merely measuring surface instead of lower atmosphere temperatures.

However we're usually discussing long-term climate changes on this forum, to which short-term variations such as the 1991 Pinatubo eruption (cooling effect) or the 100-year record El Nino in 1998 (warming) are only of passing interest. Using a longer-term mean is more useful for viewing longer-term climate trends.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the GISS and other data sets are 12 month means. When you select an odd (61 month) mean, it becomes suspect.
The standard deviation within the GISS data set is about .18 C ( That was before the July adjustments).
 
longview said:
Yes, but the GISS and other data sets are 12 month means. When you select an odd (61 month) mean, it becomes suspect.
The standard deviation within the GISS data set is about .18 C ( That was before the July adjustments).
Click to expand...

No, the main release format for all the major temperature records (HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, UAH and RSS) is monthly temperature anomalies, sometimes further subdivided into hemispheric, land/ocean, regional (eg. US48 states for UAH) or gridded information - and probably even available in daily format if you know where to look for it! A one-year mean, or alternatively year-by-year blocks, are two common ways of simplifying that data; a five-year mean is also quite common (eg. the NOAA graph for ocean temperatures posted earlier in this thread by Poor Debator), as are even longer averages: The UK's Met Office seems to use a 21-year smoothing in one of its presentations, for example, though that would hardly be practical when looking at just a few decades of data, such as comparison between the surface and satellite records!

Wouldn't you consider it just a little 'suspect' if someone insisted on looking at long-term climate trends only using a data presentation format which heavily reflects short-term effects such as unusual volcanic or ENSO patterns?
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Which is exactly what Watts, yourself and various others are doing, as you have plainly illustrated here: It's not GISS that you have a problem with, it is all surface temperature data sets, because let's face it they all show almost precisely the same thing, and it's not something you like to see. The Japan Meteorological Agency shows 2015 as the hottest year on record with 2014 coming in second, and a 0.71C/century warming trend since 1890. HadCRUT4 shows 2015 as the hottest year on record with 2014 the probable second, and a 0.72C/century warming trend since 1890. NOAA/NCDC, GISS and BEST all find similar results (obviously with more warming evident in the more sensitive land-only BEST product found on Wood for Trees).

So either all of these organisations and the scientists who work with them are all colluding in some grand international conspiracy to deceive the world, or else this nasty 'tampering' consists merely of the corrections necessary in light of the fact that all data gathering methods are imperfect.

Gee, which one looks more plausible?

I noticed that you didn't answer Poor Debator's questions in post #41, and yet here you are again regurgitating and even building more on the same BS, using the same dodgy bloggers as your source material:
Click to expand...



I can't see Poor Debater's posts.

Regarding the surface data sets vs the satellite data sets, you like to discard the satellite data entirely. I look at both the satellite data and the surface data and merely ask, "Why?" are they so different.

Further, I ask why the already pronounced difference is made even more dramatic by the constant revision of the past surface data already collected and then adjusted and now adjusted again and again.

If my bank adjusted my balance retroactively avery few months or years, that would be a good reason for me to change banks.

When the past data is so bad that it must be simply discarded in favor of data they prefer, then what is it about the new data that makes it any less suspect than the old?

It seems pretty likely that the new GISS data will be discarded in the near future as well. The new GISS data that was new in 1999 has already been discarded in favor of the GISS data that was new in 2015.

It is GISS that is saying their data is bad. I am only listening to their pronouncements.
 
Mithrae said:
No, the main release format for all the major temperature records (HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, UAH and RSS) is monthly temperature anomalies, sometimes further subdivided into hemispheric, land/ocean, regional (eg. US48 states for UAH) or gridded information - and probably even available in daily format if you know where to look for it! A one-year mean, or alternatively year-by-year blocks, are two common ways of simplifying that data; a five-year mean is also quite common (eg. the NOAA graph for ocean temperatures posted earlier in this thread by Poor Debator), as are even longer averages: The UK's Met Office seems to use a 21-year smoothing in one of its presentations, for example, though that would hardly be practical when looking at just a few decades of data, such as comparison between the surface and satellite records!

Wouldn't you consider it just a little 'suspect' if someone insisted on looking at long-term climate trends only using a data presentation format which heavily reflects short-term effects such as unusual volcanic or ENSO patterns?
Click to expand...
Part of Signal processing is to make the data view able while limiting the destructive nature of smoothing on the data itself.
The monthly data has a high standard deviation, so is almost unreadable.
The longer the mean, the more the data is influenced.
If we looked at the recent warming trend with Marcott's average resolution (120 years), we would see limited change,
as the actual warming is confined into burst of less than 20 years.
As to the 61 month mean, it seems like an odd selection.
 
longview said:
Part of Signal processing is to make the data view able while limiting the destructive nature of smoothing on the data itself.
The monthly data has a high standard deviation, so is almost unreadable.
The longer the mean, the more the data is influenced.
If we looked at the recent warming trend with Marcott's average resolution (120 years), we would see limited change,
as the actual warming is confined into burst of less than 20 years.
As to the 61 month mean, it seems like an odd selection.
Click to expand...

I think too many people fail such math.
 
code1211 said:
I can't see Poor Debater's posts.

Regarding the surface data sets vs the satellite data sets, you like to discard the satellite data entirely. I look at both the satellite data and the surface data and merely ask, "Why?" are they so different.
Click to expand...

And of course the blindingly obvious answer - that they're measuring different things - is far beyond your intellect. As shown above, UAH was very similar to GISS over the past quarter century, and RSS was the outlier, before the adjustments which removed nearly a fifth of UAH's warming trend in part by reducing its weighting of surface temperatures even further.

But people generally don't like things they don't understand. So instead of gracefully acknowledging that it's all a bit beyond you, you invent this comforting fairy tale that you're really "in the know," you're onto their tricks: The HadCRUT and GISS (and NOAA and BEST and JMA) organisations are deliberately deceiving everyone, a masterful international plot to create sometimes more warming and sometimes less warming, changes of a few hundredths of a degree which will... they'll... well I suppose you haven't really got 'round to any kind of motive yet, but I'm sure it'll be a damn good one :lol:

The UAH and RSS adjustments are good-faith corrections allowing for the fact that all data gathering methods are imperfect, of course.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Better try at misdirection, but we are still talking about the uncertainty caused from clouds!
Click to expand...
No we were not. We were talking about the feedback from clouds. So only the one doing misdirection here is you.

The fact remains that cloud feedback could be either positive or negative, even if clouds are cooling. But you are apparently willing to go to great lengths to hide your ignorance of that point.
 
Poor Debater said:
No we were not. We were talking about the feedback from clouds. So only the one doing misdirection here is you.

The fact remains that cloud feedback could be either positive or negative, even if clouds are cooling. But you are apparently willing to go to great lengths to hide your ignorance of that point.
Click to expand...
I think the statement by the IPCC says it,
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds
and their interactions with radiation
Click to expand...
The uncertainty is inclusive of all of the feedbacks in the system.
 
longview said:
I think the statement by the IPCC says it,
Click to expand...

The fact that you continue to quote from an IPCC statement that doesn't say one thing about feedbacks is continued proof of your own ignorance.
 
Poor Debater said:
The fact that you continue to quote from an IPCC statement that doesn't say one thing about feedbacks is continued proof of your own ignorance.
Click to expand...
I am sorry you are misunderstanding the Science,
Feedback is anything that the output influences the input, and causes a change in the output.
It can be an amplification (Positive feedback) or attenuation (negative feedback).
Clouds limit the amount of heat the earth can absorb.
 
longview said:
I am sorry you are misunderstanding the Science,
Feedback is anything that the output influences the input, and causes a change in the output.
It can be an amplification (Positive feedback) or attenuation (negative feedback).
Clouds limit the amount of heat the earth can absorb.
Click to expand...

But that does not imply that cloud feedback is negative, as you erroneously believe.
 
Mithrae said:
And of course the blindingly obvious answer - that they're measuring different things - is far beyond your intellect. As shown above, UAH was very similar to GISS over the past quarter century, and RSS was the outlier, before the adjustments which removed nearly a fifth of UAH's warming trend in part by reducing its weighting of surface temperatures even further.

But people generally don't like things they don't understand. So instead of gracefully acknowledging that it's all a bit beyond you, you invent this comforting fairy tale that you're really "in the know," you're onto their tricks: The HadCRUT and GISS (and NOAA and BEST and JMA) organisations are deliberately deceiving everyone, a masterful international plot to create sometimes more warming and sometimes less warming, changes of a few hundredths of a degree which will... they'll... well I suppose you haven't really got 'round to any kind of motive yet, but I'm sure it'll be a damn good one :lol:

The UAH and RSS adjustments are good-faith corrections allowing for the fact that all data gathering methods are imperfect, of course.
Click to expand...

You have invented a fantasy and it seems to give you comfort. Good for you!

In your fantasy world, a person who asks why questioning your dogma is viewed as be a smug denier of all of your preconceptions.

You acknowledge that the data is different as I do and then pronounce yourself to be superior because you dismiss the differences.

My God! That's brilliant!
 
Poor Debater said:
But that does not imply that cloud feedback is negative, as you erroneously believe.
Click to expand...
If clouds cause less total energy to reach the earth, and additional clouds reduce the energy levels further,
then clouds are part of a negative feedback loop.
 
Poor Debater said:
But that does not imply that cloud feedback is negative, as you erroneously believe.
Click to expand...

Clouds do both.

They hold heat at night, but reduce heating in the daytime.

It's not a yes or no for either feedback. The question should be which is greater. The negative effect or positive effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom