Hansen/NASA created US warming?

Cherry pick much??

 

Of course the current excuse is that the warming is hiding in the deep ocean. There is little mixing below 700 meters and any heat rising to the surface from the deep ocean would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Ooooops!

BTW, glad you accept politics over science proving that this is more about politics than science. The politicians have repeated some pretty stupid ideas. Climb aboard.

- - - Updated - - -

Repeat cartoonists nonsense much?

 

Hi Bower!....some people do not understand that heat always travels from hot to cold...never...ever...the other way around.

If you place cold water in a warm room...the room will get cooler and the water warmer...never...ever...the other way around!

With or without sunlight.

 

So that means the heat hiding in the colder deep ocean will warm the earth back up, right?

 

In any statistical analysis, raw data is always subject to interpretation. It really depends on the statistician to be as objective as possible. In the case of global warming, the scientists and statisticians depend on the continuing of global warming to fill their pocketbooks.

 

Anytime you have heat it will go from warm to cold and the deep oceans are no different. And the earth is hot in the middle and it has always warmed the earth. But global warming is not caused by hot water in the oceans. It is caused by heat in the atmosphere trapped by greenhouse gasses.

The oceans being cool absorb heat from the atmosphere just like a cold glass of water in a warm room.As the oceans heat up the warming will be accelerated.

 

Sorry, it has always been cause by the earth itself and the sun. Only in the last 30 years has it been decided that it is all caused by man. It's called hubris.

 

It appears that no one can answer your question.

Do I remember correctly that GISS data were "corrected" twice? Once in 1999 and again in 2007? If so, I wonder if the same data were corrected twice or was it simply that additional data were corrected in 2007?

 

When you have something constructive to contribute I'll get back to ya.

 

I'll take your century of cherry pick and raise you 10 millenium. You cherry picker you.

 

In other words, don't diss your religion.

 

Part of the question was answered. Those who changed all of the data around, and therefore changed the profile of the US from neutral to warming, explained all their correction factors, estimates, extrapolations, manipulations, exclusions of data and the rest of the basic procedure they used.

But what has been revealed is that there is no independent oversight, particularly from a statistical review panel of any kind, that determined that such manipulations, corrections, estimates and data point exclusions have any validity whatsoever. When the measure of uncertainty around the mean for a SINGLE one of those corrections is enough to dwarf the changes proposed, then we are discussing nothing more than modeling whatever noise is within this particular construct. Without the proper quantification of these uncertainties, we actually don't know if what they did has any value whatsoever.

And apparently, the climate science world is very insular, and they would just as soon NOT get the kind of independent statistical review of their work that I am quite familiar with. In my world it was required, I couldn't even publish a new method without that independent review and validation of my work and models, but in the climate science world...well....none of them are biased, they used the WORD uncertainty, so obviously they are familiar with it, even if they refuse to measure it...and those of us who understand the statistics of these systems are becoming very interested in WHY they avoid that independent statistical review.

As I go through what passes for "data" in the climate science world, it is becoming apparent that their statistical quality control is nearly nonexistent, and they are doing statistical manipulations (as least in regard to the temperature shifts they made in the papers in question causing the US "correction") without showing how they handled fundamental issues of correlation and dependency. Not a single mention of independent variables, dependent variables, correlations between variables and how they got those correlations (if they used them at all), zero discussion of the precision of their estimate with the obviously uncertain inputs, I mean it is as though NONE of them ever even asked a single statistician about data handling issues when those issues relate to probability, and as best I can tell EVERYTHING these guys do relates to probability.

 

The earth has warmed - it is merely the land surface temperature that has remained relatively steady - BTW do you deny that while we were having this so called hiatus from global warming that we have also been experiencing a quieter solar cycle??

- - - Updated - - -

I answered - it was ignored

The data HAS changed because where the data collection changed.

 

I think I might ditto that - I get tired of random made up arguments that have no backing and which rapidly degenerate into name calling and ad hominems

The denialist HAVE no valid arguments or science supporting their stance

 

I have none. I didn't even graduate from high school. My no credentials trumps all your schooling and professional training without drawing a breath. I just stick with the facts and evidence and engage in some self-study. It's really a wikipedia away. I've found for some folks they get side tracked by their education and training so they get lost in a thicket of abstraction. I particularly noticed that among 911 Truthers. They had no commonsense but academia coming out of their ears judging from their posts. The fact that some denialists like yourself show much the same syndrome no longer surprises me any more. But it does tell me something about people who overly specialize and as a consequence lose their ability to maneuver there way through a broader reality. It reminds me of an expression I heard called "progress traps" where a society progresses in a certain way and when that progress moves them into a negative cul-de-sac they can't undo that so called "progress." Education traps seem to be similar.

 

Except for volcanism everything directly or indirectly is heated by the sun but once again ghgs increase increases the radiation trapping effect which warms the ocean and atmosphere.

Is this really that hard?

 

Try reading yourself and H8 with your one way track nonsense. The whole denialist agenda is based on denial of CO2 having a warming effect. Where have you been?

And how does the increased water vapor get generated? A little hint - CO2. I should get paid for having to constantly bring you denialists up to climate science 1A status. And I don't even get a thanks.

 

Earth general temperature follows TSI pretty closely on a 10 to 12 year lag. That is why some scientists are predicting cooling the next few decades.

 

Actually, it warms the Atmosphere and since it would take 4 degree rise to warm the oceans .001 degrees, atmospheric warming is very minimal for oceans.

 

When discussing climate change, focusing on temperatures millions of years ago is just as disingenuous as focusing on temperatures for only the last year. Earth has been cooling since it was formed 4 billion years ago because that is what planets do. But modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years and civilization itself only since the last ice age ended. No one is saying that climate hasn't changed in the past or that it won't change in the future. The question is how fast will it change over the next century and how much are humans contributing to it. If you cannot understand how natural variability and long term trends relate to each other, as shown in the following graph, then I suggest you don't know what horse(*)(*)(*)(*) is.

 

Well, the fact that the awesome CO2 centric scientists missed the pause means that they certainly don't understand natural variability to begin with. They have been yanked kicking and screaming to listen to what the skeptics have been saying all along.

 

Some irony up in here up in here

 

Crap!! Well, so I guess we can't discuss the finer points of probabilistic estimates of uncertainty within systems then. Unfortunate, because quite a bit of what apparently is claiming of temperature changes lies within that particular scientific realm.

Well, in certain areas that certainly might be possible. So are you claiming that your lack of professional training means you better understand the statistical uncertainties in these kinds of estimates, manipulations and extrapolations? Possible of course, but unlikely.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a denialist (whatever that might mean to you) and run of the mill scientific analysis does not surprise me either, if you are telling the truth about having both zero professional scientific or statistical experience. Obviously if you aren't qualified to even UNDERSTAND how "evidence" and data works, you don't get to pretend that your perspective can even be complete, let alone get off the ground.

Agreed. And I agree because I am perhaps the most undereducated scientist I have ever met. But that is because my area of experience is firmly grounded in the empirical, and experience in this regard cannot be gained by degrees and academic studies. Which is also why I am familiar with more engineering-centric measures of data and evidence quality than a run of the mill academic who never has had their life depend on the quality of their work. They play with numbers, folks nodding furiously at their claims is all the validation they need…but that wasn't enough for the science I've done, and I am surprised that there is even a branch of the sciences that allows this poor level of verification. I suppose it happens because no one dies the next day after they publish the results of their number generator, if someone did, they would be forced to actually do the quality control that appears to be lacking.

Yes. Education is highly overrated. But when you combine it with 15 years of scientific analysis and peer reviewed and independently verified methods, systems and publications on quantifying uncertainty in complex systems (that sounds like something climate change folks should have a few specialists in, doesn't it?) it isn't about just education any more.

 

Really? Is this what your wide ranging and non traditional learning has taught you? May I recommend more structured learning, that you might get it right?

Trace gas content, in this case CO2, is not THE determining variable of the amount of water vapor that can be contained within a given volume of atmosphere, within a reasonable range plus or minus from STP. But temperature is. Rising CO2 levels are a naturally occurring side effect of temperature change, you know, the opposite of the big lie contained in Inconvenient Truth?

Now, it would be okay to make this mistake if you were trying to LEARN something from a work of fiction like Inconvenient Truth, because this particular work of fiction was a sales job, not the kind of information often bandied about during real world academic training in the physical sciences. A politician pretending to be a lecturing scientist so he could profit on his investments in the renewable sector certainly ISN'T a proper source..but maybe you haven't learned about proper sources in your non-traditional training? Certainly scientists learn about them, in theirs.

 

That depends. Depends on whether you not your perspective is macro enough to include the entire history of the system we are discussing, or only the cherry picked part that Bower wanted to focus on….while pretending other people were cherry picking….ironic indeed.

You see, modelers who cannot build models that reflect the past, certainly get NO credit for having built a predictive model. If they can't even add up the existing information and get the right answer, you get ZERO credibility when trying to function with far LESS information or far more UNCERTAIN information into the future. Modelers do not like this response to their efforts, because it means they must understand the SYSTEM properly before they can pretend to know anything about modeling how it behaves. Some of us, tasked with getting it RIGHT, have far less tolerance for this non-independent reviews, extrapolation, correction, manipulation nonsense when there is no evidence that this work can get the PAST right, let alone the future.

In that perspective, some chunk of the geologic past, hundreds of thousands of years, or millions, is perfectly appropriate for trying to get all the competing cycles, their amplitude and frequency, correctly figured out. And then you up the resolution, and therein lies the REAL problem. There is a reason why CO2 centric models cannot benchmark to the past….and climate 'scientists", they really don't want to talk about WHY.

And to have any hope of getting that answer correct, you must know about how the climate changes within given conditions naturally. The scientists have said that everything that has happened to date, temperature wise, and might continue happening right through 2100, is within the realm of natural variability.

So sure, I'm a big fan of understanding what changes humans are causing. But the scientists have already said that what is going on is perfectly within the range of natural variability. So if the planet is just doing, what it is doing, why is everyone getting their panties in a twist?

ME not knowing isn't the issue. Why aren't the SCIENTISTS knowing this BEFORE they pretend to know what piece, if any, is HUMANS fault?

Based on the guiding principles laid down by original climate change, anti-population scientists back in the 70's and 80's, they have already written and spoken on NOT being concerned with the science, but only how it can be corrupted, or SOLD (thank you for following the script AL!!) to people in order to change their behavior.