Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Debateable]

For someone chastising others about "learning facts", you seem to be rather ignorant of them....

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record

Go back and read what I wrote about thermometers.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Oh really? What position does she have in the UN now? Moved up? She was nominated for the SG by her home country Costa Rica and she didn't get it. She no longer represents the UN on any subject.

OK, you're right, she's a maverick who spoke out of turn saying what only she at the UN believed and the rest are too afraid to correct her publicly. And why would that be unless she was toeing the party line.

 

[siti]

OK, you're right, she's a maverick who spoke out of turn saying what only she at the UN believed and the rest are too afraid to correct her publicly. And why would that be unless she was toeing the party line.

Well there you go again - deliberately misrepresenting what I said...you deliberately falsified the information you gave about this lady's current status - stating that she had "moved up" in the UN hierarchy - this is manifestly not true. Why would anybody trust any of your further comments when you post out of date, out of context and blatantly untrue statements about things you could easily have checked but didn't bother to because you already have a set of 'alternative facts' and you're going to stick to them come what may? When are you going to get the idea that repeatedly posting factual inexactitudes does not constitute a cogent argument?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You dismiss everything I said with one cavalier word.

You flatter yourself! I dismissed the article with a single word. After reading it, it really didn't deserve the one!

 

[Jose Fly]

Go back and read what I wrote about thermometers.

Just like a creationist.....making excuses for waving away inconvenient data.

 

[Debateable]

Just like a creationist.....making excuses for waving away inconvenient data.

Huh? Creationist? Inconvenient data? How am I the one waving away inconvenient data? I'm not the one ignoring the other two forms of measurement and placing all my faith in one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Huh? Creationist? Inconvenient data? How am I the one waving away inconvenient data?

When presented with the data indicating that 2014, 2015, and 2016 were consecutive "hottest years on record", you waved it away by trying to argue that all the data was from thermometers and therefore didn't count.

I'm not the one ignoring the other two forms of measurement and placing all my faith in one.

You're not making sense.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When presented with the data indicating that 2014, 2015, and 2016 were consecutive "hottest years on record", you waved it away by trying to argue that all the data was from thermometers and therefore didn't count.

So what, how does that prove humans were the predominant cause?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But if the reduced warming over the last decade or two is the result, not of over-estimating sensitivity to CO2 but of underestimating other (less predictable) negative feedback parameters (such as some of those I have mentioned) and we do nothing to control emissions of GHGs then we can only hope that all the other parameters continue to line up in our favour. And whether or not human contributions to warming are predominant, they are the only ones we get to control. Pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is warming the atmosphere to a greater or lesser extent. I still think, given all the evidence, that our influence is significant and great enough to tip the scales in or out of our favour depending on what we choose to do about it. I'd rather think that, be cautious and ultimately proved wrong when we really know the truth about our climate, than think opposite, continue on our current trend and let my grandchildren regret it.

If our great grandparents had decided to sign away our rights to utilize fuel, for the exact same argument, we'd still be living in a pre-industrial age. reversing the technological revolution that gave us > a century of unprecedented growth in standards of living, feeding the world, lifting countless millions out of horrific poverty, handing unprecedented wealth and rights over to politicians...all on the off chance that this will somehow make the climate cooler, and that this will somehow be a good thing?!... it's hardly the 'cautious' option.

 

[Debateable]

Just like a creationist.....making excuses for waving away inconvenient data.

Huh? Creationist? Inconvenient data? How am I the one waving away inconvenient data? I'm not the one ignoring the other two forms of measurement and placing all my faith in one.

When presented with the data indicating that 2014, 2015, and 2016 were consecutive "hottest years on record", you waved it away by trying to argue that all the data was from thermometers and therefore didn't count.



You're not making sense.

So one record out of three says those were the hottest years. Congrats. I'll stick with my 2/3's majority. Plus, if you look at the thermometer record, there is a distinct point in time when a significant number of measuring stations were closed. Subsequently the temperatures immediately rose.

 

[Jose Fly]

So what, how does that prove humans were the predominant cause?

That wasn't the context of the point. Debatable had claimed that prior to 2016, 1998 was the hottest year on record. As I pointed out, that was wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

So one record out of three says those were the hottest years.

Not sure what records you're talking about. The one I cited relates to the terrestrial and oceanic surface temperature records.

Congrats. I'll stick with my 2/3's majority.

Of course you will.

Plus, if you look at the thermometer record, there is a distinct point in time when a significant number of measuring stations were closed. Subsequently the temperatures immediately rose.

Cite?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That wasn't the context of the point. Debatable had claimed that prior to 2016, 1998 was the hottest year on record. As I pointed out, that was wrong.

Well according to Dr Spencer's UAH satellite data records, he is not wrong... Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 « Roy Spencer, PhD

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

 

[Jose Fly]

Well according to Dr Spencer's UAH satellite data records, he is not wrong... Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 « Roy Spencer, PhD

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

First, note that even in that data set there's an unmistakable upward trend. Second, cherry-picking 1998 as one's starting point is.....well....cherry picking, something one doesn't do in science.

Finally (and most importantly), there's a bit more to this than just the graph you copied. See, satellites don't directly measure temperatures like thermometers do. Instead they infer temperatures from proxy data. So when it comes time to analyze the data and infer temperatures, different groups use different methods, which produces different results. Not only that, but not all the satellites that collect this data do so via the same instruments (plus, instruments do decline over time and satellites drift and experience orbital decay). Put all those factors together and you end up with high degrees of discrepancies between final data sets and analyses.

Attempts have been made to correct for all these factors, and some agreement between observed and inferred data has been made, but discrepancies remain. Specifically, the data set for the graph you posted, i.e., the UAH data, is the set that shows the the lowest temps for the lower troposphere, whereas the GISS and Hadley Center set both agree with each other and show warmer temps than the UAH data. Also, the UAH data is the least consistent with direct measurements taken via weather balloons. So basically, focusing on the UAH data set to the exclusion of others is once again, cherry picking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

First, note that even in that data set there's an unmistakable upward trend. Second, cherry-picking 1998 as one's starting point is.....well....cherry picking, something one doesn't do in science.

Finally (and most importantly), there's a bit more to this than just the graph you copied. See, satellites don't directly measure temperatures like thermometers do. Instead they infer temperatures from proxy data. So when it comes time to analyze the data and infer temperatures, different groups use different methods, which produces different results. Not only that, but not all the satellites that collect this data do so via the same instruments (plus, instruments do decline over time and satellites drift and experience orbital decay). Put all those factors together and you end up with high degrees of discrepancies between final data sets and analyses.

Attempts have been made to correct for all these factors, and some agreement between observed and inferred data has been made, but discrepancies remain. Specifically, the data set for the graph you posted, i.e., the UAH data, is the set that shows the the lowest temps for the lower troposphere, whereas the GISS and Hadley Center set both agree with each other and show warmer temps than the UAH data. Also, the UAH data is the least consistent with direct measurements taken via weather balloons. So basically, focusing on the UAH data set to the exclusion of others is once again, cherry picking.

Wow, are you aware of what you have just done? You claim in your post #251 to me that Debatable was wrong in saying that 1998 was the hottest year prior to 2016, and in response I posted material from Dr Spencer that showed he was not in error, so now you post material that does not address the point and is totally irrelevant, what gives?

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow, are you aware of what you have just done? You claim in your post #251 to me that Debatable was wrong in saying that 1998 was the hottest year prior to 2016, and in response I posted material from Dr Spencer that showed he was not in error, so now you post material that does not address the point and is totally irrelevant, what gives?

Try and keep up. Debatable's claim was based entirely on ignoring not only the direct temperature measurements, but also the long-running issues with the data set he was relying on, both in terms of the methodology and how it didn't line up with the other independent satellite data.

IOW, his claim should have read, "2016 was the hottest year since 1998, if you only rely on this single questionable data set and ignore all others".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

IOW, his claim should have read, "2016 was the hottest year since 1998, if you only rely on this single questionable data set and ignore all others".

The UAH data shows what it shows, that it all that matters. But in any event, since it is not proven that humans are the main cause of the warming, the fear campaign blaming humans is a waste of time and money, so that matters.

 

[Jose Fly]

The UAH data shows what it shows

And by the same token, all the other data sets show what they show. Yet some would have us completely ignore them.

But in any event, since it is not proven that humans are the main cause of the warming, the fear campaign blaming humans is a waste of time and money, so that matters.

"I don't care what you say.....I'm still right!!!!"

Nice.

 

[Debateable]

Not sure what records you're talking about. The one I cited relates to the terrestrial and oceanic surface temperature records.



Of course you will.



Cite?

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/mckitrick_temp_stations.jpg

Here is a detailed view of average temperature and thermometer numbers after 1950. Note how average temperature suddenly began to look like a hockey stick. How did they do this? Mainly by promoting thermometers from warm places and demoting those from cold places ( higher altitudes and remote rural places).
And in the United States, Anthony Watts - in a volunteer survey of over 1000 of the 1221 instrument stations - had found 89% were poorly or very poorly sited, using NOAA’s own criteria. This resulted in a warm bias of over 1ºC. A warm contamination of up to 50% has been shown by no less than a dozen peer review papers including ironically one by Tom Karl (1988), director of NOAA’s NCDC and another by the CRU’s Phil Jones (2009). (Tom Karl and Phil Jones are at the centre of the Climategate scandal)

 

[Debateable]

First, note that even in that data set there's an unmistakable upward trend. Second, cherry-picking 1998 as one's starting point is.....well....cherry picking, something one doesn't do in science.

Finally (and most importantly), there's a bit more to this than just the graph you copied. See, satellites don't directly measure temperatures like thermometers do. Instead they infer temperatures from proxy data. So when it comes time to analyze the data and infer temperatures, different groups use different methods, which produces different results. Not only that, but not all the satellites that collect this data do so via the same instruments (plus, instruments do decline over time and satellites drift and experience orbital decay). Put all those factors together and you end up with high degrees of discrepancies between final data sets and analyses.

Attempts have been made to correct for all these factors, and some agreement between observed and inferred data has been made, but discrepancies remain. Specifically, the data set for the graph you posted, i.e., the UAH data, is the set that shows the the lowest temps for the lower troposphere, whereas the GISS and Hadley Center set both agree with each other and show warmer temps than the UAH data. Also, the UAH data is the least consistent with direct measurements taken via weather balloons. So basically, focusing on the UAH data set to the exclusion of others is once again, cherry picking.

Way to move the goal posts when he brought up inconvenient data.