Remember me
▼ Content

2016 'very likely' the warmest year



Page 1 of 212>
2016 'very likely' the warmest year14-11-2016 15:43
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.

See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877
14-11-2016 19:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
climate scientist wrote: The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016

The WMO still cannot measure the average global temperature to any usable accuracy. Only their target audience, i.e. the scientifically illiterate and the gullible, believes that they somehow can.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-11-2016 19:56
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Here is a really great article (which I think I posted before, a long time ago), written by scientists, which debunks the myth that the temperature record is unreliable.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

In particular, I would encourage people to watch the two videos, which are also available on YouTube. They both give a really nice, thorough explanation of why the temperature record is robust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa-yvQVLrs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKQiyBkt4Vs
14-11-2016 20:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
climate scientist wrote: Here is a really great article (which I think I posted before, a long time ago), written by scientists, which debunks the myth that the temperature record is unreliable.

Sadly, it doesn't debunk anything.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-11-2016 01:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.

See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877


http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


Fig. 1. Global surface temperature relative to 1880-1920 based on GISTEMP analysis (mostly NOAA data sources, as described by Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004. We suggest in an upcoming paper that the temperature in 1940-45 is exaggerated because of data inhomogeneity in WW II. Linear-fit to temperature since 1970 yields present temperature of 1.06°C, which is perhaps our best estimate of warming since the preindustrial period.


16-11-2016 14:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Ceist wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.

See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877


http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


Fig. 1. Global surface temperature relative to 1880-1920 based on GISTEMP analysis (mostly NOAA data sources, as described by Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004. We suggest in an upcoming paper that the temperature in 1940-45 is exaggerated because of data inhomogeneity in WW II. Linear-fit to temperature since 1970 yields present temperature of 1.06°C, which is perhaps our best estimate of warming since the preindustrial period.


You've got nothing but fantasy-land graphs, apparently. Gullible thou art. You're obviously in it for the Global Warming "high."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-11-2016 22:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large





Edited on 16-11-2016 22:23
18-11-2016 15:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:it doesn't debunk anything.


The only thing IBM debunks is falling out of the upper bunk.
18-11-2016 23:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
litesong wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:it doesn't debunk anything.


The only thing IBM debunks is falling out of the upper bunk.

litesong, buddy, that would be de-IBdaMann'ing the upper bunk.

I debunk dogma with science and I de-bunk hootches by removing the bunks.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-11-2016 19:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ceist wrote:
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large



So an increase of 1c over 86 years with no significant sign of speeding up.

Well, if it carries on like that we will be on course for the low end of the IPCC's predictions to come true.

Shame it looks like not geting warmer still.
21-11-2016 21:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tim the plumber wrote:

Well, if it carries on like that we will be on course for the low end of the IPCC's predictions to come true.

Shame it looks like not geting warmer still.


You know the difference between now and the last age? it was only a few degrees and the world was profoundly different, the area where the Sahara is now was fertile and where I sit now was under a glacier, the change from that state to the current interglacial was far slower then now, have you thought about the possible implications? but you say it's nothing to worry about at all, Maniac.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
21-11-2016 21:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Well, if it carries on like that we will be on course for the low end of the IPCC's predictions to come true.

Shame it looks like not geting warmer still.


You know the difference between now and the last age? it was only a few degrees and the world was profoundly different, the area where the Sahara is now was fertile and where I sit now was under a glacier, the change from that state to the current interglacial was far slower then now, have you thought about the possible implications? but you say it's nothing to worry about at all, Maniac.

Haven't we been over this? Heat waves come and go, raising the temperature several degrees and life in the region continues to live as always. The claim that just a couple of degrees difference converts the earth's surface to either a frozen wasteland or a Hadean hell is completely absurd. All areas change temperature all the time and the earth has never either frozen over or burned to a crisp.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2016 14:35
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
The odd year, possibly contaminated with jiggery pokery adjustments to the present and historical records - who knows? Still we don't need to disprove the warmest year, isn't it the other way, don't those making the claim have to? I hear recently that the satellite data are saying otherwise.

Looks flat to me, bit spikey 2000 to 2016? Around 2000 people became aware of the 'tweaking' of the data, a travesty some say.

http://www.thegwpf.com/satellite-data-reinstates-temperature-pause/
22-11-2016 14:56
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ceist wrote:
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large



The problem as we all know is that the method of recording is fundamentally different. The satellite record shows no discernable trends over the last 15-20 years apart from it being rather spikey (that's inbuilt variation in the system in technical terms). The land record and others are worthless, tree rings and ice cores even more poxy.

We are not seeing anything very remarkable. Prediction after prediction is wrong, the models are therefore wrong and the fundamental theories behind the models wrong also. Those claiming to understand have to admit they know as little as the rest of us. The data rule, priors have proved worthless.
22-11-2016 15:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
KKING wrote:
The odd year, possibly contaminated with jiggery pokery adjustments to the present and historical records - who knows? Still we don't need to disprove the warmest year, isn't it the other way, don't those making the claim have to? I hear recently that the satellite data are saying otherwise.

Looks flat to me, bit spikey 2000 to 2016? Around 2000 people became aware of the 'tweaking' of the data, a travesty some say.

http://www.thegwpf.com/satellite-data-reinstates-temperature-pause/


I see you like to use the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fiction (GWPF) website for your misinformation, pseudoscience and conspiracy ideation. If you prefer to fool yourself, go right ahead.

Meanwhile, rational people will stick with science and facts.



Edited on 22-11-2016 15:40
22-11-2016 15:39
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
KKING wrote:
Ceist wrote:
NASA GISTEMP with October data and 2016 prediction:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUplBdUQAAffMz.jpg:large



The problem as we all know is that the method of recording is fundamentally different. The satellite record shows no discernable trends over the last 15-20 years apart from it being rather spikey (that's inbuilt variation in the system in technical terms). The land record and others are worthless, tree rings and ice cores even more poxy.

We are not seeing anything very remarkable. Prediction after prediction is wrong, the models are therefore wrong and the fundamental theories behind the models wrong also. Those claiming to understand have to admit they know as little as the rest of us. The data rule, priors have proved worthless.

If you feel you MUST just mindlessly parrot nonsense memes from anti-science conspiracy blogs, go right ahead.

Meanwhile, rational people will stick with science and facts.


22-11-2016 16:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
KKING wrote: The odd year, possibly contaminated with jiggery pokery adjustments to the present and historical records - who knows?

Who knows? We all do. "Jiggery pokery" is an accurate verbiage but I prefer the wording "cooked/fudged/butchered/folded/spindled/mutilated/adjusted/modified/weighted/abused/doctored/shredded/trampled-asunder data."

KKING wrote: Still we don't need to disprove the warmest year, isn't it the other way, don't those making the claim have to?

Sheer wisdom. Absolutely correct.

Oh, but the warmizombies can't support their unfalsifiable claims. They have no choice but to demand that you disprove their claims.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2016 16:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Ceist wrote:Meanwhile, rational people will stick with science and facts.

Yes we will, and we invite you to join us in being rational and sticking with science.

By the way, temperature is a measure of energy. I know you like to forget that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 01:00
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.
23-11-2016 08:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
KKING wrote:
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.


The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.



Edited on 23-11-2016 08:51
23-11-2016 14:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Ceist wrote:The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.

Let's review your post for content:

Strike the first sentence. It is nothing but standard bulveristic denial and unsupported dismissal.

Strike the second sentence. It is just an aesthetic blend of argument ad lapidem, ad hominem and non sequitur.

Strike the third sentence. It's a non sequitur concerning site administration, in particular, a complaint that the administer allows nonbelievers in the WACKY Global Warming religion to post on this site.

Strike the fourth sentence. Great. You're welcoming him to the site.

Strike the fifth sentence. It's just a petty "lashing out" at nonbelievers of the WACKY Global Warming religion that, to his chagrin, are actually allowed to post on this site (see the third sentence).


Oops. That leaves nothing. Your post has no content. But wait, how does this post differ from any of your other posts? It doesn't, does it?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2016 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.

Let's review your post for content:

Strike the first sentence. It is nothing but standard bulveristic denial and unsupported dismissal.

Strike the second sentence. It is just an aesthetic blend of argument ad lapidem, ad hominem and non sequitur.

Strike the third sentence. It's a non sequitur concerning site administration, in particular, a complaint that the administer allows nonbelievers in the WACKY Global Warming religion to post on this site.

Strike the fourth sentence. Great. You're welcoming him to the site.

Strike the fifth sentence. It's just a petty "lashing out" at nonbelievers of the WACKY Global Warming religion that, to his chagrin, are actually allowed to post on this site (see the third sentence).


Oops. That leaves nothing. Your post has no content. But wait, how does this post differ from any of your other posts? It doesn't, does it?

.


I'd run the Monthly Contest here, but there are still too few people that visit the site to generate good scoring totals. Ceist would be a clear contender capable of high scores though.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2016 15:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
This is the reason that so few visitors stay around on this forum:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

Climate-Debate.com > Users > Most active losers

.

.


.



Edited on 25-11-2016 16:42
26-11-2016 01:13
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]KKING wrote:....thegwpf.com/


From Sourcewatch:
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW)....

9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.
26-11-2016 07:40
Thunderbomb1982
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877


http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

[/i]
Edited on 26-11-2016 07:43
26-11-2016 08:59
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ceist wrote:
KKING wrote:
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.


The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.


There's little more I can say to you, I think you have clearly laid out your approach to debate, attack everything that is inconvenient. I hear you, 'debunked', 'conspiracy', ...
26-11-2016 09:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
KKING wrote:
Ceist wrote:
KKING wrote:
Well I see the usual attacks. I'm a pure scientist who knows about the weight of evidence, I don't have to rely on websites of whatever flavour to tell me what is real. I review scientific articles in my own field and I am always objective. I stop at unsupported evidence and that is where we are. Prove it guys, it's incumbent upon you, and shouting loudly proves very little. I think Buddha (one of the Buddha type dudes anyway) said if we don't accept your vitriol then you own it.


The fact that you linked to the GWPF and repeated ignorant long debunked rubbish pseudoscience and conspiracy memes, then claim to be 'always objective', says it all really. You lost any claim to credibility in your first post and confirmed in you next post.

This forum has been a huge joke any way since it got overrun by a couple of complete nutters who reject the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect. Welcome. You can spout off with all the rubbish all you want, you'll still appear saner than IB and ITN.


There's little more I can say to you, I think you have clearly laid out your approach to debate, attack everything that is inconvenient. I hear you, 'debunked', 'conspiracy', ...

There's lot's you could say. But if you want to make claims about science, try using a legitimate science source, not a fossil fuel funded political think tank website next time. Happy to read any published Journal articles you can provide to support your claims.
Edited on 26-11-2016 09:12
26-11-2016 09:20
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Thunderbomb1982 wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877


http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???


NOAA: An Independent Record: Measuring climate change without thermometers
Edited on 26-11-2016 09:21
26-11-2016 11:26
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???


Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKQiyBkt4Vs
26-11-2016 20:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Thunderbomb1982 wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877


http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???

[/i]


No. We still don't have them.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2016 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Ceist wrote:
Thunderbomb1982 wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote:
The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016 compared to previous years. They state that 2016 is very likely to be the warmest year on record, based on the 9 months of data currently available from 2016

Most of this warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions, although the El Nino conditions during 2016 also had a significant contribution.

Global temperatures in 2016 were 1.2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. Some parts of Artic Russia were 6-7 deg C above the long-term average.

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred this century. The only exception is 1998.



See more details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877


http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/26/a-better-graph/


So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???


...deleted NOAA video link...
Measuring climate change without thermometers[/url]


More propaganda from the same government site that puts out the climate propaganda.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2016 20:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
climate scientist wrote:
So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???


Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:
...deleted propaganda video...


Yes they do. It is currently not possible to measure global temperature with the instrumentation we have. Nowhere near enough. That includes past readings, too.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2016 20:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???


Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:
...deleted propaganda video...


Yes they do. It is currently not possible to measure global temperature with the instrumentation we have. Nowhere near enough. That includes past readings, too.

As I and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, you don't need to know that actual global average temperature (however you choose to define it) in order to determine the change in temperature. Same as you don't need to know the actual time in order to be able to time a boiled egg.

If, say, 3000 thermometers scattered around the Earth all indicate that the temperature has risen by a degree or so, then you can be pretty sure that the average global temperature has also risen by about that much. The more thermometers you have, the smaller your margin of error.
27-11-2016 00:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Ceist wrote:
This is the reason that so few visitors stay around on this forum:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

You think jwoodward48 with his 20+ posts per day rate were the problem?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2016 10:04
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ceist wrote:
This is the reason that so few visitors stay around on this forum:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

Climate-Debate.com > Users > Most active losers


.

.


.


An example of the possible misinterpretation of statistics. There are various possibilities for the claimed small numbers and one is convenient, the rest are not. One might if one needed to suggest it's because scientists realise there's little science in many of the vitriolic reposts herein. Maybe people prefer science to argument? I don't know, all possibilities need considering, like AGW... (snip).
27-11-2016 10:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
So we had tools, accurate thermometers all over the world to measure temperature in 1920 for instance? I've seen this graph but I don't believe it. So Alaska, the north pole, all of Canada, all of South America, and all the rest of the countries had accurate temperature recording during these times? And without satellite data we were able to measure the ocean temperatures very well back in let's say 1930???


Hi Thunderbomb1982. It is a misconception that one needs to measure temperature everywhere all over the planet all at the same time in order to be able to determine whether the climate is warming over the long term or not.

I would recommend that you watch this short video, made by climate scientists:
...deleted propaganda video...


Yes they do. It is currently not possible to measure global temperature with the instrumentation we have. Nowhere near enough. That includes past readings, too.

As I and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, you don't need to know that actual global average temperature (however you choose to define it) in order to determine the change in temperature. Same as you don't need to know the actual time in order to be able to time a boiled egg.

If, say, 3000 thermometers scattered around the Earth all indicate that the temperature has risen by a degree or so, then you can be pretty sure that the average global temperature has also risen by about that much. The more thermometers you have, the smaller your margin of error.

You actuallyl DO need to know the actual time to boil an egg, even if you call the starting time zero. You DO need the actual temperature to being to measure anything like a trend. Statistics is not capable of prediction either. Today's trend, even if you had one, does not mean tomorrows trend.

3000 thermometers does not equal the hundreds of millions you need to get any kind of idea of a global temperature. The population is not 3000.

Now, do you want to simply repeat your argument again, like a brainless parrot?


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2016 10:15
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Surface Detail wrote:
As I and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, you don't need to know that actual global average temperature (however you choose to define it) in order to determine the change in temperature. Same as you don't need to know the actual time in order to be able to time a boiled egg.

If, say, 3000 thermometers scattered around the Earth all indicate that the temperature has risen by a degree or so, then you can be pretty sure that the average global temperature has also risen by about that much. The more thermometers you have, the smaller your margin of error.


How so, what is the value of X-Y when one does not know the value of either X or Y or indeed that X and Y measure the same thing over time? Again if one wishes to make comparisons of (X-Y) at time t1 with the same at t2 then does one not have to be sure that we are not comparing t1 apples with t2 oranges?
27-11-2016 12:00
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I have two thermometers in my house. One is upstairs, the other down stairs. They do not read the same temperature, because the upstairs is normally colder than the downstairs (owing to heat loss through the roof and windows). I have also never calibrated them to each other. When the heating comes on in the morning, the house warms up. I know this because both the thermometers show an increase in temperature. Even though they increase at different rates (the downstairs warms faster than the upstairs), I know that the house is heating up. I do not need to measure the temperature in every square meter of my house to tell me this.

If only about half of the global temperature records showed warming, and the other half did not, then we would not be able to say that we observed any global warming. But because the overwhelming majority of the records do show warming, then this gives very high confidence in the fact that the atmosphere is warming. Especially coupled with all the other independent evidence, such as shifts in the range of several species (such as mosquitos, owing to changes in temperature), melting sea ice and glaciers, changes in the phrenology of plants, warming in the oceans, etc.
27-11-2016 12:05
KKING
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
climate scientist wrote:
I have two thermometers in my house. One is upstairs, the other down stairs. They do not read the same temperature, because the upstairs is normally colder than the downstairs (owing to heat loss through the roof and windows). I have also never calibrated them to each other. When the heating comes on in the morning, the house warms up. I know this because both the thermometers show an increase in temperature. Even though they increase at different rates (the downstairs warms faster than the upstairs), I know that the house is heating up. I do not need to measure the temperature in every square meter of my house to tell me this.

If only about half of the global temperature records showed warming, and the other half did not, then we would not be able to say that we observed any global warming. But because the overwhelming majority of the records do show warming, then this gives very high confidence in the fact that the atmosphere is warming. Especially coupled with all the other independent evidence, such as shifts in the range of several species (such as mosquitos, owing to changes in temperature), melting sea ice and glaciers, changes in the phrenology of plants, warming in the oceans, etc.


The first part: A fine example of how a scientific experiment should be conducted, learning along the way and considering why things might not be comparable/otherwise.

Second part: Do we have a probabilistic assessment of whether the data are expected otherwise under a null assumption? Not a finger in the air one. Just because one thing changes with another does not make it causal, they may be both related to an underlying cause (time maybe).
27-11-2016 12:53
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Second part: Do we have a probabilistic assessment of whether the data are expected otherwise under a null assumption? Not a finger in the air one. Just because one thing changes with another does not make it causal, they may be both related to an underlying cause (time maybe).


Yes, you are quite right. Just because one thing changes with another, does not mean they are related, as shown rather amusingly here:

http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

It would help further discussion if you could clarify which part of climate change you agree with and which you do not. For example, do you agree that there is an increase in global temperature? What about CO2? Is it therefore the link between the two that you disagree with?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 2016 'very likely' the warmest year:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change could cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions a year by 2090030-04-2019 15:38
'100-year floods' are increasing in Canada due to climate change, officials say — is this t327-04-2019 22:56
The 100 Year Weather Forecast916-04-2019 15:02
Confirmed: 2018 Was the Fourth-Hottest Year on Record106-03-2019 22:00
How is this even true? CO2e is now over 500 ppm this year?508-02-2019 23:42
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact