EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:19 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:36 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And, as usual when some say hang on a minute a bunch of people start back tracking.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... ability-2/

Quote:
Gavin is playing his usual game, trying to cover his ass with “uncertainty” that wasn’t mentioned in the NASA press release.


The following is a tweet put out by Gavin Schmidt.

Image

Quote:
They get the propaganda out there for the White House and major news outlets, then try to generate implausible deniability through back channels like twitter. None of this was mentioned in the NASA press release.


Oh, now we're not so sure about our facts now are we. You see NOAA and NASA are a full 10 percentage points different about their certainty if 2014 was the warming year. Sounds like great climate science to me. We're only 38 percent sure 2014 was the warmest year on record. Good God this is exactly why the majority of the population don't believe a bleeping word you people say.


You would not know science if it came up and bit you on the butt. You are repeating the "bleeping" lies from those with the vested interests because you want to believe them and are too "bleeping" ignorant to know how clueless you really are.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And, as usual when some say hang on a minute a bunch of people start back tracking.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... ability-2/

Quote:
Gavin is playing his usual game, trying to cover his ass with “uncertainty” that wasn’t mentioned in the NASA press release.


The following is a tweet put out by Gavin Schmidt.

Image

Quote:
They get the propaganda out there for the White House and major news outlets, then try to generate implausible deniability through back channels like twitter. None of this was mentioned in the NASA press release.


I love the way the press CALL is ignored and treated as if it were the RELEASE. but to do anything else would be honest and honesty is not the goal of the folks Milton loves to quote.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:28 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... right.html

Quote:
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.



You guys can spin this any way you choose. This is a huge embarrassment and mistake for the Warmunists. Huge.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:14 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

Quote:
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.



You guys can spin this any way you choose. This is a huge embarrassment and mistake for the Warmunists. Huge.


Yeah, concentrate on the uncertainty of what you dislike and accept complete accuracy of that which you do like. There is always an uncertainty in measurements and the comparison is generally on a "all things equal" basis. Now this is your new problem that "must" show how bad science is and that it really is not warming ... really.

The part you ignore is that the probability fo 2014 being the warmest year is greatest for all of the methodologies used.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:09 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 598
Snowy123 wrote:

We should not have gotten nearly this warm with a neutral ENSO phase and with one of the weakest solar cycles in one hundred years. Natural factors cannot fully explain why 2014 was as warm as it was. That in conjuncture with the magnitude of ocean heat content increase and the temperature trends in the stratosphere are a silver bullet argument for anthropogenic forcing being dominant now.


This point still stands. Doesn't seem like Milton disagrees with it though, since he hasn't chosen to respond to it.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:41 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:

We should not have gotten nearly this warm with a neutral ENSO phase and with one of the weakest solar cycles in one hundred years. Natural factors cannot fully explain why 2014 was as warm as it was. That in conjuncture with the magnitude of ocean heat content increase and the temperature trends in the stratosphere are a silver bullet argument for anthropogenic forcing being dominant now.


This point still stands. Doesn't seem like Milton disagrees with it though, since he hasn't chosen to respond to it.


Honestly, I don't think he can respond. He seems to misunderstand much of the science and only has blogs for support of his beliefs, not information. Some people draw a conclusion and then look for support for that belief. I think we are seeing just that process in this case.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:44 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
What we have here is a “global” land based temperature study. NASA and NOAA release to the public a statement that according to this study 2014 is the hottest year since measurements were taken by man. When some said hang on a minute the government muddied the waters stating no we are 48 percent certain that what we said is true, and we are 38 percent certain that our study states the original headline.

What completely amazes me is that this is defended by anyone.

It has been pointed out a weak solar cycle and a neutral ENSO could not produce record temperatures. I agree. What I am stating is that the OP study is in error. How do I know this? By their own admission. I submit that the OP study on one hand has a 52 percent chance it is wrong. And, on the other hand has a 62 percent chance of being in error. Odds are I have a better chance at being right.

Again by their own admission.

And, upon further examination this will be just another study to toss on the ever growing heap of studies that are fraught with errors. Riddled with methodology anomalies. (Do I need to start posting photos of land based temperature stations again?) Infused with dodgy data, and uncooperative data deleted. Uncooperative scientists that will refuse to present their work for replication because it can’t be replicated or it will become very obvious just exactly how they cheated. Another stellar example of government sponsored climate science. And, I’m the one that is referred to as a “denier.” Man I got nothing on you true believers.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:15 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Dude,

Did you even take a math or science class in high school? The uncertainty associated with the global average temperature is due to the fact that we do not have a measurement for every location on the planet from which to add to the averaging calculations. The interesting aspect is when the satellite data is given those like yourself seem to take it as being accurate beyond question even though there are error ranges in those measurements as well. The satellite and surface measurements show very similar trends when compared, so the "smoke and mirrors" claims about accuracy is hypocritical at best.

Your "interpretation" of the statistics concerning the probability of which year is the warmest is clearly ignorant of the data. The percentage of probability cannot be taken in the inverse just as accurately as you attempted to do. The probability of 2014 being the warmest with all of the uncertainty is clear, but it is overwhelming clear that 2014 and 2010 would be the warmest two years on record.

The temperature is not just land based, but also includes surface temperatures over water.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
It has been pointed out a weak solar cycle and a neutral ENSO could not produce record temperatures. I agree.


This would either be your incorrect comprehension of what was said, or an attempt to misrepresent what has been said. A weak solar cycle and a neutral ENSO can produce record temperatures, because it has done so. for this to have happened indicates a significant retention of energy over prior years, which points to the added levels of GHGs for that additional retentison of energy. This means that a change in the ENSO or the solar cycle will result in even higher record averages and when both converge we shall know just how wrong you and your ilk were in trying to confuse the issue for your own gains.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:43 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 598
Milton Banana wrote:
It has been pointed out a weak solar cycle and a neutral ENSO could not produce record temperatures. I agree. What I am stating is that the OP study is in error. How do I know this? By their own admission. I submit that the OP study on one hand has a 52 percent chance it is wrong. And, on the other hand has a 62 percent chance of being in error. Odds are I have a better chance at being right.



Let's hypothetically assume 2014 saw an anomaly of +0.65 instead of +0.68 on GISS. That would not be record warm. However, even at +0.65, that cannot be explained by a neutral ENSO phase and low solar activity. The evidence for anthropogenic forcing is clearly emerging in the surface temperature record.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:47 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 598
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
It has been pointed out a weak solar cycle and a neutral ENSO could not produce record temperatures. I agree.


This would either be your incorrect comprehension of what was said, or an attempt to misrepresent what has been said.


Yeah, it seems to be either spin or a misunderstanding on Milton's part.

What makes 2014 impressive is how warm we were in spite of low solar activity and neutral ENSO conditions. Not because of low solar activity and neutral ENSO conditions.

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:51 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 598
Ocean Heat Content was equally impressive this year. For the first time, Heat Content went off the chart because it was so high. We continue to relentlessly gain heat in the oceans despite low solar activity. Solar activity, the driver of Earth's climate changes for thousands of years is no longer dominant in determining present climate change.

Image

Sea Levels also saw record high levels during 2014 as well.

Image

_________________
Meteorology Undergraduate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Dude,

Did you even take a math or science class in high school? The uncertainty associated with the global average temperature is due to the fact that we do not have a measurement for every location on the planet from which to add to the averaging calculations. The interesting aspect is when the satellite data is given those like yourself seem to take it as being accurate beyond question even though there are error ranges in those measurements as well. The satellite and surface measurements show very similar trends when compared, so the "smoke and mirrors" claims about accuracy is hypocritical at best.

Your "interpretation" of the statistics concerning the probability of which year is the warmest is clearly ignorant of the data. The percentage of probability cannot be taken in the inverse just as accurately as you attempted to do. The probability of 2014 being the warmest with all of the uncertainty is clear, but it is overwhelming clear that 2014 and 2010 would be the warmest two years on record.

The temperature is not just land based, but also includes surface temperatures over water.


Our friends at NOAA and NASA have one thermometer for 66,000 square miles and claim to be able to calculate the average global temperature down to 0.01. They squeak when the walk they are so full of it.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:28 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Dude,

Did you even take a math or science class in high school? The uncertainty associated with the global average temperature is due to the fact that we do not have a measurement for every location on the planet from which to add to the averaging calculations. The interesting aspect is when the satellite data is given those like yourself seem to take it as being accurate beyond question even though there are error ranges in those measurements as well. The satellite and surface measurements show very similar trends when compared, so the "smoke and mirrors" claims about accuracy is hypocritical at best.

Your "interpretation" of the statistics concerning the probability of which year is the warmest is clearly ignorant of the data. The percentage of probability cannot be taken in the inverse just as accurately as you attempted to do. The probability of 2014 being the warmest with all of the uncertainty is clear, but it is overwhelming clear that 2014 and 2010 would be the warmest two years on record.

The temperature is not just land based, but also includes surface temperatures over water.


Our friends at NOAA and NASA have one thermometer for 66,000 square miles and claim to be able to calculate the average global temperature down to 0.01. They squeak when the walk they are so full of it.


Hey, the satellite data relies on even fewer sensors and give the average temperature to 0.01 degrees as well. So you are saying the folks with the satellite data are full of it as well of are you just going to be hypocritical?

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/decem ... 014GTR.pdf

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:03 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
What about the resolution of the land based stations?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/documentlib ... td3200.doc

Quote:
The accuracy of the maximum-minimum temperature system (MMTS) is +/- 0.5 degrees C, and the temperature is displayed to the nearest 0.1 degree F.


The Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor used in the majority of land based stations has a margin of error of a full degree C. Once that is taken into consideration the only conclusion one could logically arrive at is complete skepticism about the OP study.

For the record NOAA is trying to field some new wireless stations to combat poor placement problems.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/12/m ... less-mmts/

The bad news is it doesn't appear the censor technology has been improved so we're still looking at a margin of error of plus or minus .5 degree C.

Quote:
Temperature Accuracy Typical: ±1°C (±2°F)


Still this will not improve future land based studies and does not save a poor OP study for this thread.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group