Heh. Maybe it’s in a federal witness-protection program.
31 thoughts on “Global Warming”
It is so pathetic. The day of reckoning came and went, and their god failed to appear, but he’s just waiting out there somewhere, donchaknow.
And yet, last month was the second-hottest June ever recorded.
Come on, Jim. You are not that dumb. Of course temps will be hotter after they have risen. It’s tautological.
The question is, are they still rising? And, the answer is, not at any level of significance, and not anywhere close to what the AGW hypothesis predicted.
Come on, Jim. You are not that dumb.
Oh, but he is. The science is settled!!!
Not sure how they were getting a global mean in 1880 or how measurement would be consistent at the time or over time.
The link does show below average temperatures for most of the table and it is interesting that major events like the extreme heat during the dust bowl days are not represented on the table. It doesn’t look like the global mean is a very good indicator of what is actually happening in the climate.
But the table doesn’t tell us much, especially what is behind, “using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment.”
Well, the dust bowl probably doesn’t appear because Gistemp knocks off a couple of degrees from that period because back then people were shorter and had to look kinda up at the thermometer – or something.
So 1930’s temperatures depend on if you’re using the raw records, the pre-1997 GISS temperature record, the record prior to the infamous GISS Y2K adjustments, or the pre-2007 adjustments, or the pre-2010 adjustments. In some places temperatures from that era have been knocked down 6 degrees. Trying to pull that off takes some real hubris.
Little known fact. What looks like dust in the photographs from the period is actually intense summer snow storms.
And yet the GISS data agrees with other, independent measurements.
There are no other independent measurements. There is only GISStemp and HadCRU, and they’re based on the same set of measurements from the same stations, with slight differences on how they extrapolate into the polar regions where there isn’t any data.
The satellite measurements are fairly independent. Of course they bear little resemblance to the surface measurements.
When I mapped them out a few years ago, something like half the difference was coming from the oceans, which have since been shown to be mostly garbage in the surface record. Other big differences, if I remember correctly, were the Siberian anomaly I mentioned below, Central Africa (warming in the surface record which had few thermometers there, cooling in the satellite record) and parts of Brazil. In the parts of the world which are considered to have the most accurate records, like the United States and EU, they were a reasonable match.
The satellite measurements are fairly independent. Of course they bear little resemblance to the surface measurements.
You’re going to tell us those are in close agreement?
How about we look at the actual data sources rather than Wikipedia?
Wikipedia uses the actual data sources, all referenced for your convenience.
You seriously claim you can eyeball those two graphs, which are over different time scales, a bar graph vs a line graph, different x axis scales and claim the data is not in close agreement??
Here’s a suggestion, go find a site that’s compared the data on the same graph, or do it yourself.
Ah, Edward, you allowed him to choose the field of battle. Sun Tzu would not approve.
George was specifically speaking of temperatures in the 1930’s. We didn’t get satellite technology until after the Roswell incident in 1947 😉
major events like the extreme heat during the dust bowl days
The dust bowl heat only affected a tiny fraction of the planet surface. The GISS data is a global average.
It mysteriously only affected the places that had thermometers everywhere. GISS data is like that.
It mysteriously only affected the places…
I sincerely want to understand your point. There is only data where there are thermometers present. What are you saying?
I presume he’s saying that surface thermometer coverage was lousy until a few decades ago. And coverage has been declining in the last decade or two as well.
It’s worth noting that much of the ‘global’ warming up to the early 2000s came from about half a dozen thermometers in Siberia, for example. And the satellites showed much less warming in the same location.
Of course the big issue with surface temperature claims is that they almost never give error bars, and act as though the temperature reading was precisely correct, even though it was never intended to produce an accurate measurement of global climate and has probably been ‘adjusted’ multiple times. I can’t think of any other area in even remotely hard science where that kind of behaviour wouldn’t be laughed out of an undergraduate experiment.
It’s worth noting that much of the ‘global’ warming up to the early 2000s came from about half a dozen thermometers in Siberia,
Only about half a dozen stations aye? If that’s all, no doubt you can give us the name of the stations.
Heck, I’ll make it easy for you, here’s some you can pick from: Ostrov Dikson, Hatanga, Turuhansk, Essej, Mys Kamennyj, Ostrov Uedine, Tarko-Sale, Gmo Im.E.K.F, Tura, Mys Zelanija, Olenek, Ostrov Vize, Bor, Bajkit, Waigatz, Selagoncy.
If that’s not enough I expect I can find another 30 or 40 for ya.
I’m sure he can find them because a lot has been written about it. Most of the global warming occurred in Russia and Siberia, which has twice the area of the US and few stations, none reliable.
In the Soviet era, remote places had their winter fuel allotments based on what they needed (communism!), and what they needed was based on their local temperatures, and their local temperatures were just a function of how much they were willing to lie in their weather reports back to Moscow. Once their system collapsed they didn’t need to lie to get extra fuel they could barter or sell on the black market, so temperatures went up.
Interesting theory, the problem with it is that the polar amplification is also evident in the station records from Canada, northern Europe and Alaska.
Yet not nearly to the extent it occurred in Siberia, which is evident when you “unmix” the polar data. Alaska actually has a large negative temperature anomaly. Amazingly enough, Siberian temperature records dropped and average of 2 degrees C between 1922 and 1990 (with an 8 C drop from peak to peak), but by the 2000’s had returned to their pre-revolutionary levels. Some of the best data comes from the Danish meteorological institute, which has thrown a few red flags on the BS coming out of the America and Britain, like when we dropped some of their pre-WW-II temperature records by 6 C in an attempt to kill their great grandparents, which is outrageous because Denmark was neutral during the war.
Erp. I meant Sweden was neutral. Denmark rowed Jews over to Sweden, probably trying to save them from the glaciation.
George, I’ve had a look at the station date and I’m not seeing what you describe, you got a source?
Exactly my point. The global mean doesn’t tell us much if anything about what is actually going on in the climate.
Looking at the chart you linked, people would be lead to believe the dust bowl years were colder than average but for a significant part of the globe they weren’t. The table doesn’t show situations like this, which are immensely more important than a global mean temperature in understanding how the climate works.
last month was the second-hottest June ever recorded.
base period: 1951-1980 … using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Jim, your hyperbole seems appropriate, since it’s about all you’ve got left.
This argument that the oceans are ‘hiding’ the GW – isn’t that exactly backwards? The oceans warm in response to higher surface temps, and there’s a several hundred year lag. So the oceans are simply catching up to surface temps, which have flattened out lately.
IIRC, that’s the theory behind CO2 being a result, not cause of GW. Surface temps go up, oceans rise several years later, CO2 comes out of solution, atmospheric CO2 levels go up (several hundred years after surface temps).
As far as lag, a few things that I always keep in mind related to the climate and the effect of that giant nuclear reactor in the sky:
a) The sun is at its highest point in the sky, and at its most intense, at 12 noon. The highest temperatures of the day are usually recorded around 4 PM or 5 PM.
a.1) The sun is at its “lowest” point at midnight, local time. The lowest temperature of the day is usually recorded around 5 AM or 6 AM.
b) The longest day of the year in either hemisphere is the Summer Solstice (June 21 in the Northern hemisphere). The hottest days of summer are generally the end of July and August.
b.1) The shortest day of the year is the Winter Solstice (Dec. 21 in the Northern hemisphere). The coldest days of winter generally occur in late January and February.
Considering the sort of lag in temperature change with solar radiation (4-5 hours day-to-day, 5-6 WEEKS season-to-season), it should come as little surprise if global temperatures remain constant even years after a change in the composition of the upper atmosphere or a major change in the output levels of the sun.
Which is to say, too, that humans can’t possibly have a clue as to whether or not anything they do today, or did last year, will or won’t affect temperatures locally or globally. There is too much of a lag in signal propagation, never mind the capricious nature and (until very recently) inexactitude of measuring the output of the only reason this planet is even warm enough to support life: the Sun. And to pretend that we can extrapolate into the future a pattern based on current temperatures is ludicrous, at best, and completely dishonest at worst.
Climate “scientists” don’t do “lag”. Except for Salby, they haven’t even figured out the integral relationship between temperatures and CO2. The argument is actually over something over which we have no control anyway. It’s really sad.
Does Jim know what makes a theory scientific?
Sure. You come up with how you want things to be and, if nobody you allow to comment comes up with anything to contradict it, it’s a scientific theory, on a par with gravity and the linkage between smoking and lung cancer. Anyone who disagrees therefore does not believe in gravity, or is being paid by the Tobacco Lobby. Or, Big Oil.
It is so pathetic. The day of reckoning came and went, and their god failed to appear, but he’s just waiting out there somewhere, donchaknow.
And yet, last month was the second-hottest June ever recorded.
Come on, Jim. You are not that dumb. Of course temps will be hotter after they have risen. It’s tautological.
The question is, are they still rising? And, the answer is, not at any level of significance, and not anywhere close to what the AGW hypothesis predicted.
Oh, but he is. The science is settled!!!
Not sure how they were getting a global mean in 1880 or how measurement would be consistent at the time or over time.
The link does show below average temperatures for most of the table and it is interesting that major events like the extreme heat during the dust bowl days are not represented on the table. It doesn’t look like the global mean is a very good indicator of what is actually happening in the climate.
But the table doesn’t tell us much, especially what is behind, “using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment.”
Well, the dust bowl probably doesn’t appear because Gistemp knocks off a couple of degrees from that period because back then people were shorter and had to look kinda up at the thermometer – or something.
So 1930’s temperatures depend on if you’re using the raw records, the pre-1997 GISS temperature record, the record prior to the infamous GISS Y2K adjustments, or the pre-2007 adjustments, or the pre-2010 adjustments. In some places temperatures from that era have been knocked down 6 degrees. Trying to pull that off takes some real hubris.
Little known fact. What looks like dust in the photographs from the period is actually intense summer snow storms.
And yet the GISS data agrees with other, independent measurements.
There are no other independent measurements. There is only GISStemp and HadCRU, and they’re based on the same set of measurements from the same stations, with slight differences on how they extrapolate into the polar regions where there isn’t any data.
The satellite measurements are fairly independent. Of course they bear little resemblance to the surface measurements.
When I mapped them out a few years ago, something like half the difference was coming from the oceans, which have since been shown to be mostly garbage in the surface record. Other big differences, if I remember correctly, were the Siberian anomaly I mentioned below, Central Africa (warming in the surface record which had few thermometers there, cooling in the satellite record) and parts of Brazil. In the parts of the world which are considered to have the most accurate records, like the United States and EU, they were a reasonable match.
The satellite measurements are fairly independent. Of course they bear little resemblance to the surface measurements.
Obviously.
/sarc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
How about we look at the actual data sources rather than Wikipedia?
Here, for example, monthly mean global surface temperatures measured by meterological stations from GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
Here, for example, monthly lower atmosphere temperatures from UAH:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/june/062013_tlt_update_bar.jpg
You’re going to tell us those are in close agreement?
How about we look at the actual data sources rather than Wikipedia?
Wikipedia uses the actual data sources, all referenced for your convenience.
You seriously claim you can eyeball those two graphs, which are over different time scales, a bar graph vs a line graph, different x axis scales and claim the data is not in close agreement??
Here’s a suggestion, go find a site that’s compared the data on the same graph, or do it yourself.
Ah, Edward, you allowed him to choose the field of battle. Sun Tzu would not approve.
George was specifically speaking of temperatures in the 1930’s. We didn’t get satellite technology until after the Roswell incident in 1947 😉
major events like the extreme heat during the dust bowl days
The dust bowl heat only affected a tiny fraction of the planet surface. The GISS data is a global average.
It mysteriously only affected the places that had thermometers everywhere. GISS data is like that.
It mysteriously only affected the places…
I sincerely want to understand your point. There is only data where there are thermometers present. What are you saying?
I presume he’s saying that surface thermometer coverage was lousy until a few decades ago. And coverage has been declining in the last decade or two as well.
It’s worth noting that much of the ‘global’ warming up to the early 2000s came from about half a dozen thermometers in Siberia, for example. And the satellites showed much less warming in the same location.
Of course the big issue with surface temperature claims is that they almost never give error bars, and act as though the temperature reading was precisely correct, even though it was never intended to produce an accurate measurement of global climate and has probably been ‘adjusted’ multiple times. I can’t think of any other area in even remotely hard science where that kind of behaviour wouldn’t be laughed out of an undergraduate experiment.
It’s worth noting that much of the ‘global’ warming up to the early 2000s came from about half a dozen thermometers in Siberia,
Only about half a dozen stations aye? If that’s all, no doubt you can give us the name of the stations.
Heck, I’ll make it easy for you, here’s some you can pick from: Ostrov Dikson, Hatanga, Turuhansk, Essej, Mys Kamennyj, Ostrov Uedine, Tarko-Sale, Gmo Im.E.K.F, Tura, Mys Zelanija, Olenek, Ostrov Vize, Bor, Bajkit, Waigatz, Selagoncy.
If that’s not enough I expect I can find another 30 or 40 for ya.
I’m sure he can find them because a lot has been written about it. Most of the global warming occurred in Russia and Siberia, which has twice the area of the US and few stations, none reliable.
In the Soviet era, remote places had their winter fuel allotments based on what they needed (communism!), and what they needed was based on their local temperatures, and their local temperatures were just a function of how much they were willing to lie in their weather reports back to Moscow. Once their system collapsed they didn’t need to lie to get extra fuel they could barter or sell on the black market, so temperatures went up.
Interesting theory, the problem with it is that the polar amplification is also evident in the station records from Canada, northern Europe and Alaska.
Yet not nearly to the extent it occurred in Siberia, which is evident when you “unmix” the polar data. Alaska actually has a large negative temperature anomaly. Amazingly enough, Siberian temperature records dropped and average of 2 degrees C between 1922 and 1990 (with an 8 C drop from peak to peak), but by the 2000’s had returned to their pre-revolutionary levels. Some of the best data comes from the Danish meteorological institute, which has thrown a few red flags on the BS coming out of the America and Britain, like when we dropped some of their pre-WW-II temperature records by 6 C in an attempt to kill their great grandparents, which is outrageous because Denmark was neutral during the war.
Erp. I meant Sweden was neutral. Denmark rowed Jews over to Sweden, probably trying to save them from the glaciation.
George, I’ve had a look at the station date and I’m not seeing what you describe, you got a source?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Exactly my point. The global mean doesn’t tell us much if anything about what is actually going on in the climate.
Looking at the chart you linked, people would be lead to believe the dust bowl years were colder than average but for a significant part of the globe they weren’t. The table doesn’t show situations like this, which are immensely more important than a global mean temperature in understanding how the climate works.
last month was the second-hottest June ever recorded.
base period: 1951-1980 … using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Jim, your hyperbole seems appropriate, since it’s about all you’ve got left.
This argument that the oceans are ‘hiding’ the GW – isn’t that exactly backwards? The oceans warm in response to higher surface temps, and there’s a several hundred year lag. So the oceans are simply catching up to surface temps, which have flattened out lately.
IIRC, that’s the theory behind CO2 being a result, not cause of GW. Surface temps go up, oceans rise several years later, CO2 comes out of solution, atmospheric CO2 levels go up (several hundred years after surface temps).
As far as lag, a few things that I always keep in mind related to the climate and the effect of that giant nuclear reactor in the sky:
a) The sun is at its highest point in the sky, and at its most intense, at 12 noon. The highest temperatures of the day are usually recorded around 4 PM or 5 PM.
a.1) The sun is at its “lowest” point at midnight, local time. The lowest temperature of the day is usually recorded around 5 AM or 6 AM.
b) The longest day of the year in either hemisphere is the Summer Solstice (June 21 in the Northern hemisphere). The hottest days of summer are generally the end of July and August.
b.1) The shortest day of the year is the Winter Solstice (Dec. 21 in the Northern hemisphere). The coldest days of winter generally occur in late January and February.
Considering the sort of lag in temperature change with solar radiation (4-5 hours day-to-day, 5-6 WEEKS season-to-season), it should come as little surprise if global temperatures remain constant even years after a change in the composition of the upper atmosphere or a major change in the output levels of the sun.
Which is to say, too, that humans can’t possibly have a clue as to whether or not anything they do today, or did last year, will or won’t affect temperatures locally or globally. There is too much of a lag in signal propagation, never mind the capricious nature and (until very recently) inexactitude of measuring the output of the only reason this planet is even warm enough to support life: the Sun. And to pretend that we can extrapolate into the future a pattern based on current temperatures is ludicrous, at best, and completely dishonest at worst.
Climate “scientists” don’t do “lag”. Except for Salby, they haven’t even figured out the integral relationship between temperatures and CO2. The argument is actually over something over which we have no control anyway. It’s really sad.
Does Jim know what makes a theory scientific?
Sure. You come up with how you want things to be and, if nobody you allow to comment comes up with anything to contradict it, it’s a scientific theory, on a par with gravity and the linkage between smoking and lung cancer. Anyone who disagrees therefore does not believe in gravity, or is being paid by the Tobacco Lobby. Or, Big Oil.