Global warming scepticism

The uncertainty for the July reading is slightly less than 1/10th of the temperature anomaly.

If you want to cite something else, go for it. But, your accusation of wide confidence margins doesn't hold for the monthly measurements.

Also, NASA has every month so far this year as being in the top 4 hottest temperatures of that month in recorded measurement history.

That is, January was in the top 4 hottest January's, February was in the top 4 hottest February's, etc. Japan's measurement is more extreme, as their data shows each month this year as being in the top 2 - that is, either the hottest in history or the second hottest in history.

The chance that this won't be the hottest year in the history of measured temperatures is going toward zero.

 

LOL, if you climbed to the top of the stairs you would be at your highest level every time you checked even though you have not gone any higher. You are expressing headlines, not science. What do you think the uncertainty is for temperature based on a paper that after 18 years suddenly discovered higher temperatures by massaging the data and I am talking about the Karl et al paper that the NOAA is basing it's claims on?

 

You can find "a new paper" saying almost anything - especially if that paper hasn't even gone through the review process that is normal for papers that are actually published.

So, without seeing the paper or even knowing who wrote or published it, I'm not sure what you expect people to do with that.

 

Well then, you are basing your opinion on a paper you haven't even vetted and are just relying on what government tells you.

 

I see no legitimate way to apply your "stairs" analogy.

My thoughts on 18 year old papers tends to be that we have learned quite a bit in the last 18 years. So, revisiting old data with new understanding is quite likely to be important.

All data gets massaged for numerous reasons. So, if these data were not massaged, I would suggest that the next step is to start analyzing it.

 

I base my opinion on a range of organizations as well as the opinions of individuals including Dr. Curry, who is pitched by deniers as being a denier.

So, I can only presume that this time you are thinking that I am over-relying on the latest from NASA. But, NASA does substantial internal vetting before releasing its papers and has a long track record. Plus, their data and analysis have not been anomalous, tracking what NOAA, US universities, and science organizations of other nations are finding.

 

LOL, Curry is pitched by the alarmists as a denier. You don't even know what the NOAA claim is based on. You really have no clue what is going on, do you?

 

No, she is, in fact, a denier.

She doesn't deny that the earth is warming, but that isn't in dispute.

Her position is that we should be taking action, but that the action should be more focused on mitigating the damage rather than on prevention.

 

prevent what and how?

 

it means you're in denial of reality

 

Well, prevent earth's temperature from rising so fast. But, I suspect you were asking what can be done.

Burning carbon based fuels is causing an increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, where scientists have shown that it slows heat from leaving our planet.

So, that is one point where change could slow the rate at which we are warming.

I don't want to represent Curry here, but my understanding from reading what she says is that we don't know enough about why and how much earth's temperature is increasing, although we do know that we already face serious ramifications from warming such as on agriculture/food, water distribution/security, etc., and that we need to be working on those.

Is this important? One of the reasons Assad's government failed in Syria is that their years long drought caused agricultural failure that drove millions into the cities, and it was beyond Assad's government to handle that. So, now the USA has a national security problem there that is incredibly expensive and threatens the region.

Today, we see China deviating rivers from flowing to South Asia - acts that are likely to impact agriculture. We see India building a giant wall against Bangladesh, because their agricultural problems are causing people to try to escape. There are quite a few of these going on right now, and no scientist thinks our warming is going to end in the foreseeable future.

We can live through drought in our agricultural regions by simply buying food from other places or whatever, since we're rich. But, agricultural failure in other nations can cause collapse and become serious national security problems.

 

how do they know how much the temperature is rising? They are currently manipulating temperature sets on land readings to make it look like warming. So where is it warming? Do you have locations? It isn't in the eastern half of the US. Why is that?

Do you have an alternative energy source to eliminate coal and oil bi-products? You do know that those areas attempting to go to renewables is failing right and looking to put back in coal. Germany for one.

S0n, it's tough to make changes when you have no replacement to make with it. Why not focus on that and when you have a managed way to implement, then start the discussion. Nuclear is the way, but environmentalists don't like it and argue against it.

Seems you have more of an environmental issue you're interested in, and I agree, but you have funding going out to failed renewable opportunities and losing money. That seems a shame.

 

no they they aren't, they're updating with new data, adjusting for calibration mistakes and etc

"In The Telegraph, Christopher Booker accused climate scientists of falsifying the global surface temperature data, claiming trends have been "falsified" through a "wholesale corruption of proper science." Booker's argument focuses on adjustments made to raw data from temperature stations in Paraguay. In the video below, Kevin Cowtan examines the data and explains why the adjustments in question are clearly justified and necessary, revealing the baselessness of Booker's conspiracy theory."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html

[video=youtube;qRFz8merXEA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA[/video]

 

calibration of thermometers that don't exist? How do they do that? Yo do realize there are less land temperature stations then there was 30 years ago. And they are adjusting where the stations were removed. funny stuff for sure. Yeah you go with that. 150 year old mistakes.

So tell me something, why aren't there any adjustments in the 60s through the 70s then? Wouldn't you think after twenty years they had the captures right? What happened? Can yo explain? BTW, where exactly is the globe warming?

 

obviously you didn't watch the video, face it, you won't even look at the facts

they were adjusted and the vast majority of climate papers in the 1960s and 70s predicted warming

"Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

Dude skeptical science is the most biased web page. Nope Cartoonist knowledge isn't what I'm interested in.

I'm interested in what happened after the 70's and why data sets are being fudged.

I'm asking you where it's warmer, location ?

 

all you're doing is showing that you've been duped

cook has an under-graduate degree in physics and teaches at the university of queensland

while pursing an advanced degree in climate science

you'd know now if you'd watched the videos i posted earlier

 

The job of scientists is to gather and manipulate data. They do that all day long. They are experts at doing that.

The largest direction we have on co2 limitation is (imho) conservation. The largest, most free market capitalistic approach to requiring conservation is through taxes, since it still lets everybody do exactly what they want to do, but it recognizes that there is an actual cost to co2 that we do NOT pay for when we buy gas.

Funding renewable energy is worth while, but other first world nations are making a significant difference by moving taxes toward fuel as opposed to property or income.

(In criticizing this direction, please note that increasing fuel tax does not mean increasing total revenue to the government. And, it means that each citizen can reduce their own tax burden through personal efforts to live happy lives while consuming less fuel - an opportunity we don't have today.)

 

Oh good, another survey of literature. Haven't we all had enough of that totally repudiated approach?

 

what makes you think it has been repudiated?

 

The location that is warmer is EARTH!

July was the hottest July in recorded history.

In fact, the last 7 months were in the top 4 hottest months for Earth in recorded history. That is, January was in the top 4 January's, February was in the top 4 February's, etc.

Japan says the last 7 months have been either the hottest or second hottest of each month.

The heating of the planet does not mean that every location on the planet is heating. It may have been cold in Boston in February, but that is no indication that the earth was cold.

 

Of course all predicated on a highly adjusted surface temperature dataset where they took better buoy data and adjusted it warmer to match the more problematic ship engine intake temperatures (Karl et al). Tell me how water temperature reflects air temperature? BTW, none of this shows in the better satellite datasets and the NOAA quite incorporating those when they started deviating from the agenda.

I will tell you why, the Paris conference is coming up.

 

adjusted for accuracy

this video explains clearly how the data adjustments are a basic principle of science

[video=youtube;dc8A6SIJijs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc8A6SIJijs[/video]

 

The entire series of "literature survey" papers claiming >90% of scientists support AGW such as the Cook paper has been thoroughly discredited that the entire concept of "literature voting" should be abandoned.

And science is not a democracy. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein were all a tiny minority at key times of their careers, yet they were correct.

The science is what it is, and for AGW its not much. Whats amazing is that the AGW crowd still thinks people take them seriously.

 

no it hasn't been