2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

It is reference to the statement below.

I have to admit there may be a language barrier here is that is causing me to misunderstand this statement. But, when I read it I get the impression that you implying that there is no way a global mean temperature calculation can have better accuracy than the individual measurements. Is that what you are implying?

 

Then the accuracy of the ideal thermometers.

You dropped, lost the margin of error in your calculations.

It is greater than claimed by you result.

 

Did you do the experiment? It's easy to verify that sigma/sqrt(N) is the standard error of the mean. You don't think I pulled that formula out of thin air did you?

 

You experiment is using undefined values, it is difficult to understand your language and your idea, but I do.

You dropped, lost the margin of error in your experiment.

The mean of the column B must remain -1.0C to 1.0C.

The mean of column A is your .01C decrease/increase (incorrect) (value- corect) in 1890-1900.

The result of your experiment is 1.51F in column A with -+1.8 F accuracy in column B.

And you want me not to spill coffee on my keyboard.

Statistic is one thing, the reality, application of it is another.

I am no expert on statistics, but I read that statistics experts who took a look at statistics of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community say that the majorities are not even wrong.

Now I see why they say so.

How is about answering my Q: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-climate-change.521738/page-3#post-1068431218

I mean:

The question is: If you push your biggest V8 Ford to the floor and all the Earth atmosphere changes to 100% CO2 while all other parameters stay the same what will happen to the global temperature NASA, NAS and other academics of all countries of the world have been talking about?

A. It will go up
B. It will go down
C. It will stay the same

To be or not to be this is the question.

 

No, more hard facts, which, as is always the case, has gotten you screaming that facts are a liberal conspiracy.

It's not debatable that in 2013, Curry predicted immediate cooling.

It's not debatable that she's provided no explanation for how she could fail so completely.

It's not debatable that she's made unsupported accusations that other scientists were frauds.

It's not debatable that she suddenly quit the field to run a mysterious "forecasting service", one that does not provide examples of its forecasts or a list of customers who pay them.

It's not debatable that Pielke is the only economist who comes up with the conclusions he comes up with.

It's not debatable that Pielke's conclusions were so badly flawed, he had to go back and revise his major mistakes.

Those are hard facts, and you're running from them solely because they point out your Stalinist cult's dogma is all conspiracy nonsense.

 

No, he didn't. Or rather, that's kind of the point, that as you average more measurements, the error of the average shrinks, and therefore your claim that the error of the average can't be small is totally wrong.

Which is why he was trying to explain some basic statistics to you. You're making incorrect claims about statistics based on your ignorance. You're implying others are frauds based on your ignorance. You're not right. You're not even wrong.

 

So, at least you've got some self-awareness of how many times you've been busted and humiliated for being a corrupt political cult shill who was pushing open fraud. That's progress.

And PSI is a cult so crazy, they deny century-old physics, the greenhouse effect. They are literally as nutty as flat earthers, a group that denier cultists now resemble more and more, being that both groups claim that all contrary data -- which is to say, all data -- is part of a conspiracy against them.

 

Same with Easterbrook (and other's cited in post #196). They can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct.

 

I don't know what you're doing. I'm trying to show you that you can average a bunch of temperature readings together to get an accurate global mean temperature. That's what you say can't be done. I don't where you're getting these numbers you used above. The years 1890-1900 and 1.51F and -+1.8F have nothing to do with it. I suppose this is progress though. A few months ago you were telling me there was no such thing as a global mean temperature.

 

All the data I've seen says the opposite of what you claim. If you have contrary data, you should show it, instead of just giving us your usual "OBJECTIVELY WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!" thing.

So, you don't comprehend how long it takes for glaciers to advance and melt.

So now you're claiming the sun wasn't cooler in the past. You're denying reality very strenuously at this point. Back in the real universe, our sun increases in output by about 1% every hundred million years. With that 5% lower output 500 million years ago, there's no way earth could have melted out of the snowball earth phase unless there were lots more greenhouse gases. There's no way to explain paleoclimate without invoking CO2 as a driver.

So? Sunspot activity is not total solar irradiance, and TSI was still going down at that time. And any cosmic ray theories have been conclusively debunked, given how climate is going in the opposite way of what those theories predicted.

Objectively, that's flat out denying reality, so it's not worthy of any response except ridicule.

The climate going in the opposite direction of the sun conclusively disproves that claim.

You try to salvage your conspiracy theory by claiming it was the solar increase around 1940 that's causing the current warming, but that's a physical impossibility. According to your theory, the additional heat hid out somewhere for 30 years, and then suddenly decided to come out. But since heat can't hide, your theory is nonsense.

 

More high comedy from the alarmist faction. There’s no debate about that.

 

How did the models get the temperature to go down ??

 

More running from a very badly triggered cult snowflake. The usual.

So why do you think Curry pooched it so badly with her 2013 prediction? Why wouldn't she explain why she got it so totally wrong? Why did, instead, she scream baseless accusations of fraud and then run off to grab that sweet fossil fule cash?

And I can see why you love Pielke. He's also a squealing victim who only publishes substance-free crying, and gets all the science totally wrong.

There didn't. The models were spot on correct at predicting rising temperatures. You're pushing some kind of fraud again. It's what you do, because it's all you can do.

 

Hilarious hysteria from the alarmists. It never disappoints to entertain.

Why do the future model predictions all show temperature increasing at a range of climate sensitivity to CO2 greater than that from data ??

 

I don't know. Obviously it's an area of active research. One theory I read is that we're pumping more aerosols into the atmosphere than is assumed. It also could be that we don't have the sensitivity to CO2 and other GHGs calibrated correctly. Or maybe there is another process that is not fully understood or just not even known about yet. But, at least the prevailing theory and models have the general direction and trends correct even if they do overstate the warming potential. I can't say the same for predictions by Easterbrook et. al.

 

Or the data based climate sensitivity is correct. Regardless there is no politically possible energy policy that can significantly reduce the global warming trend whatsoever it is.

 

And I am telling you again you can but the result will have nothing to do to the reality, it will as absurd as constructing temperature from wind.

.2 F claim of a decade change when the measurements were done with +- 1.8F is absurd.

But I am not surprised that you don't understand what you read.

I claimed that looking for a global mean temperature is a meaningless absurd, that the earth is not flat, that it is not standstill with the Sun shining 24/7 on its surface.

What greenhouse effect in the night?

 

I guess you are a statistics expert knowing who is a statistics expert who is not.

I guess you are a thermodynamics expert to tell me who is an expert on warming who is not.

 

Define climate.

 

First, temperature has everything to do with reality. The Earth has a global mean temperature and it's a fundamental metric in the discussion of AGW. We compute it multiple times per day. Second, you can construct temperatures from wind. Use the thermal wind equation and replace the geopotential height term with the hypsometric equation and then solve for T. This can all be derived from nothing but F=ma and PV=nRT both of which you've told me are basically tantamount to the gospel of physics. If you have problems refer to a good meteorology book. There are dozens that are available on Amazon that derive all of this.

Really, because the standard mean error SME = sigma/sqrt(N) says otherwise. Just do the simple experiment I described above in Excel to convince yourself there's nothing magical going on here.

And your claim is ridiculous. Everything has a temperature. My living room has a mean temperature that I can compute using many measurement taken throughout the room. The more readings I take the more accurate my result. Taking the temperature of specific layer of the whole atmosphere is no different.

I don't know why you keep bringing up this flat Earth garbage. No one believes it so you can give it rest. That's your hang up...not mine.

 

standard mean error SME is not applicable,

I will not go into lengthy explanation,

but a mean T of a room with a fireplace and kitchen in one end and open windows in another is meaningless,

if you claim 0.2 change with =- 1.8 accuracy, you can claim 0 change with =-1.6 accuracy, and so for a decade,

or no change with +-.29 accuracy for a century,

Your result is independent from accuracy thermometers, whether it is +-1.8 or +-20 or your finger under the wind.

a mean T of a thermodynamic cycle is meaningless,

Looking for a mean global T of a day night is even more meaningless when during the day Earth only receives heat from the son (no reflecting back, no anything and during the night the earth only gives the heat away.

Not seeing the above is believing in the flat earth.

The difference between day and night would show how much is trapped by biosphere for production and maintaining life and its components including CO2.

Because nothing else can trap ot accumulate heat.



You claimed T from wind. Period. Which was bogus and in the context which was making it more bogus. It is as bogus as a claim of dQ from dT only for a mixture of gases which is one of the central claims of NASA, IPCC, Nas and 121 academies of science.

 

No, it does not.

See YOUR OWN GRAPH, below. It is quite common for me to use the CO2 nonscientists' own data to explain why they are wrong. THEY PROVIDE the contrary data. They just don't understand what it means.

As you are aware, I always give factual and/or logical reasons for my views.

Even if we accept the extremely dubious modeling here, it is VISUALLY OBVIOUS from YOUR OWN GRAPH that greenhouse gas forcings increased by more from 1940-1970 than sulfate forcings declined, and that the 1910-1940 period of rapid warming can't be attributed to greenhouse gases. On what basis does this model claim that CO2 was rising rapidly 1905-1925, when fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions were modest, then somehow was flat 1925-1945, when fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions were increasing much more rapidly?

No, that's just some silly, disingenuous garbage you have made up. Thanks for admitting you realize the facts prove you wrong.

No, that's also something you made up.

No, that's also something you made up.

Wrong. It went INTO the snowball earth phase when there were lots more greenhouse gases.

Flat false. Change in CO2 is much more an effect of temperature change than a cause. There are lots of possible explanations for paleoclimate, including ocean currents, cosmic radiation, the sun's magnetic field, etc., and to claim they have all been ruled out is just false.

And TSI is not the sun's total influence on climate.

That is a pretense that TSI is the only way the sun can affect climate.

Flat false. The only cosmic ray theories that have been debunked are the strawman theories of the CO2 nonscientists.

That is a claim without evidence.

No, it does not, as already proved multiple times. If a pot of cold water (the earth after the Little Ice Age) is put on the stove on HIGH, it will get warmer, and it will CONTINUE to get warmer as the stove is turned down from HIGH to MEDIUM. You stand refuted. AGAIN.

No, because there is no current warming, and hasn't been for 20 years.

No it is not, as proved above.

Heat can definitely hide. The trendless 60-year temperature cycle shows that it hides for 30 years, then comes out for 30. This cycle is VISUALLY OBVIOUS in the instrumental temperature data, which are fully explained by the 60-year cycle overlaid on the secular trend of increased solar activity since the LIA.

 

The climate sensitivity to CO2 is a defined scientific term.

 

Did I ask you if The climate sensitivity to CO2 is a defined scientific term?

I did not.

Give the scientific definition of climate or go away.

 

That’s funny. Threats ??