2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

[Fogdog]

The only problem with that is all their income depends on their results.

If they came out and said "hey its a natural cycle, we may or may not be impacting it slightly, but these things ebb and flow over time" their research grants would evaporate quicker than water in the Sahara.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just point out the conflict of interest, lack of any realistic solution offered to the problem, and knowledge of at least 2 cover-ups by climate scientists of data not helpful to their cause.

Do you even understand what Bugeye and I are discussing?

 

[Bugeye]

First of all, the graph you posted is fairly weird. It shows a calculated rate of global warming -- in degrees C per decade -- over a period of forty years. There is no explanation for how this was calculated. Also, why the "trend" becomes unstable towards the end of the time period is not explained. I think its because as we approach the right end of the graph, it is based upon ten years worth of data. The far left end of the graph is based upon all forty years of data. From left to right the same data set is used only fewer data are used to calculate the "trend".

It appears once again that data are being used to justify a conclusion made in advance. But OK, let's take a look at it as if it were an honest attempt.

• Over the forty years presented in the figure above, satellites have been taken out of service and replaced with new ones that contain different measurement systems. Different assumptions and different accuracy with each generation of satellite.
• During this time, new adjustments or corrections to the data have been applied as we learned more about the satellite measurements.
• Error range is included for the model but no error range was calculated for the satellites. No doubt because the error range would confuse the reader from the conclusion the author intends for the reader. The author is Judith Curry. More on her below.
• The measurement is in an area of little importance, the middle troposphere, which is about 11 miles up.
• Issues like wind shear for the balloons and variability in heating of the system from sunlight on the satellite are known but not well understood. This is discussed in scientific papers on this kind of metrology, I can provide sources if requested.
• Look at the scale on the right. 0.1C is a pretty small temperature change. 0.1C per decade is even smaller.
• In summary, it is really hard to take consistent, accurate readings 11 miles up over a period of forty years. NASA keeps trying but its a learning experience

By focusing on one region and not a very important one at that, using really suspect data, the conclusion is still that AGW global warming is occurring but half the rate of the current model.

Is this the best that science deniers can do to dispute the current estimate given for the rate of global warming?

Other trends and measurements align better with the model one must ask why did the author focus on this specific set?

If you listen to NASA professionals, they would tell you that their model should not be sold as an absolute prediction. The error range for model predictions as shown in the graph is an honest depiction of this. That there are no estimates for error on the satellite and balloon readings. This is not an honest depiction of the reliability of those readings.

==================================================================================================
Who is the author?

Judith Curry, a professional climate science skeptic put together the graph. She admits that some of her funding comes from the fossil fuel industry. She is one of a very few climate skeptics with a degree in climate science and a sought after speaker on this topic. Speaker fees are good money. Just ask Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. For a scathing alternative perspective on this self proclaimed expert, here is a climate friendly scientist's perspective: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/some-history-that-led-to-judith-curry.html

Judith has no expertise in putting together surface temperature records (if you can't tell from reading her articles), so she wouldn't know what to do with the NOAA data any more than Lamar Smith does. (Judith dropped off the Berkeley Earth project team at an early stage, without making any substantive contribution.)

She does know how to insinuate and spread nasty smear campaigns, however. Over the years she's honed that art to a reasonable, if patently transparent, level.

@Bugeye has helped highlight exactly what is going on with the AGW global warming debate. On one hand, we have a large and international community that is pursuing the science and admit there is error in their work. They quantify the error and publish it. Taking in all possible data, their best estimate is about 0.2 +/- 0.1 degrees C global warming due to industrial CO2 emissions. With an error estimate. Judith Curry cherry picked data from a data set that agreed with the conclusion she wanted to make and would generate a good income for her. The industry just wants to sow doubt and that's exactly what Judith provided.

I'm having trouble following you. In post #61 did you not show a chart showing that the highest level of heat increase will occur at this 11K altitude that you now say in this post does not matter?

Please, you pick the next chart showing AGW predictions vs actual results in the tropospheric region of the tropics. You decide what the best source of measuring temps in this area of the world is. I recommend RSS and UAH, but you pick whatever you want.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm having trouble following you. In post #61 did you not show a chart showing that the highest level of heat increase will occur at this 11K altitude that you now say in this post does not matter?

Please, you pick the next chart showing AGW predictions vs actual results in the tropospheric region of the tropics. You decide what the best source of measuring temps in this area of the world is. I recommend RSS and UAH, but you pick whatever you want.

If you don't mind, I'll repeat something from a few posts back because as far as i can tell, I've already answered your question. There is a problem with model predictions in the middle troposphere. But the middle troposphere is not key to proving or disproving AGW or estimates for global warming.

What I said before:
"As the narrator, Mark Richardson from NASA/JPL-Cal Tech says: "Using the (absence of a predicted) hot spot to cast doubt on greenhouse warming is a red herring. Its a sign of changing moisture in the tropics, not of greenhouse gas warming. A real fingerprint of greenhouse warming is warming near the surface while the atmosphere above 20 km cools this has already had a spectacular effect" as shown in satellite readings. (his words from the video are shown in italics.

The key point is, while it is true that the state of the science of global climate modelling and the science of measuring atmospheric temperatures at all elevations are not completely in synch. What is also true is the fingerprint showing greenhouse global warming are exactly in sync. Predicted and measured rising surface temperature and upper troposphere cooling are confirmed."

This video answers your question better than I can.

That region, 11 miles up, is a really tricky for weather scientists to use to study global warming. First off, its very cold and is a small region of atmosphere in between two really big regions -- the universe and the earth. Second, this band up upper air is dynamic, with a lot of variables such as moisture and solar energy in play. Third, satellite and weather balloons are a work in progress as far as the ability to accurately measure temperature with error much less than 0.1 C. This is why the middle troposphere is not a very good place upon which to base decisions regarding climate change. Also, for these reasons it is a great place for the fossil fuel industry and others to use to sow doubt.

Basically, it doesn't make sense for me to pick another data set from measurements made 11 miles up. Its best to look at more data than that, such as the data summarized below:

This graph also shows Global Mean Surface Temperature is not increasing as predicted. That said, the error is not nearly as large as 50% per decade, as Curry said. From the graph above, the error more like 20% over 80 years. I'd be willing to bet that every scientist working on this problem, if asked about accuracy, would be pleased if they found their model was only off by 20% over a period of 80 years.

So, I'm not sure what we are arguing about any more, bugeye. We both agree that the Global weather model is overpredicting temperature rise. Is it that you would delay doing anything? For myself, I look at how much error is present and don't think the error is any reason to delay progress towards reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses. Maybe the urgency can be toned down and we can proceed with a less drastic plan than the one required if the estimate were accurate to nine decimal points but its time to start.

 

[Bugeye]

If you don't mind, I'll repeat something from a few posts back because as far as i can tell, I've already answered your question. There is a problem with model predictions in the middle troposphere. But the middle troposphere is not key to proving or disproving AGW or estimates for global warming.

What I said before:
"As the narrator, Mark Richardson from NASA/JPL-Cal Tech says: "Using the (absence of a predicted) hot spot to cast doubt on greenhouse warming is a red herring. Its a sign of changing moisture in the tropics, not of greenhouse gas warming. A real fingerprint of greenhouse warming is warming near the surface while the atmosphere above 20 km cools this has already had a spectacular effect" as shown in satellite readings. (his words from the video are shown in italics.

The key point is, while it is true that the state of the science of global climate modelling and the science of measuring atmospheric temperatures at all elevations are not completely in synch. What is also true is the fingerprint showing greenhouse global warming are exactly in sync. Predicted and measured rising surface temperature and upper troposphere cooling are confirmed."

This video answers your question better than I can.

That region is a really tricky for weather scientists to study global warming. First off, its very cold and a small region of atmosphere in between two really big regions -- the universe and the earth. Second, this region is dynamic, with a lot of variables in play. Third, satellite and weather balloons are a work in progress as far as the ability to accurately measure temperature with error much less than 0.1 C. This is why the middle troposphere is not a very good place upon which to base decisions regarding climate change. Also, for these reason it is a great place of science deniers to use to sow doubt.

Basically, it doesn't make sense for me to pick another data set from measurement 11 miles up. Its best to look at more data than that, such as the data summarized below:

This graph also shows Global Mean Surface Temperature is not increasing as predicted. That said, the error is not nearly as large as 50% per decade, as Curry said. From the graph above, the error more like 20% over 80 years. I'd be willing to bet that every scientist working on this problem, if asked about accuracy, would be pleased if they found their model was only off by 20% over a period of 80 years.

So, I'm not sure what we are arguing about any more, bugeye. We both agree that the Global weather model is overpredicting temperature rise. Is it that you would delay doing anything?

I think we both enjoy the back and forth, at least I hope so. My energy usage is down about 40% now from 2 years ago. That is despite the hypocritical bullshit from carbon spewing fucks like DiCaprio and Gore. Now Ed Begley Jr. I can fucking respect!

I wish there was an easy solution but given the current rate of warming I do not see a need to overstate the issue either and cause unnecessary economic harm to those already struggling with too much debt. I think basic conservation is the best approach for now and praying for a cleaner energy breakthrough.

I think change will only happen at a local level. If you want to argue AGW with a true denier, argue the $ you can recover in short order from lighting upgrades, changing usage habits, being patriotic, etc. I think those that belittle these people do nothing to help reduce carbon emissions, only build additional resistance.

 

[Fogdog]

I think we both enjoy the back and forth, at least I hope so. My energy usage is down about 40% now from 2 years ago. That is despite the hypocritical bullshit from carbon spewing fucks like DiCaprio and Gore. Now Ed Begley Jr. I can fucking respect!

I wish there was an easy solution but given the current rate of warming I do not see a need to overstate the issue either and cause unnecessary economic harm to those already struggling with too much debt. I think basic conservation is the best approach for now and praying for a cleaner energy breakthrough.

I think change will only happen at a local level. If you want to argue AGW with a true denier, argue the $ you can recover in short order from lighting upgrades, changing usage habits, being patriotic, etc. I think those that belittle these people do nothing to help reduce carbon emissions, only build additional resistance.

The enjoyment of the back and forth is mutual. You've been helpful to me in your honest approach and presentation. I appreciate that.

As for a plan, I have none. Maybe I can start digging into that some more. What I wanted to do when I started with this conversation a while ago was understand what the argument was between deniers and scientists. I think I have a handle on that now, at least to my satisfaction and you helped get me there. So thanks for that.

I also learned a lot more about the science of global temperature measurement than I really wanted to know.

We might cut some greenhouse gas emissions by requiring shorter speeches during this election cycle. Way too much hot air is produced for the planet to sustain and remain a healthy environment.

 

[Fogdog]

If you want to argue AGW with a true denier, argue the $ you can recover in short order from lighting upgrades, changing usage habits, being patriotic, etc. I think those that belittle these people do nothing to help reduce carbon emissions, only build additional resistance.

Good advice, this.

 

[Rrog]

You two are fun

 

[UncleBuck]

How do you know we don't go through thousand year cycles? The simple fact is we don't have enough recorded history to know for sure.

actually, we do.

I am not a cLIEmate change denier.

yes you are.

 

[UncleBuck]

I also will never agree that we are 'warming'

so you are a denier.

we are recording record breaking high levels of sea ice, and on average seeing colder temperatures than warmer temperatures.

.

no, we aren't.

 

[UncleBuck]

the warming has been so much lower than expected these last 18 years

two record setting decades, then two record setting years, now two record setting months.

what are you even blathering about?

 

[UncleBuck]

the hiatus

what hiatus?

we've had record warm decades, years and months now.

 

[UncleBuck]

The lefts holy grail is AGW. It is perfect for them becuase it gives them the means through which to attack big business.

why are you parroting david duke nearly verbatim?

We have had more than one exposed cover up or falsification of data in the AGW movement, climate gate.

the one that was dismissed as drivel in 9 separate, independent investigations?

 

[Not GOP]

You can't stop "The El Nino"

 

[UncleBuck]

If they came out and said "hey its a natural cycle, we may or may not be impacting it slightly, but these things ebb and flow over time" their research grants would evaporate quicker than water in the Sahara. .

yeah, maybe this is just a natural cycle.

every 400,000 years or so, CO2 just randomly spikes to 400 PPM for no reason, and has nothing to do with human activities which pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[ThickStemz]

Looks like it randomly spikes to 300k plus and assuming none is lost in transferring to ice, we're adding 20 to 25%.

Your graph shows this is perfect timing with the natural cycels. So it would have risen either way. We're just booming the boom.

 

[UncleBuck]

Looks like it randomly spikes to 300k plus and assuming none is lost in transferring to ice, we're adding 20 to 25%.

Your graph shows this is perfect timing with the natural cycels. So it would have risen either way. We're just booming the boom.

we had this chick that was too ugly to ride, and we were bitter. this princess in a mustache, one size fits all, everybody hook up, babe. ice cream.

 

[Fogdog]

Looks like it randomly spikes to 300k plus and assuming none is lost in transferring to ice, we're adding 20 to 25%.

Your graph shows this is perfect timing with the natural cycels. So it would have risen either way. We're just booming the boom.

what you said is pretty funny. 400,000 years. Longer than Homo Sapiens have been around, almost 3 times longer than mankind. Dude, that's a long time. And suddenly CO2 spikes to twice the level seen in that entire time.

The concept of "random" is used when we don't know what caused an event, so we use statistics to describe the event. Random things happen within a population of data. Such as a 1% change in the stock market. Something caused it but we don't know what. We treat it statistically as random and build models to understand the frequency of that particular occurence.

Rare, unusual, unexpected or "black swan" events happen outside of a set of statistically random data. That is what we are seeing with Carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Something always causes these kinds of events. Like the market meltdown in 2009. We know what caused it. Just like we know what caused the spike in carbon dioxide in the graph that Buck posted. To dismiss it as "random", well, that's beyond stupid. Its more like stupid and ignorant. A black swan event of stupidity.

 

[ThickStemz]

what you said is pretty funny. 400,000 years. Longer than Homo Sapiens have been around, almost 3 times longer than mankind. Dude, that's a long time. And suddenly CO2 spikes to twice the level seen in that entire time.

The concept of "random" is used when we don't know what caused an event, so we use statistics to describe the event. Random things happen within a population of data. Such as a 1% change in the stock market. Something caused it but we don't know what. We treat it statistically as random and build models to understand the frequency of that particular occurence.

Rare, unusual, unexpected or "black swan" events happen outside of a set of statistically random data. That is what we are seeing with Carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Something always causes these kinds of events. Like the market meltdown in 2009. We know what caused it. Just like we know what caused the spike in carbon dioxide in the graph that Buck posted. To dismiss it as "random", well, that's beyond stupid. Its more like stupid and ignorant. A black swan event of stupidity.

It's not twice. That graph has it going to.300k. It has the new spike at 375.

It isn't statistically insignificant. But it isnt double. It isn't even 25%

And that's assuming 300k levels in the atmosphere would leave 300k in the ice.

How do we know there isn't a 5 or 10% loss?

 

[ttystikk]

Looks like it randomly spikes to 300k plus and assuming none is lost in transferring to ice, we're adding 20 to 25%.

Your graph shows this is perfect timing with the natural cycels. So it would have risen either way. We're just booming the boom.

Right. Because untold billions of barrels of fossil fuels have been burned in less than a century on multiple occasions in the earth's prehistory... without any other trace.



Uncle Buck is right about you. You really are too stupid to breathe unassisted.

 

[Fogdog]

It's not twice. That graph has it going to.300k. It has the new spike at 375.

It isn't statistically insignificant. But it isnt double. It isn't even 25%

And that's assuming 300k levels in the atmosphere would leave 300k in the ice.

How do we know there isn't a 5 or 10% loss?

Statistics are used to predict events that occur relatively often. Random is used to describe events for which we have no explanation. We have an explanation for the nonrandom excessive spike in CO2 at the end of the 400000 year series. Are you so daft that you don't see that?

And you are right, CO2 levels didn't double. If I read the graph, it shows the natural series end and the fossil fuels effect begin at about 275 ppm and peak at about 390. That's 38% increase. At no other time in the entire 400,000 years did CO2 levels rise above 310 and there are only 3 other times where Co2 rose above 275 ppm.

Could this have been a natural event? Umm no. Its as ttystikk said. There is only one explanation. Fossil fuels. If you persist, I'll drag other evidence out. But I'd rather not. So don't.