The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[pogi]

Pogi my friend isn't there something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?  I'm out of here.

 

"I may not know karate but I do know CRAZY...and I'm not afraid to use it"

[TheSkepticChristian]

The producer of your videos are not climate researchers either, so don't make us live up to a standard that you have consistently violated yourself throughout this thread.  

 

but that video is not about climate science, it is about showing a link between GW skeptics and cancer deniers, and how they use the same tactics, that is not science. I cited many scientific papers by climate researchers.  

 

Like Dr. Andrew Dessler said, data comes first, models are second. 

 

His opinion is based on faulty and imperfect models, not based on falsifiable scientific tests.  There is no way to demonstrate that those models are accurate.  

 

Even if true, there are newer and better models now, but again, the evidence for GW theory does not come from models, it is a popular myth. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

again, the author Patrick L. Barry is not a climate researcher and that article dates to 2000. 

Let me quote the author of the paper you cited 

 

 

There is no evidence that there is another significant independent cause. Perhaps cows are contributing, but is small. 

Most of the planet is not like Greenland, and scientists use sophisticated methods to detect "man-made signal that rises easily above the natural background noise" 

 

So, CO2 is causing the planet to get warmer, a warmer planet causes more water vapor and warmer oceans, and warmer oceans will cause more CO2, and more CO2 will cause more warming. 

 

It is clear that cycles do not contribute to the modern warming 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't your charts match temperatures for the last 18 years?  It seems that surface temps in your bottom chart are following the decrease in solar activity in your upper chart?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Why don't your charts match temperatures for the last 18 years?  It seems that surface temps in your bottom chart are following the decrease in solar activity in your upper chart?

 

There is a difference between surface temperature and the temperature of the entire planet, again most of the warming is in the oceans, the author of the paper you cited agrees. 

 

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Like Dr. Andrew Dessler said, data comes first, models are second. 

 

Un-whole data with "poorly understood" variability leads to imperfect and un-trustworhty models. 

 

"Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect."

 

"And so you have all these processes mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you're in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is,"

 

These are quotes from climate researchers in the article, not from the author of the article himself so you are wrong about that.

 

"This natural variability often shows an astounding degree of complexity, much of which remains poorly understood."

[TheSkepticChristian]

Un-whole data with "poorly understood" variability leads to imperfect and un-trustworhty models. 

 

There are so many sets of data, what data is he talking about? 

 

Again, there are newer and better models now, but we don't need models to conclude that the planet is getting warmer, and human activity is the only significant cause. 

 

"much of which remains poorly understood"

 

Even if true, that was the year 2000, it is now 2015 and he is still not a climate researcher. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

There are so many sets of data, what data is he talking about? 

 

Again, there are newer and better models now,  the evidence for GW theory does not come from models, we don't need to models to conclude that the planet is getting warmer, and human activity is the only significant cause. 

 

"much of which remains poorly understood"

 

Even if true, that was the year 2000, it is now 2015. 

 

Head slaps and face plants. 

[pogi]

There is a difference between surface temperature and the temperature of the entire planet, again most of the warming is in the oceans, the author of the paper you cited agrees. 

 

The surface has been cooling for the last 18 years, the atmosphere (you know the part that contains C02) has seen almost no warming (despite the climbing C02).  Ocean surface has not been warming.  They don't know how or why the deep ocean is warming (I have already demonstrated that some scientists don't believe the deep ocean is warming and showed their research, but you ignore it).  They can't even measure the temperature of the core of the earth so how can you give me an accurate graph of "global temperatures"  That is ridiculous!  What if the core is warming the deep ocean through transference?  That is a better explanation than "winds" causing the deep ocean to warm.  

 

The tree rings and ice caps only account for surface and atmospheric temperatures, so we can't start throwing the deep sea into the mix now.  We have to keep the data consistent across the board. 

[ERayR]

The surface has been cooling for the last 18 years, the atmosphere (you know the part that contains C02) has seen almost no warming (despite the climbing C02).  Ocean surface has not been warming.  They don't know how or why the deep ocean is warming (I have already demonstrated that some scientists don't believe the deep ocean is warming and showed their research, but you ignore it).  They can't even measure the temperature of the core of the earth so how can you give me an accurate graph of "global temperatures"  That is ridiculous!  What if the core is warming the deep ocean through transference?  That is a better explanation than "winds" causing the deep ocean to warm.  

 

The tree rings and ice caps only account for surface and atmospheric temperatures, so we can't start throwing the deep sea into the mix now.  We have to keep the data consistent across the board. 

 

It is possible that deep ocean volcanic activity is a factor.

[pogi]

It is possible that deep ocean volcanic activity is a factor.

 

Exactly.  There are simply too many possible variables to say that C02 is causing the deep sea to warm.  The fact is that surface temperatures are almost exactly following solar activity - not C02. 

[Russell C McGregor]

I wonder if all the hot air generated by arguments over anthropogenic global warming is sufficient to impact the earth's climate?

[TheSkepticChristian]

The surface has been cooling for the last 18 years

 

CFR slowing down does not mean the opposite direction. 

 

They don't know how or why the deep ocean is warming (I have already demonstrated that some scientists don't believe the deep ocean is warming and showed their research, but you ignore it).  

 

This one? http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

Another paper cited in the skeptics websites. This paper considers several estimates of upper ocean heat and find a slight cooling trend in several of the estimates (they also include one estimate that finds a significant warming trend, more on this later). However, this analysis fails to include a number of other reconstructions of ocean heat. In an effort to create the most reliable measure of ocean heat, various teams across the world combined their efforts into a single 'best estimate' of ocean heat (Lyman 2010). What they found was robust warming in the upper ocean over the 16 years from 1993 to 2008. While the warming trend of the upper ocean from 2003 to 2008 is not as great as the long-term trend, the best estimate indicates the upper ocean is still accumulating heat over this period.

Figure 1: Ocean Heat Content anomaly from various teams. Ocean heat is calculated from 0 to 700 metres (Lyman 2010).

However, Knox and Douglass only select estimates with a cooling trend, with one interesting exception. They mention one analysis of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres (von Schuckmann 2009) which finds significant ocean warming across the top 2000 metres of the ocean from 2003 to 2008.

Figure 2: Global ocean heat storage (0–2000 metres), measured in 10⁸ Joules per square metre (von Schuckmann 2009).

To put this into perspective, in Figure 3 below, the 'best estimate' of upper ocean heat (0 to 700 metres) from Lyman 2010 is compared to the estimate of deeper ocean heat (0 to 2000 metres) from von Schuckmann 2009. The black line is upper ocean heat and shows a slight warming trend from 2003 to 2008. The blue line is ocean heat down to 2000 metres, showing greater warming than the upper ocean. This suggests heat is penetrating down below 700 metres. To state that the ocean is not accumulating heat (or worse, that the ocean is cooling), Knox and Douglass as well as Monckton fail to take into account all the evidence.

Figure 3: Changing heat content of the global ocean, with respect to the mean of 1993 to 2008 (Trenberth 2010). This analysis samples the ocean to 700 m depth and gives an average warming trend of 0.64 W m−2 (pink line). The data available from Argo floats since 2003 enable an estimate to 2,000 m depth (blue line).

Of course, this is not the final word on ocean heat. Another analysis (Purkey & Johnson 2010) reconstructs ocean heat warming down to abyssal depths and find significant amounts of heat building up even at the bottom of the ocean. 

Figure 4: Rate of ocean warming. Areas of warming are shaded in red and regions of cooling are shaded in blue with intensity scaled by the magnitude of the warming. The basins from south to north are the Southeast Pacific Basin, Chile Basin, Peru Basin, and Pacific Basin (Purkey & Johnson 2010).

There are several other indicators of building ocean heat. Satellites observing incoming and outgoing radiation are able to measure changes in the planet's energy imbalance from year to year. What they find is the planet's energy imbalance continues to increase (Trenberth & Fasullo 2010).

Sea level is also driven in large part by changes in ocean heat. As the ocean warms, thermal expansion leads to sea level rise. The other contributor to sea level rise is melting ice sheets and glaciers so sea level rise in general is a good measure of global warming. Over the period of Monckton's alleged "no accumulation of ocean heat", sea levels have continued to rise.

 

Figure 5: Global sea level rise, inverse barometer applied, seasonal signal removed (University of Colorado at Boulder).

To properly understand what's happening with ocean warming, you need to consider all the evidence - measurements of the upper ocean, deeper ocean heat, abyssal ocean warming, sea level rise and satellite measurements of energy imbalance. Imagine a table covered with all this evidence. What Monckton does is rummage through this evidence, extract the one piece that seems to back his "no warming" position, sweep the rest of the evidence off the table and unequivocally exclaim "there is no net accumulation of heat in the oceans". This is not skepticism. This is ignoring the full body of evidence.

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

CFR slowing down does not mean the opposite direction. 

 

 

From 18 years ago to today, it is colder, i.e. "opposite direction".  "Slowing down" means it's still getting warmer.  It isn't. 

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

From 18 years ago to today, it is colder, i.e. "opposite direction".  "Slowing down" means it's still getting warmer.  It isn't. 

 

How is the planet today colder than it was 18 years ago? Again, the surface warming has slowed down, but it is still warming. The insignificant decrease is in the margin of error, so it really doesn't mean anything.  The planet is clearly warmer than it was 18 years ago, there is no evidence of global cooling in the near future 

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

How is the planet today colder than it was 18 years ago? Again, the surface warming has slowed down, but it is still warming. The insignificant decrease is in the margin of error, so it really doesn't mean anything.  The planet is clearly warmer than it was 18 years ago, there is no evidence of global cooling in the near future 

 

You asked for a CFR for surface temps cooling and I gave it so quit trying to change the game when you are loosing.  You can't argue against the fact that surface temperatures are cooler today than 18 years ago. 

 

It is NOT clear that the planet is getting warmer.  Planetary temp is an impossible measurement.  If parts of the deep ocean are getting warmer, what about the rest?  They are not even close to charting out temperatures for the entire deep ocean.  How can we know where that heat is coming from in a couple isolated areas?  A couple isolated areas are meaningless without the context of the whole.  So, how can you know the planet is getting warmer without being able to measure it as a whole?   Unlike a human, the earth does not have an anus to stick a thermometer in and get an accurate measurement.  The deep ocean is not even close to being accurately measured as a whole, not to mention the core and deep earth.  There is NO way of measuring every part of the planet and coming up with an average temp.

 

What is convincing evidence to me is that solar activity and surface temps correlate while C02 and surface temps do NOT.  Surface and atmospheric temperatures are the most reliable measurements that we have available.  Everything else is too spotty.  The surface and atmosphere are not warming, while the deep oceans are not even close to being comprehensively mapped out. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

You asked for a CFR for surface temps cooling and I gave it so quit trying to change the game when you are loosing.  You can't argue against the fact that surface temperatures are cooler today than 18 years ago. 

 

another 95 BP moment. Look at the graph, how is the surface colder than it was 18 years ago? 

 

 

It is NOT clear that the planet is getting warmer.  Planetary temp is an impossible measurement.  If parts of the deep ocean are getting warmer, what about the rest? 

 

Acoustic Tomography Sound, especially low frequencies, can travel long distances under water. Since the speed of sound under water varies with temperature, measuring how long sound takes to travel a certain distance will give you the average temperature of the water over that distance. Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) is using trans-basin acoustic transmissions to observe the world's oceans, and the ocean climate in particular.

 

Ocean Surface Topography By bouncing microwaves off the the ocean surface and using GPS location, satellites can precisely measure the height of any spot on the ocean surface. Reasoning that water expands and contracts as it heats and cools, then so too would the height of the sea surface. I think Ocean Surface Topography is the easiest and best technique for measuring ocean temperature.

 

What's the temperature of water at the ocean's surface?

Colors on the map show the temperature of water right at the ocean’s surface. The darkest blue shows the coldest water: floating sea ice is usually present in these areas. Lighter shades of blue show temperatures of up to 80°F. White and orange areas show where surface temperatures are higher than 80°F, warm enough to fuel tropical cyclones or hurricanes.

Where do these measurements come from?

Satellite instruments measure sea surface temperature—often abbreviated as SST—by checking how much energy comes off the ocean at different wavelengths. Computer programs merge sea surface temperatures from ships and buoys with the satellite data, and incorporate information from maps of sea ice. To produce the daily maps, programs invoke mathematical filters to combine and smooth data from all three sources.

https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/SeaSurfaceTemperature

http://www.climate.gov/maps-data/data-snapshots/data-source-sea-surface-temperature

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

another 95 BP moment. Look at the graph, how is the surface colder than it was 18 years ago? 

 

 

Is this a joke?

 

It is your graph, are you suggesting the years are not accurate?  If it doesn't end at 2015 it is pretty close. 

 

I can't believe that I actually have to do this:  Look at the spike in temp around 97-98 and the second spike a little after 2000, now look at the last recorded temp.  Now use your skills of scientific observation and report your findings.

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Is this a joke?

 

It is your graph, are you suggesting the years are not accurate?  If it doesn't end at 2015 it is pretty close. 

 

I can't believe that I actually have to do this:  Look at the spike in temp around 97-98 and the second spike a little after 2000, now look at the last recorded temp.  Now use your skills of scientific observation and report your findings.

 

Okay, it is my 95 BP moment, my mistake, I didn't look carefully.  Here is another nasa graph, after 2010 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Sorry again, I didn't look at the graph carefully, but take a look at this 

 

NASA and NOAA reported that global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record. That also means 2014 was the likely hottest the Earth has been in millennia, and perhaps as much as 100,000 years. But what’s really remarkable is that 2014 set this record without the aid of an El Niño event. NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.

 

Remember that they are independent 

 

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Russell C McGregor]

Sorry again, I didn't look at the graph carefully, but take a look at this 

 

NASA and NOAA reported that global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record. That also means 2014 was the likely hottest the Earth has been in millennia, and perhaps as much as 100,000 years. But what’s really remarkable is that 2014 set this record without the aid of an El Niño event. NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.

 

Remember that they are independent 

 

Okay, there's something here I'm not getting. Given that they know the temperatures for all of those years, and given your statement that "global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record" it follows that the temperatures for the other years are known. And that they are known to be less than 2014.

Shouldn't their probabilities, therefore, be zero?

What have I missed?

Thanks,

Russell

[pogi]

NASA and NOAA reported that global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record. 

 

 

 

Was 2014 the hottest year on record?  Flip a coin, heads - yes, tails - no.  Oh wait, those are too good of odds!  

 

Why would they report that 2014 was the hottest year on record with only a 38% chance of being right.  Does something seem recklessly disingenuous and intentionally misleading about such a headline?  "But if NASA says it, it must be true!"  This is ridiculous.  That means there is a 62% chance that their conclusions are wrong, or that is was NOT the hottest year on record.  This laughable garbage disgusts me.  

 

If their planetary measurements are so accurate, why are they only 38% confident about their reckless conclusions that they spread through the media?

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

  That means there is a 62% chance that is was NOT the hottest year on record.  T

 

it means means that it is certainlty among the top 4 hottest years on record, and there is a 38% chance of being the hottest year according to NASA.  NOAA concluded that among the top 5, 2014 has a 48% chance. So it is not misleading at all. 

 

2010 has an 18% chance of being the hottest on record. 

 

 

 

 

If their planetary measurements are so accurate, why are they only 38% confident about their reckless conclusions that they spread through the media?

 

Because good scientists don't like to be 100% certain on anything. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

 

What is wrong with this graph from NASA and NOAA showing warmer temps in the past? 

 

Or what is wrong with this graph from columbia.edu showing warmer temps in the past? http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/

 

 

 

Perhaps that is why they are only 48/38% confident in their conclusions.  Those are not good odds my friend!

 

The NY Times reported this:

Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0

 

With only 48/38% confidence (in other words there is a higher probability that they are wrong), why are your trusted scientists reporting it as fact?  If that is not misleading, I don't know what is!!!

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

Because good scientists don't like to be 100% certain on anything. 

 

Good scientists don't report to the media that 2014 was the hottest year on record when they are only 38-48% sure of their conclusions.  Reckless!

 

I don't need 100%, but 38-48% is improbable! 

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

 

With only 48/38% confidence (in other words there is a higher probability that they are wrong), why are your trusted scientists reporting it as fact?  If that is not misleading, I don't know what is!!!

 

 

It is in the top 4/5 of the hottest years on record, and has a higher probability than the other 3/4 years, I would bet for 2014. 

It is interesting that 2010 and 2013 are on the top 4/5, which contradicts your so-called pause. It is very highly probable that 2014 or 2010 is the warmest year on record. 

 

Remember, what’s really remarkable is that 2014 set this likely record without the aid of an El Niño event. So even if 2014 is not the hottest on record, it is still on the top 4. 

 

 

 

 

What is wrong with this graph from NASA and NOAA showing warmer temps in the past? 

 

 

about the same, if not just a little colder, but see what happens around 2010

 

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian