An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” Is Only ~50% Of What Models Predict

Into the Night said:
He isn't. He is making up numbers and calling them data. This is an argument from randU fallacy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical summary of this type.
Click to expand...

I wish I had a pound for every time some twat like Strumpet went to either Skeptical Science or DeSmogBlog as a reference. They always think that nobody else has ever found it and think they are so clever.
 
gfm7175 said:
Dr Roy Spencer is a Church of Global Warming believer, but is just part of a different sect of that religion. He is part of the "not catastrophic" sect, and such people are absolutely despised by the "catastrophic" sect of the religion. I, rather, am not part of the religion at all. I'll now go through his post line by line and add my commentary to it:


The first problem here is that "climate change" is an undefined buzzword. It typically gets circularly defined, which is completely and utterly meaningless. Also, climate is not quantifiable. There is no such thing as "more climate", "less climate", or "average climate". The word 'change' being tacked onto the end of the word 'climate' implies that climate is somehow quantifiable, yet it is NOT quantifiable, so the terminology makes absolutely no sense from the get go (as it fails the internal consistency check).

The second problem here is that Dr Spencer is that there aren't any "observed warming rates" (nothing beyond completely wild guesses, anyway), as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. This is because we do not have near enough thermometers to do so, and it is not feasible for us to place thermometers in a manner so that they are evenly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (in order to eliminate location and time biases in the data being collected).


This is correct. Most climate claims made by politicians are erroneous in one way or another.


See my explanation above about the "observed warming rates" nonsense.


Firstly, it is not possible to measure global ocean temperature to any usable accuracy, for similar reasons that I have explained earlier regarding Earth's temperature.

Secondly, Dr Spencer needs to define what he means by "climate system". I have no idea what he is referring to there. What climate is he referring to, and how is that climate a system?


Meaningless numbers due to what I have explained earlier. This is pure guesswork and nothing more.


See my above commentary.


And might I point out the level of faith involved in rejecting logic, math, and science to believe in a religion based on buzzwords.


Science denial (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Within the closed Sun-Earth-Space system, a colder gas (CO2) cannot heat a warmer surface (Earth's surface). Heat flows from hot to cold, not vice versa. It is not possible for CO2 to heat Earth's surface.


This is correct.


We don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature, as we have no feasible way to accurately measure Earth's temperature.


Logic/science denials. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". Colder gases cannot heat warmer surfaces, as I explained above. One does not put ice cubes in their coffee to make it hot.


This is correct, sans whatever a 'climate system' is supposed to be.

CO2 is quite literally plant food. Plants gobble it up and thrive when there is more of it. John Kerry's idea to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere is horrific, since that would destroy all life on Earth (and would require the destruction of all life on Earth in order to fully achieve).


Bingo. Dr Spencer has this part nailed.

So, I do agree with the "no catastrophe" part of Dr Spencer's sect of Church of Global Warming theology, but I do not agree with the Church of Global Warming theology as a whole, no matter the particular sect of it being discussed. It requires one to reject logic, science, and mathematics in order to adhere to it, so I am not a believer.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, looks like the birdcage needs cleaning!
 
A temperature dataset is empirical data and most definitely not a model. There is incredibly good agreement between radiosondes on weather balloons and NOAA satellites, something which the alarmists cannot explain away.



Satellite & Balloon Climate Data Corroborates Slower Warming

A detailed comparison of atmospheric temperature data gathered by satellites with widely-used data gathered by weather balloons corroborates both the accuracy of the satellite data and the rate of global warming seen in that data.
Using NOAA satellite readings of temperatures in the lower atmosphere, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) produced a dataset that shows global atmospheric warming at the rate of about 0.07 degrees C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since November 1978.

"That works out to a global warming trend of about one and a quarter degrees Fahrenheit over 100 years," said Dr. John Christy, who compiled the comparison data. "That's a definite warming trend, which is probably due in part to human influences. But it's substantially less than the warming forecast by most climate models, and it isn't entirely out of the range of climate change we might expect from natural causes.

The UAH team's research is published in the May 2003 edition of the American Meteorological Society's "Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology."

"We know the climate is changing," said Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "Earth's climate has never been stable. What we don't know is the rate of natural climate change, which makes it really tough to say how much of the warming that we see might be due to things like adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."

The study published in the JAOT describes an updated global temperature dataset using NOAA satellite measurements of the atmosphere's microwave emissions, which change with the temperature. In this new version, the UAH team applied a more accurate accounting for temperature changes caused by the satellites' east-west drift.

To test the accuracy of the new dataset, Christy and his colleagues used independent data from 28 radiosonde weather balloon sites in an area bounded by eastern Canada, the Caribbean, Alaska and the Marshall Islands in the Western Pacific. They also used American, British and Russian composite datasets of hundreds of weather balloon sites around the world.

They used balloon data to test the satellite readings because balloon-borne thermometers and satellites both measure temperatures in deep layers of the atmosphere -- comparing apples to apples.

"There is a 94 to 98 percent correlation between the satellite data and the different balloon datasets," said Christy. "The more difficult statistic to measure, the overall trend in the lower troposphere, agreed so well it was difficult to estimate the error bars."

Ultimately, the team calculated a 95 percent confidence in the satellite-based temperature trend within plus or minus 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.

If the satellite data are reliable and accurate over the wide range of environments and climates represented by the balloon weather stations, Christy said, it is likely to be reliable over the rest of the globe.

Many climate models forecast that global warming should be happening at a rate much faster than that seen by either the UAH satellite dataset or the weather balloon data.

"But models don't provide scientific measurements," Christy said. "Climate models can be valuable for many scientific purposes, but models and their output shouldn't be confused with data or used as a standard for validating real data.

"If you have reliable data that disagree with a computer model, it's time to find out what's wrong with the model. To do anything else might lead you to conclude that your theories are correct and the real world is wrong."

https://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03q.html
 
Last edited:
Guille said:
Tom, it's time for you to understand that the people you think you're countering don't really care about science...or debate...or anything. The only thing they respect is force.
Click to expand...

Again so what? Truth will win out in the end. Look how long it took to prove that bacteria caused stomach ulcers, or that plate tectonics explained volcanoes and earthquakes. It took the Michelson-Morley experiment to disprove the luminiferous aether theory and The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier finally between 1770 and 1790 having been believed for hundreds of years.
 
Primavera said:
Again so what? Truth will win out in the end. Look how long it took to prove that bacteria caused stomach ulcers, or that plate tectonics explained volcanoes and earthquakes. It took the Michelson-Morley experiment to disprove the luminiferous aether theory and The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier finally between 1770 and 1790 having been believed for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Bro, if you look at human history the Enlightenment was an aberration. You are trying to convince Luddites to embrace Tesla.
 
Primavera said:
Yes I agree, I have a few more additions for Kunt's Korner.
Click to expand...

Here I go ... on another thread there is a thread ban list and one member on that list posts often on that thread. Now how is it that your thread ban list works and another doesn't. I'm not asking you to get involved in someone else's problem ... I want to know how the mechanism for a thread ban works.
 
Grumpy said:
Here I go ... on another thread there is a thread ban list and one member on that list posts often on that thread. Now how is it that your thread ban list works and another doesn't. I'm not asking you to get involved in someone else's problem ... I want to know how the mechanism for a thread ban works.
Click to expand...

Even when I don't use my thread ban list, many of them are on ignore anyway. Maybe that somebody is using Tapatalk which doesn't look at threadban lists as that code was implemented by Damocles as a request from forum members.
 
Grumpy said:
Here I go ... on another thread there is a thread ban list and one member on that list posts often on that thread. Now how is it that your thread ban list works and another doesn't. I'm not asking you to get involved in someone else's problem ... I want to know how the mechanism for a thread ban works.
Click to expand...

As you asked- maggot ( that's Primalvera to you ) puts his thread ban list in his actual post as some sort of juvenile nose-thumbing exercise because he can't come up with a decent signature.
When he wants to prevent members on that list from adding something constructive to his apologies for thread topics he posts that list in the appropriate ' ban ' box before launching his misguided tirades on to the long-suffering forum membership.

No response required.
 
Primavera said:
Yeh you've said that enough times and I've told you that you're talking bollox. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Not possible. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Satellites are incapable of measuring the absolute temperature of anything.
Primavera said:
The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Nope. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in that law.
Primavera said:
They use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch to ensure accuracy.
Click to expand...
You are making shit up. Such a 'standard' is completely meaningless.
 
Guille said:
Tom, it's time for you to understand that the people you think you're countering don't really care about science...or debate...or anything. The only thing they respect is force.
Click to expand...

Quite right. The Church of Global Warming is all about forcing people. It stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
 
Primavera said:
A temperature dataset is empirical data and most definitely not a model. There is incredibly good agreement between radiosondes on weather balloons and NOAA satellites, something which the alarmists cannot explain away.



Satellite & Balloon Climate Data Corroborates Slower Warming

A detailed comparison of atmospheric temperature data gathered by satellites with widely-used data gathered by weather balloons corroborates both the accuracy of the satellite data and the rate of global warming seen in that data.
Using NOAA satellite readings of temperatures in the lower atmosphere, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) produced a dataset that shows global atmospheric warming at the rate of about 0.07 degrees C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since November 1978.

"That works out to a global warming trend of about one and a quarter degrees Fahrenheit over 100 years," said Dr. John Christy, who compiled the comparison data. "That's a definite warming trend, which is probably due in part to human influences. But it's substantially less than the warming forecast by most climate models, and it isn't entirely out of the range of climate change we might expect from natural causes.

The UAH team's research is published in the May 2003 edition of the American Meteorological Society's "Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology."

"We know the climate is changing," said Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "Earth's climate has never been stable. What we don't know is the rate of natural climate change, which makes it really tough to say how much of the warming that we see might be due to things like adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."

The study published in the JAOT describes an updated global temperature dataset using NOAA satellite measurements of the atmosphere's microwave emissions, which change with the temperature. In this new version, the UAH team applied a more accurate accounting for temperature changes caused by the satellites' east-west drift.

To test the accuracy of the new dataset, Christy and his colleagues used independent data from 28 radiosonde weather balloon sites in an area bounded by eastern Canada, the Caribbean, Alaska and the Marshall Islands in the Western Pacific. They also used American, British and Russian composite datasets of hundreds of weather balloon sites around the world.

They used balloon data to test the satellite readings because balloon-borne thermometers and satellites both measure temperatures in deep layers of the atmosphere -- comparing apples to apples.

"There is a 94 to 98 percent correlation between the satellite data and the different balloon datasets," said Christy. "The more difficult statistic to measure, the overall trend in the lower troposphere, agreed so well it was difficult to estimate the error bars."

Ultimately, the team calculated a 95 percent confidence in the satellite-based temperature trend within plus or minus 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.

If the satellite data are reliable and accurate over the wide range of environments and climates represented by the balloon weather stations, Christy said, it is likely to be reliable over the rest of the globe.

Many climate models forecast that global warming should be happening at a rate much faster than that seen by either the UAH satellite dataset or the weather balloon data.

"But models don't provide scientific measurements," Christy said. "Climate models can be valuable for many scientific purposes, but models and their output shouldn't be confused with data or used as a standard for validating real data.

"If you have reliable data that disagree with a computer model, it's time to find out what's wrong with the model. To do anything else might lead you to conclude that your theories are correct and the real world is wrong."

https://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03q.html
Click to expand...

Argument from randU fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers. The emissivity of Earth is also unknown. There are not enough thermometers. No satellite has the capability to measure an absolute temperature.

Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. Sorry dude, random numbers are not data.
 
Into the Night said:
Argument from randU fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers. The emissivity of Earth is also unknown. There are not enough thermometers. No satellite has the capability to measure an absolute temperature.

Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. Sorry dude, random numbers are not data.
Click to expand...

They are estimated measurements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top