2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Gravity (whether Newtonian or Relativistic) is a theory. And we know for an absolute fact that it is wrong. But, it makes really useful predictions. Actually it is one the most tested scientific theories in existence and is confirmed with remarkable precision on a daily basis yet between it and quantum mechanisms (which is also a highly revered theory) it makes what is often called the worst prediction in all of science concerning the cosmological constant problem. But, we don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because it's not 100% correct now do we. It's the same with AGW.

And yes Milankovitch Cycles are a theory. They predict the rotational and orbital characteristics of Earth and how they relate to climate. The cycles make useful predictions of the climate, but they aren't perfect...not by a long shot. If it can't make perfect predictions than it can't be a fact.

I specifically told you to be careful about cherry picking specific years due to catching ENSO cycles coincidental years to provide the illusion of exaggerated warming or cooling. That blogger pulled the wool over your eyes. He cherry picked the data in just the right way to make you think there's no warming when, in fact, there actually is. Here is the entire non-cherry-picked and unaltered data from the RSS group. I specifically listed this dataset in my list above. It's the same dataset that blogger is using in his article on the first chart. All of the other charts have the same problem and use datasets that are included in my list. You can download them and see for yourself. The woodfortrees.org website is pretty cool plotting tool that makes this easy.

 

It is a model that predicts future rotational and orbital parameters of Earth. The model was developed specifically to analyze solar insolation and, by extension, what impacts that might have on climate. But, even the rotational and orbital characteristics of Earth from this model are imperfect. Things as simple the Indonesian earthquake in 2004 redistributed Earth's mass enough that it changed the rotational characteristics of Earth on it's axis. We test the model by comparing it's predictions of climate with observations. These are called postdictions or hindcasts.

It only appears like a pause because it was presented to you in a dishonest manner. But, let me play devils advocate for a minute. Doesn't the fact that it's a "pause" give you pause (the pun was intended)? I mean, why is the pattern pause-up-pause-up instead of down-up-down-up?

 

This one is comical. Not because I doubt it's authenticity or it's results, but because of who was surveyed. You have to admit there is some irony here.

Anyhow...

When seeking medical advice do you go to experts at finding and retrieving oil or a doctor?

When seeking climate advice do you go to experts at finding and retrieving oil or a climate scientist?

When seeking oil procurement advice do you go to experts at finding and retrieving oil, a doctor, or a climate scientist?

Most of us answer doctor, climate scientist, and oil expert in that order.

AGW skeptics overwhelming answer doctor, oil expert, and oil expert in that order. Why is that?

 

Gravity is a scientific fact. How it works is theoretical. Same for Milankovitch Cycles.

Regardless, once again, the graph you present above is a timeframe of about 40 years. Do you know the story of the blind men and the elephant?

The entire global warming conspiracy is based on computer models, recent temperature readings, old inadequate temperature readings, selective data and untestable theories, and thousands of other unpredictable variables and forcers, put into a computer to come out with a guess that can't be proven in a single generation. The solutions will cost money and the results are marginal.

Even if these predictions of a warming globe are right, there is no reason to believe the Earth will be worse off. It may be better off. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas in the Atmosphere. More of it means better plant growth, which means more vegetation, which means more food for a hungry planet. After all, a warm Earth is better than a frozen one. As for our generation, we are technologically advanced, but in a thousand years, we will be exponentially more advanced. If anyone can control the climate, it will be the people of the future. There is no reason for us to worry about such a stupid thing.

 

It is predictive based on the past patterns. We don't know exactly when the variables will shift or what exactly causes it. But we can see the pattern of it based on past temperatures:

As for the pause:

Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC climate report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming.

Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures.

But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998.

One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a "central piece" of the summary.

 

The THEORY of gravity (laws of motion) are a fact???? Did you just say that??? That is hilarious. If that is your starting place then you have no understanding of even the most basic science. Science does not PROVE anything a fact....Proofs are for math. LOL

 

What is comical is that climate scientists get into the business because of climate science because they believe in the AGW theory. Just like Priests get into the clergy because of their belief in God.

There are plenty of other scientists that will disagree with the climatologists. Astronomers, physicists, geologists, heliologists, paleontologists, glaciologists, meteorologists, statisticians, mathematicians, oceanographers, volcanologists and seismologists. Their knowledge can be relatable and opinions very valid.

 

Gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory is a theory. How can you say gravity is not a fact. Can you fly? Of course gravity is a fact. It doesn't need scientific proof to be a fact.

 

You are kidding....right?

 

Why would I kid? You don't think gravity is real? Are you kidding?

 

Is PSI your reputable scientific organization, the likes of the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, NOAA, IPCC, and NASA? If you're going to quote from the United Kingdom, why not quote from the Royal Society, which was founded in 1660 by Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton, instead of an organization founded in 2010?

https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. [1]

PSI claims it provides its members with a “reliable port of call to ascertain the facts behind the news stories to better judge whether information being presented by third parties is accurate information and reflects a balanced view of all facets of the subject.” [2]

The PSI website says the organization is “for everyone who supports the traditions [sic] scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'.”

As of 2014, PSI described itself as a “not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd. That statement has since been removed. [2]

 

You can run but you can't hide. The cult gets caught manipulating and manufacturing data constantly and there are multiple threads in this sub forum based on that. Climategate was the first break in the dam and as the dam crumbles we find example after example of numbers being fudged and data being manipulated or even thrown out if it goes against the agw dogma. The jigs up.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/noaa-temp-data-flaws.516349/

 

The only people getting caught manufacturing data are the non-experts you keep linking to. Some of these are flat out fraud like the link above which refers to research posted on a floral business website (that's not a joke either) by a guy claiming to be from a non-existent institution. Again, did you even bother fact checking this claim? Also, more than a half-dozen committees were convened to investigate climategate and they all concluded that there was no fraud. In the meantime more than 2 dozen studies were commissioned to review Mann's claim on a technical and scientific basis and they all overwhelming confirmed Mann's conclusion...the Earth is warming a rate much faster than in the previous 1000 years. That's the real state of affairs. I too would end this post with "The jigs up", but sadly people like you will continue to perpetuate conspiracy theories and misinformation using random bloggers that have little (or more likely no) education or experience in the field of climate.

 

Climategate was judged and found not guilty by coconspirators. Anyone with a brain can look at what they did and judge for themselves what happened there.

 

The only conspiracy happening is that of bloggers who consistently mislead by omission, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and in many cases actual fraudulent manipulation of data. And the problem is the primary audience is usually those with a tendency for being incapable or unwilling to fact check what they're reading.

 

Worth reading with an open mind.

"ClimateGate Scientists Buried Study that Failed to Show Desired Result
Leading climate scientists were tasked to produce a diagram that showed an "obvious" picture of "unprecedented warming," but the result did not show this"

.http://www.justfacts.com/news.climategate_scientists_buried_study.asp

 

Yes, that's a great write up. I happen to agree with it. Briffa was right to stand his ground. He is a well respected researcher that just wants to do the right thing and include all of the data. That data might be confusing to the layperson, but the layperson is going to be confused regardless. And, the data might just be contrarian to "the message" the IPCC pushes. But, sorry alarmists, as long the data is legit it must be considered. Plus, the IPCC is a borderline political action committee anyway.

I also happen to think that justfacts.com site has a pretty impartial write up of the climategate incident. It's short and lacking some really crucial details, but it's fair and balanced.

 

What it shows is that any data that is contrary to the desired outcome of a study is summarily rejected. The AGW so called scientist have an agenda to prove their hypothesis is sound and anything that doesn't fit is thrown in the garbage. That's not science it's religion. Science is a search for truth not a quest to promote an agenda.

 

Briffa certainly didn't have an agenda. And just about every peer reviewed publication I've read is completely devoid of any political position or agenda. I can't say the same for the IPCC, but then again, I've already said on multiple occasions that I think they function more like a political action committee.

 

One has to know nothing about nothing in order to believe that thermometers calibrated to show DRY BULB temperature with +-1F and +-1C accuracy IDEALLY can record +-.01F REALLY.

One has to know nothing about nothing in order to believe that thermometers calibrated to show DRY BULB temperature can show warming or cooling of a mixture of gases at different pressures.

Really?

Thank you for demonstrating that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community are nothing but the lowest form of scumbags and charlatans not only by the definition but also but their actions.

Listening to local weather forecast, - no humidity, no precipitations, no wind, no clouds, but temperature is given in hundreds of a Celsius or a Fahrenheit degree.

Really?

Is it the reality of believers/alarmists/skeptics/deniers?

Is there anything in the real world to argue with them about?

Can anybody - believer/alarmist/skeptic/denier - answer?

 

I want you to do the following experiment. In Excel enter several mock temperature values in column A. Then in column B apply random noise from -1.0C to 1.0C to the values from column A. Take the mean of both A and B and compare them. Repeat this experiment as many times as you can...thousands or ten's of thousands of times...and compute the RMS error between the mean of columns A and B. What do you get?

 

What does the "experiment" have to do to anything I said?

What does it have to do to my words you quoted?

What does it have to do to any reality?

Since you have no objections to my post let me repeat:

One has to know nothing about nothing in order to believe that thermometers calibrated to show DRY BULB temperature with +-1F and +-1C accuracy IDEALLY can record +-.01F REALLY.

One has to know nothing about nothing in order to believe that thermometers calibrated to show DRY BULB temperature can show warming or cooling of a mixture of gases at different pressures.

Really?

Thank you for demonstrating that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community are nothing but the lowest form of scumbags and charlatans not only by the definition but also but their actions.

Listening to local weather forecast, - no humidity, no precipitations, no wind, no clouds, but temperature is given in hundreds of a Celsius or a Fahrenheit degree.

Really?

Is it the reality of believers/alarmists/skeptics/deniers?

Is there anything in the real world to argue with them about?

Can anybody - believer/alarmist/skeptic/denier - answer?

 

This experiment is a demonstration of the principal of the uncertainty of the mean. When you take the mean from a population of measurements the uncertainty in that value is less than the RMS error of the individual measurements. Bloggers consistently and erroneous apply the quadrature error propagation rule. I have no idea why they do that, but a simple experiment, like what I mentioned above, shows the obvious disconnect and it only takes 5 minutes to do. The uncertainty of the mean is defined as sigma/sqrt(N) where sigma is the RMS error of the measurements and N is population size. As you increase N the uncertainty in your mean calculation drops which is the complete opposite of what bloggers erroneously claim. You can do the experiment yourself. Though, you really don't need to because this is common sense. Everyone (well everyone except bloggers) knows that as you increase your sample size you lower the uncertainty in the average of those samples.

In practice, the RMS error for 1000mb (near surface) temperatures on reanalysis datasets is actually somewhere in the 1.0-2.0C range (note that's actually higher than the 1.0C figure you mentioned). But, the computed global mean temperature has an RMS error on the order of 0.01C. There are certain influences in the global mean temperature computation (which I won't get into) that cause the RMS error to be slightly above statistical theory. Plus, since each reanalysis dataset is independently developed using different techniques and inputs they have systemic inherent biases that cause them to differ by slight and constant amount due to the way each group designs their reanalysis. So the absolute global mean temperature actually ends up being on the order of 0.1C (or less). However, since the biases are systemic (and not random) they cancel out when you change the problem from one of an absolute comparison to an anomaly comparison. This is why Earth's warming is almost always expressed in terms of an anomaly from a baseline instead of an absolute figure. When it's all said and done anomaly figures computed from reanalysis datasets are accurate on the order of 0.01C.

Proxy datasets have much less accuracy. And they cannot be used to derive a true global mean temperature. That's why they're always expressed in terms of anomaly comparisons instead of absolute readings. But, they're still useful because they provide a different line of evidence that it is easier for a human to manually calculate. Think of them as a check-and-balance on the more sophisticated reanalysis techniques. Plus, these proxy datasets have been around for decades and people are used to them. Reanalysis has been known to be far superior since the 1980's but they didn't become mainstream until after 2000. The blogger community doesn't know much about them, but they are heavily cited in the academic community.

 

What do the "experiment", RMS error, predicted values, anomalies have to do to anything I said?

It would be good if you could understand that if you made no objections to the facts that proxy data has no value, CO2 is no more greenhouse gas than any other gas and thus there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, then you cannot mention them in any other meaning.

But it seems you can do no good.

It would be good if could understand that if you cannot tell what 3D in 3D Var modeling means, you would avoid from referring and talking about 3D Var again, and again, and again, stepping on the same rake.


The values had already been measured with +- 1C (idealistic) accuracy (error).

And recorded.

The subject and the method you are trying to imitate have nothing to do to the subject in the discussion

What do bloggers or blogger community have to do?

I can imagine that blogger community beats crap out of academic community and academic community is an easy target to throw knives at, but what does it have to do to my post and my words?


Since you have no objections to my post let me repeat:

One has to know nothing about nothing in order to believe that thermometers calibrated to show DRY BULB temperature with +-1F and +-1C accuracy IDEALLY can record +-.01F REALLY.


One has to know nothing about nothing in order to believe that thermometers calibrated to show DRY BULB temperature can show warming or cooling of a mixture of gases at different pressures.

Really?

Thank you for demonstrating that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community are nothing but the lowest form of scumbags and charlatans not only by the definition but also but their actions.

Listening to local weather forecast, - no humidity, no precipitations, no wind, no clouds, but temperature is given in hundreds of a Celsius or a Fahrenheit degree.

Really?

Is it the reality of believers/alarmists/skeptics/deniers?

Is there anything in the real world to argue with them about?

Can anybody - believer/alarmist/skeptic/denier - answer?

 

Thank you. It is such fun. I have seen overwhelming majorities of the scientific community announcing that Newton was wrong. But as a rule I saw Einstein announced to be the one who made Newton wrong and the one who proved that there was no God.

It seems we have a new generation of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community telling us that Einstein of no God is no God anymore.

No, Newton’s theory and Einstein’s theory which “ in spite of totally different sets of assumptions come to a far reaching agreement” [ Einstein] and any other theory made according to the IV rules[Newton] “stand to be true or nearly true” [Newton] forever and can be made only “more accurate or liable to exclusions” [Newton] while you as any other overwhelming majority of the scientific community are "not even wrong" [Wolfgang Pauli] as a rule.

And that is an absolute fact.

In real science 3 guys Newton, Einstein and Pauli are always right while 97 overwhelming majorities of a community are always wrong.

That is for a case if you are interested to know who is right and who is not even wrong - 97% of scientists or 3.