98% of the earth's surface is hotter now than at any time in the past 2000 years

I think the general trend is warming starting from the end of the LIA ~ 1800 when the Brits were ice skating on the Thames. Currently we are in a period of ~ no change in the US.

 

They are not random numbers. Scientists compare the change in temperature at the same location and at the same time and date over the course of many years to get the average change in
temperature over time at one location. Then, they average in the temperature of many thermometers in the same region with temperatures measured at the time and day. They are concerned
about the change in temperature over time in a given region. If you have any evidence that the methods used are not scientific then present a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal.

We do know that it is warming. Rising ocean heat content is the best evidence. Can you produce a peer-reviewed article that explains why the surface of the earth isn't warming? Surely, some
scientist would have done this if what you say is true.

 

"The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time. A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.
Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year." (From carbonbrief.org, "How
do scientists measure global temperature)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

 

When used as "global" numbers, yes they are.

Yup, and that provides info for that particular location for those particular points in time.

Math error. The thermometers are not uniformly spaced. This does not address location bias. The margin of error has not been calculated. The variance has not been declared.

Not enough thermometers. See above for math errors.

They aren't scientific. They are rejecting science, as well as mathematics, as well as logic.

Peer review is not science. Neither is any journal or publication. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

No we don't. How so? We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They measure light, and we can't convert that over to temperature since we don't know the emissivity of Earth.

What is "ocean heat content"?

Attempted Force Of A Negative Proof Fallacy.

Science is not a peer-reviewed article. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is unknown whether the surface of the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature.

Climate "scientists" are anything BUT...

 

Deleted

 

Even longer. During the ice age you could walk from Florida to Cuba and when it ended oceans started rising as it got warmer and it will continue to do so until we go into the next ice age. These warmers seem to think there's some Goldielocks climate on earth that is "normal"

 

Do some reading::

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

That reference is a cartoon.

How do they know that ocean heat is increasing ?? How do they know what the heat content of the oceans is ??

 

@gfm

You seem to be a troll. All you do is state your personal opinions, never backed up by any evidence, and then attempt to win the debate on style and not substance. How have you determined that there aren't
enough thermometers? Why must thermometers be uniformly spaced?

Science is not just a set of falsifiable theories.

Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them. ... A science is a particular branch of science such as physics, chemistry, or biology. Physics is the best example of a science which has developed strong, abstract theories.

Another definition of science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Technically, it is energy stored in the oceans that is measured. Heat is absorbed in the ocean, which is then stored in the form of internal energy,(from wikipedia).
The ocean energy content has been rising dramatically and that is evidence of global warming.

The areal density of ocean heat content between two depth levels is defined using a definite integral:[6]
(also from wikipedia)
{\displaystyle H=\rho c_{p}\int _{h2}^{h1}T(z)dz}

where {\displaystyle \rho } is seawater density, {\displaystyle c_{p}} is the specific heat of sea water, h2 is the lower depth, h1 is the upper depth, and {\displaystyle T(z)} is the temperature profile. In SI units, {\displaystyle H} has units of J·m−2. Integrating this density over an ocean basin, or entire ocean, gives the total heat content, as indicated in the figure to right. Thus, the total heat content is the product of the density, specific heat capacity, and the volume integral of temperature over the three-dimensional region of the ocean in question.

Ocean heat content can be estimated using temperature measurements obtained by a Nansen bottle, an ARGO float, or ocean acoustic tomography. The World Ocean Database Project is the largest database for temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans.

 

Science is subject to the scientific method. Do you know how that works ???

How many measurement stations are there ??? What is the measurement density per cubic measure ??? What is the depth density ???

What is the uncertainty on the heat content of the oceans - all of them ??

How can anyone actually believe that we can measure the heat content of the oceans and changes in it ???

 

@gfm7175 "We do not know if the earth is warming"



Figure 7. Comparison of temperatures from surface stations and satellite monitoring of the lower troposphere. (From skeptical science "Are surface temperature records reliable"




"We'll end by looking at all the surface and satellite-based temperature trends over the entire period for which both are available (1979-present). What are the trends in the various data sets and regions? As shown in fig. 9, the surface temperature trends over land have a fair amount of variability, but all lie between +0.2 and +0.3 C/decade. Surface trends that include the oceans are more uniform." (skepticalscience)
I don't know when the period ended. I think it must have been around 2008 because that is where all of the graphs end for all of the data shown in this article. There are multiple lines of evidence and numerous studies pointing to a warming planet. How can any rational person reject this overwhelming evidence?



Figure 9. Comparison of temperature trends, in degrees C per decade. (From skepticalscience, same as Figure 7 above)

 

What is the uncertainty in all this ??? Hilarious that anyone who includes the word “skeptical” in their screen name shows no interest in the uncertainty ???

 

The problem being, we don't even have 20 years of ARGO data; so even if OHC has been on the rise from the beginning of ARGO deployment, that tells us nothing useful.

 

Of course we know. It's warming strongly. As you're claiming otherwise, you're saying something delusional.

The claims you make seem to bear no relation to the conversation we're having.

We're saying "The data all points to this, so this is the cause".

You're saying "Well, you haven't ruled out some magical unknown effects, therefore it must be that magic!".

We're using the scientific method. You're preaching weird religious dogma.

Thermometers are a circular definition? Wow. Who knew. Where do you get this stuff?

No heat is flowing from cold to hot. Heat is a macroscopic statistical quantity, and the net heat is flowing hot to cold. Energy, of course, is not heat, and individual photons of energy are free to fly wherever they want.

This has been explained to you before. What exactly about it went over your head?

That's weird claim bears no relation at all to any statistical reality. It's sheer lunacy.

Back in reality, there are far more sensors than needed. If you remove 90% of them, you'll get exactly the same results. The real world demonstrates that your theory is nonsense.

Remember, real science is falsifiable. What's your theory to explain the observed warming, and what hard data could conceivable falsify it? If your theory isn't falsifiable, then it's just a religious belief on your part.

 

It's warming mid range of the previous 9 warmings in the Holocene.

The only truly reliable data set is in the US. The other data sets are contaminated and rely on ocean data which has nothing to do with the atmosphere.

The claim that all warming in the current warming period is due to increased atmospheric CO2 has not been proven.

You have all my references.

 

Pretty looking charts that are making use of random numbers is not data.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We do not have near enough thermometers. Satellites do not work since we do not know the emissivity of Earth (since we do not know the temperature of Earth).

 

How has the Earth's temperature been measured?

Answer: it hasn't.

Wrong. I'm saying that there is NO data since we can't measure the temperature of the Earth (not enough thermometers).

Inversion Fallacy. You are the one preaching religious dogma; I am the one telling you that your claims are not possible according to logic, science, and mathematics.

At least get my arguments correct... Thermometers are properly defined. It is GLOBAL WARMING which is circularly defined. Define what "global warming" is.

Yes, that is the AGW claim. They claim that the colder CO2 molecules are heating the warmer surface of the Earth. That is not possible.

There is no such thing as "net heat". Heat only flows from hot to cold; it does NOT flow from cold to hot. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Nothing did. The Laws of Thermodynamics are going over your head, as is the Stefan Boltzmann Law...

The upwards of 200 million number comes from statistical mathematics, which you reject. The 20degF per mile declared variance comes from observation. It is a regularly observed occurrence.

How many thermometers are needed?

Incorrect. This rejects statistical mathematics. Less thermometers makes for less accurate results.

Define "reality"... I bet you can't...

Correct. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I have no theory. The theory is yours. I am telling you that your theory rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

We don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. We don't have enough thermometers. They are not uniformly spaced. They are not read at the same time by the same observer. The variance hasn't been declared. The margin of error hasn't been calculated.

Inversion Fallacy. The theory is yours. The religious belief is yours. I'm simply telling you that it rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

 

With a lot of thermometers. This isn't tough, but you still fail hard at it.

As there clearly is data, you don't seem to be in touch with reality.

Write this on the chalkboard 100 times. "My inability to understand the data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist". Maybe then it will sink in.

Flat-earthers tell me exactly the same thing, though they can back up their claims better than you can. Just as with the flat-earthers, your tirades have no effect on people who understand the science and statistics.

A long term rise in the average temperature of earth's climate system. Why did you think that was a difficult question?

The last century of physics says you're laughably wrong there.

Have you ever taken a course in Statistic Mechanics? Do you even know what that means? You don't. You have no idea of what you're babbling about, and you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Yep. And as I keep pointing out, energy is not heat. Heat flows one way, as it's a statistical quality, but energy can fly any way it pleases.

Says the one who can't figure out the difference between energy and heat.

You know so little, you lack the knowledge to understand how little you know. Classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

You just yanked that number out of your butt. It really is that obvious.

Just what are you babbling about there?

Fewer than a hundred gets you very close. We use a lot more than that.

True. But after a certain point, it doesn't matter. The error gets so small that adding more thermometers doesn't change anything.

Then you're just a religious cultist.

Thank for admitting that. There's no further need to talk to you, being how you're just preaching religious beliefs.

 

Logic error. Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one failing.

You are also making numerous math errors here (and later on, when you claim only ~100 thermometers are needed). You have not presented RAW data, you have not selected by randN, you have not normalized by paired randR, you have not declared a variance, nor have you calculated the margin of error. Also, you have not eliminated time/location biases.

There is data for temperatures at specific locations at specific points in time. There is no data for global temperature, however. We don't have near enough thermometers, nor are those thermometers uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer.

Logic error. Inversion Fallacy. YOU are not understanding the "data" that you are looking at.

Flat-earther mantra dismissed on sight, as it is irrelevant to this discussion. Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who doesn't understand science nor statistics.

Logic error. Here, you have provided a circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. "A long term rise in the average temperature of earth's climate system" is just a re-wording of "global warming". Also, you have introduced another issue within that circular definition. Earth does not have a "climate system". There is no such thing as a "global climate". Earth has numerous climates.

Irrelevant babbling dismissed on sight.

Correct that energy is not heat, and correct that heat flows one way.

I have differentiated the terms already. Don't lie about my position.

Logic error. Insult Fallacy. Insulting my intelligence is not an argument.

I did not "yank the 200 million number out of my butt".

The Earth has a surface area of about 197 million square miles. If we use NASA's thermometers (they have about 7,500 of them I believe), then IF they were uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (they aren't), then that would equate to about one thermometer for every 26,266 miles, or about one thermometer for an area the size of West Virginia.

Are you trying to tell me that one thermometer can accurately measure the temperature of all of West Virginia?? Remember, temperatures quite commonly vary by 20degF per mile. (See, this is that "declare your variance" thing that I mentioned earlier)

This is where my 200 million number is coming from... It didn't come "from by butt". It came from Statistical Mathematics.

Declaring a variance is not "babbling". It is a requirement of Statistical Mathematics.

Math error. Failure to provide RAW data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to eliminate biases.

100 thermometers is nowhere near that point... Even 200 million thermometers is nowhere near that point.

Inversion Fallacy. This is YOUR religion. YOU are the one preaching it. I am simply telling you that your religion rejects logic, science, and mathematics, as I have further shown here.

 

It’s hilarious you’re still beating this dead horse after having your position so thoroughly demolished. You have no idea what logical fallacies are and it’s hilarious when you throw out such terms. It’s also hilarious that you continue to argue against proven physics after having that physics showed down your throat multiple times by multiple people.

 

Harder yet to have measured it 2000 years ago. Yet another example of pseudo-science on steroids.

 

Some people get paid $90k per year to come up with this fear-mongering BS.

 

Where do I sign up? Lol

 

Who funded he study?

 

Fake news. You can review the case documents yourself. They are posted on the BC Supreme Court website. The case # is VLC-S-S-111913.

There are 2 defendants in this case. The Frontier Centre of Public Policy and Tim Ball. The FCPP facilitated the interview in which Ball made the defamatory comments. Mann just recently settled with the FCPP. You can find the FCPP retraction and apology here. Ball, likely seeing that the FCPP admitted that he made "untrue and disparaging" comments regarding Mann, petitioned the court for dismissal for health reasons. This is probably a wise legal move on his part since the court has already sided with Mann in regards to the merits of the case.

Fake news item #1: Mann does not have to pay Ball's court costs.
Fake news item #2: Mann did not refuse to provide the defense data. His data and methods are already openly and freely available. See here.
Fake news item #3: Mann did not lose his case with Ball. In fact, a judgement favorable to Mann has already been issued in this case. See the FCPP letter above.

But don't take my word for it. Read the court documents yourself.