• 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!

Land Use Changes and Global Warming

On the contrary, that's just what they're doing. From the #23 link:

The above bar graph shows the RSS bar heights for 2016 in blue and the corresponding heights for 1998 in red. For January, February and March, the blue bar is higher than the red bar indicating that for these three months, 2016 was warmer than 1998. However since April, the blue bar is lower than the red bar indicating that for these months, 2016 was colder than 1998. Note that the July 2016 anomaly is already lower than that of several later months in 1998. In this respect, RSS is the same as UAH6.0beta5 which, among other data sets, can also be viewed on Nick Stokes’ site.

To support your assertion you are taking one dataset and ignoring every single other dataset. If that is not cherry picking, then what is?

BTW, your link supports the notion that 2016 is still on track to be the hottest on record by virtue of how hot it was the first 6 months of the year.
 
To support your assertion you are taking one dataset and ignoring every single other dataset. If that is not cherry picking, then what is?

BTW, your link supports the notion that 2016 is still on track to be the hottest on record by virtue of how hot it was the first 6 months of the year.

The link uses two: RSS and UAH; satellites are more accurate.

Cooling trend is accelerating through the year. We shall see.
 
Seems the actual scientists disagree with you: UN: 2016 on track to be hottest year on record

Then again, they don't cherry pick their datasets.

View attachment 67205474
There is something odd about NOAA's graph. the month to month swing in any given year is much greater
than the relative flat lines shown.
GISS 2014 has a .4 C swing between the month to month.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(Feb at .5 C and Sept at .9 C)
Also the Data sets in wood for trees disagrees quite a bit.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
We should also really question why for example the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, are not the same number,
because as it looks now, most of the warming is on New Years Eve.
 
Satellites are not more accurate. They don't even directly measure temperature and all satellite measurements are based upon models and are subject to more adjustments than surface measurements.

How accurate are satellite measured temperatures of the troposphere? - Climate Change Weather Blog
I would like to ask you an honest question.
Do you think the IPCC predictions are for the surface temperature, or the surface-troposphere system?
As to the accuracy of measuring temperature from satellites, the satellites seem to track closer to the
weather balloon readings than the surface temperatures.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/balloon_temp.gif
 
Satellites are not more accurate. They don't even directly measure temperature and all satellite measurements are based upon models and are subject to more adjustments than surface measurements.

How accurate are satellite measured temperatures of the troposphere? - Climate Change Weather Blog

[h=3]Why Satellite Temperature Data is more Accurate. - The Inconvenient ...[/h]theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/why-satellite-temperature-data-is-more-accurate/



Oct 12, 2010 - This isn't anomaly data though which is why the range of temperatures is so great.Satellite measurement of temperature is complicated, but according to NASA they are accurate to within 0.03 °C. Combined with the superior coverage the satellite's provide, there is no question thatsatellite data is better.



[h=3]Why Satellites are Better at Measuring Global Temperature[/h]theinconvenientskeptic.com/.../why-satellites-are-better-at-measuring-global-temperat...



Mar 29, 2011 - Detecting the Global Warming Temperature Signal Proving the ... and why I feel that thesatellite method is more accurate and responsive at ...


 
I would like to ask you an honest question.
Do you think the IPCC predictions are for the surface temperature, or the surface-troposphere system?
As to the accuracy of measuring temperature from satellites, the satellites seem to track closer to the
weather balloon readings than the surface temperatures.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/balloon_temp.gif

The IPCC doesn't make surface temperature predictions, it makes surface temperature projections. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The problem with using satellites alone are numerous, but one of the main issues is orbital variation and decay. A satellite might be measuring a temp at 1:00 PM one year and 5 years later be measuring the same temperature at the same place at 5:00 PM.
 
[h=3]Why Satellite Temperature Data is more Accurate. - The Inconvenient ...[/h]theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/why-satellite-temperature-data-is-more-accurate/



Oct 12, 2010 - This isn't anomaly data though which is why the range of temperatures is so great.Satellite measurement of temperature is complicated, but according to NASA they are accurate to within 0.03 °C. Combined with the superior coverage the satellite's provide, there is no question thatsatellite data is better.



[h=3]Why Satellites are Better at Measuring Global Temperature[/h]theinconvenientskeptic.com/.../why-satellites-are-better-at-measuring-global-temperat...



Mar 29, 2011 - Detecting the Global Warming Temperature Signal Proving the ... and why I feel that thesatellite method is more accurate and responsive at ...



Those are blog posts. It doesn't change the fact that satellites do not measure the entire earth's temperature either, nor do they have better over all coverage than than surface measurements, and the fact they don't even measure surface temperatures but rather troposphere temps and the surface temps are modeled based on those measurements.
 
AGW advocates don't like them because they're not subject to convenient "adjustments."

Satellites are adjusted more than surface measurements. Moreover, you sound like a nut when you argue that as if there is some huge conspiracy involving virtually the entire scientific community.

SSUES

Our MSU/AMSU products use data from 14 different satellites. The data need to be intercalibrated before being merged together. This is a complex process, as shown in the flow chart below.

First, adjustments are made for changes in local measurement time (diurnal adjustment) and Earth incidence angle.
Then, intercalibration is performed by comparing measurements from co-orbiting satellites, yielding a set of “merging parameters”.
Uncertainty that arises earlier in the process (e.g. from the adjustments for local measurement time) can cause uncertainty in the merging parameters, which adds to the uncertainty in the final results.

Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems
 
The IPCC doesn't make surface temperature predictions, it makes surface temperature projections. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The problem with using satellites alone are numerous, but one of the main issues is orbital variation and decay. A satellite might be measuring a temp at 1:00 PM one year and 5 years later be measuring the same temperature at the same place at 5:00 PM.
Predictions and projections, the difference is semantic, what matters is the basis of the question,
Do you think the IPCC projections are for the surface temperatures, or for the surface-troposphere system?
For all their inaccuracies satellites seem to match the weather balloons much closer than the ground stations.
 
Predictions and projections, the difference is semantic, what matters is the basis of the question,
Do you think the IPCC projections are for the surface temperatures, or for the surface-troposphere system?
For all their inaccuracies satellites seem to match the weather balloons much closer than the ground stations.

Predictions and projections are not the same thing at all. For example, I doubt the CFO for the company you work does predictions of future financial performance, they do projections.

‘Prediction’ or ‘projection’? The nomenclature of climate science. | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu

As to weather balloons and satellites, a surface station is measuring temperatures at the surface. A weather balloon is measuring temperatures at the upper troposphere. Satellite data is used to model temperature estimates for the troposphere. It stands to reason a satellite measurement would more closely match a weather balloon measurement than a surface measurement would.
 
Predictions and projections are not the same thing at all. For example, I doubt the CFO for the company you work does predictions of future financial performance, they do projections.

‘Prediction’ or ‘projection’? The nomenclature of climate science. | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu

As to weather balloons and satellites, a surface station is measuring temperatures at the surface. A weather balloon is measuring temperatures at the upper troposphere. Satellite data is used to model temperature estimates for the troposphere. It stands to reason a satellite measurement would more closely match a weather balloon measurement than a surface measurement would.
Dancing around the question is not an answer,
Do you think the IPCC projections are for the surface temperatures, or for the surface-troposphere system?
 
Dancing around the question is not an answer,
Do you think the IPCC projections are for the surface temperatures, or for the surface-troposphere system?

Projections are for surface warming.

figure-spm-5.jpeg


Decadal projections are for global atmospheric temperatures. These are usually 10 year projections with 30 year resolutions. The models between projections which are based on different emissions scenarios and decadal projections are apples and oranges.
 
Projections are for surface warming.

figure-spm-5.jpeg


Decadal projections are for global atmospheric temperatures. These are usually 10 year projections with 30 year resolutions. The models between projections which are based on different emissions scenarios and decadal projections are apples and oranges.
Speaking of apples and oranges the IPCC projects the temperature of the surface-troposphere system
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm
The rapid thermal re-equilibration of the stratosphere leads to an alteration of the radiative imbalance imposed on the surface-troposphere system (WMO, 1992), thereby yielding an adjusted forcing (SAR). The surface and troposphere, operating in a slow response mode, are still in a process of adjustment while the stratosphere has already reached its new equilibrium state.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2
concentration would be 4 Wm−2
. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the
surface-troposphere system
would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.
 
Those are blog posts. It doesn't change the fact that satellites do not measure the entire earth's temperature either, nor do they have better over all coverage than than surface measurements, and the fact they don't even measure surface temperatures but rather troposphere temps and the surface temps are modeled based on those measurements.

Your #28 linked a blog post.
 
Being that almost every model is on about a 30 year resolution, I don't know how one could draw such conclusions yet. Moreover, 2015 was the warmest year on record and 2016 is on track to top it.

When do you think you will be able to draw any conclusions at all?

What has to happen for you to think that AGW is not going to cause any significant trouble?

If you have no answer for this then you are being utterly unscientific about it.
 
There is something odd about NOAA's graph. the month to month swing in any given year is much greater
than the relative flat lines shown.
GISS 2014 has a .4 C swing between the month to month.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(Feb at .5 C and Sept at .9 C)
Also the Data sets in wood for trees disagrees quite a bit.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
We should also really question why for example the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, are not the same number,
because as it looks now, most of the warming is on New Years Eve.

I guess it has to be so annoying that deniers will simply look at the graph and point out the bleeding obvious wrongness of it. There should be a law against such things...
 
Speaking of apples and oranges the IPCC projects the temperature of the surface-troposphere system
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

Neither of those citations are model projections, well not completely that is. The first one deals with the concept of radiative forcing, the second is thermal physics example.

You will find the actual projections in Chapter 12 of the latest assessment. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

You will find there projections on surface warming, general atmospheric warming, ocean warming, precipitation changes and so on.
 
When do you think you will be able to draw any conclusions at all?

What has to happen for you to think that AGW is not going to cause any significant trouble?

If you have no answer for this then you are being utterly unscientific about it.

I work in IT as its a science field, we do projections as well. For example, if model IOPs per second at 5 minute averages, then my resolution is 5 minutes. Thus you cannot break that projection into 30 second chunks and expect it to be accurate. If a model generates a projection at a 30 year resolution, then we have to wait 30 years to see whether its accurate or not.
 
Stop whining. I don't have a "story" in this case and you need to stop dodging the data. This particular paper concludes land use is more important than has been recognized. My guess is the authors were fully aware of previous work. If you want to claim they were not then you risk looking both silly and desperate.

I smell rent seekers, and I don't mean rent going to the land owners.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
When do you think you will be able to draw any conclusions at all?

What has to happen for you to think that AGW is not going to cause any significant trouble?

If you have no answer for this then you are being utterly unscientific about it.

I work in IT as its a science field, we do projections as well. For example, if model IOPs per second at 5 minute averages, then my resolution is 5 minutes. Thus you cannot break that projection into 30 second chunks and expect it to be accurate. If a model generates a projection at a 30 year resolution, then we have to wait 30 years to see whether its accurate or not.

So I ask it again. See above.[2]
 
Neither of those citations are model projections, well not completely that is. The first one deals with the concept of radiative forcing, the second is thermal physics example.

You will find the actual projections in Chapter 12 of the latest assessment. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

You will find there projections on surface warming, general atmospheric warming, ocean warming, precipitation changes and so on.
Actually the second paper is Baede, et al 2001, and is cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive basis in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf
1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science
Here, some of the key concepts in climate science
are briefly described; many of these were summarized
more comprehensively in earlier IPCC assessments (Baed
e et al., 2001). We only focus on several of them to
facilitate discussions in this assessment.
So the paper that IPCC AR5 cites as the more comprehensive description of the
key concepts of climate science, states that the projected temperature increase
would be in the surface-troposphere system.
There are good reasons why they do not project actual surface temperatures,
there are just too many variables which induce noise.
 
Actually the second paper is Baede, et al 2001, and is cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive basis in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf

So the paper that IPCC AR5 cites as the more comprehensive description of the
key concepts of climate science, states that the projected temperature increase
would be in the surface-troposphere system.
There are good reasons why they do not project actual surface temperatures,
there are just too many variables which induce noise.

See figures 12.5 and 12.9, 12.10, 12.11 on https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

All of those multi-model are Surface Air Temperature Projections. You will find troposphere projections at figure 12.12.

So yes they did indeed project surface air temperatures.
 
Back
Top Bottom