• 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 Next Five Years Will be Hot

Jack Hays said:
UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2018_v6-550x317.jpg
Click to expand...
You still clutch to that one dataset?

That is only the lower atmosphere (up to 8k), and it only starts in 1979 (more on that in a bit). It doesn't include any surface or ocean temperatures. It doesn't include the upper atmosphere. It doesn't even include the upper troposphere. While the data is useful in a larger context, it certainly is not a sole authoritative measure of global temperatures. Using it that way is a classic case of cherry-picking -- you are deliberately picking data that suits your purposes.

Of course, it doesn't do that very well anyway. Since you missed it, that dataset still shows an upward trend:

UAH Lower Troposphere Anomalies, 1980-2010 Baseline.jpg


Even if you pick a more recent time period, it still shows an upward trend:

Anomaly ºC, 1980-2010 Baseline.jpg


We can also show decadal averages, to further illustrate the trajectory:

10 Yr Avg Anomaly, 1980-2010 Reference.jpg


Meaning you have to do even MORE cherry-picking to proclaim there is any trend other than "up." You would have to pick 2016 to present, and ignore how 2016 was an El Nino year and the hottest on record, and ignore that 2017 was the 2nd or 3rd hottest non-El Nino year on record. Needless to say, this is not legitimate; there are numerous periods where temperatures fell, and then increased by more than they fell; then fell again, then increased more than they fell again... That happened 9 times since 1979, and the trend is still up. According to UAH, the trend is an increase of 0.13ºC per decade.

Another illegitimate method you've used in the past is to deliberately select the 2nd hottest year in this dataset as your starting point. Pass.

Another problem with using UAH exclusively? As already mentioned, satellite data starts in 1979, which means that the anomalies can only go back as early as 1979. Other temperature measures use different baselines -- 1900-2000, or 1950-2000. Either way, it's cutting out decades of warming, and makes the amount of warming look smaller than it actually is.

Last but not least: Temperature projections refer to... wait for it... surface temperatures. Comparing UAH LTT measurements to SST projections is at best inappropriate. What you're doing in this thread is equivalent to saying "The CBO predicted US GDP growth of 2.5% in Q1, however Canada's GDP fell by 0.2%, therefore the CBO is wrong." Your claim just doesn't add up, as your entire reason to mention UAH in this context is invalid.
 
Visbek said:
You still clutch to that one dataset?

That is only the lower atmosphere (up to 8k), and it only starts in 1979 (more on that in a bit). It doesn't include any surface or ocean temperatures. It doesn't include the upper atmosphere. It doesn't even include the upper troposphere. While the data is useful in a larger context, it certainly is not a sole authoritative measure of global temperatures. Using it that way is a classic case of cherry-picking -- you are deliberately picking data that suits your purposes.

Of course, it doesn't do that very well anyway. Since you missed it, that dataset still shows an upward trend:

View attachment 67240408


Even if you pick a more recent time period, it still shows an upward trend:

View attachment 67240409


We can also show decadal averages, to further illustrate the trajectory:

View attachment 67240410


Meaning you have to do even MORE cherry-picking to proclaim there is any trend other than "up." You would have to pick 2016 to present, and ignore how 2016 was an El Nino year and the hottest on record, and ignore that 2017 was the 2nd or 3rd hottest non-El Nino year on record. Needless to say, this is not legitimate; there are numerous periods where temperatures fell, and then increased by more than they fell; then fell again, then increased more than they fell again... That happened 9 times since 1979, and the trend is still up. According to UAH, the trend is an increase of 0.13ºC per decade.

Another illegitimate method you've used in the past is to deliberately select the 2nd hottest year in this dataset as your starting point. Pass.

Another problem with using UAH exclusively? As already mentioned, satellite data starts in 1979, which means that the anomalies can only go back as early as 1979. Other temperature measures use different baselines -- 1900-2000, or 1950-2000. Either way, it's cutting out decades of warming, and makes the amount of warming look smaller than it actually is.

Last but not least: Temperature projections refer to... wait for it... surface temperatures. Comparing UAH LTT measurements to SST projections is at best inappropriate. What you're doing in this thread is equivalent to saying "The CBO predicted US GDP growth of 2.5% in Q1, however Canada's GDP fell by 0.2%, therefore the CBO is wrong." Your claim just doesn't add up, as your entire reason to mention UAH in this context is invalid.
Click to expand...

1. Lower troposphere comes down to the surface.
2. Climate models predict the troposphere should warm more than the surface.

Ergo, your complaint is without merit.

As I have explained in some detail elsewhere, it is not merely the ongoing temperature drop since 2016 on which I hang my hat. It is the Sun's approach to minimum that makes the critical difference. A lengthy period of cooling is before us.
 
Visbek said:
Using it that way is a classic case of cherry-picking -- you are deliberately picking data that suits your purposes.
Click to expand...

He's a fake. You know it, he knows it. Anyone that hangs around in this sub-forum for a while knows it.

His goal is to create the appearance of controversy, and he's rather professional about it.

Since the target here is the larger audience, intellectual responses give him what he wants...

He's a clown, laugh at him.
 
late said:
He's a fake. You know it, he knows it. Anyone that hangs around in this sub-forum for a while knows it.

His goal is to create the appearance of controversy, and he's rather professional about it.

Since the target here is the larger audience, intellectual responses give him what he wants...

He's a clown, laugh at him.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem is the refuge of those who have lost the substantive debate.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. Lower troposphere comes down to the surface.
2. Climate models predict the troposphere should warm more than the surface.

Ergo, your complaint is without merit.

As I have explained in some detail elsewhere, it is not merely the ongoing temperature drop since 2016 on which I hang my hat. It is the Sun's approach to minimum that makes the critical difference. A lengthy period of cooling is before us.
Click to expand...

It's quite likely that the UAH graph is still wrong. It has, after all been revised extensively as error after error has been discovered in the data processing techniques used to produce it.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I'll not debate the point. There are quibbles about every dataset. I don't think those attacks hurt the credibility of anyone except the accusers.
Click to expand...

More than quibbles, in the case of the UAH dataset. The indicated trend has varied wildly with each version of UAH as more errors are corrected. Some versions even indicated a falling rather than a rising trend. It's certainly not the most robust of datasets!
 
Surface Detail said:
More than quibbles, in the case of the UAH dataset. The indicated trend has varied wildly with each version of UAH as more errors are corrected. Some versions even indicated a falling rather than a rising trend. It's certainly not the most robust of datasets!
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it is indeed the most robust. Quibbles about datasets are little better (if at all) than conspiracy theories. No thanks.
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, I think it is indeed the most robust. Quibbles about datasets are little better (if at all) than conspiracy theories. No thanks.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of public record that the UAH dataset has changed substantially. Why do you think it's on Version 6.0? While the surface measurements have also been corrected over time, they have changed nowhere near as much as the UAH dataset.
 
Surface Detail said:
It is a matter of public record that the UAH dataset has changed substantially. Why do you think it's on Version 6.0? While the surface measurements have also been corrected over time, they have changed nowhere near as much as the UAH dataset.
Click to expand...

The UAH dataset is on version 6.0 because of relentless efforts to achieve and sustain accuracy.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. Lower troposphere comes down to the surface.
2. Climate models predict the troposphere should warm more than the surface.

Ergo, your complaint is without merit.
Click to expand...

Wait..

Weren’t you just dismissing stuff in another thread because it was based on models?

Now models are apparently accurate and good.

That’ll change soon.
 
calamity said:
Buckle up, crank up the A/C and prepare for a wild ride. We are about to get a bad taste of our own medicine.



Translation: Even though we were in a cold spell, it was still hot as hell. Now, we are entering a warm spell. So, it will be even hotter.
Click to expand...

Dang to heck those GW denier Chinese polluters and rogue volcanoes for creating such enormous problems for climate scientist quacks trying to get rich and comfortable off of government largesse.
 
Jack Hays said:
The UAH dataset is on version 6.0 because of relentless efforts to achieve and sustain accuracy.
Click to expand...

That may still have some way to go. The last update, from Version 5.6 to Version 6.0, substantially reduced the lower troposphere temperature trend from +0.140 C/decade to +0.114 C/decade. This reflects the difficulties involved in attempting to derive temperature from satellite measurements of thermal microwave emission. See Roy Spencer's UAH website page on the topic for more details:

Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released
 
Threegoofs said:
Wait..

Weren’t you just dismissing stuff in another thread because it was based on models?

Now models are apparently accurate and good.

That’ll change soon.
Click to expand...

No. Climate models are important to the poster who was criticizing the UAH dataset. The models' prediction is important to that poster, not to me. Nice try, but you'll have to pay closer attention.
 
Surface Detail said:
That may still have some way to go. The last update, from Version 5.6 to Version 6.0, substantially reduced the lower troposphere temperature trend from +0.140 C/decade to +0.114 C/decade. This reflects the difficulties involved in attempting to derive temperature from satellite measurements of thermal microwave emission. See Roy Spencer's UAH website page on the topic for more details:

Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released
Click to expand...

I've already posted that myself.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ad hominem is the refuge of those who have lost the substantive debate.
Click to expand...

Science isn't a debating club, and this isn't a forum for climatologists. Actually, the lack of substantive discussion gets a bit depressing at times.

Not that you do substantive.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. Climate models are important to the poster who was criticizing the UAH dataset. The models' prediction is important to that poster, not to me. Nice try, but you'll have to pay closer attention.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you’re justifying the use of that dataset’s reliance upon models but you don’t even believe it yourself.
 
Threegoofs said:
So, in other words, you’re justifying the use of that dataset’s reliance upon models but you don’t even believe it yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in it at all, but my interlocutor did. I have no problem using it for a challenge in that circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom