• 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!

Berkeley Earth- second warmest year

Threegoofs said:
He’s a...theologian!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Calvin_Beisner


Classic.

Remember this when the deniers start saying that belief in AGW is just a religion.
Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:
Data are meaningless if you don't have the ability to interpret them. Would you have a bricklayer interpret your X-ray?
Click to expand...

Surface Detail said:
Well there go any pretensions that WUWT has anything to do with science :lamo
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
He’s associated with Roy Spencer’s Cornwall Alliance. Creationists who believe Jesus will protect us do therefore AGW can’t exist.
Click to expand...

Then I'm sure you two scientists will have no trouble refuting his claims. Please proceed.
 
Jack Hays said:
Then I'm sure you two scientists will have no trouble refuting his claims. Please proceed.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we wouldn't. But I don't see why we should go to the trouble of refuting your stream of links to WUWT nonsense unless you are also willing to put a bit of effort in. Perhaps you could start by summarising the rationale behind his key points.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
I'm sure we wouldn't. But I don't see why we should go to the trouble of refuting your stream of links to WUWT nonsense unless you are also willing to put a bit of effort in. Perhaps you could start by summarising the rationale behind his key points.
Click to expand...

". . . Another thing: according to Christy (personal communication through Spencer), the margin of error for the estimates of annual global average temperature for the satellite estimates is 0.1˚C.
With that in mind, the difference between any given year and the next-warmest in the satellite record exceeded the margin of error in only one case: 1998 (second-warmest in the record) was 0.107˚C warmer than 2017 (third-warmest).
The difference between 2016 (the warmest year) and 1998 was only 0.028˚C, or about three-tenths of the margin of error. In other words, we don’t know whether 2016 or 1998 was warmer. The fourth- and fifth-warmest years (2010 and 2015) are also within the margin of error from each other.
One has to go from the sixth-warmest year (2002) to the twelfth-warmest (2001) to get a gap that exceeds the margin of error again; i.e., we don’t know which of 2002, 2005, 2003, 2014, 2007, 2013, or 2001 was actually the sixth—or the twelfth—warmest year, or anything in between.
All that makes it pretty clear that global temperature has plateaued over the last twenty years. We simply don’t know whether “Earth’s long-term warming trend” stopped in 1998, will resume sometime, or will reverse and turn into a cooling trend.
This isn’t even to broach the question of what caused the warming from 1880 the present—or, rather, as shown in this graph by NOAA of global land and ocean surface temperature anomalies (which, unlike satellite data, are subject to great doubt because of spatial distribution, measuring station dropouts, homogenization methods, and other problems), the cooling from about 1880–1910, the warming from about 1910–1945, the cooling from about 1945–1975, the warming from about 1975–1998, and the plateau from about 1998–2015. (We do have a pretty good idea what caused the warming of 2015–2016 and into 2017: an extraordinarily strong El Niño, similar to the one that made 1998 so warm.) . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . Another thing: according to Christy (personal communication through Spencer), the margin of error for the estimates of annual global average temperature for the satellite estimates is 0.1˚C.
With that in mind, the difference between any given year and the next-warmest in the satellite record exceeded the margin of error in only one case: 1998 (second-warmest in the record) was 0.107˚C warmer than 2017 (third-warmest).
The difference between 2016 (the warmest year) and 1998 was only 0.028˚C, or about three-tenths of the margin of error. In other words, we don’t know whether 2016 or 1998 was warmer. The fourth- and fifth-warmest years (2010 and 2015) are also within the margin of error from each other.
One has to go from the sixth-warmest year (2002) to the twelfth-warmest (2001) to get a gap that exceeds the margin of error again; i.e., we don’t know which of 2002, 2005, 2003, 2014, 2007, 2013, or 2001 was actually the sixth—or the twelfth—warmest year, or anything in between.
All that makes it pretty clear that global temperature has plateaued over the last twenty years. We simply don’t know whether “Earth’s long-term warming trend” stopped in 1998, will resume sometime, or will reverse and turn into a cooling trend.
This isn’t even to broach the question of what caused the warming from 1880 the present—or, rather, as shown in this graph by NOAA of global land and ocean surface temperature anomalies (which, unlike satellite data, are subject to great doubt because of spatial distribution, measuring station dropouts, homogenization methods, and other problems), the cooling from about 1880–1910, the warming from about 1910–1945, the cooling from about 1945–1975, the warming from about 1975–1998, and the plateau from about 1998–2015. (We do have a pretty good idea what caused the warming of 2015–2016 and into 2017: an extraordinarily strong El Niño, similar to the one that made 1998 so warm.) . . . "
Click to expand...

That's quoting, not summarising. Quoted gibberish makes no more sense than linked gibberish. If you want a reply, then please summarise in your own words the rationale behind any of the points he is making.
 
Surface Detail said:
That's quoting, not summarising. Quoted gibberish makes no more sense than linked gibberish. If you want a reply, then please summarise in your own words the rationale behind any of the points he is making.
Click to expand...

He's clear enough, and I don't take orders from you. Reply and attempt to refute his claim, or retreat and hide, I really don't care. I'm tired of your whining.
 
Jack Hays said:
He's clear enough, and I don't take orders from you. Reply and attempt to refute his claim, or retreat and hide, I really don't care. I'm tired of your whining.
Click to expand...

And I'm sick of you spamming this board with links to WUWT drivel. His entire argument that large daily variations in temperature mean that we can ignore small global increases is just utter nonsense. Why do you keep posting this junk? You are so gullible!
 
Surface Detail said:
And I'm sick of you spamming this board with links to WUWT drivel. His entire argument that large daily variations in temperature mean that we can ignore small global increases is just utter nonsense. Why do you keep posting this junk? You are so gullible!
Click to expand...

I see you have not taken the time to actually read the article. I suppose that which you cannot refute you will simply ignore. Life as an ostrich, I suppose.
 
Jack Hays said:
I see you have not taken the time to actually read the article. I suppose that which you cannot refute you will simply ignore. Life as an ostrich, I suppose.
Click to expand...

From the article:

"What should immediately jump out at you is that the smallest low-to-high spread for a single day, about 2˚F (1.11˚C) is about one-fourth larger, and the average low-to-high spread for a single day (~5.6˚C to ~8.3˚C) is about 6 to 10 times larger, than the total spread between the warmest and coolest years for the globe (0.871˚C).

Oh, and what about that red line in Lindzen’s graph? Its thickness depicts the total increase in global average temperature over the past 175 years—roughly equal to the smallest one-day temperature differential in Boston from February 9–March 11, 2013, about one-fifth to one-eighth of the average one-day differential, and about one twenty-fifth of the largest.

Yet Bostonians survive."

It looks like it was you who couldn't even be bothered to read the junk article you posted!
 
Surface Detail said:
From the article:

"What should immediately jump out at you is that the smallest low-to-high spread for a single day, about 2˚F (1.11˚C) is about one-fourth larger, and the average low-to-high spread for a single day (~5.6˚C to ~8.3˚C) is about 6 to 10 times larger, than the total spread between the warmest and coolest years for the globe (0.871˚C).

Oh, and what about that red line in Lindzen’s graph? Its thickness depicts the total increase in global average temperature over the past 175 years—roughly equal to the smallest one-day temperature differential in Boston from February 9–March 11, 2013, about one-fifth to one-eighth of the average one-day differential, and about one twenty-fifth of the largest.

Yet Bostonians survive."

It looks like it was you who couldn't even be bothered to read the junk article you posted!
Click to expand...

What you have quoted is a minor discussion of a minor point. The fact that all the print is the same size does not mean all the points are equally important.
 
Jack Hays said:
What you have quoted is a minor discussion of a minor point. The fact that all the print is the same size does not mean all the points are equally important.
Click to expand...

Well, which bit of the article do you consider not to be nonsense? :roll:
 
Surface Detail said:
Well, which bit of the article do you consider not to be nonsense? :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't think any of it is nonsense, but I think the most interesting passages are the one I quoted in #178, and the following.

. . . But does the fact that, according to the UAH satellite data, 16 out of the 20 warmest years in the satellite record (which, remember, goes back only to 1979) have occurred in the last 17 years? Doesn’t that show that, as NOAA put it, “Earth’s long-term warming trend continues”?
Not at all. Look again at the red line in the UAH graph. It’s clear that there has been no significant warming trend since 1998. As Lindzen put it:
The emphasis on “warmest years on record” appears to have been a response to the observation that the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 appeared to have ceased and temperatures have remained almost constant since 1998. Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased. . . .
​
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think any of it is nonsense, but I think the most interesting passages are the one I quoted in #178, and the following.

. . . But does the fact that, according to the UAH satellite data, 16 out of the 20 warmest years in the satellite record (which, remember, goes back only to 1979) have occurred in the last 17 years? Doesn’t that show that, as NOAA put it, “Earth’s long-term warming trend continues”?
Not at all. Look again at the red line in the UAH graph. It’s clear that there has been no significant warming trend since 1998. As Lindzen put it:
The emphasis on “warmest years on record” appears to have been a response to the observation that the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 appeared to have ceased and temperatures have remained almost constant since 1998. Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased. . . .
​
Click to expand...

It's not interesting at all. It's just the usual denier cherry-picking of the 1998 El Nino to start their graphs. And even then, plotting a least squares line shows that there is still a significant increase in temperature, even in the atmospheric data. Of course, the increase is much clearer in the surface data.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's not interesting at all. It's just the usual denier cherry-picking of the 1998 El Nino to start their graphs. And even then, plotting a least squares line shows that there is still a significant increase in temperature, even in the atmospheric data. Of course, the increase is much clearer in the surface data.
Click to expand...


Falsehood.
 
Climate data
[h=1]The planet continues to cool after an El Niño induced string of warm years[/h]From Dr. Roy Spencer: UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C Coolest tropics since June, 2012 at -0.12 deg. C. The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2018 was +0.26 deg. C, down from the December, 2017 value of +0.41 deg. C: The global, hemispheric, and tropical…
 

[h=1]Overheated claims on global temperature records[/h]Foreword by Paul Dreissen Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet. Virtually never do these scary press releases mention that the supposed change…
Continue reading →
 
From "Annals of the Adjustocene:"

Climate News
[h=1]NOAA caught “cooking the books” again, this time by erasing a record cold snap[/h]Via James Delingpole at Breitbart: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history. If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was…
 
Jack Hays said:
From "Annals of the Adjustocene:"

Climate News
[h=1]NOAA caught “cooking the books” again, this time by erasing a record cold snap[/h]Via James Delingpole at Breitbart: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history. If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was…
Click to expand...

Is anyone surprised?

I have seen the official records for where I live altered, and spoke of it before.
 
Jack Hays said:
From "Annals of the Adjustocene:"

Climate News
[h=1]NOAA caught “cooking the books” again, this time by erasing a record cold snap[/h]Via James Delingpole at Breitbart: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history. If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was…
Click to expand...

James Delingpole? Seriously? You really are scraping the barrel now.
 
Surface Detail said:
James Delingpole? Seriously? You really are scraping the barrel now.
Click to expand...

Delingpole found the story.

That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets.
He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14, which he describes here
Full story here.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Is anyone surprised?

I have seen the official records for where I live altered, and spoke of it before.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Gets all upset when Skeptical Science is mentioned, but loves a Delingpole (credentials: degree in English Lit!) article from Breitbart.

What a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom