The Science of Global Warming : Explained

[sayak83]

Thanks for coming back to me, you pose an excellent and key question. My short answer is that I avoid indulging in my beliefs when I am investigating a scientific question --they get in the way.

The longer answer is that maybe we have good temp measurements and once we see them together then we can move from there. I've failed to find them myself but that proves nothing accept that I need help, so I'm here. Please, let's get out the sufficiently precise temperature readings --I thought we were going back the 100 years you mentioned earlier-- then we'd be on our way. My thinking is that next we could come up w/ temperature measurements going back a few hundred thousand years (NOAA has a terrific paleoclimate data website). Maybe we could even some how show how they correlate to ocean temperatures.

We've seen a lot of clowns on these threads w/ an agenda, worse yet they drag on w/ their stupid games --I just had to "ignore" a clown here. I like the idea of working w/ someone else w/ different views to keep me honest, and to go (as you said "step by step". Let's find the damn temp measurements for the top 600m of ocean, I'm sure there out there someplace-- then see how they match w/ other proxies. After we find our significant rise then we can go on to see if the increase has precedent and what happened before.

Sound good to you?

I will get to ocean depth temperatures later. First, if you look at the NASA collected database of land and ocean surface temperature that has been extensively documented here with records going back to 1880s, why do you not find them to be reliable?
Global surface temperature data: GISTEMP: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis | Climate Data Guide.

The data can be accessed directly here. Further there is extensive documentation on how instrument and observation location biases have been identified and corrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for coming back to me, you pose an excellent and key question. My short answer is that I avoid indulging in my beliefs when I am investigating a scientific question --they get in the way.

The longer answer is that maybe we have good temp measurements and once we see them together then we can move from there. I've failed to find them myself but that proves nothing accept that I need help, so I'm here. Please, let's get out the sufficiently precise temperature readings --I thought we were going back the 100 years you mentioned earlier-- then we'd be on our way. My thinking is that next we could come up w/ temperature measurements going back a few hundred thousand years (NOAA has a terrific paleoclimate data website). Maybe we could even some how show how they correlate to ocean temperatures.

We've seen a lot of clowns on these threads w/ an agenda, worse yet they drag on w/ their stupid games --I just had to "ignore" a clown here. I like the idea of working w/ someone else w/ different views to keep me honest, and to go (as you said "step by step". Let's find the damn temp measurements for the top 600m of ocean, I'm sure there out there someplace-- then see how they match w/ other proxies. After we find our significant rise then we can go on to see if the increase has precedent and what happened before.

Sound good to you?

It appears that you have delusions of grandeur. How are you going to analyze the data base of millions of measurements? It also appears that you have stooped to name calling for those that exposed your ignorance.

You ask poorly phrased questions so no one could understand what you were demanding and then pout and name call when it is not given to you. What you did not realize is that when you claim that something is false you have already taken on the burden of proof. No one has to provide you with anything at the point. Your demands only refuted your earlier claims since they were just arguments from ignorance.

But, I do sometimes feel a bit of pity for the ignorant. Here is a link to a source that has links to several different data bases:

https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/data/

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will get to ocean depth temperatures later. First, if you look at the NASA collected database of land and ocean surface temperature that has been extensively documented here with records going back to 1880s, why do you not find them to be reliable?
Global surface temperature data: GISTEMP: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis | Climate Data Guide.

The data can be accessed directly here. Further there is extensive documentation on how instrument and observation location biases have been identified and corrected.

How much "analysis" of millions of data points can one do without a computer and an ability to program it?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I will get to ocean depth temperatures later. First, if you look at the NASA collected database of land and ocean surface temperature that has been extensively documented here with records going back to 1880s, why do you not find them to be reliable?
Global surface temperature data: GISTEMP: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis | Climate Data Guide.

The data can be accessed directly here. Further there is extensive documentation on how instrument and observation location biases have been identified and corrected.

So you insist that a set of anomalies is the same as a group of temperature.measurements, and I don't.

It might be my background in the sciences. Never in my work in chemistry, physics, meteorology, hydrology, environmental impact analysis, or construction have I ever had to work w/ anomalies. In all my experience temperature was never confused w/ anomalies.

Add to the mix is the fact --like u said-- that the reason they use anomalies is because the temperatures are so different from one place to another. This has to raise the question what such variance would do to our conclusion of our 600m deep ocean heating up 1.3 C over 100 years. To me it's simply not believable that temperatures could be so different that we can't present them, and at the same time be expected to believe that all present anomalies within a tenth of a degree over 100 years.

What we have to instead accept is that you and I really don't know what the temperatures are and have been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you insist that a set of anomalies is the same as a group of temperature.measurements, and I don't.

It might be my background in the sciences. Never in my work in chemistry, physics, meteorology, hydrology, environmental impact analysis, or construction have I ever had to work w/ anomalies. In all my experience temperature was never confused w/ anomalies.

Add to the mix is the fact --like u said-- that the reason they use anomalies is because the temperatures are so different from one place to another. This has to raise the question what such variance would do to our conclusion of our 600m deep ocean heating up 1.3 C over 100 years. To me it's simply not believable that temperatures could be so different that we can't present them, and at the same time be expected to believe that all present anomalies within a tenth of a degree over 100 years.

What we have to instead accept is that you and I really don't know what the temperatures are and have been.

No, the anomalies are the differences between the measured average temperatures as time changes. Often a base year is chosen. That year is not the "right temperature". It is merely a standard that differences are measured from. Then the average measured temperatures are compared to that. The differences are the " anomalies ". Christ on a bicycle, if you don't understand a term ask for an explanation. Don't tell the whole world that you do not understand a term in a post, and then think that your error is a refutation.

And you called me a clown because I asked you how you would analyze the data if it was given to you.

 

[sayak83]

So you insist that a set of anomalies is the same as a group of temperature.measurements, and I don't.

It might be my background in the sciences. Never in my work in chemistry, physics, meteorology, hydrology, environmental impact analysis, or construction have I ever had to work w/ anomalies. In all my experience temperature was never confused w/ anomalies.

Add to the mix is the fact --like u said-- that the reason they use anomalies is because the temperatures are so different from one place to another. This has to raise the question what such variance would do to our conclusion of our 600m deep ocean heating up 1.3 C over 100 years. To me it's simply not believable that temperatures could be so different that we can't present them, and at the same time be expected to believe that all present anomalies within a tenth of a degree over 100 years.

What we have to instead accept is that you and I really don't know what the temperatures are and have been.

If you have so much background in the sciences, you should be knowing how heat transfer is related to temperature? Neglected latent heat additions, sensible heat transfer is related by
Heat Added = Mass * Specific Heat Constant * (New Temperature - Old Temperature).
Thus how exactly is temperature anomaly not the correct measure for heat addition to the system?

Please also see the post here that demonstrates that temperature anomalies are more accurate than average absolute temperature. Read it and let me know what are your objections.
Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change

 

[Pete in Panama]

If you have so much background in the sciences, you should be knowing how heat transfer is related to temperature? Neglected latent heat additions, sensible heat transfer is related by
Heat Added = Mass * Specific Heat Constant * (New Temperature - Old Temperature).
Thus how exactly is temperature anomaly not the correct measure for heat addition to the system?

Please also see the post here that demonstrates that temperature anomalies are more accurate than average absolute temperature. Read it and let me know what are your objections.
Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change

lol!! Let's step back a sec.

The bit about my scientific background tells me two things. One is that I'll have to avoid mentioning it because it's a distraction, and the other is that you're switching to questioning my background because your search for temp readings is a lot of work. Let's agree that doing this scientifically means first temp measurements throughout the mass, then the calculation of a change and direction, and after that conclusions about the difference for the mass in question.

We don't have that here, it's instead a matter of first deciding that the mass is heating, followed by a pre-calculated shift in the temp --an "anomaly"-- followed by an insistence that the anomaly is based on now discarded measurements. To me this is not a scientific methodology but rather a process to pose as an orderly inquiry while in reality leaving open a host of opportunities for the manipulation of data. Let's not get hung up on a procedural or systematic error.

We want to take our time, get readings that are representative of our mass, look at the time span and then (hopefully) we can go where the numbers take us.

 

[sayak83]

lol!! Let's step back a sec.

The bit about my scientific background tells me two things. One is that I'll have to avoid mentioning it because it's a distraction, and the other is that you're switching to questioning my background because your search for temp readings is a lot of work. Let's agree that doing this scientifically means first temp measurements throughout the mass, then the calculation of a change and direction, and after that conclusions about the difference for the mass in question.

We don't have that here, it's instead a matter of first deciding that the mass is heating, followed by a pre-calculated shift in the temp --an "anomaly"-- followed by an insistence that the anomaly is based on now discarded measurements. To me this is not a scientific methodology but rather a process to pose as an orderly inquiry while in reality leaving open a host of opportunities for the manipulation of data. Let's not get hung up on a procedural or systematic error.

We want to take our time, get readings that are representative of our mass, look at the time span and then (hopefully) we can go where the numbers take us.

No, I absolutely and emphatically disagree, as do all other scientists like me who actually work in this field.
The link clearly shows why temperature anomalies are the correct and physical means of measuring changes in climatological temperature parameters. It also clearly mentions why the concept of absolute temperature averages is non-physical. Your reply seems to show that you have not understood the explanation. Which part did you not understand? It is quite clear based on the explanation that using mean temperature is Not Scientific.
Further, using Temperature deltas does not mean any biases about changes is being put in apriori. For if the climate truly were not changing, then the anomaly data would never had shown any trend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I absolutely and emphatically disagree, as do all other scientists like me who actually work in this field.
The link clearly shows why temperature anomalies are the correct and physical means of measuring changes in climatological temperature parameters. It also clearly mentions why the concept of absolute temperature averages is non-physical. Your reply seems to show that you have not understood the explanation. Which part did you not understand? It is quite clear based on the explanation that using mean temperature is Not Scientific.
Further, using Temperature deltas does not mean any biases about changes is being put in apriori. For if the climate truly were not changing, then the anomaly data would never had shown any trend.

He appears to be just a science denier. He demanded that data, as if he could analyze it, and now that he has it he has moved the goal posts. Meanwhile I am rewatching this video:

It is well worth watching and gives an explanation of the Greenhouse Effect at several levels. As you know a scientific hypothesis is often tested upon the predictions that it makes.. One of the weirdest predictions that it makes to me is of stratospheric cooling. But this was predicted in 1967! It was observed later since first we had to have good measurements of stratospheric temperatures. Manabe and Wetherald wrote the paper on this then. In 2021 the surviving Manabe won the Nobel Prize in Physics for it. He may have put me on ignore because I questioned has ability to analyze the data. It appears that I was right.

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, I absolutely and emphatically disagree, as do all other scientists like me who actually work in this field.
The link clearly shows why temperature anomalies are the correct and physical means of measuring changes in climatological temperature parameters. It also clearly mentions why the concept of absolute temperature averages is non-physical. Your reply seems to show that you have not understood the explanation. Which part did you not understand? It is quite clear based on the explanation that using mean temperature is Not Scientific.
Further, using Temperature deltas does not mean any biases about changes is being put in apriori. For if the climate truly were not changing, then the anomaly data would never had shown any trend.

OK it's like I said above---

...you insist that a set of anomalies is the same as a group of temperature.measurements, and I don't..

--and there does not seem to be any common ground where you and I can work together. What I'm seeing are two obstacles, one being the anomaly fuss. The other obstacle is our apparent disagreement as to the validity of starting w/ a conclusion and then looking for anomalies to support it.

Maybe later I'll get some kind of inspiration as to how we can join forces again later but until then all the very best to you & yours --and thanks for the chat!.

 

[sayak83]

OK it's like I said above-----and there does not seem to be any common ground where you and I can work together. What I'm seeing are two obstacles, one being the anomaly fuss. The other obstacle is our apparent disagreement as to the validity of starting w/ a conclusion and then looking for anomalies to support it.

Maybe later I'll get some kind of inspiration as to how we can join forces again later but until then all the very best to you & yours --and thanks for the chat!.

That is upto you.
I will say this. I have presented sufficient scientific evidence (and I can present more) that shows why analysis of the spatial averaging of local temperature deltas from various measurement stations is the correct and robust means by which temperature change trends can be measured. In contrast averaging of very different absolute temperatures from multiple locations provide physically meaningless results which are extremely error prone. Science does not work on intuitions or hunches, but what the evidence shows. And the evidence and the theory shows that temperature anomalies (or pressure or rainfall anomalies) is the correct quantity that needs to be measured and collected for physically meaningful analysis.

 

[sayak83]

He appears to be just a science denier. He demanded that data, as if he could analyze it, and now that he has it he has moved the goal posts. Meanwhile I am rewatching this video:

It is well worth watching and gives an explanation of the Greenhouse Effect at several levels. As you know a scientific hypothesis is often tested upon the predictions that it makes.. One of the weirdest predictions that it makes to me is of stratospheric cooling. But this was predicted in 1967! It was observed later since first we had to have good measurements of stratospheric temperatures. Manabe and Wetherald wrote the paper on this then. In 2021 the surviving Manabe won the Nobel Prize in Physics for it. He may have put me on ignore because I questioned has ability to analyze the data. It appears that I was right.

I do not know if he is a science denier or not. The point about using anomalies often throw people off initially. What non-technical people do not understand is that anomalies have less error than absolute means. The reason is simple. Suppose you have a measurement method that has some consistent bias B (due to instrument error or way you are measuring etc etc).
Then the Observed Value = Actual Value + B.
Now if you do a mean of many observed values, since the bias B is the same you get
Mean of Observed Value = Mean of Actual Value + B.
But what if you take the deviation. The deviation data is :
Deviation of a Given Observed Value from Mean = Observed Value - Mean of Observed Value
Now if you simplify, the consistent bias B will cancel out and you get
Deviation of a Given Observed Value = Actual Value - Mean of Actual Value = Deviation of Actual Value
So all the fixed value biases cancel out when dealing with the deviation (or anomaly) data and hence those are much more accurate than the absolute value data.
It is that simple.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That is upto you.
I will say this. I have presented sufficient scientific evidence (and I can present more) that shows why...

ok we can agree that you're wonderful and you're really smart and everyone's happy w/ you, we can also agree that everyone's disgusted w/ me if you want. Frankly, I don't see how your being wonderful and me bad has any effect on the average temperature of our 600m of ocean in 1923 --whatever that was. No problem, life is good & we're fine.

A thought occurred to me. We don't know what the temp was of the 600m of ocean in 1923, and we don't know what it is today, but we know that it's 1.3C hotter now -- to an accuracy within a tenth of a degree!! Like, isn't that amazing?

Haven't you ever wondered how they can do that? No idea what the temp is now or what it was then but they somehow know that it's 1.3C hotter. Got to hand it to those guys...

 

[sayak83]

ok we can agree that you're wonderful and you're really smart and everyone's happy w/ you, we can also agree that everyone's disgusted w/ me if you want. Frankly, I don't see how your being wonderful and me bad has any effect on the average temperature of our 600m of ocean in 1923 --whatever that was. No problem, life is good & we're fine.

A thought occurred to me. We don't know what the temp was of the 600m of ocean in 1923, and we don't know what it is today, but we know that it's 1.3C hotter now -- to an accuracy within a tenth of a degree!! Like, isn't that amazing?

Haven't you ever wondered how they can do that? No idea what the temp is now or what it was then but they somehow know that it's 1.3C hotter. Got to hand it to those guys...

Just see the post I made above your reply.
Mean temperatures have been calculated too. But they will never be as accurate compared to deviations from local means.

Differences are always more accurate than absolute values. That is basic measurement science.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Just see the post I made above your reply.
Mean temperatures have been calculated too. But they will never be as accurate compared to deviations from local means.

Differences are always more accurate than absolute values. That is basic measurement science.

something we might want to look into.

If we know the quantity of heat that goes into a mass, and if we know the amount of the mass, and we know the specific heat, then we can calculate the difference in temperature w/o knowing the beginning and end point. Are you saying you know the amount of heat energy? we know the mass, it 600 meters of water (w/ a known specific heat) covering 71% of the surface of the earth x 1kg per liter. Is there a chance that this your procedure?

The reason I'm asking is because you said that the differences in temp cannot be known to any precision and if that's the case we couldn't know the amount of heat moved to any precision greater than the temp precision. However if you've already gotten the heat moved from somewhere else then that gives us the delta T.

 

[Shaul]

You have not stated the falsifiablity standards for your hypothesis. Without them the following applies, "As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications, even being used as legal precedent."

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

 

[Pete in Panama]

You have not stated the falsifiablity standards for your hypothesis. Without them the following applies, "As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications, even being used as legal precedent."

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

to whom are u responding?

 

[shunyadragon]

You have not stated the falsifiablity standards for your hypothesis. Without them the following applies, "As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications, even being used as legal precedent."

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

I believe the standards of falsifiability are pretty standard and apply through Methodological Naturalism throughout science concerning the physical nature of our universe. They apply to the research into global warming and climate change. The question if the hypothesis of global warming and/or climate change are falsified and published in scientific journals and recognized by the scientific community is resolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were predictions made as far back 1967. One way to test a theory is by the predictions it makes. That was of stratosphere cooling. I know, that is extremely counterintuitive. But that is sometimes the best of tests. One would not think that part of AGW would be the stratosphere cooling.down. But that is how the mechanism works. Syukuoro Manabe was the leading member of a team the made one of the first models of the Earth's climate. Stratospheric cooling was a prediction and it was later confirmed. That was Nobel Prize winning physics:

The most influential climate science paper of all time

 

[shunyadragon]

The actual history of the research and proposing global warming is older dating to at least 1950's and possibly older.

[cite=[URL="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560"]A brief history of climate change[/URL]]
1955 - Using a new generation of equipment including early computers, US researcher Gilbert Plass analyses in detail the infrared absorption of various gases. He concludes that doubling CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures by 3-4C.


1957 - US oceanographer Roger Revelle and chemist Hans Suess show that seawater will not absorb all the additional CO2 entering the atmosphere, as many had assumed. Revelle writes: "Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment..."

1958 - Using equipment he had developed himself, Charles David (Dave) Keeling begins systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and in Antarctica. Within four years, the project - which continues today - provides the first unequivocal proof that CO2 concentrations are rising. [/cite]