1. #3376
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:36 PM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by blue
    just looking at the % of the worlds water that is actually in the ice /.. hardly any most is already in the ocean stop worrying and enjoy the ride
    This begs the question, can anybody be that stupid or is it just trolling plain and simple? My bet is on trolling.

  2. #3377
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    No, I think he is that thick.

    WHY ARE ICE SHEETS IMPORTANT?

    Ice sheets contain enormous quantities of frozen water. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).
    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

  3. #3378
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    Am I thick or a troll ?
    well there is a third option - the emperor really has no clothes and you global warming astrologists are just not ready to swallow your pride and accept you are being duped. Its like the YK2 bug scare , but open-ended

    The ice is 100% pure fresh water, the oceans are polluted, whats not to like ?

    The sea level rises 60 foot ? don't bother me, it would be interesting- just build higher up . So someones $3 million dollar condo by the sea gets flooded - boo hoo

    The fish can live in the flooded cities and can repopulate the oceans - try catching them there with a nasty 40 mile long drag net.

  4. #3379
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blue
    just looking at the % of the worlds water that is actually in the ice /.. hardly any most is already in the ocean stop worrying and enjoy the ride
    This begs the question, can anybody be that stupid or is it just trolling plain and simple? My bet is on trolling.
    Nah, Blue's just asking questions that need asking.
    You are a shill.
    Active with your bullshit on TV for many years.
    Why don't you F off back there and leave us good people alone takeovers.

  5. #3380
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:36 PM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    7,058
    I have never lingered in that hellhole TV.

    And this does not need asking questions or any searching. Just basic switching on your brain and doing elementary school math. The numbers to crunch are in blues post.

  6. #3381
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    One's as thick as shit and the other is a first class tin foil fucking nutter.

    I wouldn't pay them too much attention.

  7. #3382
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers
    math
    Maths motherfucker, maths.

  8. #3383
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    One's as thick as shit and the other is a first class tin foil fucking nutter.

    I wouldn't pay them too much attention.
    Shut up you sellout corporate cocksucking mug.

  9. #3384
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Dapper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    One's as thick as shit and the other is a first class tin foil fucking nutter.

    I wouldn't pay them too much attention.
    Shut up you sellout corporate cocksucking mug.

    That's Mr. Wealthy corporate cocksucking mug to you, you desperate little TEFLer washout.


  10. #3385
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,332
    Glad to see you fess up.

  11. #3386
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    All Earth's Evils Blamed on 'Global Warming'

    Craig Bannister | 10 hours ago

    If you believe the headlines, virtually all of the world’s ills could be solved by stopping the planet from its alleged warming.
    A review of the past couple of years of headlines from The Drudge Report shows how “global warming” is being scapegoated at every opportunity.
    It’s being blamed for a variety of weather problems, including colder weather:
    Then, there’s the flesh-eating bacteria claim:
    Health Official Warns: 'Global Warming' Making Flesh-Eating Bacteria More Common...
    Apparently, even efforts to stock up on stock up on bread and milk at the grocery store prior to a snow storm will be impacted by global warming:
    Loaves of bread 'will shrink due to global warming'...
    Humans will mutate, become stupider, less faithful and more financially irresponsible – and even their pets are suffering psychological harm – the headlines warn:
    Finally, this headline may be the most extravagant global warming claim:
    FLASHBACK: Scientist Declared 'Global Warming' Caused Hitler...
    So, while milder winters were once considered a blessing, they're now despised for being a sign of the apocalypse.
    Just imagine the Utopia man must've been living in before he invented the motor car. Oh, wait...
    Editor's Add-On: Based on today's headlines, we appear to be safe from the ravages of global warming - at least, for the time being:




    All Earth's Evils Blamed on 'Global Warming' | MRCTV

  12. #3387
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    The changing climate has been a fact of life for millions of years. There is plenty of credible, independent scientific concensus to prove it.

    Why is it that city centres are invariably 2-3 degrees warmer than the nearby urban fringes. The concentration of buildings, roadways and the seething mass of people will always retain a higher heat signature.

    The fact that green space is overtaken by concrete, means cities are more prone to flooding, especially as cities are historically based around major water courses. There is simply nowhere for excess rainwater to run off when human intervention removes the natural sink effect of green space.

    High rise high density building practices are a consequence of rural migration, built without any thought to the future consequences of their impact. If you add natural changes in climate conditions to the impact of man made problems, it simply exacerbates the changes.

    Higher temperatures increase fire risk, and flooding pollutes natural water courses. This is a basic anthropomorphic imbalance which will always lead to loss of life and property.

    Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and mans contribution continues to make those changes much worse than they would be for a simple lack of forethought and sustainable intervention.

  13. #3388
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    You've used too many big words there, blue will struggle to understand it.

  14. #3389
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    20,590
    NOAA – January 2016 warmest land and ocean ever recorded.


    Hot on the heels of the hottest year on record globally, NASA reported Saturday last month was the hottest January on record — by far. January 2016 blew out the previous record for hottest January (2007) by nearly 0.3°F.

    In January the Arctic averaged a staggering 13.5°F (7.5°C) above average, leading to a new record low of Arctic sea ice extent for the month.

    There has never been as hot a 12-month period in NASA’s database as the previous 12 months (February 2015–January 2016). This is using a 12-month moving average, so we can “see the march of temperature change over time,” rather than just once every calendar year.

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  15. #3390
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    New Study Shows How Coal Plants Are Greening The Earth’s Drylands

    environmental criticism directed at coal plants, a new study shows how emissions from coal and other fossil fuels have a huge benefit: they are greening the world’s most arid regions.
    Indiana University researchers reviewed dozens of studies on the global greening phenomenon that’s been occurring over the last few decades and concluded it’s a result of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    The study found a “consistent and statistically significant increase in the availability of soil water (11%) was observed under elevated CO2 treatments in both drylands and non-drylands, with a statistically stronger response over drylands (17% vs. 9%).”
    For years, satellite images have shown vegetation expanding into the Earth’s drylands, including areas of the Mediterranean, Sahel, Middle East, China, Mongolia and South America. Indiana researchers considered other factors, such as increased rainfall and land use changes, but found CO2 is the only viable reason for the increased greenness.
    “We know from satellite observations that vegetation is greener than it was in the past,” Lixin Wang, the study’s lead author and Indiana University Earth sciences professor, said in a statement. “We now understand why that’s occurring, but we don’t necessarily know if that’s a good thing or not.”
    Wang’s findings mark another study linking a greening Earth to increasing carbon dioxide levels — which scientists say is being caused by increased use of fossil fuels, including coal, oil and natural gas.
    While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency legally defines CO2 as a pollutant, the greenhouse gas is essentially plant food because it’s essential for plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels drive what is called “CO2 fertilization.” The extra CO2 is basically a substitute for water, meaning plants in water-scarce regions need less water to thrive.
    Scientists have also found increased CO2 allows plants to use water more efficiently. Wang’s study found “elevated carbon dioxide significantly enhanced soil water levels in drylands more so than it did in non-drylands,” according to the study’s press release.
    “Importantly, the observed response lends weight to the hypothesis that any additional soil water in the root zone is then available to facilitate vegetation growth and greening under enhanced carbon dioxide,” Wang said.
    Wang isn’t the first researcher to note the greening benefits of CO2. Famed physicist Freeman Dyson has been touting the benefits of increased CO2 concentrations for years.
    “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. We know sort of the non-climate effects of carbon dioxide are good — they’re very strong,” the Princeton physicist told IEEE Spectrum in an interview last year. “It’s good for the vegetation, it’s good for the natural vegetation as well as for the farms.”
    “Essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, it’s vital for wildlife,” Dyson said. “Carbon dioxide is a substitute for water, so if you have less carbon dioxide plants need more water to survive, so it produces deserts.”
    While many scientists have acknowledged the benefits of rising CO2, some have argued the benefits of increased vegetation could eventually be overshadowed by temperature rises.


    http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/new-study-shows-how-coal-plants-are-greening-the-earths-drylands/
    Last edited by blue; 18-02-2016 at 05:08 AM.

  16. #3391
    Thailand Expat MrG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,955
    ^
    What an absolute yawn.
    Plants use CO2 as part of their energy need. Why do you think they encourage people to plant trees--to eat up the CO2. It makes sense that more of it, up to a point, would be benificial to the plant.

    The sentence below was outside of the quotation marks.
    Quote Originally Posted by blue
    While many scientists have acknowledged the benefits of rising CO2, some have argued the benefits of increased vegetation could eventually be overshadowed by temperature rises.
    I guess even one of these self described "scientists" didn't care to attribute his/her name to the statement.
    The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule....---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense.

  17. #3392
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Difficult to believe that scientists attribute a single issue to such complex matters. Global temperature, decreased ocean salinity, rising sea levels, extreme weather events all had absolutely zero impact on this greening phenomenon? Really?

  18. #3393
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,561
    Sea level rise in 20th century was fastest in 3,000 years, study finds
    February 22, 2016

    Global sea level rose faster in the 20th century than in any of the 27 previous centuries, according to a Rutgers University-led study published today.
    Moreover, without global warming, global sea level would have risen by less than half the observed 20th century increase and might even have fallen.
    Instead, global sea level rose by about 14 centimeters, or 5.5 inches, from 1900 to 2000. That's a substantial increase, especially for vulnerable, low-lying coastal areas.
    "The 20th century rise was extraordinary in the context of the last three millennia - and the rise over the last two decades has been even faster," said Robert Kopp, the lead author and an associate professor in Rutgers' Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
    The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used a new statistical approach developed over the last two and a half years by Kopp, his postdoctoral associates Carling Hay and Eric Morrow, and Jerry Mitrovica, a professor at Harvard University.
    "No local record measures global sea level," Kopp said. "Each measures sea level at a particular location, where it is buffeted by a variety of processes that cause it to differ from the global mean. The statistical challenge is to pull out the global signal. That's what our statistical approach allows us to do."
    Notably, the study found that global sea level declined by about 8 centimeters [3 inches] from 1000 to 1400, a period when the planet cooled by about 0.2 degrees Celsius [0.4 degrees Fahrenheit].
    "It is striking that we see this sea-level change associated with this slight global cooling," Kopp said. By comparison, global average temperature today is about 1 degrees Celsius [1.8 degrees Fahrenheit] higher than it was in the late 19th century.
    A statistical analysis can only be as good as the data it's built upon. For this study, a team led by Andrew Kemp, an assistant professor of earth and ocean sciences at Tufts University, and Benjamin Horton, a professor in Rutgers' Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, compiled a new database of geological sea-level indicators from marshes, coral atolls and archaeological sites that spanned the last 3,000 years.
    The database included records from 24 locations around the world. Many of the records came from the field work of Kemp, Horton, or team members Roland Gehrels of the University of York in the United Kingdom and Jeffrey Donnelly of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The analysis also tapped 66 tide-gauge records from the last 300 years.
    "Scenarios of future rise depend upon our understanding of the response of sea level to climate changes," Horton said. "Accurate estimates of sea-level variability during the past 3,000 years provide a context for such projections."
    Kemp said, "As geologists, we can reconstruct how sea level changed at a particular site, and progress in the last 10 years has allowed us to do so with ever more detail and resolution. Gathering together and standardizing these reconstructions gave us a chance to look at what they had in common and where they differed, both of which can tell us about the causes of past, present and future sea-level change."
    Kopp's collaborators Klaus Bittermann and Stefan Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany used the study's global sea-level reconstruction to calculate how temperatures relate to the rate of sea-level change.
    Based on this relationship, the study found that, without global warming, 20th century global sea-level change would very likely have been between a decrease of 3 centimeters [1.2 inches] and a rise of 7 centimeters [2.8 inches].
    A companion report finds that, without the global warming-induced component of sea-level rise, more than half of the 8,000 coastal nuisance floods observed at studied U.S. tide gauge sites since 1950 would not have occurred. The Climate Central report, led by Benjamin Strauss and co-authored by Kopp, Bittermann, and William Sweet of NOAA, was also published today.
    The Kopp-led study also found that it's very likely that global sea level will rise by 1.7 to 4.3 feet in the 21st century if the world continues to rely heavily upon fossil fuels. Phasing out fossil fuels will reduce the very likely rise to between 0.8 and 2.0 feet.
    Scientists at the following institutions contributed to the study: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Tufts University; Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; University of York in the United Kingdom; and Harvard University. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the New Jersey Sea Grant Consortium, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Group, the U.K. National Environmental Research Council, the Royal Society, and Harvard University.


    Read more at: Sea level rise in 20th century was fastest in 3,000 years, study finds

  19. #3394
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    20,590
    Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming

    Oops

    Satellites Report Hottest February By Far, Confirm Global Warming


    February smashed monthly global temperature records, according to the satellite data analyzed by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). At the same time, a brand new study concludes that miscalculations explain why the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite temperature dataset had appeared to show a relatively slow rate of global warming.

    So Ted Cruz and his fellow climate science deniers need a new meme to replace their “satellites find no warming since 1998” talking point, which replaced the “there’s been no warming since 1998” talking point after that one fell apart when 2014 became the hottest year on record — and again when 2015 blew away the 2014 record.

    In fact, for those who live in reality, as opposed to in denial, satellite data, ground-based weather stations, sea-based buoys, and even weather balloons all reveal a steady long-term warming trend.

    Let’s start with the UAH data, which show a stunning 1.5°F (0.83°C) warming in February 2016 compared to the historical (1981-2010) average for the lower troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere):


    How amazing is this temperature jump? First off, remember that the 1981-2010 baseline used by the UAH is itself some 0.8°F (0.45°C) hotter than pre-industrial levels — so you can add that to all of the numbers here.

    Second, February was more than half a degree Fahrenheit — 0.52°F (0.29°C) — warmer than January, which itself was “the warmest January in satellite record.”

    Third, it was so hot last month that Dr. Roy Spencer of the UAH reports, “Incredibly, land areas outside the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere were a ‘whopping’ 1.46 degrees C above average, 0.5 degrees above any previous monthly anomaly.” This is a 2.6°F warming above the 1981-2010 average — topping the previous anomaly by 0.9°F.


    Fourth, it was so hot last month that Spencer — one of country’s leading climate science deniers — told the Washington Post:

    I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming. There has been warming. The question is how much warming there’s been and how does that compare to what’s expected and what’s predicted.

    Now we know there has been a lot of warming, it’s consistent with what scientists predicted, and, most worrisome of all, scientists now predict it will keep speeding up! Maybe we should start listening to them.

    I’m sure you’ve heard from Ted Cruz and other climate science deniers that there hasn’t been any warming in the satellite record since 1998. What they really meant was there was not as much warming as expected in the lower troposphere in the (questionable) RSS data.

    The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy — both leading deniers — reported just last month that the UAH data shows a “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”

    In fact out of all the temperature datasets — land, sea, weather balloons, and two from satellites (UAH and RSS) — only one dataset had shown unexpectedly slow warming in recent years, the RSS data. Unsurprisingly, that is the dataset deniers like Ted Cruz have glommed on to — despite the fact that it was widely believed the RSS data was being misanlayzed.

    Indeed, back in 2011, Spencer himself explained the discrepancy between the UAH data and the RSS data on his website: “my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.”

    The drift correction is needed because different parts of the planet are observed by satellites at different times during the day — and because satellites drift from orbit to orbit. Spencer adds that the UAH data is probably better because “We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU [advanced microwave sounding unit], since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

    Since Spencer is a leading climate science denier, however, he did not urge his fellow deniers to avoid using the likely flawed RSS data. Quite the reverse:

    But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.

    Seriously! Spencer is such a gung-ho denier of climate science he is telling his fellow deniers who want to minimize the reality of global warming that they should not use his own data set, which he and Christy believes is superior, but instead they should use the RSS data, which they believe had a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction.

    So only hard-core climate science deniers should be surprised to learn that the new study in theJournal of Climate by members of the RSS team finds that the … wait for it … the RSS data had been low-balling recent global warming because of a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction. That study, aptly titled, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment,” concluded, “Previous versions of the RSS dataset have used a diurnal climatology derived from general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time. In this paper, we present evidence that this previous method is not sufficiently accurate, and present several alternative methods to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves.”

    The researchers then use an improved and optimized adjustments methodology and report:

    The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other middle tropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. We also show that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.

    In short, once a long-standing analytical error was fixed, the RSS data showed long-term global warming comparable to UAH. Here is the result:


    The corrected dataset shows a 0.125°C [0.225°F] rate of warming per decade from 1979 to 2014. The corrected trend is 60 percent higher than the earlier, flawed rate of warming.

    For those wondering why the satellite trends are slightly lower than the surface temperature trends, which exceed 0.16°C (0.29°F) per decade — and rising: It is always worth remembering that the surface temperature data directly measures the temperature at the surface where we live. The satellites indirectly measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, where we don’t. Also, given that 2016 is likely to be the hottest year in the satellite record, the satellite trend — like the surface temperature trend — appears to be speeding up.

    The phantom slowdown in the last of the big global temperature datasets is gone. The reality is that the globe has warmed and will continue to warm — primarily because of human-caused carbon pollution — as climate scientists have been saying for decades.

    No doubt the climate science deniers will find another talking point to urge delay. But it is time for the rest of us to redouble our efforts to preserve a livable climate.

  20. #3395
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    ^ refuted already before the ink is dry on the pretty graphs

    The ?Karlization? of global temperature continues ? this time RSS makes a massive upwards adjustment | Watts Up With That?

    The ‘Karlization’ of global temperature continues – this time RSS makes a massive upwards adjustment

    Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago March 2, 2016
    Forget homogenization, that is so 2010. If the pause is bothering you and your belief is that there must be more warming, we only need to find it in the data, then what you need is “Karlization”, named after director of the National Climatic Data Center, (now NCEI) Tom Karl who pulled a fast one this summer trying to adjust the past down, so the present would be warmer. The sleight of hand on this was so obvious that even warm-oriented scientists such as Michael Mann and Ben Santer co-authored a rebuttal paper that said Karl was dead wrong and the pause was real. There is now a congressional investigation into Mr. Karl’s apparently political actions disguised as science
    Now we have a new player in the “Karlization” process – Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) in Santa Rosa, CA. This is a private business that just happens to make a satellite based climate data set that is similar to the UAH satellite data set produced by Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, the RSS data set showed very little warming, and on the RSS web page they were so bold to say:

    Source: Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems Archived here – WebCite query result
    All that is about to change. Readers may recall a video produced by the execrable “Climate Crock of the Week” activist Peter Sinclair that we covered here where the basic premise was that the “satellites are lying“. It seems to me based on his recent comments that Dr. Mears has gotten fed up with people using his RSS data set to suggest that the world isn’t warming as he expects it should. From the video Mears states:
    They just wanted to know, you know, they wanted to fine-tune their statement about, you know, whether , you know, the surface temperatures are more accurate or the satellite temperatures are more accurate, and initially they wanted to say something like “But you really shouldn’t trust the satellite temperatures, you should go with these surface temperatures”, and I said, “Well, what I would like to emphasize, you’d really want to look at all the different datasets, so you don’t want to trust only the satellite temperatures, you want to look at the surface temperatures, and – and that sort of thing.
    On his website, Mears makes this statement:
    Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)
    Source: The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems Archived here: WebCite query result
    Mears uses the term “denialist” so there goes his objectivity when he feels the need to label people like that.
    Clearly, he’s miffed. So what to do? Taking a cue from the other Karl, he publishes a paper and claims that new and improved adjustments have “found” that missing warming.
    Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
    temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
    15-0744.1, in press.
    An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
    Here’s the result:
    Here are the differences between the old version and new version of RSS
    Fig. 8. Comparison between RSS V3.3 global (80°S to 80°N) anomaly time series, and result from the V4.0 merging algorithm with different levels of adjustments applied.

    The new version V4.0 has the warming rate of almost double that of UAH V5.6 … (see Figure 9 below of the paper)
    Fig. 9. Comparisons of near-global (80°S to 80°N) and tropical (30°S to 30°N) anomaly time series for TMT datasets produced by different groups. To make differences in trends easier to see, the anomaly time series have been adjusted so that their averages over 1979 are zero.

    If you think that’s something, for the tropic-30S-30N: the new rate of warming of RSS V4.0 is almost five times larger than UAH’s!
    Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS seems thrilled that the new adjustment is coming:

    Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy have already looked into this latest “Karlization” and have found what appears to be a fatal flaw. Spencer comments in an email to me:
    The paper is for MT, not LT…but I think we can assume that changes in one will be reflected in the other when Mears completes their analysis.
    From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU…see their Fig. 7c. They just leave it in.
    Since this spurious warming is near the middle of the whole time period, this shifts the second half of the satellite record warmer when NOAA-14 MSU (the last in the MSU series) is handed off to NOAA-15 AMSU (the first in the AMSU series).
    Why do we think NOAA-14 MSU is at fault?
    1) AMSU is supposed to have a “Cadillac” calibration design (that’s the term a NASA engineer, Jim Shiue, used when describing to me the AMSU design, which he was involved in).
    2) NOAA-14 MSU requires a large correction for the calibrated TB increasing with instrument temperature as the satellite drifts into a different orbit. The NOAA-15 AMSU requires no such correction…and it wasn’t drifting during the period in question anyway.
    So, it looks like they decided to force good data to match bad data. Sound familiar?
    Yes, yes it does.
    Added: here is Figure 7 from the paper that Dr. Spencer refers to:
    Fig. 7. MSU minus AMSU near-global (60°S to 60°N) time series for land, ocean, and 802 combined land and ocean regions. Each panel shows the results after different levels of 803 adjustments are applied to the data.


    h/t to Willie Soon with thanks to Dr. Roy Spencer
    UPDATE1: Given this sort of work has only two groups doing it, it is a very narrow field of scientific specialty, I asked Dr. Spencer this question:
    I assume neither you or Christy were asked to review this paper?
    There aren’t many satellite temperature data experts in the world.
    He replied:
    Interesting question….
    John reviewed their original paper submission to JGR, in detail, asking for additional evidence — but not advocating rejection of the paper. The JGR editor ended up rejecting it anyway.
    Mears & Wentz then revised the paper, submitted it to J. Climate instead, and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers.

  21. #3396
    Thailand Expat MrG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,955
    ^
    Anthony Watts: already refuted before the ink is dry.

    Does Anthony Watts know he's been debunked?
    For those who don't know, Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who has put together a network of volunteers to go around rating the surface temperature stations used by groups like NASA and NOAA to measure the global surface temperature (or at last, the temperature in the USA). Watts suggests that too many stations are located in poor places (near buildings, concrete pads, asphalt, etc.) to be reliable due to the 'urban heat island' effect. NOAA and NASA claim they filter out these kinds of effects.

    Apparently there's a “Climate Crock of the Week” video series on YouTube. Recently, they did a piece on Watts and NOAA. The piece covered a recent NOAA report which used Watts' own data to prove the "bad" stations and "good" stations have almost identical data.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/respon...

    The video was auto-scrubbed by YouTube after Watts claimed the video broke YouTube’s copyright rules. The video has since been reviewed by a number of US copyright experts and there appears to be nothing that could be construed as anything but fair use. You can see the video for yourself here (I highly recommend it).
    http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/th...

    One 'skeptic' wrote “I have to admit it doesn’t look good for the skeptic side when something gets scrubbed like this. Watts loses some stature here unless he can post something convincing about why he did it on his blog. Silence won’t get it done.”
    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...1100833AA2IxO9

  22. #3397
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    A blogger and erstwhile TV meteorologist funded by the Heartland Institute vs. scientific consensus.

    And, yet again, science FTW!

    The deniers are rather forced to set the bar low when grasping for straws aren't they.

  23. #3398
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    Anyone smell PHD scientists?

    Quote Originally Posted by blue
    Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy have already looked into this latest “Karlization” and have found what appears to be a fatal flaw. Spencer comments in an email to me:
    Quote Originally Posted by blue
    Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy have already looked into this latest “Karlization” and have found what appears to be a fatal flaw. Spencer comments in an email to me:

  24. #3399
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    Quote Originally Posted by blue
    Anyone smell PHD scientists?
    I can smell your desperation.

    Both debunked shills with links to right-wing think thanks. Spencer also believes in Intelligent Design.

  25. #3400
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    Actually it's quite amusing you're impressed with a couple of Ph.D's yet automatically dismiss scientific consensus.

    Did you know that you can get a PhD on the Eurovision song contest, bread, and Pastoral Care and Counseling among a myriad of other topics, blue?

Page 136 of 272 FirstFirst ... 3686126128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144146186236 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •