Global Cooling is On the Way!

[Cow Poke]

I was referring to the article, not you.

But it really IS about me, isn't it?

[shunyadragon]

OK, fair enough, extreme catastrophes like dozens of nuclear bombs detonating in short span of time can affect the earth's climate, but that's not what liberals are referring to when they talk about "climate change".

As for long-term trends, there hasn't been any global warming for nearly two-decades now. But the biggest problem with this debate, I think, is trying to filter out the real data from the "adjusted" data and straight up fabrications that are being fed to us by a number of agencies that depend on the government and liberal politicians for their funding.

Incorrect based on misrepresenting the the data for your agenda. This has been addressed numerous times in previous threads. Please cite relevan sources that document this.

First problem the ALL data has to considered together over time, and not 10 or 20 year period.

[shunyadragon]

As for long-term trends, there hasn't been any global warming for nearly two-decades now. But the biggest problem with this debate, I think, is trying to filter out the real data from the "adjusted" data and straight up fabrications that are being fed to us by a number of agencies that depend on the government and liberal politicians for their funding.

I believe this has been cited before, but selective memory problems warrant it to be cited again, and maybe again, and again . . .

Source: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=CjwKEAjw2PK7BRDPz5nDh9GjoGcSJAAybcS3o91RU4E5bIDcFiytThm4nWjBQbGG8nl2oE8wpm5cjBoCKcfw_wcB

Global Warming's Great Hiatus Gets Another Debunking

© Copyright Original Source

[sylas]

As for long-term trends, there hasn't been any global warming for nearly two-decades now.

Flatly false. The data on this is unequivocal. the 20 years trend is easily statistically significant warming. All the available datasets for global surface temperature show this.

But the biggest problem with this debate, I think, is trying to filter out the real data from the "adjusted" data and straight up fabrications that are being fed to us by a number of agencies that depend on the government and liberal politicians for their funding.

Again, complete nonsense. The adjustments, such as they are, are well understood stock standard approaches to getting accurate information from raw data.

The methods used are well published and transparent, and the data is available in both adjusted and unadjusted forms, for those who like playing with numbers for themselves, or for any research group with their own methods of teasing out a global trend from raw station data. You get statistically significant warming whether you use the adjusted or simply use the raw data without any care for systematic issues underlying the measurement.

Note also that the largest adjustments are mostly for well before the last 20 years, because of the changes in the way measurements are made over time. This is the major cause of the kinds of inhomogeneity that adjustment is intended to identify and address. So in fact, if you just look at trend for simply the last 20 years, you get very little difference whether you use raw or corrected data.

More particularly, the alleged problem to which you allude does not exist. Measurements are made by all kinds of different groups in different nations with completely independent funding. The same results come up as no matter which government is involved. There is no shortage of people who would be delighted to fund a group that could show warming was inflated. But the results you get depend on the data; not on the funding; and there's just no way to fudge the data to get rid of the plain warming trend in global surface temperature. It wouldn't take much in the way of money. The raw station data is available for anyone with an internet connection, and writing programs to calculate global trends from that is not particularly expensive. Anyone with statistical knowledge, programming ability, and a PC can do it. I've done a bit of it myself; though other amateurs have done it better.

Cheers -- sylas

[stfoskey15]

As for long-term trends, there hasn't been any global warming for nearly two-decades now.

This is the slowest warming trend I could find, from the only major temperature data set maintained by climate change skeptics. If you want to see for yourself, the data is here.

[sylas]

This is lower atmosphere data, not surface temperature. Correlated, but not the same thing and not expected to be exactly the same.

The trend you get here is a bit different from surface temperature datasets, but this has nothing to do with the fact that the maintainers are skeptics. It's in the data itself. You can get similar numbers (with a very slightly smaller warming trend!) from another independent group who are not skeptics (RSS) and use the same satellites to get atmospheric temperatures.

I don't mind who does the data collection or calculation. Skeptics are fine with me.

The data you plot shows a warming trend of a bit over 0.5 degrees per century over the last twenty years; but with a large uncertainty, so this data cannot actually confirm statistically significant warming... but of course it ALSO cannot confirm that there's been no warming. The error bounds in this case admit either no warming at all, or warming well above what it measured at the surface! So even though the trend is a bit less than surface temperature trends, it certainly cannot stand as data to support the ridiculous claim that there's been no warming.

There is no such thing as raw temperature data in this case. The lower troposphere temperature data (which is what you are plotting, and which is the closest thing to a surface temperature) is obtained as a rather tricky calculation from temperatures inferred at different levels of the atmosphere from the microwave sounding by satellites. To calculate meaningful numbers that can be comparable from month to month, the data processing involves catering for bringing different satellites online and offline at different time, the management of time of day at which measurements occur (which are not at all consistent; depends on the satellite orbit) plus issues with orbit decay, and with data obtained by looking straight down and also down at an angle, and so on and on and on.

Unlike direct temperature measures of surface weather stations, the calculations in this case are really really subtle and the adjustments are much harder to figure out. You just can't compare raw and adjusted data, as there is no raw temperature data to be had: except comparisons with weather balloon data... which have their own problems as well.

The satellite data for inferred atmospheric temperatures is an important research tool for looking at the atmosphere, but it isn't any good as a substitute for direct temperature measurements at the surface to get a surface warming trend. With the direct temperature measurements at the surface, it is a perfectly feasible thing for an interested amateur to get raw temperature data, and calculate a global trend for themselves, or (more difficult) to do their own homogenization (adjustment) to manage known systematic issues in data at different stations and different times. There are homogenized station data available as well, which can be used quite easily to calculate a global mean trend by whatever means you like, and then run the program with both raw and adjusted data to give an easy check on the actual impact of adjustments.

Satellite data (as is used by UAH, and by a couple of other groups, most especially RSS) is much much harder for an interested amateur to play with, and the known systematic issues in this case are unresolved.

The data certainly doesn't show that there's been no warming; statistically the variation in this case mean that we could have anything from no warming to very strong warming, and still be consistent with the data.

Cheers -- sylas

[Mountain Man]

Incorrect based on misrepresenting the the data for your agenda. This has been addressed numerous times in previous threads. Please cite relevan sources that document this.

First problem the ALL data has to considered together over time, and not 10 or 20 year period.

The flat-line temperatures for the past two-decades is relevant because liberals predicted that the earth would be a cinder by now. But that didn't happen, obviously. Looking long-term is even worse for "your side" because history shows that the earth has been both much warmer and much cooler in the past and that the current climate trend is not an anomaly but business as usual for the earth.

The surest way to stump every "environmentalist" is to simply ask them what the correct earth temperature is, because history is ready to jump up like Lex Luther in that sub par Superman movie and shout, "Wrong!"

[Mountain Man]

This is the slowest warming trend I could find, from the only major temperature data set maintained by climate change skeptics. If you want to see for yourself, the data is here.

"Skeptics"... also known as scientists.

With regards to data tempering, I've said before that if creationists were ever to so blatantly "adjust" the data in favor of their position, the howls of protest from the scientific community would be deafening, and rightly so.

Hmmm... double standard? Ya think?

[sylas]

The flat-line temperatures for the past two-decades is relevant because liberals predicted that the earth would be a cinder by now. But that didn't happen, obviously. Looking long-term is even worse for "your side" because history shows that the earth has been both much warmer and much cooler in the past and that the current climate trend is not an anomaly but business as usual for the earth.

Mountain Man, there simply are no flat line temperatures for the last two decades. I have no idea what you are thinking here. What you speak of here just doesn't exist.

No-one was predicting Earth would be a cinder by now. That's also just weird. Temperatures are running well within the predictions. Most of the focus of projection has been temperatures by the year 2100, and those are strongly dependent on emissions scenarios; that is, choices. The projections range roughly from 1.5 to 6 degrees above pre-industrial norms by 2100. That's not a "cinder"; but it is substantially warmer. We have measured significant increase already, and the last 20 years actual data shows that the warming trend continues on, at a bit over 1.5 C/century at present. The last 20 years shows about that trend also (a bit higher, in fact) but again, with using 20 years for a trend doesn't give a lot of accuracy on gradients with noisy data. Using unadjusted data doesn't make a lot of difference to that. Warming is quite definite, and the notion of "flat-line" is just not there in any of the datasets. I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to there.

The surest way to stump every "environmentalist" is to simply ask them what the correct earth temperature is, because history is ready to jump up like Lex Luther in that sub par Superman movie and shout, "Wrong!"

Kind of a weird question, in fact. The temperature is a mean, and it varies by seasons and location. The warming is a mean increase over locations; not a change in a single temperature. The data everyone (and I do mean everyone) plots are called "temperature anomaly" not "temperature". There's a reason for that. Earth doesn't HAVE a single temperature value. A part of your problem looks like a lot of confidence in extreme views with very little basic understanding of the basic background information to understand the terms you are using.

Cheers -- sylas

[Cerebrum123]

Mountain Man, there simply are no flat line temperatures for the last two decades. I have no idea what you are thinking here. What you speak of here just doesn't exist.

No-one was predicting Earth would be a cinder by now. That's also just weird. Temperatures are running well within the predictions. Most of the focus of projection has been temperatures by the year 2100, and those are strongly dependent on emissions scenarios; that is, choices. The projections range roughly from 1.5 to 6 degrees above pre-industrial norms by 2100. That's not a "cinder"; but it is substantially warmer. We have measured significant increase already, and the last 20 years actual data shows that the warming trend continues on, at a bit over 1.5 C/century at present. The last 20 years shows about that trend also (a bit higher, in fact) but again, with using 20 years for a trend doesn't give a lot of accuracy on gradients with noisy data. Using unadjusted data doesn't make a lot of difference to that. Warming is quite definite, and the notion of "flat-line" is just not there in any of the datasets. I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to there.



Kind of a weird question, in fact. The temperature is a mean, and it varies by seasons and location. The warming is a mean increase over locations; not a change in a single temperature. The data everyone (and I do mean everyone) plots are called "temperature anomaly" not "temperature". There's a reason for that. Earth doesn't HAVE a single temperature value. A part of your problem looks like a lot of confidence in extreme views with very little basic understanding of the basic background information to understand the terms you are using.

Cheers -- sylas

I wish I had access to the videos to show, but that's not quite right. In my school they had videos of people needing special suits to simply walk outside their houses within the next 10-20 years. That was in second grade. I was 7 then, I'm 29 now. We've passed that mark. Videos like that were common at my school too. My experience is limited, but I seem to remember hearing about the same kind of fearmongering coming from other places.

[sylas]

I wish I had access to the videos to show, but that's not quite right. In my school they had videos of people needing special suits to simply walk outside their houses within the next 10-20 years. That was in second grade. I was 7 then, I'm 29 now. We've passed that mark. Videos like that were common at my school too. My experience is limited, but I seem to remember hearing about the same kind of fearmongering coming from other places.

You can certainly get all kinds of crazieness if you just mean what someone says or puts on a video. But if we are talking about conventional scientific predictions (by conventional i mean published in scientific literture) then i am quietly confident i'm exactly correct.

Cheers - sylas

[Jedidiah]

. . .The surest way to stump every "environmentalist" is to simply ask them what the correct earth temperature is, because history is ready to jump up like Lex Luther in that sub par Superman movie and shout, "Wrong!"

What about this, Sylas? Let me add for the sake of clarity that I have no personal opinion on the topic. I do not have the background to evaluate the data so I just float.

[rogue06]

I wish I had access to the videos to show, but that's not quite right. In my school they had videos of people needing special suits to simply walk outside their houses within the next 10-20 years. That was in second grade. I was 7 then, I'm 29 now. We've passed that mark. Videos like that were common at my school too. My experience is limited, but I seem to remember hearing about the same kind of fearmongering coming from other places.

That reminds me of an educational video I saw in the 7th grade near Washington D.C. where everyone lived in domed megalopolises (or is that megalopoli) because of air pollution. If you wanted to leave the city to travel into what was essentially a wasteland you had to wear a NBC suit to survive.

[shunyadragon]

The flat-line temperatures for the past two-decades is relevant because liberals predicted that the earth would be a cinder by now. But that didn't happen, obviously. Looking long-term is even worse for "your side" because history shows that the earth has been both much warmer and much cooler in the past and that the current climate trend is not an anomaly but business as usual for the earth.

The surest way to stump every "environmentalist" is to simply ask them what the correct earth temperature is, because history is ready to jump up like Lex Luther in that sub par Superman movie and shout, "Wrong!"

How about citing some good reliable scientific references like everyone else instead of a Doc Mountain Man Snake Oil Medicine Show with Blue Smoke and Mirrors

[Leonhard]

That reminds me of an educational video I saw in the 7th grade near Washington D.C. where everyone lived in domed megalopolises (or is that megalopoli) because of air pollution. If you wanted to leave the city to travel into what was essentially a wasteland you had to wear a NBC suit to survive.

I've always hated over the top depictions like that.