NASA Data Analysis proves that modern temperature rate of increase is NOT unusual

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > NASA Data Analysis proves that modern temperature rate of increase is NOT unusual

NASA Data Analysis proves that modern temperature rate of increase is NOT unusual09-05-2017 13:00
miketolstoy ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	The climate is always hanging. But a fundamental argument is often put that modern trends in temperature are unprecedented. An analysis of NASA data from differing sources (used by the IPCC) proves this hypothesis to be incorrect. https://youtu.be/QrTBxSKFjeQ
09-05-2017 13:06
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	It might be helpful if you actually put your basic arguments in text. We could look at it slowly then and think about it.
RE: Your Suggestion09-05-2017 13:59
miketolstoy ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Thanks for the comment and suggestion. I will post a summary of the argument in a few hours.
09-05-2017 14:38
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	"NASA Data Analysis...." Misleading even in the title. Not an analysis by NASA. Not an analysis of data collected by NASA, not most of it anyway. Not NOAA collected data either, mostly. An analysis by an unknown person. The analysis compares data trends from diverse sources, tree-ring data and ice data with recent instrumental data. I'm not much of a statistician, but I expect that if we were to look at the original data with error-bars/uncertainties included we'd conclude that the analysis is flawed.
09-05-2017 15:19
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Is it because I am a genius that I constantly get confronted with idiocy? The bottom line, that there will be short term trends does not get more substantiated by repeating it for the quarter of an hour. It is just agonizing! But things get really humiliating if you can not even read the chart you are presenting. Take the one at 13:58 where it reads 0.74°C/Decade for the period of 550-590. So that is 4 decades times 0.74 = +2.96°C. This is more warming than ever occured, and in fact the scale to the left tell us it were only like +0.3°C. So obviuosly someone got the decimal point wrong, or confused decade with century - and then expanded this mistake to make a 19 minute "presentation" on it.

RE: Answer to Tim the Plumber09-05-2017 15:39
miketolstoy ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	An important aspect of the climate change debate is summed up like this: "One position holds that medieval warm temperatures reached levels similar to the late twentieth century and maintained that the LIA was very cold, while another position holds that past variability was less than present extremes and that the temperature rise of recent decades is unmatched". This video challenges whether the rise of recent decades is unmatched. The overall trend since 1880 when instrumental data started is 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade. This is according to NOAA data for northern hemisphere land records. The most extreme trend occurs between 2006 and 2016. This, according to NOAA, is 0.38 degrees Celsius per decade. Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years. Multiple examples were found where trends equalled or exceeded over the past two thousand years.
RE: Reply to Leitwolf09-05-2017 15:49
miketolstoy ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	There is an issue with this study as the records are per decade. This was mentioned in the video. The video also mentioned that this result was excluded from the final analysis due to the extreme results being shown. But thanks for highlighting this - It could have been explained better in the video.
09-05-2017 16:03
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years I don't get it. Why bother with a study that only looks at 2,000 years? It is equal to a few minutes in earths "modern history".
RE: To GasGuzzler09-05-2017 16:41
miketolstoy ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	The study focuses on the past two thousand years because it is indisputable that temperatures have increased at much higher rates prior to the Holocene - the last 11,5000 years. But it is argued that temperatures have not increased at these rates during the Holocene until the 20th and 21st centuries which is when CO2 levels rose. This video argues that this is not the case.
09-05-2017 18:37
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Leitwolf wrote: Is it because I am a genius that I constantly get confronted with idiocy? The bottom line, that there will be short term trends does not get more substantiated by repeating it for the quarter of an hour. It is just agonizing! But things get really humiliating if you can not even read the chart you are presenting. Take the one at 13:58 where it reads 0.74°C/Decade for the period of 550-590. So that is 4 decades times 0.74 = +2.96°C. This is more warming than ever occured, and in fact the scale to the left tell us it were only like +0.3°C. So obviuosly someone got the decimal point wrong, or confused decade with century - and then expanded this mistake to make a 19 minute "presentation" on it. Is there some reason that missing a decimal point is something that should be so disturbing to you that you resort to a childish photograph from Star Trek? From you other postings I find you much more intelligent than that. NONE of these analysis combine all of the variables and so none of them can give positive answers. But my analysis of the energy capacity of CO2 is that it has almost nothing to do with any climate change after the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded something like 280 ppm. Edited on 09-05-2017 18:55
10-05-2017 06:13
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Well .. you can not always be a genius. So far I have not figured out a smarter way to defecate. And my shoes may stink too! However I acquired a new perspective on the whole climate change denialism. I think it is very much like advocacy for witches. You know that witches got burned for witchcraft... You try to argue that burning may be to harsh, or that witchcraft may not all be to the bad. Essentially you bring forward whatever would relativize a diabolish act. Thereby of course bying into the concept of a devil, or witchcraft, and so on.. I can assure you, that this is an argument you are never going to win. If there is a greenhouse effect, then there will be greenhouse gases, and you can not deny that CO2 will be likely one of witch (sic!), and that humans are emitting it. It is like reasonable science fiction, or fiction of any kind, it could also be a zombie movie. We just assume a certain precondition, something absurd maybe, but then we to play it through. What would happen if..? It is very much this precondition, the basic plot, which determines most of the outcome. You are, sorry to say that, idiots if you are bying into the basic concept and only deal with the details. The youtube video above is an excellent showpiee for that, which tries to make up a trivial detail which, under the most optimistic assumptions, will not even leave a scratch of the theory of global warming. It does not work that way! Go after the foundations! And that is what I did. Btw. I am largely done, and my little essay turned into 10.000 word document. It should settle it all, and I wished there was more reaction to it, positive or negative, as significant parts of it were already published here..
10-05-2017 23:29
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Leitwolf wrote: Well .. you can not always be a genius. So far I have not figured out a smarter way to defecate. And my shoes may stink too! Read this paper. You can even note that in Figure 4.6 it even shows that CO2 has nothing but a slight cooling effect in the troposphere and lower stratosphere. Funny thing about actual measurement. It sort of blows "unbiased" mathematics based on incorrect assumptions all to hell.
11-05-2017 02:49
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Leitwolf wrote: Well .. you can not always be a genius. So far I have not figured out a smarter way to defecate. And my shoes may stink too! However I acquired a new perspective on the whole climate change denialism. I think it is very much like advocacy for witches. You know that witches got burned for witchcraft... You try to argue that burning may be to harsh, or that witchcraft may not all be to the bad. Essentially you bring forward whatever would relativize a diabolish act. Thereby of course bying into the concept of a devil, or witchcraft, and so on.. I can assure you, that this is an argument you are never going to win. If there is a greenhouse effect, then there will be greenhouse gases, and you can not deny that CO2 will be likely one of witch (sic!), and that humans are emitting it. It is like reasonable science fiction, or fiction of any kind, it could also be a zombie movie. We just assume a certain precondition, something absurd maybe, but then we to play it through. What would happen if..? It is very much this precondition, the basic plot, which determines most of the outcome. You are, sorry to say that, idiots if you are bying into the basic concept and only deal with the details. The youtube video above is an excellent showpiee for that, which tries to make up a trivial detail which, under the most optimistic assumptions, will not even leave a scratch of the theory of global warming. It does not work that way! Go after the foundations! And that is what I did. Btw. I am largely done, and my little essay turned into 10.000 word document. It should settle it all, and I wished there was more reaction to it, positive or negative, as significant parts of it were already published here.. If your article is published anywhere please make us aware of it.
11-05-2017 03:25
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Wake wrote:If your article is published anywhere please make us aware of it. Well I have sent it too the Monckton foundation and to wattsupwiththat. I did not get any reply at all (yet), and I do not think they will even read it.
RE: The Decimal Place error11-05-2017 09:31
miketolstoy ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Take the one at 13:58 where it reads 0.74°C/Decade for the period of 550-590. So that is 4 decades times 0.74 = +2.96°C. This is more warming than ever occured, and in fact the scale to the left tell us it were only like +0.3°C. So obviuosly someone got the decimal point wrong, or confused decade with century Thanks for pointing out this error. The Ljungqvist data set was made up of data per decade therefore the calculation was out by a factor of ten. I have now removed this data from the video and re-issued it (Revised). You can watch it again if you like haha. But seriously, thanks for spotting the error.

12-05-2017 00:06
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Leitwolf wrote: Wake wrote:If your article is published anywhere please make us aware of it. Well I have sent it too the Monckton foundation and to wattsupwiththat. I did not get any reply at all (yet), and I do not think they will even read it. Don't be too sure. If the math is correct it will get through Monckton.
12-05-2017 00:25
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	miketolstoy wrote: Take the one at 13:58 where it reads 0.74°C/Decade for the period of 550-590. So that is 4 decades times 0.74 = +2.96°C. This is more warming than ever occured, and in fact the scale to the left tell us it were only like +0.3°C. So obviuosly someone got the decimal point wrong, or confused decade with century Thanks for pointing out this error. The Ljungqvist data set was made up of data per decade therefore the calculation was out by a factor of ten. I have now removed this data from the video and re-issued it (Revised). You can watch it again if you like haha. But seriously, thanks for spotting the error. If this is YOUR youtube recording please allow me to compliment you. For years I have been reading absolute nonsense about "positive feedback" in the atmosphere from "greenhouse gases". The Earth started out with an atmosphere of at least 40% CO2. After the development of photosynthetic life there was a HUGE dragging down of the CO2 levels. This reached the levels at which photosynthesis ceases and plants die. (CO2 levels of 200 ppm - it went at least as low as 180 ppm) Luckily at this time animal life evolved that used the waste product of photosynthesis, O2, and there was another huge upswing in CO2 to some 20% or so while animal life was thriving in an O2 rich atmosphere and photosynthetic plant life was recovering from their near suicide. During the Jurassic Period the levels of CO2 were 20% or so and the climate is thought to be very nearly what they are today. With SIMPLE GEOLOGICAL HISTORY we can see that there IS no atmospheric feedback mechanisms concerning CO2. I have explained the spectroscopic reasons why in other places. Yet others have actually MEASURED the energy that there is available in the very narrow absorbance bands of CO2 and published on those lines: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf You don't even need to read the development if you don't want to. Simply look at Figure 4.6 and you can see CO2 adding NOTHING to heat. In fact, as I predicted it is cooling through simple conduction. The ONLY reason that real science hasn't made any headway against the True Believers is because it is a religion supported by the media.
13-05-2017 12:21
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years I don't get it. Why bother with a study that only looks at 2,000 years? It is equal to a few minutes in earths "modern history". Yep, the MWP is small and cool compared to the holocene optimal of the early bronze age. Given this videl can be summed up in a few words and after that we need to look at the graphs and form an opinion ourselves why have a video?
13-05-2017 21:13
James_ ★★★★★ (2218)	GasGuzzler wrote: Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years I don't get it. Why bother with a study that only looks at 2,000 years? It is equal to a few minutes in earths "modern history". GasGuzzler, This is actually a good one. What's not being said is that the "record" temps from 2006 to 2016 include the "lost" heat that was found in the Pacific and Indian Ocean's but not the Atlantic Ocean. It's kind of strange this "lost" heat was not found in the Atlantic Ocean as well.The ring of fire is in the ocean waters that are warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html @All, This is kind of interesting. Everywhere Climate Change is warming waters there is also geological based activity occurring as well. From Iceland into the Arctic there is the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges. In the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean there is the Ring of Fire as it's called. Edited on 13-05-2017 21:19
13-05-2017 22:40
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years I don't get it. Why bother with a study that only looks at 2,000 years? It is equal to a few minutes in earths "modern history". GasGuzzler, This is actually a good one. What's not being said is that the "record" temps from 2006 to 2016 include the "lost" heat that was found in the Pacific and Indian Ocean's but not the Atlantic Ocean. It's kind of strange this "lost" heat was not found in the Atlantic Ocean as well.The ring of fire is in the ocean waters that are warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html @All, This is kind of interesting. Everywhere Climate Change is warming waters there is also geological based activity occurring as well. From Iceland into the Arctic there is the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges. In the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean there is the Ring of Fire as it's called. I ran across something interesting while digging around - the warm periods matched volcanic dust in the upper atmosphere.
14-05-2017 01:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James_ wrote: GasGuzzler, This is actually a good one. What's not being said is that the "record" temps from 2006 to 2016 include the "lost" heat that was found in the Pacific and Indian Ocean's but not the Atlantic Ocean. It's kind of strange this "lost" heat was not found in the Atlantic Ocean as well.The ring of fire is in the ocean waters that are warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html @All, This is kind of interesting. Everywhere Climate Change is warming waters there is also geological based activity occurring as well. From Iceland into the Arctic there is the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges. In the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean there is the Ring of Fire as it's called. Did you ever bother to ponder what an egregiously absurd violation of the 2nd LoT it is to claim that thermal energy in the atmosphere one day glanced at its calendar and decided that it was time to just hide at the bottom of the ocean? Was there any questioning or doubting on your part when you read those articles? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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

Join the debate NASA Data Analysis proves that modern temperature rate of increase is NOT unusual:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Book your bargain rate Israeli Tel Aviv or Jerusalem vacation now, free 4th of July style fireworks inclu	1	18-10-2023 05:25
Present temperature spike July '23	31	27-09-2023 00:27
Quantum Light Experiment Proves Photosynthesis Starts with a Single Photon	15	22-06-2023 23:00
Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law	56	10-05-2023 15:46
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases	3	10-05-2023 08:27