• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

The New York Times article that is being criticized by Dr. Happer was about Global Greening.

The temperature data was only mentioned once in the entire article, and it was in a paragraph describing the effects of the current rise in Co2 levels. As for the temperature data itself, the NYT article was citing information From this Article written by NOAA.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/noaa-2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-globe

Earth’s globally averaged temperature for 2017 made it the third warmest year in NOAA’s 138-year climate record, behind 2016 (warmest) and 2015 (second warmest).

However, unlike the past two years, Earth’s average temperature in 2017 was not influenced by the warming effect of an El Nino, say scientists from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
Click to expand...

Not to mention, NASA conducted its own study around the same time as NOAA, and using the same data.

Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA | NASA

Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

In a separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 2017 was the third-warmest year in their record. The minor difference in rankings is due to the different methods used by the two agencies to analyze global temperatures, although over the long-term the agencies’ records remain in strong agreement. Both analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2017’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.

“Despite colder than average temperatures in any one part of the world, temperatures over the planet as a whole continue the rapid warming trend we’ve seen over the last 40 years,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
Click to expand...

And the surface temperature dataset and Methodology used By NASA can be found here.

Data.GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
 
longview said:
No tactic, simple observation!
And the GISS says there is not universally accepted correct answer to the daily mean surface air temperature.
Click to expand...

Margin of error is .05C.
 
Media_Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Grading their own papers. Hardly persuasive.:roll:

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

By P Gosselin on 16. July 2019

. . . . 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: . . .
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Um, the errors from different sampling methodologies can easily exceed 1C.
Click to expand...

Decades ago, the accuracy was a little less - not 1C, but about 0.27C. I provided my source --> NASA, NOAA, and others...
 
Media_Truth said:
Decades ago, the accuracy was a little less - not 1C, but about 0.27C. I provided my source --> NASA, NOAA, and others...
Click to expand...
If they do not know the sampling methodology used, then the accuracy would be very limited.
It is the switch between sampling methodologies that would induce the largest error.
 
longview said:
If they do not know the sampling methodology used, then the accuracy would be very limited.
It is the switch between sampling methodologies that would induce the largest error.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to get through to a holy roller...
 
longview said:
Um, the errors from different sampling methodologies can easily exceed 1C.
Click to expand...

Different, unspecified methods are less accurate. Fantastic. Who gives a ****? If you have a specific, mathematically-supported issue with a specific methodology producing specific results, post it. Otherwise you're just spouting "this data is wrong because I say so!"
 
PoS said:
The link is right in the OP. Are you always so dishonest with everything?


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...

Now hold on a second, trump claims to know more about everything than anyone and I don't see the right in an uproar when he claims he knows more than the generals, whom he loves to death.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The New York Times article that is being criticized by Dr. Happer was about Global Greening.

The temperature data was only mentioned once in the entire article, and it was in a paragraph describing the effects of the current rise in Co2 levels. As for the temperature data itself, the NYT article was citing information From this Article written by NOAA.

NOAA: 2017 was 3rd warmest year on record for the globe | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



Not to mention, NASA conducted its own study around the same time as NOAA, and using the same data.

Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA | NASA



And the surface temperature dataset and Methodology used By NASA can be found here.

Data.GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
Click to expand...

Firstly, NOAA is affiliated with the IPCC, so they have an agenda to promote climate hysteria.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Wikipedia

And from your own link GSIS data was only begun in the late 1970's, so the sampling time frame is very limited- around 40 years. It also says that the "uncertainty is several tenths of a degree Celsius."

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf

So yes, the data firmly falls within statistical error, so the OP is correct.

Media_Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Key word: "likely"
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
Firstly, NOAA is affiliated with the IPCC, so they have an agenda to promote climate hysteria.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Wikipedia

And from your own link GSIS data was only begun in the late 1970's, so the sampling time frame is very limited- around 40 years. It also says that the "uncertainty is several tenths of a degree Celsius."

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf

So yes, the data firmly falls within statistical error, so the OP is correct.



Key word: "likely"
Click to expand...

Gee maybe the reason why the datasets only go back 40 years has something to do with the fact that it was during that 40 year period that there were any satellites capable of providing data measuring infrared rays in the atmosphere?

Also , the increasing levels of co2 in the atmosphere is still a problem because co2 is one of the variables in the process called “the greenhouse effect”.

Also I find it hypocritical that you get to dismiss NOAA’s and NASA’s findings just because they have an affiliation with The IPCC, yet when I point out dr. Happer’s previous positions and questioned the reliability of sources that have been labeled as “climate denialist”, I am somehow committing a logical fallacy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Gee maybe the reason why the datasets only go back 40 years has something to do with the fact that it was during that 40 year period that there were any satellites capable of providing data measuring infrared rays in the atmosphere?
Click to expand...

Duh. Thank you, Captain Obvious. :doh

As Ive said, 40 years isnt enough to formulate what is a normal range of temps.

Also , the increasing levels of co2 in the atmosphere is still a problem because co2 is one of the variables in the process called “the greenhouse effect”.
Click to expand...

As of yet, there is no solid proof that CO2 is causing CC. There's a correlation/causation factor, but no definitive link as of yet, and the alarmists are all betting on it while ignoring other potential causes like the sun or water vapor.

Also I find it hypocritical that you get to dismiss NOAA’s and NASA’s findings just because they have an affiliation with The IPCC, yet when I point out dr. Happer’s previous positions and questioned the reliability of sources that have been labeled as “climate denialist”, I am somehow committing a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
You can believe what you want, but all Im saying is that Happer is correct in that the readings and the analysis by the alarmists all fall under their margins of error.

Yes, there has been some warming, but the effects and just how much it is remains in dispute. That is the whole point.
 
Deuce said:
Different, unspecified methods are less accurate. Fantastic. Who gives a ****? If you have a specific, mathematically-supported issue with a specific methodology producing specific results, post it. Otherwise you're just spouting "this data is wrong because I say so!"
Click to expand...
Not the GISS states that there is no correct answer, which means they do not have a standard upon which the incoming data is based.
They could say all the station data we utilize is based on the historic (T-Max+Tmin)/2, but they do not say that.
They get numbers from stations, and it is not clear if the stations report the collection methodology.
Even if the stations reported how they arrived at the daily mean surface air temperature, how to normalize that station,
with the other stations would be an unknown correction.
Studies on this topic show that the 2 point average, is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the 24 point average,
varying with season and location.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0089.1
This study assesses the spatial variability of the differences in these two methods of daily temperature averaging [i.e., (Tmax + Tmin)/2;
average of 24 hourly temperature values] for 215 first-order weather stations across the conterminous United States (CONUS)
over the 30-yr period 1981–2010.
Click to expand...
While this paper says the stations all report the traditional (T-Max+Tmin)/2, you have to wonder why the GISS does not report this.
 
bongsaway said:
I suspect most folks on the right won't be happy until earth is unlivable.
Click to expand...
You will need a citation to some peer reviewed published paper saying that Human CO2 emissions are capable of making
the earth unlivable for Humans. Until then tone back the hyperbole!
 
longview said:
You will need a citation to some peer reviewed published paper saying that Human CO2 emissions are capable of making
the earth unlivable for Humans. Until then tone back the hyperbole!
Click to expand...

What trump spouts is hyperbole, climate change is for real even though some deny it exists.
 
bongsaway said:
What trump spouts is hyperbole, climate change is for real even though some deny it exists.
Click to expand...
So you cannot cite a peer reviewed publication showing that Human CO2 emissions are capable of making Earth unlivable for Humans?
 
longview said:
So you cannot cite a peer reviewed publication showing that Human CO2 emissions are capable of making Earth unlivable for Humans?
Click to expand...

If you could show me where I said that I might try defending the position.
 
bongsaway said:
If you could show me where I said that I might try defending the position.
Click to expand...
In post#59 you stated,
"I suspect most folks on the right won't be happy until earth is unlivable. "
as if some scientist had predicted that Humans are capable of rendering the earth unlivable because of emissions
causing it to be too hot!
If that is some scientist prediction, that is fine, but you need to cite such a prediction.
 
longview said:
In post#59 you stated,
"I suspect most folks on the right won't be happy until earth is unlivable. "
as if some scientist had predicted that Humans are capable of rendering the earth unlivable because of emissions
causing it to be too hot!
If that is some scientist prediction, that is fine, but you need to cite such a prediction.
Click to expand...

And where is the part about people breathing that would cause that in what I said? We have an american point of view. Have you seen pictures from other countries where people are wearing masks the air is so bad? How about the water in flint? Coal ash dams that break and pollute everything around it? Mining and industrial pollutants. You are talking one thing in a basket-full of causes. We can change all of these things but sadly profit is more important than our welfare.
 
bongsaway said:
And where is the part about people breathing that would cause that in what I said? We have an american point of view. Have you seen pictures from other countries where people are wearing masks the air is so bad? How about the water in flint? Coal ash dams that break and pollute everything around it? Mining and industrial pollutants. You are talking one thing in a basket-full of causes. We can change all of these things but sadly profit is more important than our welfare.
Click to expand...
This is a discussion about global warming and CO2, do not try an conflate actual pollution
with the predicted effects of added CO2, they are not the same!
 
longview said:
This is a discussion about global warming and CO2, do not try an conflate actual pollution
with the predicted effects of added CO2, they are not the same!
Click to expand...

I can't think of one CO2 Mitigation solution that doesn't also improve overall air quality.
 
longview said:
This is a discussion about global warming and CO2, do not try an conflate actual pollution
with the predicted effects of added CO2, they are not the same!
Click to expand...

They all add into my original answer of the right won't be happy until the planet is unlivable. No?
 
Media_Truth said:
I can't think of one CO2 Mitigation solution that doesn't also improve overall air quality.
Click to expand...
But actual air pollution is very different from CO2. The US has done a good job of reducing those
emissions that are real pollution, lead, sulfur, ect.
The harm that CO2 could cause is the theoretical warming, not many people are saying we could increase
CO2 level to the point that Humans cannot survive.
 
longview said:
But actual air pollution is very different from CO2. The US has done a good job of reducing those
emissions that are real pollution, lead, sulfur, ect.
The harm that CO2 could cause is the theoretical warming, not many people are saying we could increase
CO2 level to the point that Humans cannot survive.
Click to expand...

The US has reduced them, but most major cities, including your Houston are out-of-EPA-compliance quite often.

Most Polluted Cities | State of the Air | American Lung Association
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom