Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect

How much of an actual difference is there between datasets and methods?

Most all of the data between GISS CRU etc is the same. The adjustments are the same. We are really talking about Coke and Pepsi not Coke and 7up.

FYI you are not even correctly using the term "re-analysis". Don't pretend to be smart.

 

Just get everybody to live primitive and use bicycles --- problem solved, plus people get healthy by replacing electricity with muscle & blood. It saves a lot of electricity by hand washing clothes on a piece of old corrugated roofing or a wash board.

 

Just one? Ok, it's cold outside, right here, right now. Definitely global cooling. We're all gonna die!

 

First, GISS is not reanalysis. It's a proxy dataset that uses inferences to derive a global mean temperature anomaly value without actually computing a true global mean temperature. I actually don't think GISS is accurate on the order of 0.01C. However, it's in the ballpark of what reanalysis datasets compute so it's another line of evidence.

I'm not pretending to be smart by the way. There's a lot I don't know and I'm learning everyday. And the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know. But, I do know what reanalysis is.

 

Link please

 

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time


https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

 

Lol...it's cold outside in your backyard is not a very convincing rebuttal to the anthroprogenic increase in the global mean temperature. Actually, it's doesn't even make sense. I mean think about it...nature is responsible for all of the warming we see because it's cold outside? Huh?

Remember, I asked for a natural mechanisms that explains the warming we are currently observing. And by warming I mean the global mean temperature.

 

More and more you are showing you really don't know what you are talking about. The GISS does compute a global average temperature.

It graphs its data as an anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 global mean.

The GISS has vigorously fought FOIA requests for its historic global average temperature . The GISS doesn't want anyone to know just how much their claimed temperature for say 1955 has changed over the decades. It's easier to hide the changes by always presenting the data as anomalies.

And it does not use "proxies" it uses the GCHN network of weather stations, the same network CRU NOAA etc use for most all of their data. Like I said it's Coke and Pepsi not Coke and 7up.

 

But when the Algorites want to trumpet GW they say something like "the temperature in Chicago today is the hottest ever" as though that proves GW. If the Algorites had a mascot it would be a snake with a forked tongue. You want to proclaim a record temp in one spot proves GW, while saying " AGW does not posit each location will warm by the same amount, and that GW causes record cold temperatures as well as record heat.
You want AGW to mean whatever you want it to mean, whenever you want it to mean it. There's a consensus that all of your fear mongering tales of gloom and doom have failed to come true.

 

I can think of quite a few, the multi-decadal maximums come to mind... Then there's the improved albedo effect created from the uncovered land, Cosmic Ray cloud formation impacts, etc. Then, I'd ask this question, what is the "optimal" or the stable global mean then? What should it be? All things being equal, it doesn't matter if the climate temp average increases, even if it goes over "normal" or "optimal" as long as it fluctuations back, right? Because "optimal" or "average" is just that, an average. The idea that change is happening isn't at all controversial, because we should expect that as a function of interglacial time it has to hence the "interglacial" time. Right? If we saw cooling, and a return towards glaciation, that is just as equally change, no? So, the question is define what is optimal. What should the right temp average for the globe be? Better question, if you can determine that, how is that "average" distributed across the globe? Does it have to be homogenous? Or is it still ok to have variation?

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z

You can find a copy of the PDF that's not behind a paywall if you search hard enough. Note, I post the official link for obvious reasons.

 

How does added heat energy in the atmosphere lead to large masses of atmosphere containing reduced heat energy? Is there some new kind of equilibrium thermodynamics you'd like to share? Is heat energy now equillibrating from cold masses to warm masses, making warm masses even warmer, and cold masses even colder?

Please share the science

 

I am in different. If we judge Goldfish by their ability to climb trees then I guess all goldfish are Primitives.

 

Don't understand science do you. Christy is saying that even if AGW were true 100% the climate sensitivity is still only 1.1C per doubling based on the satellite data. Which isn't a problem. 1.1 is agreed on by most realistic skeptics like myself. The alarmists have this off the rails 4C.

He doesn't assume alternate known hypothesis. This is the problem with academic exercises. Uneducated people like you misunderstand what is being done.

 

Right? So lets see... Almost 16 decades of recorded weather out of millions of decades and he wants to pick from those 16. Scientists say we couldn't have survived the heat that the dinosaurs thrived in... They thrived on lush vegetation at both the North and South poles, and DC's coldest day in the winter might get as low as 50°... Seeing's that DC gets in the single digits now, I'd say the warmest decade was sometime around 150 million years ago.

 

No, it does not. Note, I said "true global mean temperature". The only way you can do that is to average all temperature readings from a hypothetical network of equally spaced recording stations. Surface stations are not equally spaced and there are huge gaps over the open ocean. It's a problem that's adequately solved by reanalysis which forms 3D fields over a uniform grid mesh. Reanalysis computes real bona-fide global mean temperatures using 3DVAR or 4DVAR to formulate the fields using about 100 million observations per day.

GISS is deriving the global mean temperature anomaly changes by inference. Read the following paper.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf

Note, the sentence: "One consequence of working only with temperature change is that our analysis does not produce estimates of absolute temperature". GISS is a proxy. At any rate. The paper is a good read if you want an introduction to how it works. Oh, and it's still a deterministic computation. I think you might be misunderstanding something about when and how it runs.

 

Yes. That is exactly what he is saying. Now read the rest of the paper.

 

You asked for a sample size of ONE. I asked you how big your sample size you based your observation on. You are a smart guy, I thought you understood my point. Actually, you did, and you deflected to some other point. Nice try.

 

Umm...okay. Yeah, I clearly misunderstood what you were asking. Sample size? How many of what are we talking about here?

 

Accurate reliable data goes back to when the that 1800s? A blink in time compared to the age of the earth.

 

Measure of average temps over a period of time. How long do we have recorded measurements?

 

Somebody understands my point. lol...........its the elephant in the room that some don't want to discuss.

 

Back to the late 1800's. They are pretty sparse back then though.

 

More like 1979

Alarmists like to pretend they have good data before that.

 

Why do we need reliable data back in the 1800's if AGW does not make any statements about what was happening back then?