"I just don't like abstract and mathematical nonsense even though people like you think this is legitimate and proved science."
That "abstract and mathematical nonsense" is the basis for all modern day scientific inference. What is it with you guys? What has science done to you that sets you so against it, so out of touch with its ways? Why do you feel the need to rail against all that which is tried, tested, and true?
I perfectly understand the video and what you are trying to demonstrate here. But it is still all mathematical nonsense and nature does not obey statistics.
It's all about your house being saved or destroyed by rising waters.
And in this case water is temperature.
So to ask the question again: Did Global Warming Really Stop in 98 when three out of four datasets show no more warming since 98?
@robbieopen This isn't about nature obeying statistics, this is about whether there is sufficient evidence to say that there has been a change in trend since 1998. And it is quite clear there isn't. We cannot reject the null hypothesis that the overall trend has not changed. Not even in the HadCRU data, IIRC.
Even though you say you understand the video... I'm not sure that you really do.
@Woobaka Like I said it before: You are using mathematical methods to try to prove something with a very short temperature dataset.
If CAGW would be true there would be a real anthropogenic signal there in the Arctic already. All the scientists agree on polar amplification. So the warming in Greenland should have been really unprecedented. During the last 4000 years it looks like it was not the case. Read my source.
@robbieopen "You are using mathematical methods to try to prove something with a very short temperature dataset."
You clearly know absolutely nothing about statistical analysis. The analysis inevitably takes sample size into account, because with a larger sample size the probability of getting the same deviation from the true mean is smaller, by definition. This is what that analysis was looking for - the probability of getting the 1998 trend given nothing had changed.
@robbieopen And you have to give this "using mathematical methods" thing a rest as if its a bad thing. Statistical tests and techniques have been developed - and work - because that is how data behaves in nature. We don't force nature to obey statistics, we force statistics to obey nature.
Frankly I am not interested in your source. It looked to me like you were debating whether the global temp trend had changed recently, which is why I put you on to this video.
@robbieopen "How many years of no temp increase does it take before people like you will say: Yes the warming has seized!"
Easy - as soon as there is enough evidence to say there is a statistically significant change in trend. How many years of continued warming will it take before people like you will say: Yes the warming continues!
@Woobaka "How many years of continued warming will it take before..."
It's also very easy: It is predicted that the sun will head into another "Maunder minimum". If temperatures don't drop to temperatures in the 1800s or earlier. It is clear that anthropogenic CO2 has an effect which I don't deny. The amount of warming is much lower than assumed by the IPCC.
@robbieopen "Which clearly proves that you dismiss research by a team consisting of only warmists."
No, it clearly proves that I'm not interested in letting you steer the dialogue away from the issue I thought I was addressing when I led you to this video. I simply don't have the time to invest anymore. If you make a habit of arriving at conclusions the evidence doesn't support, it explains a lot about you - most notably why you've convinced yourself AGW isn't a problem.
@Woobaka And no I don't make a habit of arriving to conclusions the evidence doesn't support. I just don't like abstract and mathematical nonsense even though people like you think this is legitimate and proved science. It is nothing more than a bunch of rules on which people agree on. Yes the Earth has warmed a bit in the last 150 years, but scientists are still trying to figure out what percentage is manmade or natural.
In 30 years time we will have the answer to that question.
Replace temperature with water level and your house barely escaped flooding in 1998.
In the case of UAH, HadCRUT3v and RSS your house is still safe because water level didn't go that high.
Only in GISS your house will be flooded and destroyed. Three out of 4 datasets say your house was safe.
Let's assume the three datasets are correct. The question still stands: Has the water rise seized since 98 or is it still rising? If rising then why is your house still intact?
3) That feedbacks from WV and clouds are powerful enough to increase the surface-temperature up to 3 degC by 2010. I calculated a temperature-increase of 0.7 degC on a baseline temperature of 288K for a radiative forcing increment of 3.7W/sq.m. That’s the predicted RF from a doubling of CO2. That leaves a radiative forcing increment of 12.807W/sq.m to be accounted for by the feedbacks if the temperature is going to be boosted up to 3 degC. If these things are proven, I will concede CAGW is real.
@CHIPSTERO7 They're already there in the published literature. You're just not reading or comprehending enough of it to grasp the reality of the situation.
@CHIPSTERO7 Yes, in fact, I have. Extreme heat waves and extreme precipitation events. With only 4% more water vapor in the air from higher global temps, this is what is expected to happen and what IS happening. That 4% comes from a 0.8C rise in global temps. Think of what will happen when the global temp is 1.2C with maybe 8% more water vapor in the air, or 2C with 12% more WV. And that's what we anticipate by mid century.
@robhoneycutt I said "I haven't seen any evidence that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 level". Your post doesn't address that. Anyway, a 4% increase in atmospheric water vapour amounts to about 3W/sq.m, give or take (since according to Trenberth atmospheric water vapour contributes 75W/sq.m). A radiative forcing of 3W/sq.m isn't that much. Still, there's always hope.
@Woobaka Luckily I have an A in maths GCSE so I can understand the equations in Monckton's peer-reviewed paper for the most part. What I don't understand however is how the IPCC's equations predict a temperature increase of 0.36 deg between 1980 to 2000? Maybe I calculated it incorrectly. But I can't see how since the calculation is an exceptionally straightforward one. The IPCC present the following equation to calculate the radiative forcing increments from CO2 increments: RF = Lnx5.35(CO/C1).
@Woobaka Because they are systematically placed by air-conditioners. I don’t have definitive proof that the surface-based records are compromised, but is does make them automatically suspect in my eyes. Has anyone carried out a hand-on investigation to see if the artificial heat-sources are contaminating the readings?
@CHIPSTERO7 "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the US Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" Fall et al 2011 (the Watts paper).
@Woobaka I will read it. Anyway, Wook, I really can't be bothered with all this. We obviously have diametrically opposed views and we are probably not going to ever change each other’s minds, so I can’t be bothered with this anymore. There are peer-review papers out there that show fudging of data. Monkton submitted one a while ago which I read, but I don’t have the time or truthfully the inclination to track it down right now.
@CHIPSTERO7 Are you sure this isn't the piece he had published in the Sunday Telegraph/Mail on Sunday (some right leaning sunday edition newspaper anyway)? If you find it and it is indeed peer reviewed let me know.
Where Ln is the natural logarithm, CO is initial CO2 concentration and C1 is the final CO2 concentration. If the atmospheric CO2 level in 1980 was 340ppmv and it had increased to 370ppmv in 2000 which gives us a radiative forcing of 0.45W/sq.m. The IPCC’s second-equation is meant to represent the hypothesized feedbacks inherent in the climate-system and is deltaT = RFx0.8deg C. Hence 0.45x0.8 = 0.36 deg C.This information is viewable on Wikipedia's Radiative Forcing page if you're interested.
@Woobaka Interesting. I took a shufti at the GISS data and my estimate falls in a similar ballpark. Still. Notwithstanding the fact that the GISS historical temperature trend correlates with the predicted warming from the IPCC's equations, I'm still skeptical. For me to be proselytized over into the AGW-camp I would need the following things proven to me. 1) That the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1850 is anthropogenically-derived. 2) Empirical measurements of CO2's absorption characteristics.
Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia". “(Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda".
climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised. “NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic (cont)
@CHIPSTERO7 Chipster, if you're not going to offer peer reviewed papers, and instead simply something some guy said some where some time, save your time. I'm not going to read it. There's countless examples of something some guy said somewhere some time, we need to apply a quality filter to keep the debate from descending into a he said she said.
I will get the evidence of ‘manufacturing’ and ‘adjusting’ the data to tomorrow. In the mean-time, you don’t have to look far on the Internet to see that the surface-data is compromised by conveniently placing sensitive thermometers by air-conditioners. The GISS data, which is based exclusively on the surface-data is consistently breaking new records and records higher temperatures than the HADCRUT, RSS and UAH data and, I think it’s partly due to UHI-effect and badly-placed thermometers.
@CHIPSTERO7 Chipster, if you actually watched my video you would see that, along with the GISS data, the UAH data is the series that is MOST consistent with a continued warming trend since 1998. This is a problem for you because a) it is remote sensing, and so you can't claim it is being biased by siting, and b) UAH is compiled by an outspoken "sceptic", who I think it is fair to say would not "fudge the numbers" in favour of warming.
@Woobaka I'm not saying that there has been no warming. I am saying that the GISS data (which us surface-based) records higher temperatures than UAH and is compromised.
@Woobaka See: h ttp://ww w.sott.net/articles/show/213873-Leading-US-Physicist-Labels-Satellitegate-Scandal-a-Catastrophe Quotes from the article: "NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defence to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists. (U.S. physicist Dr Charles R. Anderson) agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer (cont)
@CHIPSTERO7 You can also see that actually the series least consistent with continued warming since 1998 is HadCRU. This is compiled by the same institution that Phil Jones works for... you know, the same Phil Jones who's a favourite denier target and fudges all the numbers? Yeah, well if he's fudging the numbers he's not doing a very good job of it.
@CHIPSTERO7 What's more, there are actually studies out there that have looked at the possibility of UHI introducing an artificial warming trend. See Jones et al 1998 "Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China".
@CHIPSTERO7 Are you also blissfully unaware of Anthony Watts' recent publication? You know, the one where he's looked at poorly sited station and well sited stations in the US and found groundbreaking results? Er, the groundbreaking result being that there's virtually no difference...
Furthermore the governments which own and control them are sold on the idea of CAGW and the data-publishing institutions are also functioning as CAGW-advocacy groups accordingly. This incestuous relationship between modern politics and modern climate science may not be regarded as corrupt from a political point of view, but it certainly is from a scientific one and it implies that the scientific data issuing from the scientific institutions cannot be trusted. Their data is automatically suspect.
On a side-note, if you do decide to make a video about me, please make sure that what you are saying is comprehensible. It' hard to make sense of your Scottish accent.
@CHIPSTERO7 And, while I'm open to criticism, and I'm perfectly aware that I can be hard to understand for anyone outside Glasgow, I get the feeling that this is nothing more than your attempt at a cheap shot.
P.S. If you have a paper to back up "According to the IPCC's equations the temperature should have increased by 0.36 degC. It did not.", then I'll look at that.
Furthermore, why did the temperature increase at exactly the same rate between 1906 and the 1930's as it did between the 1980's and 2000? According to the CO2 hypothesis it should have accelerated. It did not. I can tell you why to save you the pain of having to think about it: the models are wrong and the hypothesis is false. Atmospheric CO2 levels were 340ppmv in 1980 and by 2000 they were 370ppv. According to the IPCC's equations the temperature should have increased by 0.36 degC. It did not.
See, the problem you have here is that models reconstruct the early 20th century quite well. The accepted wisdom on forcings in the early 20th century suggest that solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and internal variability all played a part in that period of warming. See the IPCC AR4 chapter 9.4 for more info and relevant papers.
And as for your calculations, I'm going to take potholers stance. I'm not interested, considering I know how error prone you are.
See, the problem you have here is that models reconstruct the early 20th century quite well. The accepted wisdom on forcings in the early 20th century suggest that solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and internal variability all played a part in that period of warming. See the IPCC AR4 chapter 9.4 for more info and relevant papers.
And as for your calculations, I'm going to take potholers stance. I'm not interested, considering I know how error prone you are.
Is the planet warming? True to form, the warmists say that it is warming. Their purported evidence for this is the dubious synthetic temperature-data sets produced by CAGW advocate-agencies like NASA and the NOAA. But I think the globe is more probably cooling. Why? Last year it was discovered that the upper atmosphere had collapsed. Since the atmosphere is gaseous and gases contract when they cool, this atmospheric contraction suggests to me that the atmosphere has been cooling as of late.
@CHIPSTERO7 Right. Lets look at the evidence here. On the one hand we have thermometers and remote sensing, all showing warming.
On the other hand, we have Chipster, baslessly asserting that temperature series' cannot be trusted, and then giving a frankly obscure conjecture that to him would imply that the very opposite is happening, that the planet is cooling.
Do you have a peer-reviewed paper backing up this assertion?
how many of you human haters have actualy disconnected yourselves from the power grid and installed wind turbines and solar panels to show us life lovers how easy it is to leave fossil fuel dependence. no matter by the end of 2011 your pathetic econazi religeon will be dead and burried
@theebeano Do you actually have a criticism of this video? While I respect your right to exercise your imagination, please don't do it in the comment section of this video. It's for comments about the video. If you want to jot down your inane musings buy a notebook.
@Wobaka I accidentally posted my comment on Potholer's video. My problem with the data is that organizations providing it are not disinterested. Ideally they should be autonomous, purely scientific organisations that are totally impartial and disinterested in the pragmatic implications and consequences of their work. But that is a far cry from the situation in which all of the institutions which publish global temperature data are either owned and controlled by agencies of political governments.
the temps been recovering for 150 years since the little ice age. todays temps are lower than that of the medievil warm period.so stop being a twat looking at trends over 10 20 30 years. get some real facts at climatedepot, wattsupwiththat,scienceandpublicpolicyfoundation. the people pushing this AGW bull are pure evil. John Holdren science adviser to Obama wrote a book in 1973 called ecoscience where he describes humans as a cancer, to put sterilants in the water. a lisence to have 1 child.
@theebeano "stop being a twat looking at trends over 10 20 30 years" You appear to have missed the point of the video. The video counters the argument of "sceptics" that global warming stopped in 1998 - they are the ones claiming to extract something meaningful from a 13 year trend. The video shows that without the true trend from 1975-present actually changing at all, the smaller trends seen since 1998 are expected to be rather common given the statistical noise in the data.
@theebeano "todays temps are lower than that of the medievil warm period" Actually there's little doubt in the scientific community that the last decade has been warmer than anytime during the MWP.
I've always enjoyed reading the comments you and the others leave on greenman's channel. Great to see an actual video made on the issue. Hope to see more in the future.
@MisterSelatcia Thanks for that. I was actually surprised by how easy it was to put this video together, I expected it to be a lot more time consuming. I think future videos are quite likely - I already have many little analyses I've done but have kept to myself - and as greenman often says, there's no shortage of crocks.
"I just don't like abstract and mathematical nonsense even though people like you think this is legitimate and proved science."
That "abstract and mathematical nonsense" is the basis for all modern day scientific inference. What is it with you guys? What has science done to you that sets you so against it, so out of touch with its ways? Why do you feel the need to rail against all that which is tried, tested, and true?
Woobaka 2 months ago
I perfectly understand the video and what you are trying to demonstrate here. But it is still all mathematical nonsense and nature does not obey statistics.
It's all about your house being saved or destroyed by rising waters.
And in this case water is temperature.
So to ask the question again: Did Global Warming Really Stop in 98 when three out of four datasets show no more warming since 98?
robbieopen 3 months ago
@robbieopen This isn't about nature obeying statistics, this is about whether there is sufficient evidence to say that there has been a change in trend since 1998. And it is quite clear there isn't. We cannot reject the null hypothesis that the overall trend has not changed. Not even in the HadCRU data, IIRC.
Even though you say you understand the video... I'm not sure that you really do.
Woobaka 3 months ago
@Woobaka Sorry to say, but you need to explain why your house is still intact, because water level seized to rise any further after 98.
You speak of trend. Mr Happer never spoke of a trend.
Let's pick another trend: That of Greenland in the last 4000 years. Any idea what the trend is for Greenland?
tinyurl com/6rzkajs
The skeptics are right so far: We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
robbieopen 3 months ago
@Woobaka Like I said it before: You are using mathematical methods to try to prove something with a very short temperature dataset.
If CAGW would be true there would be a real anthropogenic signal there in the Arctic already. All the scientists agree on polar amplification. So the warming in Greenland should have been really unprecedented. During the last 4000 years it looks like it was not the case. Read my source.
robbieopen 3 months ago
@robbieopen "You are using mathematical methods to try to prove something with a very short temperature dataset."
You clearly know absolutely nothing about statistical analysis. The analysis inevitably takes sample size into account, because with a larger sample size the probability of getting the same deviation from the true mean is smaller, by definition. This is what that analysis was looking for - the probability of getting the 1998 trend given nothing had changed.
Woobaka 3 months ago
@robbieopen And you have to give this "using mathematical methods" thing a rest as if its a bad thing. Statistical tests and techniques have been developed - and work - because that is how data behaves in nature. We don't force nature to obey statistics, we force statistics to obey nature.
Frankly I am not interested in your source. It looked to me like you were debating whether the global temp trend had changed recently, which is why I put you on to this video.
Woobaka 3 months ago
@Woobaka You still didn't explain why your house is still intact if temperatures are still rising according to your 'statistical analysis'.
Statistical analysis is BS. It's the difference between academical or pragmatical thinking.
How many years of no temp increase does it take before people like you will say: Yes the warming has seized!
"Frankly I am not interested in your source."
Which clearly proves that you dismiss research by a team consisting of only warmists.
robbieopen 3 months ago
@robbieopen "How many years of no temp increase does it take before people like you will say: Yes the warming has seized!"
Easy - as soon as there is enough evidence to say there is a statistically significant change in trend. How many years of continued warming will it take before people like you will say: Yes the warming continues!
Woobaka 2 months ago
@Woobaka "How many years of continued warming will it take before..."
It's also very easy: It is predicted that the sun will head into another "Maunder minimum". If temperatures don't drop to temperatures in the 1800s or earlier. It is clear that anthropogenic CO2 has an effect which I don't deny. The amount of warming is much lower than assumed by the IPCC.
robbieopen 2 months ago
@robbieopen "Which clearly proves that you dismiss research by a team consisting of only warmists."
No, it clearly proves that I'm not interested in letting you steer the dialogue away from the issue I thought I was addressing when I led you to this video. I simply don't have the time to invest anymore. If you make a habit of arriving at conclusions the evidence doesn't support, it explains a lot about you - most notably why you've convinced yourself AGW isn't a problem.
Woobaka 2 months ago
@Woobaka And no I don't make a habit of arriving to conclusions the evidence doesn't support. I just don't like abstract and mathematical nonsense even though people like you think this is legitimate and proved science. It is nothing more than a bunch of rules on which people agree on. Yes the Earth has warmed a bit in the last 150 years, but scientists are still trying to figure out what percentage is manmade or natural.
In 30 years time we will have the answer to that question.
robbieopen 2 months ago
@Woobaka And if we have the answer to that we have still plenty of time to do something about it.
Nature is resilient enough to cope with some more CO2.
In the meantime I welcome every good alternative and economically viable form of energy that arrives on the market.
robbieopen 2 months ago
Academic! Very academic!
Replace temperature with water level and your house barely escaped flooding in 1998.
In the case of UAH, HadCRUT3v and RSS your house is still safe because water level didn't go that high.
Only in GISS your house will be flooded and destroyed. Three out of 4 datasets say your house was safe.
Let's assume the three datasets are correct. The question still stands: Has the water rise seized since 98 or is it still rising? If rising then why is your house still intact?
robbieopen 3 months ago
3) That feedbacks from WV and clouds are powerful enough to increase the surface-temperature up to 3 degC by 2010. I calculated a temperature-increase of 0.7 degC on a baseline temperature of 288K for a radiative forcing increment of 3.7W/sq.m. That’s the predicted RF from a doubling of CO2. That leaves a radiative forcing increment of 12.807W/sq.m to be accounted for by the feedbacks if the temperature is going to be boosted up to 3 degC. If these things are proven, I will concede CAGW is real.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 They're already there in the published literature. You're just not reading or comprehending enough of it to grasp the reality of the situation.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt Not really. For instance, I haven't seen any evidence that humans have increased the atmopsheric CO2 level. Have you?
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Yes, in fact, I have. Extreme heat waves and extreme precipitation events. With only 4% more water vapor in the air from higher global temps, this is what is expected to happen and what IS happening. That 4% comes from a 0.8C rise in global temps. Think of what will happen when the global temp is 1.2C with maybe 8% more water vapor in the air, or 2C with 12% more WV. And that's what we anticipate by mid century.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt I said "I haven't seen any evidence that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 level". Your post doesn't address that. Anyway, a 4% increase in atmospheric water vapour amounts to about 3W/sq.m, give or take (since according to Trenberth atmospheric water vapour contributes 75W/sq.m). A radiative forcing of 3W/sq.m isn't that much. Still, there's always hope.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@Woobaka Luckily I have an A in maths GCSE so I can understand the equations in Monckton's peer-reviewed paper for the most part. What I don't understand however is how the IPCC's equations predict a temperature increase of 0.36 deg between 1980 to 2000? Maybe I calculated it incorrectly. But I can't see how since the calculation is an exceptionally straightforward one. The IPCC present the following equation to calculate the radiative forcing increments from CO2 increments: RF = Lnx5.35(CO/C1).
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@Woobaka Because they are systematically placed by air-conditioners. I don’t have definitive proof that the surface-based records are compromised, but is does make them automatically suspect in my eyes. Has anyone carried out a hand-on investigation to see if the artificial heat-sources are contaminating the readings?
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "Has anyone carried out a hand-on investigation to see if the artificial heat-sources are contaminating the readings?"
Do you bother to read my comments???
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka Yes, I asked if you would enlighten me on me, but you didn't.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the US Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends" Fall et al 2011 (the Watts paper).
READ
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka I will read it. Anyway, Wook, I really can't be bothered with all this. We obviously have diametrically opposed views and we are probably not going to ever change each other’s minds, so I can’t be bothered with this anymore. There are peer-review papers out there that show fudging of data. Monkton submitted one a while ago which I read, but I don’t have the time or truthfully the inclination to track it down right now.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Monckton peer reviewed? Come on. Now is hardly the time for jokes.
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka Apparently so. It's full of lots of esoteric equations.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Are you sure this isn't the piece he had published in the Sunday Telegraph/Mail on Sunday (some right leaning sunday edition newspaper anyway)? If you find it and it is indeed peer reviewed let me know.
Woobaka 5 months ago
Where Ln is the natural logarithm, CO is initial CO2 concentration and C1 is the final CO2 concentration. If the atmospheric CO2 level in 1980 was 340ppmv and it had increased to 370ppmv in 2000 which gives us a radiative forcing of 0.45W/sq.m. The IPCC’s second-equation is meant to represent the hypothesized feedbacks inherent in the climate-system and is deltaT = RFx0.8deg C. Hence 0.45x0.8 = 0.36 deg C.This information is viewable on Wikipedia's Radiative Forcing page if you're interested.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Funnily enough, the linear trend in the GISS data is 0.018 deg/yr since 1975. Multiply that by 20 for 1980-2000 and what do you get?
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka Interesting. I took a shufti at the GISS data and my estimate falls in a similar ballpark. Still. Notwithstanding the fact that the GISS historical temperature trend correlates with the predicted warming from the IPCC's equations, I'm still skeptical. For me to be proselytized over into the AGW-camp I would need the following things proven to me. 1) That the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1850 is anthropogenically-derived. 2) Empirical measurements of CO2's absorption characteristics.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@Woobaka Perhaps it was in the Telegraph. Nevertheless I will try to find it for you by tomorrow.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You could also check out the Jones paper I cited earlier you know...
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka I will. Thank you.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia". “(Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda".
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised. “NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic (cont)
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Chipster, if you're not going to offer peer reviewed papers, and instead simply something some guy said some where some time, save your time. I'm not going to read it. There's countless examples of something some guy said somewhere some time, we need to apply a quality filter to keep the debate from descending into a he said she said.
Woobaka 5 months ago
"I know how error prone you are".
Right. I made one miscalculation with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Gosh! I'm sooooo error-prone.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
I will get the evidence of ‘manufacturing’ and ‘adjusting’ the data to tomorrow. In the mean-time, you don’t have to look far on the Internet to see that the surface-data is compromised by conveniently placing sensitive thermometers by air-conditioners. The GISS data, which is based exclusively on the surface-data is consistently breaking new records and records higher temperatures than the HADCRUT, RSS and UAH data and, I think it’s partly due to UHI-effect and badly-placed thermometers.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Chipster, if you actually watched my video you would see that, along with the GISS data, the UAH data is the series that is MOST consistent with a continued warming trend since 1998. This is a problem for you because a) it is remote sensing, and so you can't claim it is being biased by siting, and b) UAH is compiled by an outspoken "sceptic", who I think it is fair to say would not "fudge the numbers" in favour of warming.
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka I'm not saying that there has been no warming. I am saying that the GISS data (which us surface-based) records higher temperatures than UAH and is compromised.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Again, what proof do you have that it's compromised other than your own speculation?
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka See: h ttp://ww w.sott.net/articles/show/213873-Leading-US-Physicist-Labels-Satellitegate-Scandal-a-Catastrophe Quotes from the article: "NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defence to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists. (U.S. physicist Dr Charles R. Anderson) agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer (cont)
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You can also see that actually the series least consistent with continued warming since 1998 is HadCRU. This is compiled by the same institution that Phil Jones works for... you know, the same Phil Jones who's a favourite denier target and fudges all the numbers? Yeah, well if he's fudging the numbers he's not doing a very good job of it.
Woobaka 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 What's more, there are actually studies out there that have looked at the possibility of UHI introducing an artificial warming trend. See Jones et al 1998 "Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China".
Woobaka 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Are you also blissfully unaware of Anthony Watts' recent publication? You know, the one where he's looked at poorly sited station and well sited stations in the US and found groundbreaking results? Er, the groundbreaking result being that there's virtually no difference...
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Woobaka Sounds interesting. Care to enlighten me?
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
Furthermore the governments which own and control them are sold on the idea of CAGW and the data-publishing institutions are also functioning as CAGW-advocacy groups accordingly. This incestuous relationship between modern politics and modern climate science may not be regarded as corrupt from a political point of view, but it certainly is from a scientific one and it implies that the scientific data issuing from the scientific institutions cannot be trusted. Their data is automatically suspect.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
On a side-note, if you do decide to make a video about me, please make sure that what you are saying is comprehensible. It' hard to make sense of your Scottish accent.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 And, while I'm open to criticism, and I'm perfectly aware that I can be hard to understand for anyone outside Glasgow, I get the feeling that this is nothing more than your attempt at a cheap shot.
P.S. If you have a paper to back up "According to the IPCC's equations the temperature should have increased by 0.36 degC. It did not.", then I'll look at that.
Woobaka 5 months ago
Furthermore, why did the temperature increase at exactly the same rate between 1906 and the 1930's as it did between the 1980's and 2000? According to the CO2 hypothesis it should have accelerated. It did not. I can tell you why to save you the pain of having to think about it: the models are wrong and the hypothesis is false. Atmospheric CO2 levels were 340ppmv in 1980 and by 2000 they were 370ppv. According to the IPCC's equations the temperature should have increased by 0.36 degC. It did not.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "the models are wrong"
See, the problem you have here is that models reconstruct the early 20th century quite well. The accepted wisdom on forcings in the early 20th century suggest that solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and internal variability all played a part in that period of warming. See the IPCC AR4 chapter 9.4 for more info and relevant papers.
And as for your calculations, I'm going to take potholers stance. I'm not interested, considering I know how error prone you are.
Woobaka 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "the models are wrong"
See, the problem you have here is that models reconstruct the early 20th century quite well. The accepted wisdom on forcings in the early 20th century suggest that solar forcing, volcanic forcing, and internal variability all played a part in that period of warming. See the IPCC AR4 chapter 9.4 for more info and relevant papers.
And as for your calculations, I'm going to take potholers stance. I'm not interested, considering I know how error prone you are.
Woobaka 5 months ago
Is the planet warming? True to form, the warmists say that it is warming. Their purported evidence for this is the dubious synthetic temperature-data sets produced by CAGW advocate-agencies like NASA and the NOAA. But I think the globe is more probably cooling. Why? Last year it was discovered that the upper atmosphere had collapsed. Since the atmosphere is gaseous and gases contract when they cool, this atmospheric contraction suggests to me that the atmosphere has been cooling as of late.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Right. Lets look at the evidence here. On the one hand we have thermometers and remote sensing, all showing warming.
On the other hand, we have Chipster, baslessly asserting that temperature series' cannot be trusted, and then giving a frankly obscure conjecture that to him would imply that the very opposite is happening, that the planet is cooling.
Do you have a peer-reviewed paper backing up this assertion?
Woobaka 5 months ago
how many of you human haters have actualy disconnected yourselves from the power grid and installed wind turbines and solar panels to show us life lovers how easy it is to leave fossil fuel dependence. no matter by the end of 2011 your pathetic econazi religeon will be dead and burried
theebeano 5 months ago
@theebeano Do you actually have a criticism of this video? While I respect your right to exercise your imagination, please don't do it in the comment section of this video. It's for comments about the video. If you want to jot down your inane musings buy a notebook.
Woobaka 5 months ago
@Wobaka I accidentally posted my comment on Potholer's video. My problem with the data is that organizations providing it are not disinterested. Ideally they should be autonomous, purely scientific organisations that are totally impartial and disinterested in the pragmatic implications and consequences of their work. But that is a far cry from the situation in which all of the institutions which publish global temperature data are either owned and controlled by agencies of political governments.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
the temps been recovering for 150 years since the little ice age. todays temps are lower than that of the medievil warm period.so stop being a twat looking at trends over 10 20 30 years. get some real facts at climatedepot, wattsupwiththat,scienceandpublicpolicyfoundation. the people pushing this AGW bull are pure evil. John Holdren science adviser to Obama wrote a book in 1973 called ecoscience where he describes humans as a cancer, to put sterilants in the water. a lisence to have 1 child.
theebeano 6 months ago
@theebeano "stop being a twat looking at trends over 10 20 30 years" You appear to have missed the point of the video. The video counters the argument of "sceptics" that global warming stopped in 1998 - they are the ones claiming to extract something meaningful from a 13 year trend. The video shows that without the true trend from 1975-present actually changing at all, the smaller trends seen since 1998 are expected to be rather common given the statistical noise in the data.
Woobaka 6 months ago
@theebeano "todays temps are lower than that of the medievil warm period" Actually there's little doubt in the scientific community that the last decade has been warmer than anytime during the MWP.
Richard482 5 months ago
I like the accent. ;)
Cheers!
bueschu 6 months ago
I've always enjoyed reading the comments you and the others leave on greenman's channel. Great to see an actual video made on the issue. Hope to see more in the future.
MisterSelatcia 6 months ago
@MisterSelatcia Thanks for that. I was actually surprised by how easy it was to put this video together, I expected it to be a lot more time consuming. I think future videos are quite likely - I already have many little analyses I've done but have kept to myself - and as greenman often says, there's no shortage of crocks.
Woobaka 6 months ago