• 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!

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest "years on record"

PoS said:
Shoot the messenger fallacy.


Appeal to authority fallacy. My, you are on a roll here.

Just to humor you, who exactly has the expertise to refute the NYT? The Washington Post?


First you claim he doesnt have the expertise, now you claim to know more about science than he does.

You've made textbook examples of every logical fallacy known to man. Congrats.
Click to expand...


Thank you for mentioning the New York Times article, because it made me interested in reading the article in its entirety.

‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible. - The New York Times

After reading the article I think I say that this OP is built upon a logical fallacy.

Dr. Happer and your other source is only addressing one point from the NYT article in question and are actually misrepresenting the actual Focus of the article itself. Dr. Happer seems to be selectively choosing to refute only the claim that the 6 hottest years on record all occurred after 2010 and refuting it on the basis of claiming that the changes in temperature was a degree or less compared to statistical error. The main focus of the NYT article was not about global temperatures, it was addressing the claims made about “global greening”.

Elliott Campbell, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his colleagues last year published a study that put a number to it. Their conclusion: plants are now converting 31 percent more carbon dioxide into organic matter than they were before the Industrial Revolution.

Climate change denialists were quick to jump on Dr. Campbell’s research as proof that increased carbon dioxide is making the world a better place.

“So-called carbon pollution has done much more to expand and invigorate the planet’s greenery than all the climate policies of all the world’s governments combined,” the Competitive Enterprise Institute declared shortly after the study came out.
Click to expand...

“The best messages are positive: CO2 increases crop yields, the earth is greening,” wrote Joseph Bast, the chief executive officer of the Heartland Institute, in an October 2017 email obtained by EE News.

In June, Mr. Bast co-authored an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal in which he cited Dr. Campbell’s work as evidence of the benefits of fossil fuels. Our unleashing of carbon dioxide contributes “to the greening of the Earth,” he said.
Click to expand...


Here’s the thing: Dr. Campbell, the Chief scientist behind the study about global greening, said that the increase in co2 levels is nothing to celebrate about.

When scientists take into account both extra photosynthesis and respiration, they estimate that plants remove a quarter of the carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere.

“That’s on par with what China emits,” said Dr. Campbell. “And China is the biggest global polluter.”
Even more remarkably, the plants have been scrubbing the same fraction of carbon dioxide out of the air even as our emissions explode.
Click to expand...


Dr. Happer and your other source have committed two logical fallacies: they cherrypicked the part of the NYT article they wanted to refute and then proceeded to use that cherrypicked part of the article as a straw man for them to refute the article without addressing the actual focus of the article.
 
longview said:
You do realize that with the current average, to get an annual average of 1.1 C from the GISS,
would require every month left int he year to be 1.04 C,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
and frankly, that does not look like even Gavin can pull that rabbit out of the hat.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is unlikely at all, considering that June 2019 was 0.1 deg C above normal. And it certainly won't require a magic trick by Gavin Schmidt. If the 0.1 per month trend continues, the annual temperature anomaly will be above 1.1 deg C. At the very least, it will be very close to 1.1 deg C.

June 2019 was the hottest ever recorded on Earth: European satellite agency - National | Globalnews.ca

According to the data, it was about 0.1 C higher than that of the previous warmest June in 2016...
 
Media_Truth said:
I don't think this is unlikely at all, considering that June 2019 was 0.1 deg C above normal. And it certainly won't require a magic trick by Gavin Schmidt. If the 0.1 per month trend continues, the annual temperature anomaly will be above 1.1 deg C. At the very least, it will be very close to 1.1 deg C.

June 2019 was the hottest ever recorded on Earth: European satellite agency - National | Globalnews.ca

According to the data, it was about 0.1 C higher than that of the previous warmest June in 2016...
Click to expand...

June's number was .93 way below the monthly average 1.04 to get your cited average of 1.1 C
Only during strong El Nino periods have we broken 1.00 for several months in a row.
 
longview said:
June's number was .93 way below the monthly average 1.04 to get your cited average of 1.1 C
Only during strong El Nino periods have we broken 1.00 for several months in a row.
Click to expand...

Quibbling and splitting hairs. It's a very strong likelihood that 2019 will be the second warmest year ever. We shall eventually see the exact numbers.
 
Media_Truth said:
Quibbling and splitting hairs. It's a very strong likelihood that 2019 will be the second warmest year ever. We shall eventually see the exact numbers.
Click to expand...
Who is splitting hairs, you said 2019 would be 1.1 C, so far the hottest year is 2016 at 1.02 C,
now you are saying that 2019 will likely be the second warmest year, (which means less than 1.02 C).
I am saying that from what we have recorded to June, getting to 1.1C for 2019, is nearly impossible.
 
PoS said:
As the OP has stated, we have had no real accurate global temp readings until satellites went up in orbit at around the late 70's, so I'll take those pre-industrial temp recordings with a sack of salt.
Click to expand...

NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert

Short Excerpt:

Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?

Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much.

Surface station datasets full of gigantic voids

When we look at NASA GISS’s site here, we can see how many surface stations have data going back to earlier years. Today we see that 2089 stations are at work in Version 3 unadjusted data.

Yet, when we go back 100 years (to 1919), we see only 997 of these surface stations have Version 3 unadjusted data that is complete:
 
Sunsettommy said:
NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert

Short Excerpt:

Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?

Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much.

Surface station datasets full of gigantic voids

When we look at NASA GISS’s site here, we can see how many surface stations have data going back to earlier years. Today we see that 2089 stations are at work in Version 3 unadjusted data.

Yet, when we go back 100 years (to 1919), we see only 997 of these surface stations have Version 3 unadjusted data that is complete:
Click to expand...

Already debunked...
 
[h=2]NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert[/h]By P Gosselin on 16. July 2019
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?
Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much. . . . .

“This is nothing new,” says Japanese climate expert Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in an email to NTZ. “We simply did not have many observing stations in the 1800s and early 1900s. They can produce ‘new data sets’ and claim that they have ‘better data sets’ all day long, but they just can’t make any meaningful difference for periods up to 1980.”
“Not real data”
“These datasets are products of simulation models and data assimilation software, not real data,” Dr. Nakamura added. “This problem has been present in data products produced by all institutions from the beginning – NASA, NOAA, NCEP, ECMWF, UMet, etc.”
“Spatial bias before 1980 cannot be dealt with”
But the data shortcomings get even worse. Dr. Nakamura wrote: “A far more serious issue with calculating ‘the global mean surface temperature trend’ is the acute spatial bias in the observation stations. There is nothing they can do about this either. No matter what they do with the simulation models and data assimilation programs, this spatial bias before 1980 cannot be dealt with in any meaningful way. Just look at the locations of the observation stations used in GISS products for various years on their page.”
Dr. Nakamura commented earlier here at NTZ: “The global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”
So how can we be sure about the globe’s temperatures, and thus it’s trends before 1980? You can’t. The real data just aren’t there.
 
We should pretend the numbers don’t say what they say? We have records. We have numbers. Those were the biggest numbers.

“But other bigger numbers might have existed at other times” ok. So?
 
Deuce said:
We should pretend the numbers don’t say what they say? We have records. We have numbers. Those were the biggest numbers.

“But other bigger numbers might have existed at other times” ok. So?
Click to expand...

“These datasets are products of simulation models and data assimilation software, not real data,” Dr. Nakamura added. “This problem has been present in data products produced by all institutions from the beginning – NASA, NOAA, NCEP, ECMWF, UMet, etc.”
 
Ah, yes, Dr Happer...

Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that "Some small fraction of the 1 °C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes."[15] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are "simply not true" and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[16] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[17] A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[18]

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[19] It was described by Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.[20]

In 2014, Happer said that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler."[21][22][23]

In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, but when it was urged upon him, he asked that the fee from this work be donated to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[24] In an interview, Happer responded to the sting operation: "I was only interested in helping the 'client' to publicize my long-held views, not to peddle whatever message the 'client' had in mind ... I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world."[15]
Click to expand...
 
Media_Truth said:
Already debunked...
Click to expand...

You didn't read the link at all.... obviously. :roll:

Meanwhile here is another example of PISS playing their numbers, they change over time:

1998Version-1024x644.jpg

LINK



2019Version-1024x644.jpg

LINK

This is undeniable evidence that YOU can NOT dance away.
 
Media_Truth said:
Don't know why you won't accept facts. 9 of the warmest 10 years on record have been since 2000. The other was 1998.

View attachment 67259828
Click to expand...
ooh what a pretty graph. Interesting how the colors used (magenta) are the color food retailers use in entice people to purchase food by sub conscience gobble da goop. Suck it down wits-o-nits.
 
Media_Truth said:
You really need to do some research before popoo'ing scientific sources and methods.

Measurements

The primary purpose of the USCRN network is to monitor air temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture/soil temperature. In addition to these parameters, each station measures ground surface (IR) temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, wetness from precipitation, and several values that monitor the operating condition of the equipment. Some of the secondary parameters contribute to improving the confidence in the observational measurements, and provide insight into the reliability and performance of the primary sensors.

Highly accurate measurements and reliable reporting are critical. Station instruments are calibrated annually and maintenance includes routine replacement of aging sensors. The performance of each station's measurements is monitored on a daily basis and problems are addressed as quickly as possible, typically within days. Each station transmits data hourly to a geostationary satellite. Within minutes of transmission, raw data and computed summary statistics are made available on the USCRN web site. This page describes the details of the data stream.

U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
Click to expand...

That sounds as if the temperature conclusions is a perfect compilation of unchanging, perfectly collected and recorded data.

The question remains then: Why was the then existing data thrown away in 1999 for data they like better?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Thank you for mentioning the New York Times article, because it made me interested in reading the article in its entirety.

‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible. - The New York Times

After reading the article I think I say that this OP is built upon a logical fallacy.

Dr. Happer and your other source is only addressing one point from the NYT article in question and are actually misrepresenting the actual Focus of the article itself. Dr. Happer seems to be selectively choosing to refute only the claim that the 6 hottest years on record all occurred after 2010 and refuting it on the basis of claiming that the changes in temperature was a degree or less compared to statistical error. The main focus of the NYT article was not about global temperatures, it was addressing the claims made about “global greening”.

Here’s the thing: Dr. Campbell, the Chief scientist behind the study about global greening, said that the increase in co2 levels is nothing to celebrate about.

Dr. Happer and your other source have committed two logical fallacies: they cherrypicked the part of the NYT article they wanted to refute and then proceeded to use that cherrypicked part of the article as a straw man for them to refute the article without addressing the actual focus of the article.
Click to expand...

Silly. Now youre moving the goalpost fallacy. This whole thread is not about global greening, it is about whether the temps that are being discussed are accurate or not.
 
Jack Hays said:
“These datasets are products of simulation models and data assimilation software, not real data,” Dr. Nakamura added. “This problem has been present in data products produced by all institutions from the beginning – NASA, NOAA, NCEP, ECMWF, UMet, etc.”
Click to expand...

Thermometers are not a product of simulation models.
 
Deuce said:
Thermometers are not a product of simulation models.
Click to expand...
Whose accuracy depends on a sampling methodology that is not standardized.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP — The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean,
should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and
lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Click to expand...
On almost any day the various methods would lead to drastically different results.
A quick example is London, March 21 2018, the High/Low average was 42 F, the hourly average was 43.7F,
this works out to a .95 C difference between sampling methodologies.
 
Deuce said:
Thermometers are not a product of simulation models.
Click to expand...

And because there were not many thermometers, simulations are substituted.

“This is nothing new,” says Japanese climate expert Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in an email to NTZ. “We simply did not have many observing stations in the 1800s and early 1900s. They can produce ‘new data sets’ and claim that they have ‘better data sets’ all day long, but they just can’t make any meaningful difference for periods up to 1980.”
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah. So you have nothing. OK.
Click to expand...

I figured you'd be too lazy to look it up. Not in your Conspiracy Blog List of Links?

NASA GISS: NASA News & Feature Releases:
New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature

The most complete assessment ever of statistical uncertainty within the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) data product shows that the annual values are likely accurate to within 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit (0.05 degrees Celsius) in recent decades, and 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (0.15 degrees C) at the beginning of the nearly 140-year record.
 
longview said:
Whose accuracy depends on a sampling methodology that is not standardized.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP — The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature

On almost any day the various methods would lead to drastically different results.
A quick example is London, March 21 2018, the High/Low average was 42 F, the hourly average was 43.7F,
this works out to a .95 C difference between sampling methodologies.
Click to expand...

So the deniers are back to tactic #1 ??? --->

The Fossil Fuel industry denier tactics continue on the same course ---
1. It's not warming.
2. It's warming, but this is natural.
3. It's warming, but this isn't caused by mankind's activities.
4. It's warming, and it is being caused by mankind's activities, but the results will be good.
5. It's warming, and it is being caused by mankind's activities. The results will not be good, but it's bad for our economy to change course.
 
Media_Truth said:
So the deniers are back to tactic #1 ??? --->

The Fossil Fuel industry denier tactics continue on the same course ---
1. It's not warming.
2. It's warming, but this is natural.
3. It's warming, but this isn't caused by mankind's activities.
4. It's warming, and it is being caused by mankind's activities, but the results will be good.
5. It's warming, and it is being caused by mankind's activities. The results will not be good, but it's bad for our economy to change course.
Click to expand...
No tactic, simple observation!
And the GISS says there is not universally accepted correct answer to the daily mean surface air temperature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom