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

[OverVolt]

Despite you guys retarding out like a bunch of ninnies.

The satellite temperature record is more consistent. You can retroactively apply corrections and constantly improve the data where as the land temperature record is dirty. You don't know if there was a shrub over the Utah airport thermometer in 1972 or if expanding the airport or moving the weather station affected its data.

The global warming types show their hand by trying too hard to discredit the satellite temperature record. The Satellite record has been subject to much more rigorous peer review, critique and statistical analysis than any other record precisely because of everyone trying to discredit it.

There are literally older records in the land temperature record that are guesses.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Despite you guys retarding out like a bunch of ninnies.

The satellite temperature record is more consistent. You can retroactively apply corrections and constantly improve the data where as the land temperature record is dirty. You don't know if there was a shrub over the Utah airport thermometer in 1972 or if expanding the airport or moving the weather station affected its data.

The global warming types show their hand by trying too hard to discredit the satellite temperature record. The Satellite record has been subject to much more rigorous peer review, critique and statistical analysis than any other record precisely because of everyone trying to discredit it.

There are literally older records in the land temperature record that are guesses.

Here you go,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Facts are a bitch, right?

 

[tracerbullet]

Paratus,

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

I'm curious if you are at the point of 1) it not being real, 2) it being real but not related to humans, or 3) it being real and related to humans but not something we could or should do anything about?

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)

You have to be kidding.

 

[OverVolt]

Here you go,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Facts are a bitch, right?

The land temperature record and sat data has been diverging still since then.




http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

I content that meteorological stations and other such measures are contaminated/dirtied by nearby development. There was an airport that expanded and the jet wash now goes over their weather station. Stuff like that.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

You didn't even read the source that proved your argument is bullshit....

"John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995). Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data."

"When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.


At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics."

 

[OverVolt]

You didn't even read the source that proved your argument is bullshit....

They corrected for the orbital decay like a decade ago. You can go back and apply to the correction to the historical raw data. Those are both the UAH and RSS data sets and the GISS data set direct from their sources. You explain it then.

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

 

[fskimospy]

Despite you guys retarding out like a bunch of ninnies.

The satellite temperature record is more consistent. You can retroactively apply corrections and constantly improve the data where as the land temperature record is dirty. You don't know if there was a shrub over the Utah airport thermometer in 1972 or if expanding the airport or moving the weather station affected its data.

The global warming types show their hand by trying too hard to discredit the satellite temperature record. The Satellite record has been subject to much more rigorous peer review, critique and statistical analysis than any other record precisely because of everyone trying to discredit it.

There are literally older records in the land temperature record that are guesses.

So can you explain why the guy responsible for the RSS dataset considers land temperatures to be more reliable than the satellite record? Clearly you appear to understand his data better than he does.

Oops. Haha.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So let me get this straight, you believe you have proven that climate change is a global conspiracy, because satellites measured radiation from the troposphere, and thermometers have been adversely affected by bushes at the airport!

Yah, that makes sense...

Clearly 99.99% of the scientific papers published last year, which attributed global warming to CO2 emissions are all fraudulent! It's a global conspiracy, so that the US govt funds researches in can keep leeching off the governments! Although, the only government that denies climate change is the US govt... So, yah!

Just one question? Are the bushes at the airport in it too, or is that just a coincidence?

 

[OverVolt]

So let me get this straight, you believe you have proven that climate change is a global conspiracy, because satellites measured radiation from the troposphere, and thermometers have been adversely affected by bushes at the airport!

Yah, that makes sense...

Clearly 99.99% of the scientific papers published last year, which attributed global warming to CO2 emissions are all fraudulent! It's a global conspiracy, so that the US govt funds researches in can keep leeching off the governments! Although, the only government that denies climate change is the US govt... So, yah!

Just one question? Are the bushes at the airport in it too, or is that just a coincidence?

Hmm? You just aggregate the data and analyze it with statistics. Nobody is paying attention or cares, thats why. Weather stations are contaminated by nearby development. Asphalt etc. Dams actually have a cooling effect on nearby stations, but we have more parking lots than dams, I promise.

I think its funny that we see mostly higher lows more than higher highs. Thats exactly what asphalt does as it keeps radiating heat after the sun goes down.

Also the Ocean temperature record is pretty terrible.

None of the data ever matches. That never irks you? If what I think is happening is happening, then the satellites and land temp record will continue to diverge even further as time goes on.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just one question? Are the bushes at the airport in it too, or is that just a coincidence?

So you deny UHI, that's brilliant.
Is it a conspiracy then that cities are 10 degrees warmer than outlying areas?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So you deny UHI, that's brilliant.
Is it a conspiracy then that cities are 10 degrees warmer than outlying areas?

Thats why the oceans are a better standard of measurement, but I see you don't want to use that. Measuring the troposphere is easily the worst!

 

[fskimospy]

Is anyone going to address why the guy responsible for RSS seems to think that satellite temperatures are less reliable than land ones? I mean if the guy who owns the dataset thinks so, doesn't that suggest that he might know what he's talking about?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Is anyone going to address why the guy responsible for RSS seems to think that satellite temperatures are less reliable than land ones? I mean if the guy who owns the dataset thinks so, doesn't that suggest that he might know what he's talking about?

That should be obvious. The troposphere is 11 miles above the surface which is in constant circulation. It's obviously going to heat up slower than the planet.

If these people were interested in facts, they wouldn't be having this discussion to start with.

 

[dainthomas]

You have to be kidding.

Have mass starvations increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution? I would be fascinated to read about how that's possible since per person food production has increased vastly in the last century and a half.

 

[OverVolt]

Thats why the oceans are a better standard of measurement, but I see you don't want to use that. Measuring the troposphere is easily the worst!

The ocean record is pretty bad. They have about 1,300 bouys that measure the temperature 500m down.


http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Example:
http://tao.ndbc.noaa.gov/refreshed/site.php?site=34

They used engine intake temperature sensor data. Its not very good data. In that, the land record has way more measurements going back about a hundred years. They have maybe a few decades of high quality ocean data. The coverage is not great, IMO.

 

[John Connor]

Most of the deniers on Fox don't believe the earth is older than 6000 years
So what they were farming in a vaccum?

Been watching FoxNews since high school. I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

You spelled vacuum wrong BTW.

 

[OverVolt]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

You might find it interesting since its out of the other horses mouth.

We identified which GHCN stations were rural and which were urban. Then we created global temperature time series from the rural only stations and compared that to our full dataset. The result was that the two showed almost identical time series (actually the rural showed a little bit more warming) so there apparently was no lingering urban heat island bias in the adjusted GHCN dataset.

Probably the biggest thing I'd want to point out is that the urban heat island effect is no big deal. There are more measurements around cities, sure, but sectioning off the temperature into a grid eliminates that bias.

What you'd actually expect is for the rural stations to increase in temperature the most, as suburban sprawl stretches further and further away from major cities. A county where I lived used to be an 800-acre cherry farm in the 1960's and now has 3 highways that run through it. Its like that across the whole country as the population grows.

Cities have always been pavement, intersections of the city near me have been intersections for 150+ years. Pouring concrete on top of concrete doesn't lead to alot of local warming.

I do think there is massive local warming contamination in the land record over the last 5 decades due to all the development. Development since the early 2000's seems to have curtailed off so we'll see.

According to what I think, you'd also predict the most warming in China due to their breakneck pace of development, which I believe is true. I'm pretty sure the CO2 had enough time to diffuse into the atmosphere in a decade, just saying.

Totally remote areas (and there aren't many of those left in the world) give you the best data IMO and of course, there are hardly any measurements there so they estimate/computer scientist math/model/guess or whatever you want to call it for those sectors just to fill in the blank in the model.

 

[Jaskalas]

Thats why the oceans are a better standard of measurement, but I see you don't want to use that. Measuring the troposphere is easily the worst!

You would find merit in discrediting the Satellites as such, and find that a decent argument for people to settle upon. To trust or not to trust which record. Ocean has a compelling issue of its own, with ARGO only functioning since 2003.

You have your explanation for the ocean data, I wonder if I can derive an excuse or better yet an explanation from my side. Current theory we hold to heart, is not maintained by ever increasing records.

 

[OverVolt]

You would find merit in discrediting the Satellites as such, and find that a decent argument for people to settle upon. To trust or not to trust which record. Ocean has a compelling issue of its own, with ARGO only functioning since 2003.

You have your explanation for the ocean data, I wonder if I can derive an excuse or better yet an explanation from my side. Current theory we hold to heart, is not maintained by ever increasing records.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/

Terrible source I'm sure but found it interesting... really just in the sense that the Ocean temperature is about as complicated as I expected it to be.

I don't mind climate research, I support the NOAA and such. My main gripe is wild conclusions drawn from shite data, so we need better data. I'm all for that.

 

[Paratus]

You would find merit in discrediting the Satellites as such, and find that a decent argument for people to settle upon. To trust or not to trust which record. Ocean has a compelling issue of its own, with ARGO only functioning since 2003.

You have your explanation for the ocean data, I wonder if I can derive an excuse or better yet an explanation from my side. Current theory we hold to heart, is not maintained by ever increasing records.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/

Terrible source I'm sure but found it interesting... really just in the sense that the Ocean temperature is about as complicated as I expected it to be.

I don't mind climate research, I support the NOAA and such. My main gripe is wild conclusions drawn from shite data, so we need better data. I'm all for that.

As usual you guys have to ignore most of the data so your hypothesis stays intact.

So if we arbitrarily say we can't trust ocean heat content before 2003 when Argo came in line it still doesn't help your case.

If we zero out heat content in 2003 it still increased by 17x10^22 joules in 12 years during the pause. The surface record even using the older dataset increased during this time as did the satellite record. Since the oceans hold about 1000X the heat the atmosphere can for there to have been a pause the satellite record would have had to show the atmosphere temperature dropping by 10C-20C during that time. Otherwise no pause. If you don't understand this you literally don't understand addition.

I expect you'll argue that this all just part of natural ocean oscillations. Well here's the surface temperatures overlayed with the El Niño and La Niña cycles. Please point out to me where the temperatures decrease significantly enough to put the entire plot into balance:

Finally for your "Pause and Ocean Cycles Hypothesis" to be valid you have to ignore the physics of CO2. Climate sensitivity would have to be much less than the mainstream science shows. Some recent papers seem to have suggested this, but they aren't entirely correct.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/recent-estimates-of-low-climate-sensitivity-were-flawed/

(Bshole I haven't forgotten your post but you asked a lot of questions so it's taking awhile.)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thats why the oceans are a better standard of measurement, but I see you don't want to use that. Measuring the troposphere is easily the worst!

Wow...just wow.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That should be obvious. The troposphere is 11 miles above the surface which is in constant circulation. It's obviously going to heat up slower than the planet.

If these people were interested in facts, they wouldn't be having this discussion to start with.

You obviously have zero idea as to what your talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Jaskalas]

Finally for your "Pause and Ocean Cycles Hypothesis" to be valid you have to ignore the physics of CO2. Climate sensitivity would have to be much less than the mainstream science shows.

Climate sensitivity has been the entire point of contestation.
Satellites suggest there's something wrong with the mainstream.
Ocean starts to suggest there's not.

Problem with ocean is you claim to use "energy" instead of temperature in order to make it look big, and measurable. We measure energy through temp, and the change in temp has been extremely small.

A change of less than one tenth. That could easily be noise as much as a signal of true change.

 

[Paratus]

Climate sensitivity has been the entire point of contestation.
Satellites suggest there's something wrong with the mainstream.
Ocean starts to suggest there's not.

Problem with ocean is you claim to use "energy" instead of temperature in order to make it look big, and measurable. We measure energy through temp, and the change in temp has been extremely small.

A change of less than one tenth. That could easily be noise as much as a signal of true change.

CO2 sensitivity is fairly well understood. The article I linked to shows certain errors in a few recent papers that underestimate CO2 sensitivity.

Your misinterpretation of the satellite record is why you think there's a problem with mainstream science.

Your comments about ocean heat betrays a distinct lack of understanding of thermal systems. Heat energy from the sun is how the Earth is warmed. It's the only way to compare how much of that heat from the sun is being stored in the oceans, atmosphere, and ground.

Your comment about it possibly being noise betrays your lack of understanding of statistics and sensors.

If I place a thermometer in a 10C pool that can only measure in whole degrees I'll get a measurement of 10C

If I dump hot water in the pool and raise the actual temperature to 10.1C I'll still read 10C on my thermometer.

If I add 10 thermometers and dump my hot water in one thermometer may read 11C while the rest read 10C The average temperature of all thermometers is now 10.1C - [((9x10)+11)/10]

Argo has had between 3000-4000 floats taking 100,000 temperature profiles per year for more than a decade. The statistical likelihood that the measured OHC increase was due to noise is less than your chance of winning the power ball.

I'm a bit shocked at the cluelessness of your post.

 

[chucky2]

Keep checking to see Believers advocating for large shutdowns of non-essential items/activities to combat this cataclysmic Gaia damaging issue...see nothing from them other than give money to Al and Big Gov... :hmm: