Scientist Predicts Mini Ice Age in next few decades...

[fskimospy]

Your link is inaccurate which begs the question of credibility...orbital decay corrections have been made to the data in recent years for the RSS and UAH temperature records. Both of these independent satellite records track very closely now...past criticisms have been addressed. The marked divergence of the surface record and LT satellite data continues. It's a fucking shame they don't have sea buckets in space.

My link is perfectly accurate, which begs the question of whether you read it or watched the video it referenced. They don't say that orbital decay hadn't been corrected for, they were listing past errors as evidence that satellite data has often had to be corrected and that the idea that the satellite data somehow has fewer adjustments to it is wrong. Hell, the guy that owns the RSS dataset is one of the people who contributed to the video that the article is based on. He considers the surface temperature record to be more reliable as well, by the way. I wonder why you think more of his data than he does?

Again, the most important takeaway from that video is that all data sources should be considered, not just the ones that are most convenient. Climate change deniers focus on the satellite data because it tells them what they want to hear. There's no scientific reason to treat it as better than other data sources, it's all the confirmation bias at work. You're displaying it right now, in fact.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes but looking at satellite data alone is a really bad idea. When you look at all the data 2015 is the warmest by a long shot.

This is an interesting article that has a good video attached. It talks about how climate change deniers tend to fixate on satellite data due to a natural human tendency towards confirmation bias.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/01/over-reliance-on-satellite-data-alone-criticized/

You criticize me for making a statement based solely on the satellite record. Then you immediately turn around and make a statement based on "all the data" which is actually just the surface temperature data alone. You're so full of shit it isn't even funny.

 

[fskimospy]

You criticize me for making a statement based solely on the satellite record. Then you immediately turn around and make a statement based on "all the data" which is actually just the surface temperature data alone. You're so full of shit it isn't even funny.

Taking you at your word we have satellite data that says 2015 is the third warmest ever and surface that says it's the warmest ever by a wide margin. All together that adds up to warmest ever pretty obviously without even accounting for the fact that the surface temperature record should be weighted more heavily due to the fact that it is more reliable.

There is a reason why you almost always rely on satellite temperatures for your arguments despite them being less reliable. Confirmation bias. Denier arguments collapsed a long time ago when you stop cherry picking data.

 

[Paratus]

Yea at least the deniers use raw data. Proponents always CHANGE the data to match predictions (every single piece of data is modified to meet their narrative). They are doing it openly now. It is simply a matter of time before they begin to skew the satellite data. Proponents actively bar skeptics from publishing, drive skeptics from their jobs, etc.... This will go down as a dark age in climate science. Hansen and his goons will be remembered as anti-scientist propagandists who hindered and obstructed real science and cost the world trillions of dollars.

No worries though, each year more and more heroic scientists risk their livelihoods in order to get the truth out. One of them will surely win the Nobel Prize eventually when reality is finally accepted.

Your link is inaccurate which begs the question of credibility...orbital decay corrections have been made to the data in recent years for the RSS and UAH temperature records. Both of these independent satellite records track very closely now...past criticisms have been addressed. The marked divergence of the surface record and LT satellite data continues. It's a fucking shame they don't have sea buckets in space.

Well lucky for you gents Ars has a lovely article on all the calibrations required to have good temperature datasets for:

• weather stations
• sea temperatures
• satellite measurements.

It's a very informative article. Bshole you might learn that absolutely no scientist would use raw data in any study. Quite frankly none of us engineers would use raw data in managing our equipment either.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

Peter Thorne, a scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who has worked with all sorts of global temperature datasets over his career, disagrees. “Find me a scientist who’s involved in making measurements who says the original measurements are perfect, as are. It doesn’t exist,” he told Ars. “It’s beyond a doubt that we have to—have to—do some analysis. We can’t just take the data as a given.”

What's even funnier bshole is if we did just use the raw data.... well read for yourself:

Speaking of data, the latest datasets are in and 2015 is (as expected) officially the hottest year on record. It's the first year to hit 1°C above levels of the late 1800s. And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.

Doc you might learn that satellites are not like the sensors in Star Trek. In fact the satellites don't measure temperature directly at all they measure microwaves radiated by oxygen in the atmosphere.

“Depending on exactly what frequency you measure, the instrument sees different distances into the atmosphere,” Mears continued. Precisely at a frequency of microwave radiation emitted by oxygen, you’ll just see the stratosphere (where the ozone layer lives). But turn the knob just a bit, and you can tune in the troposphere—the 10 kilometers or so between the surface and the stratosphere. So what you get is an average temperature from that thick layer, which means these measurements are not interchangeable with weather stations six feet off the ground or the temperature of the sea surface. However, the satellites do get you upper air measurements otherwise only accessible to weather balloons, and they do it globally.

You can also use some sorcery to try to produce a satellite measurement more representative of the lower half of the troposphere—a technique pioneered by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) group that runs the other major satellite dataset. The instrument on the satellites turns side-to-side as it scans the Earth, but only the measurements facing straight downward are normally used. By combining those measurements with angled measurements pointed at the same spot during earlier or later passes, this technique extrapolates temperature downward a bit. (The UAH group is, however, about to switch to a new technique.)

You might also learn that by using weighted measurements and averaging the temperature of 10km of atmosphere isn't going to be the temperature that the ground stations measure.

Finally you maybe surprised that Carl Mears who works the RSS dataset doesn't like the cherry picking that "skeptics" use to show the "pause" and that the data shows the ground stations are probably more accurate than the satellite record.

Ars asked Carl Mears, who works on the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset Senator Cruz was pointing to, how he feels about those statements. “Well, I guess I’m annoyed because I feel that they’re misusing the data,” he said. “They’re picking a specific time period that generates the conclusions that they would like be true. If you look at a longer time period, you get a very different conclusion.”....

...
“Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something like that, we’re showing less [warming] than the surface datasets. I suspect that’s at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets, but the evidence suggests that they’re more reliable than the satellite datasets,” Mears said.

Like I said it's a fascinating article and should answer any questions you may have about your favorite dataset.

 

[bshole]

How about fear-mongering about sea level rise more...

Here are their fucked up predictions from just 8 years ago. Full fear monger mode. Peer reviewed climate science published in 2008 predicted more 7 mm/yr of global oceanic rise by last year. The measured reality. 2.6 mm/yr? For fucks sake, no explanation for their ridiculous predictions which have been falsified. No revisiting of their theories and models based on measured reality. They pretend the predictions were never made or published and instead only want to talk about their new predictions of utter catastrophe. Power and money corrupt and climate science as been completely corrupted. It is now as corrupt as the Christian church in the 16th century. It is a bunch of bullies and thugs who are actively working in opposition to real science.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Taking you at your word we have satellite data that says 2015 is the third warmest ever and surface that says it's the warmest ever by a wide margin. All together that adds up to warmest ever pretty obviously without even accounting for the fact that the surface temperature record should be weighted more heavily due to the fact that it is more reliable.

There is a reason why you almost always rely on satellite temperatures for your arguments despite them being less reliable. Confirmation bias. Denier arguments collapsed a long time ago when you stop cherry picking data.

Just stop and man up...you're such a fucking weasel sometimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Just stop and man up...you're such a fucking weasel sometimes.

Says the guy from this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2461124

Don't get off track though. Why do you want to use satellite data when it is widely accepted to be less accurate if not confirmation bias?

 

[Paratus]

How about fear-mongering about sea level rise more...

Here are their fucked up predictions from just 8 years ago. Full fear monger mode. Peer reviewed climate science published in 2008 predicted more 7 mm/yr of global oceanic rise by last year. The measured reality. 2.6 mm/yr? For fucks sake, no explanation for their ridiculous predictions which have been falsified. No revisiting of their theories and models based on measured reality. They pretend the predictions were never made or published and instead only want to talk about their new predictions of utter catastrophe. Power and money corrupt and climate science as been completely corrupted. It is now as corrupt as the Christian church in the 16th century. It is a bunch of bullies and thugs who are actively working in opposition to real science.

That prediction seems to be out of family for mainstream climate science. I'm also unaware of what they mean by "disintegration". Care to link to the peer reviewed research it came from?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Says the guy from this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2461124

Don't get off track though. Why do you want to use satellite data when it is widely accepted to be less accurate if not confirmation bias?

You immediately divert and then ask me not to divert with a response to your diversion? Well aren't you just chock full of double-standard hypocrisy today.

 

[dphantom]

Says the guy from this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2461124

Don't get off track though. Why do you want to use satellite data when it is widely accepted to be less accurate if not confirmation bias?

it is not less accurate and is calibrated against radiosonde measurements. Both radiosonde and satellite are virtually identical. A major unanswered question is why 2 satellite datasets and radiosonde data are diverging from ground based measurements.

The best (as far as I am aware) ground temperature data set is USCRN. Those are category 1 and 2 stations and were specifically designed to eliminate errors due to improper placement or having an urban environment grow up around them.

As for SST, the best is Argo but that data has only been available for about 10 years or so. Unfortunately, Argo data was adjusted upward based on water bucket and EIT measurements.

 

[fskimospy]

it is not less accurate and is calibrated against radiosonde measurements. Both radiosonde and satellite are virtually identical. A major unanswered question is why 2 satellite datasets and radiosonde data are diverging from ground based measurements.

The best (as far as I am aware) ground temperature data set is USCRN. Those are category 1 and 2 stations and were specifically designed to eliminate errors due to improper placement or having an urban environment grow up around them.

As for SST, the best is Argo but that data has only been available for about 10 years or so. Unfortunately, Argo data was adjusted upward based on water bucket and EIT measurements.

Can you explain why your opinion of the quality of satellite data vs surface data and the opinion of the guy who owns the RSS dataset are so different?

Wouldn't you think the guy who actually does satellite temperature measurement professionally would know?

 

[Paratus]

it is not less accurate and is calibrated against radiosonde measurements. Both radiosonde and satellite are virtually identical. A major unanswered question is why 2 satellite datasets and radiosonde data are diverging from ground based measurements.

The best (as far as I am aware) ground temperature data set is USCRN. Those are category 1 and 2 stations and were specifically designed to eliminate errors due to improper placement or having an urban environment grow up around them.

As for SST, the best is Argo but that data has only been available for about 10 years or so. Unfortunately, Argo data was adjusted upward based on water bucket and EIT measurements.

It's not a suprise at all. Why do you expect the a calculated average of the bottom 10km of atmosphere to be exactly the same as temperature measurements from surface stations less than 10m from the surface?

It's also not like the satellite data isn't basically tracking with the surface stations:

Plus, as I quoted earlier, one of the gentleman who builds the satellite dataset (RSS) said the ground stations were likely more accurate.

Your position doesn't seem well supported to me.

 

[chucky2]

You immediately divert and then ask me not to divert with a response to your diversion? Well aren't you just chock full of double-standard hypocrisy today.

You do understand you're conversing with Nick, right?

 

[Paratus]

it is not less accurate and is calibrated against radiosonde measurements. Both radiosonde and satellite are virtually identical. A major unanswered question is why 2 satellite datasets and radiosonde data are diverging from ground based measurements.

The best (as far as I am aware) ground temperature data set is USCRN. Those are category 1 and 2 stations and were specifically designed to eliminate errors due to improper placement or having an urban environment grow up around them.

As for SST, the best is Argo but that data has only been available for about 10 years or so. Unfortunately, Argo data was adjusted upward based on water bucket and EIT measurements.

Oh and that sea surface temperature adjustment that raised the dataset did so on the data from earlier in the century so it actually decreased the apparent rise in sea surface temperatures.

Again it seems like you haven't understood the adjustments made.

 

[WHAMPOM]

On a positive note, if true, this will end man-made global warming overhype for good. On a sour note, it will result in much human suffering and death.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html

A drop off of sun spot activity. Thank you for posting a second hand opinion piece that has no resemblance to the original findings.

 

[fskimospy]

You immediately divert and then ask me not to divert with a response to your diversion? Well aren't you just chock full of double-standard hypocrisy today.

What are you babbling about now? What diversion?

 

[dphantom]

Oh and that sea surface temperature adjustment that raised the dataset did so on the data from earlier in the century so it actually decreased the apparent rise in sea surface temperatures.

Again it seems like you haven't understood the adjustments made.

Don't be so patronizing. I have read the Karl paper and others that both support it and poke holes in it. I referred to Argo data. Period.

 

[Paratus]

Don't be so patronizing. I have read the Karl paper and others that both support it and poke holes in it. I referred to Argo data. Period.

The increase during the Argo period is minuscule. It also does not change the trend at all.

I take it you feel differently?

 

[dphantom]

Plus, as I quoted earlier, one of the gentleman who builds the satellite dataset (RSS) said the ground stations were likely more accurate.

What you conveniently "forget" to point out is Dr Mears published that article in Sept 2014. Since then, the UAH team has fixed their measurement problem and now is very closely aligned with both RSS and radiosonde data.

That does not mean satellite is the end all. Nor does it mean ground based is either. The discrepancies have to be identified before we can make any "settled" conclusion.

 

[dphantom]

The increase during the Argo period is minuscule. It also does not change the trend at all.

I take it you feel differently?

How could any engineer not? Argo was specifically designed to measure temperature. EIT and water buckets have inherent error margins far larger than Argo instrumentation. Wouldn't you prefer to use a computer over a manual slide rule in your calculations?

 

[Paratus]

What you conveniently "forget" to point out is Dr Mears published that article in Sept 2014. Since then, the UAH team has fixed their measurement problem and now is very closely aligned with both RSS and radiosonde data.

That does not mean satellite is the end all. Nor does it mean ground based is either. The discrepancies have to be identified before we can make any "settled" conclusion.

That Mears quote was from a conversation Ars had with him and published today. If he said that back 2014 then apparently his feelings on the subject have not changed even after adjusting their data.

How could any engineer not? Argo was specifically designed to measure temperature. EIT and water buckets have inherent error margins far larger than Argo instrumentation. Wouldn't you prefer to use a computer over a manual slide rule in your calculations?

Climate change is global issue. Researching it requires massive coverage. So no, as an engineer I welcome any data that informs the research as long as it's error bars can be accurately described. (We do this all the time in space flight operations. Not every piece of equipment you have has a temperature sensor in the area you need it.)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not a suprise at all. Why do you expect the a calculated average of the bottom 10km of atmosphere to be exactly the same as temperature measurements from surface stations less than 10m from the surface?

Nobody's expecting exactly the same temperatures. However, surface and lower troposphere (LT) temperatures should reasonably correlate and have done so historically....instead they are now markedly diverging with the recent sea bucket adjustment to the surface data. BTW, LT satellite temperature data is heavily weighted to altitudes less than 3000 meters.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not every piece of equipment you have has a temperature sensor in the area you need it.

Which is an inherent and major weakness with the surface data record. Satellite data provides highly granular temperature monitoring of 99% of the planet's lower troposphere.

Locations of All Stations in GCHN Database, as used by CRU and NCDC. The stations are color-coded to indicate the first year in which they provided twelve months of data. Red stations are the oldest and blue stations are the newest. There are 7280 distinct station locations in all.

 

[Paratus]

Nobody's expecting exactly the same temperatures. However, surface and lower troposphere (LT) temperatures should reasonably correlate and have done so historically....instead they are now markedly diverging with the recent sea bucket adjustment to the surface data. BTW, LT satellite temperature data is heavily weighted to altitudes less than 3000 meters.

I know and as far as I see the satellite dataset is still following the ground record inflection point by inflection point. There's an offset currently but the satellite record has always been more dynamic than the ground record. Overshooting and undershooting.

Which is an inherent and major weakness with the surface data record. Satellite data provides highly granular temperature monitoring of 99% of the planet's lower troposphere.

Locations of All Stations in GCHN Database, as used by CRU and NCDC. The stations are color-coded to indicate the first year in which they provided twelve months of data. Red stations are the oldest and blue stations are the newest. There are 7280 distinct station locations in all.

Yup that's one of the benefits of the satellite record.

You seem to think I don't want to include the satellite record. That it somehow proved me wrong about mans influence on the climate. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The satellite record gives us insight into the temperature of the atmosphere but it doesn't tell us anything about ocean heat content. Argo and ships and buckets give us insight into the ocean surface temperature and deep ocean heat content. The ground stations give us more accurate temperature data in the areas that we live.

You can't get a global temperature reading with out summing all of these. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[bshole]

Paratus,

I would like to pick your brain for a second with some questions.

1. What is the optimum temperature for the earth and how do you know it?
2. What is the optimum atmospheric Co2 level for the earth and how do you know it?
3. What is the optimum amount of climate variation and how do you know it?
4. How do you know that forced use of alternative energy won't have unintended consequences which create economic/environmental problems are worse than problem they are intended to solve? (Ethanol is a great example).
5. How do you know that greatly enhanced research into alternative energy to make it more cost efficient than fossil fuels is not superior to forced adoption of less cost efficient renewables?
6. If global warming is bad, how come it is has not negatively impacted the world in a measurable way? (For example, mass starvation and dislocation of human populations)
7. How do you know that there is not a political agenda that has perverted the scientific process with regards to global warming? Why do so many of those involved with it act eerily similar to priests/reverends? Why do they actively oppress those with differing views?