Team Deciphers Sea-Level Rise From Last Time Earth’s CO2 Was as High as Today

Read and learn. The confidence definitions are purely personal opinion of the IPCC non scientist lead authors who write the AR's.

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

 

You mean climate gate "data" ???

The only valid data is the data from the US where 90% of the measurement stations are rural and not corrupted by urban heat island effects. Sea surface temperatures have nothing to do with reradiation from "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere and are solely dependent on vertical and horizontal ocean current patterns which continuously change.

Global warming is beneficial. There is nothing unusual about the present warming rates which have occurred in 9 previous warming and cooling periods Holocene Period (the ~ 10,000 years since the last ice age) all of which occurred at constant CO2.

The link below is to a free book in pdf form. It's a great reference for learning the real world uncertainties in the global warming alarmist narrative.

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

 

The hard data is kinda squishy.

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

 

Great Stuff, Nice post, Good Links!


This Just Keeps Happening!… Ship Full of Global Warming Fanatics Gets Stuck in Arctic Ice

 

Thousands or millions?? That's a rather large difference there...

I can help you out, though... There are thousands of weather stations across the globe. I think NASA makes use of some 7,500 stations...

Those stations only measure the temperature of that specific location at [insert specific time here]. They are not measuring global temperature.

Those stations do not work for a statistical analysis of Earth's temperature, either. First off, they are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer. That means that there are location and time biases. Secondly, temperature variances of 20degF per MILE are rather common. Since this variance is so high, we would need upwards of 200 million thermometers in order to even begin such a statistical analysis, and even at 200 million thermometers, the margin of error would be around +-10deg F... We simply do not have enough thermometers, plain and simple.

Satellites do not measure global temperature either. They are not magick. They are not above currently standing theories of science. Satellites measure light. In order to convert that into temperature, the emissivity of Earth would have to be known. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, the temperature of Earth would have to be known. That creates a "chicken and egg" type problem. When it comes down to it, we simply do not have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.

Wow. Astute observation there.

Math error. Specifically, failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare variance. Failure to provide RAW data.

Logic error. Specifically, a Bulverism Fallacy.

I don't need to be.

I don't need to attend college either. I did attend a 2yr tech college, though (to get an Associates Degree in Accounting), but my education choices are irrelevant to this discussion.

Science is not a degree nor a college course. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Logic error. Specifically, a Pascal's Wager Fallacy as well as a Void Argument Fallacy.

Logic error. Specifically, a Buzzword Fallacy. Notice how your Church of Global Warming religion is requiring you to reject logic, science, and mathematics, all for "the cause"??

CORRECT!!!! Their opinions don't matter at all. Scientists are not science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. All that matters here is the theories of science themselves, in this case, that would typically be the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

That matters too. With regard to the Earth's temperature, there is no data. Only made up numbers put onto a pretty looking chart to appear "authoritative" to sheeple.

 

From Grantham Institute's website "Taking the Planet' Temperature". Also, I don't believe that 20 degree F. temperature variances per mile are common. e

Land surface temperatures can vary significantly in a small area, but we are generally interested in anomalies – the change in temperature at a single place between one date and another. Unlike individual readings, temperature anomalies on land or sea are consistent across regions many hundreds to thousands of miles wide. Hence sparse coverage of surface temperature measurements in a region is not necessarily a major problem.

The graph below is from the carbonbrief.com website, "How do scientists measure global temperature" Shown are 4 data sets that monitor between 5000 and 7000 land stations per set. Land constitutes about

30% of the earth's surface.



Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951-1980 long term average. Source: NASA Earth Observatory.



The graph below is from Berkeley earth and the information is from Wikipedia.

After completing the analysis of the full land temperature data set, consisting of more than 1.6 billion temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, and originated from more than 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, the group submitted four papers for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. The Berkeley Earth study did not assess temperature changes in the oceans, nor try to assess how much of the observed warming is due to human action.[9] The Berkeley Earth team also released the preliminary findings to the public on October 20, 2011 in order to promote additional scrutiny. The data sets and programs used to analyze the information, and the papers undergoing peer review were also made available to the public.[7][8][9]

The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team's initial conclusions are the following:[7][8][9][10]

• The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. The team found that the urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, as the planet's urban regions amount to less than 1% of the land area. The study also found that while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
• Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkeley Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, just 2% less than NOAA's estimate. The team scientific director stated that "...this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."[7]
• About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world with records of 70 years or longer reported cooling (including much of the United States and northern Europe). But 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming.

 

The only sound data set is from the US in which over 90% of the stations are rural and not contaminated by urban heating. Sea surface temperatures have nothing to do with atmospheric re-radiation.

The US data shows ~ half the temperature increase as the contaminated other series.

 

Random numbers put onto pretty looking charts. Meaningless.

Math errors. Failure to provide RAW data. Failure to select by randN (think of a deck of cards), failure to normalize by paired randR (think of two or more dice), Failure to declare/justify variance, Failure to calculate margin of error.

 

How is it that 4 sets of random numbers give us virtually identical graphs? The Berkeley graph also agrees with the other 4 graphs and 95% confidence intervals are give for that graph.

Just because the first graph with 4 plots doesn't show confidence intervals doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

I would simply point out that many folks have noted that CO2 saturation is inherently falsely recorded in ice core data by as much as 100 years, and if actually corrected for that demonstrates that CO2 is caused by the warming. The first Vostok graph you inserted has been entirely debunked.

 

My standards for data are much higher than yours are, obviously...

 

The warming is initiated by very small increases in incident solar radiation (Milankovitch cycles) on the polar regions of the earth. That causes ice to melt during the summers and an increase in the outgassing of

carbon dioxide from the oceans.That increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which increases the temperature of the earth's surface due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. More carbon dioxide is released

from the oceans (solubility of CO2 in water falls) so the carbon dioxide "forcing" is a positive feedback. The lag time of around 600 years is a function of the slow response of the oceans. There is no known way to create the massive temperature

swings shown in the ice sore data without the very significant "forcings" from carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. This temperature This time lag of carbon dioxide was predicted by several climate scientists

before it was apparent in the data. A reduction in the earth's albedo is the other significant positive feedback initiated by increased insolation.

(Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

• 
  changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing

The only difference today is that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a climate feedback. It is a climate "forcing".

 

Okay, let's refer to "The Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual" to see what "forcing" is, since I'm unfamiliar with the term...

Forcing: noun
According to the Global Warming mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science.

http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/2/global-warming-mythology-reference-manual


Ahhh, so you're claiming that Climate performed a miracle in discharging her duties, per Climate Science. Gotcha.

 

I don't think that you are making a good faith effort to understand climate science. I assume that everyone is honest who posts messages here and I believe that is generally true.

It would not take much effort on your part to find out what the definition of a climate "forcing " is if you had any inclination to do so. This is from the OSS Foundation


Climate Forcing
Climate forcing has to do with the amount of energy we receive from the sun, and the amount of energy we radiate back into space. Variances in climate forcing are determined by physical influences on the atmosphere such as orbital and axial changes as well as the amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

NASA/GISS Climate Forcing & Temperature

Climate Forcing
Climate forcings are a major cause of climate change. A climate forcing is any influence on climate that originates from outside the climate system itself. The climate system includes the oceans, land surface, cryosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere.

Examples of external forcings include:

1. Surface reflectivity (albedo)
2. Human induced changes in greenhouse gases
3. Atmospheric aerosols (volcanic sulfates, industrial output)

These examples all influence the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth system. These types of forcings are often referred to as radiative forcing and can be quantified in units of the extra energy in watts per meter squared (W m-2) entering the Earth near the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

Not all climate changes are caused by climate forcings, however. Climate is intrinsically variable and can change even if there is no external forcing. An unforced change would be some kind of natural shift like an El Nino. El Nino events tend to cause atmospheric warming because they are transporting heat from the ocean back into the atmosphere. This happens even though there is no change in solar output or other external forcing.

Climate forcing must generate a response, the same way a mechanic force causes an object to move. A positive radiative forcing involves shifting the balance such that the Earth gains heat and the climate warms. As the climate warms, the Earth will emit more infrared radiation to space, but this change at the top of the atmosphere is a response to the forcing, and not a new forcing. Warming will continue until a new balance is achieved between energy gained and lost at the top of the atmosphere.

 

I understand the AGW proponent's claims just fine, better than them in a lot of cases, but they simply deny logic, science, and mathematics.

I'm willing to dive into anything regarding "climate change", "global warming", whatever you wanna call it, with you.

The sun's output doesn't change much at all. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". It is not possible for a colder body to heat a warmer body. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Define "climate change". Which climate? There is no "global climate". From what time period to what time period? Why is that time period "holier" than any other time period?

Climate is not a "system". There is no such thing as a "climate system". Weather is a random event.

We don't know the emissivity of Earth's surface. Human effect on CO2 is very minimal at best. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas".

There is no "magick blanket"; there are no "magick bouncing photons". The Sun heats the Earth, the Earth heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere radiates into space.

This bullshit sounds like it is using definitions which come straight out of "THE MANUAL" that makes fun of it all... There is no "global climate". Earth has numerous climates. How does a climate "change", exactly?

That's not a "change" of any sort. That's just a natural occurrence that happens fairly regularly. Weather is random; it cannot be controlled.

Denial of science. You are attempting to create energy out of nothing (see section that I bolded for reference). That is not possible, per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

There is no "the climate"... Earth has numerous climates. Where is this additional energy coming from that is causing the Earth to rise in temperature? You are still attempting to create energy out of nothing.

Continued denial of science, as described earlier...

** It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
** It is not possible to heat a warmer body with a cooler body. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

 

"It not possible to heat a warmer body with a cooler body"

That isn't what is happening. A warmer body, the earth, heats a cooler body, the atmosphere. The net flow is from a warm body to a cooler body but there is a transfer of energy in both directions.

In the diagram below we start out with 100 units of energy coming from the sun. The atmosphere is absorbing 104 units of energy emitted by the earth and radiating 98 units of energy back to the earth. so

there is a net warming of the atmosphere of 6 units. You have to look at energy flow in both directions before you conclude that the 2nd law has been violated.

So, the sun heats the earth and the atmosphere, the earth heats the atmosphere and releases latent heat and sensible heat, and the atmosphere heats the earth and radiates energy out to space.

There is a balance of energy flux at both the top of the atmosphere and at the earth's surface under equilibrium conditions which we are not at now. There is currently an energy imbalance at the

earth's surface of around +0.5 watts per square meter.


h

 

That is self-evidently fake data. The notion that the earth was 0.35C warmer in 2016 than in 1998 and no cooler in 1973 than in 1944 is absurd.

 

I don 't know of any climate scientist that denies the existence of a climate system. Read about at Wikipedia. This is just about the most basic aspect of understanding the climate, which is the average

of the weather over many years and over a broad area,

 

2016 was affected by a strong El Nino. The global mean temperature trend has been 0.20 degrees C. per decade for the last 5 decades. The bottom graph shows about a 0.35 temperature increase from 1998 to 2016. I can't discern self-evident fake data.






NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth, i.e. a nonparametric regression analysis that relies on a k-nearest-neighbor model. The function is evaluated using a fraction of data corresponding to a ten year window of data, giving an effective smoothing of approximately five years. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. This is based upon Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006) and Fig. 9a in Hansen et al. (2010). The graph shows an overall long-term warming trend.

 

Maybe you instead the other article. Have a link?M
Also I'd point out that I see no such skepticism from the cult on studies that "suggest" man has caused climate change. That word seems to be plenty for them in that case.

 

And I already quibbled with this suggestion.

"The results suggest that if the pre-industrial temperature will be surpassed by 1.5 to 2ºC, sea level will respond and rise two to six meters (7 to 20 feet) above present sea level.”

 

Correct. That's what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us.

Correct, but that is what AGW proponents are claiming is happening.

Correct. So why are you claiming that the atmosphere then, in turn, re-heats the Earth?

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

No there is not. See above.

Argument From randU Fallacy.

Already addressed.

The Sun heats the Earth, the Earth heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere radiates into space. Heat only flows from hot to cold...

Made up numbers again...