Global Heat Record as Earth Continues to Warm!

[BillT]

Since you asked:

Bill what would be required to disprove man made "global warming"?

New data that disagrees with the global warming and human impact hypothesis and can stand up to peer review.

Where is the list of 100% of the scientists involved in the research and the names of the 97% of the scientists?

The numbers come from this study. Not hard to find if you are really interested:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
The study covers almost 12,000 papers with abstracts matching global warming or climate change of which about 46:1 endorsed human caused climate change. They then surveyed the authors. Of those responding found 97.1% endorsed human caused climate change.

Then the next question is how do the 97% get their funding?

You can read through that article (which is open access) and figure that out for your self. You can probably find grants given through the NIH, NSF, NOAA and NASA on their websites. I await hearing of your findings.

Another question I have is how are they getting the temperatures for comparison?

I think this point is moot (meaning doesn't matter either way). Those who deny seem to site the same temperature data sets. Their interpretation is different.

BTW I remember the science was also settled in the 70s about the next mini ice age.

I just addressed this:

Quote
When I was a kid it was the coming of the next ice age. Now the earth is burning up.

Science advances by disproving previous ideas, collecting more data, coming up with new ideas, and further testing them.
This is exactly what you described and is why science "marches on" while some people stay stuck in their conceptual mud.

No matter how set the science of something is at certain points in time, interpretations can change.
The same thing happened when Einstein came up with relativity, which overthrew Newton's view of gravity. However, its not like Newton was wrong, he did not have a good explanation (Einstein's warping of space-time) for the observations he was putting together. Now the Higgs boson is supposed to provide another level of explanation beyond that.

The fact that science is not tied to a single explanation for anything is what allows to to make such great progress compared to other fields of knowledge.

Even Einstein would reject GCC is man made. Just look at what he said about his own theories"
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein

Not sure where this quote came from, but it involves the philosophy of science which is tied up with the history of science. This is a subject I like and have taken several courses on.
This quote is concerned with the logical positivist approach to the subject. When it comes to testing, it says the only good science in when you can knock down bad hypotheses or theories by falsifying them, showing they are wrong. Which makes sense to a degree. The philosophy of science has moved on in some ways from logical positivism but this remains and important part of things.

Other considerations on the validity of hypotheses and theories are logical internal consistency among the parts of the hypothesis and being in agreement with other related branches of science. For example, any biological hypothesis would have a difficult time contradicting the basic tenants of chemistry and biology and still being accepted by the scientific community.

Another common approach is putting two two competing hypotheses up against each other and seeing which does the best job of explaining a common set of facts or problematic issues a field has to deal with. This involves first understanding what both of the competing hypotheses are saying.

There is an additional approach which I think of as the engineering approach. If you can use a theory to make complex and non-obvious predictions that another theory does not, then the veracity of that theory is greatly increased (but not absolutely proven).
An example from Einstein is the famous prediction of light being bent by gravity. During a solar eclipse, the light from the sun is blocked out so that stars near the sun can be seem during the day (because the sky is dark). This allowed a star to be visualized which would have normally been behind the sun. The path of the light from the star got bent so that it appeared next to the eclipsed sun. Pretty startling in its time.

This are all various ways that scientific interpretations can change.

WRT climate change, the hypothesis that it is not human caused, is in competition with the hypothesis that it is.
The human caused hypothesis is in agreement with other sciences and is self consistent and is supported by lots of data.
The non-human caused hypothesis is not supported by lots of data.
For the non-human caused hypothesis to win out (with unbiased people) it would have to generate a lot of data (rather than trying to ignore it) or come up with reasonable but different interpretations.

I have no doubt the earth is warming. And it's cooling.

This is not self-consistent. Maybe your trying to make some point but I don't know what it is. Please explain.

BTW we should all be glad for global warming. If it didn't happen we'd all be very, very cold since we'd still be in the Ice Age.

There is a big difference between changes over geological times (hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years and the global warming we are experiencing today. The changes between the ice ages were much slower allowing organisms to evolve so they could adapt to environmental modifications.

The rate at which species are now going extinct is GREATER than that which occurred during the greatest extinction event in geology, the End Permian Extinction, when 96% of all marine species, 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species, 57% of all families, 83% of all genera went extinct. Not something I am want to bequeath to my offspring.
not all of this is due to warming, but a lot is and it will be accelerating.

I just want to know how folks in the 1800s got thermometers so accurate.

This is irrelevant, but if you really want to know you could easily take a little time and look it up on wikipedia which does a very good job with things like this.

Quote from: LizStreithorst on January 18, 2015, 04:31:25 PM
My really smart Discus friend Dottie gives the same argument against the validity climate change.  We discussed it as we were driving home from NADA.  My argument was that we're sure dumping a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  How can that have no effect on the weather?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

This website does not really seem to address Liz's point. It addresses what are the climate affects of various gases (and water vapor) in isolation.
However, it does not address what the differences would be, with and without the human generated climate gases.
Nor does it address the effects of added gasses to the global heat budget.
My view is that it is focusing on a detail to distract from the point of the bigger picture (changes to the overall global heat budget that arise from the addition of these gasses).

Jon, I will not read anything from that site. Ever.

This is an extremely closed minded view. I would be embarrassed to say that!
I have actually gone to and read the links you post (which are a lot, one of the reasons I took so long to get back to this thread).
As a common courtesy, you should read what other post if you want them to do the same to you.
In addition, you can not understand what you are arguing against if you refuse to understand it. It puts in question many of your arguments.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2014/06/05/real-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

This is Fox News's info on the guy who wrote this.
Steve Tobak is a management consultant, former senior executive, columnist and author of the upcoming book, ?Real Leaders Don?t Follow." Tobak runs Silicon Valley-based Invisor Consulting where he advises executives and business leaders on strategic matters. Contact Tobak. Follow him on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn
Not a science guy by any stretch of the imagination.

Half of this posting is attacks on people he disagrees with. The rest is about a older survey of weathermen, who are not, by the way, trained as climatologists.

Any reference to Fox News as a source of information is, in of itself, highly questionabe.
They have a well earned reputation as purveyors of mis-information, for example, parts of England are all Muslim and police don't go there (considered quite funny over there):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/world/europe/fox-news-apologizes-for-false-claims-of-muslim-only-areas-in-england-and-france.html?emc=edit_th_20150119&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=38810697

The more Fox News you watch, the less you know of what really happened.
This in fact has been supported by a survey of viewer understanding of news events, for example this posting on a business site:
http://www.businessinsider.com/extended-exposure-to-fox-news-may-be-detrimental-to-your-intelligence-2010-12
concerning this study:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

There are no references for the facts and interpretations here. Could be completely made up by the author.
Please provide references.


From Liz (though generally I agree with her):

This is like debating the existence of God.

Not really observable and reproducible facts are involved. Rational decisions can be made.

I look at these discussions as a great exercise and fully realize I will not change your mind and you won't change mine.

My mind is quite changeable (see above), but within the constraints of logic and rational discussion.
Name calling, ignoring what other people say is not a good path toward that end.
---------------------------------------

I have some suggestions for better communication:

1) don't personally attack people, attack their arguments and data
2) if you want to argue something, make it clear what your points are, don't just throw out a bunch of links
3) if you are providing links, explain what it is in them that has relevance to the argument. A link by itself can be completely unclear. (I am still not clear on why a newspaper article of 1926(?) on finding evidence of vegetation in Iceland is relevant to all this.)
4) links with actual data and a well explained rationally coherent relationship to the argument would be nice.
5) it is good, not bad, to look at other sources of information. You can compare different sources and iddeas and understand what other people are talking about.
6) if you want people to read your links, you should read theirs, otherwise someone might think you are not one interested in rational discussion.

[BillT]

Glad you posted this because I forgot something else.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2015/01/18/nasa-scientists-admit-only-38-chance-2014-was-hottest-year-record?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=nasa-warming

Looks like this is based upon a statistical trick. Everything with many readings has a margin of error associated with it, including the older temperatures the current one is being compared with. Considering the error in one requires considering all the other margins of error also (not done here, by this newspaper).

By the way, the 2014 hottest interpretation is supported by several other independent scientific groups:
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/01/multiple-teams-agree-2014-warmest-year-record?et_cid=4368188&et_rid=651558105&type=headline

[Mugwump]

[GraphicGr8s]

Jon, I will not read anything from that site. Ever.

This is an extremely closed minded view. I would be embarrassed to say that!
I have actually gone to and read the links you post (which are a lot, one of the reasons I took so long to get back to this thread).
As a common courtesy, you should read what other post if you want them to do the same to you.
In addition, you can not understand what you are arguing against if you refuse to understand it. It puts in question many of your arguments.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2014/06/05/real-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

This is Fox News's info on the guy who wrote this.
Steve Tobak is a management consultant, former senior executive, columnist and author of the upcoming book, ?Real Leaders Don?t Follow." Tobak runs Silicon Valley-based Invisor Consulting where he advises executives and business leaders on strategic matters. Contact Tobak. Follow him on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn
Not a science guy by any stretch of the imagination.

Half of this posting is attacks on people he disagrees with. The rest is about a older survey of weathermen, who are not, by the way, trained as climatologists.

Any reference to Fox News as a source of information is, in of itself, highly questionabe.
They have a well earned reputation as purveyors of mis-information, for example, parts of England are all Muslim and police don't go there (considered quite funny over there):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/world/europe/fox-news-apologizes-for-false-claims-of-muslim-only-areas-in-england-and-france.html?emc=edit_th_20150119&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=38810697

The more Fox News you watch, the less you know of what really happened.
This in fact has been supported by a survey of viewer understanding of news events, for example this posting on a business site:
http://www.businessinsider.com/extended-exposure-to-fox-news-may-be-detrimental-to-your-intelligence-2010-12
concerning this study:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf


1) don't personally attack people, attack their arguments and data
2) if you want to argue something, make it clear what your points are, don't just throw out a bunch of links
3) if you are providing links, explain what it is in them that has relevance to the argument. A link by itself can be completely unclear. (I am still not clear on why a newspaper article of 1926(?) on finding evidence of vegetation in Iceland is relevant to all this.)
4) links with actual data and a well explained rationally coherent relationship to the argument would be nice.
5) it is good, not bad, to look at other sources of information. You can compare different sources and ideas and understand what other people are talking about.
6) if you want people to read your links, you should read theirs, otherwise someone might think you are not one interested in rational discussion.

Quick reply. For now

First I have read many things from thinkprogress. I have, in the past found them to be no netter than a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda. I can pretty much tell you what they say on any topic and without reading any of it be pretty darn accurate.

Too bad you don't like FOX. But the way you feel about them is how I feel about the liberal stations. I keep seeing stations like CNN just espousing the liberal agenda but at least they are less guilty than many of the other networks. MSNBC of course is out of the running as they are  WH propaganda machine and no one would ever quote them for anything.

The link from the paper of 1926 was just for them finding a tropical paradise there. That the earth was in fact warmer at one than it is now.

I started researching this since Al Gore stated his money making rant years ago and that incorrect hockey stick.

I do look at other sources of non biased information. It's very hard to find if you follow the money trail and the political leanings. Take Roy Spenser for instance. Jon posted about him getting his funding from lobbyists. Fact is he is funded by government agencies yet his findings are anti mainstream. So what happens? He is constantly derided. That is what I have found happens to most who disagree with the GW theory. Then their studies are buried.

If I insulted you personally I apologize Bill. That was never my intention. We may not agree on this topic but it shouldn't interfere with friendship. It never does in my real life encounters and I sure don't want it to here.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study
http://www.sott.net/article/279216-Antarctica-is-it-melting-or-not-Man-made-global-warming-cant-explain-this-climate-paradox

[BallAquatics]

Fox News is equivalent to the National Enquirer.  I watched for a couple of years and one day it dawned on me that Bill O'Reilly was simply the white persons Jesse Jackson.  He doesn't try to fix a thing, and simply has a penchant for controversy.  I completely understand why, as that's what makes his living.

Dennis

[GraphicGr8s]

Fox News is equivalent to the National Enquirer.  I watched for a couple of years and one day it dawned on me that Bill O'Reilly was simply the white persons Jesse Jackson.  He doesn't try to fix a thing, and simply has a penchant for controversy.  I completely understand why, as that's what makes his living.

Dennis

So you get your news from Jon Stewart and Chris Matthews?  (OK that was snarky but no insult is meant by it. You wouldn't believe how many I know where that is their only "news" source)

O'Reilly, Hannity, Kelly are commentators/entertainers. (But Kelly is H O T.) You expect them to be biased just as you would commentators on the lamestream media. Fox does have actual opposing guests on where the others don't really.

For actual news reports most folks trust Fox more than the others and NPR is just more government rubbish.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/media-poll-fox-TV/2014/01/31/id/550236/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/06/10/poll-msnbc-least-trusted-tv-news-source-fox-news-most-trusted

[BillT]

Well thanks for the apology G8. I appreciate that.

thinkprogress. I have, in the past found them to be no netter than a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda. I can pretty much tell you what they say on any topic and without reading any of it be pretty darn accurate.

This is a pretty presumptuous statement.

Too bad you don't like FOX. But the way you feel about them is how I feel about the liberal stations. I keep seeing stations like CNN just espousing the liberal agenda but at least they are less guilty than many of the other networks. MSNBC of course is out of the running as they are  WH propaganda machine and no one would ever quote them for anything.

I don't really watch hardly any TV news.
There are plenty of better sources with more and better information.
I think of Fox News as the Daily Show (fake news show) on stupid.

The link from the paper of 1926 was just for them finding a tropical paradise there. That the earth was in fact warmer at one than it is now.

There plenty of better sources for the same information.
This completely lacks any indication of timing of when the environment was in that state there.
Few well informed people would dispute this could happen. The important thing would be what were the temperatures and when there were whatever they were. Not covered in the news paper article by probably available elsewhere.
Without a time line, you don't know when this was, how fast the change was, whether it might have been due to an unrelated cause like continential drift.
As it is, it has very limited relevance.

I started researching this since Al Gore stated his money making rant years ago and that incorrect hockey stick.

I'll bet Bill O'Reilly makes a lot more money off of his books then Al Gore does. Does this make Bill O'Reilly wrong?
I'll also bet Al Gore made a lot more money off of selling his TV network a few years ago than he does from selling books.

I do look at other sources of non biased information. It's very hard to find if you follow the money trail and the political leanings.

What are those money trails you speak so much of? Please be specific.


Roy Spenser: where to start?

1) He call people Nazis if he doesn't agree with them: indicates he has little of substance to say.

2) He is a supporter of creation science. Flat earth also? i don't know.

3) Many errors in his papers, for example (from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate):

So, what were the errors and poor modeling choices?

   1) The model treats the entire Earth as entirely ocean-covered
   2) The model assigns an ocean process (El Ni?o cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon
   3) The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
   4) The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth
   5) The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature
   6) The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers
   7) The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity
    The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer
   9) The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.

Now, simple models like this one can still be useful, even though they necessarily gloss over some details. But some of these errors and omissions are pretty obvious, and would have been easy to fix. For instance, by treating the entire Earth as water covered, Spencer and Braswell omit 30% of the surface of the Earth that?s land-covered, and which heats up faster than the oceans. They then compare the CO2 sensitivity of their ocean-only model to those obtained from more realistic models ? apples and oranges. Furthermore, the application of a very local phenomenon (El Ni?o) to the entire globe just doesn?t make much sense.

He seems to have done a good job of ruining his own credibility.


By the way if you want to find a new climate change denier here is a list of them from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Its about a couple of pages long on my screen, which, compared those you think climate change is happening, is very few.

I find it interesting that something like half of them are either retired, emeritus (same as retired) or formerly (rather than currently) in some position.
These are the people one would least expect to keep up with current findings.

But Kelly is H O T.

Irrelevant in any discussion of facts, but maybe why they are popular. Deception is not facts.

For actual news reports most folks trust Fox more than the others and NPR is just more government rubbish.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/media-poll-fox-TV/2014/01/31/id/550236/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/06/10/poll-msnbc-least-trusted-tv-news-source-fox-news-most-trusted

Popularity is VERY DIFFERENT for getting the facts right, which is also quantifiable, which was done in that study (which I hope you took the time to read over).

Being popular on TV has to do with marketing you know. Irrelevant.

So you get your news from Jon Stewart and Chris Matthews?  (OK that was snarky but no insult is meant by it. You wouldn't believe how many I know where that is their only "news" source)

O'Reilly, Hannity, Kelly are commentators/entertainers. (But Kelly is H O T.) You expect them to be biased just as you would commentators on the lamestream media. Fox does have actual opposing guests on where the others don't really.

For actual news reports most folks trust Fox more than the others and NPR is just more government rubbish.

Are there any sources of information that you would find acceptable that you don't know you already agree with?

You only seem to refer to a select few TV networks (like one, even after admitting they are entertainers) and a very select set of websites.

What about printed media? Did you despise all of them also? How do you know if you won't read what they say?

Do you ever search for information not dictated to you by Fox and those websites?
I am not seeing much evidence of that in your links. Much better information is easily available.

What would it take to convince you global warming is real? (You did ask me this, so turnabout is fair play.)
If there is nothing that could convince you of this, your arguing this is disingenuous.
You want to convince people you are right and everyone else is wrong and you seem to even know that before you know what their arguments are.
Please come up with some arguments that can hold together, not contradict themselves, and address the immense amounts of data they have to overcome.
It would be better if you could do this in your own words, because your links frequently have incorrect or sem to be not irrelevant to your arguments.




Sorry to be using up all your electrons Mug.
But at least they get recycled.

[BallAquatics]

I get most of my news from the BBC.  It's been years since I've listened to FOX, so maybe they are better now???  At the time I quit watching FOX they were so far out there as to be laughable.  I don't believe....

For actual news reports most folks trust Fox more than the others

I think there are many like me that kicked FOX to the curb in favor of unbiased reporting.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/distort-attack-repeat-20110524

Dennis

[GraphicGr8s]

I get most of my news from the BBC.  It's been years since I've listened to FOX, so maybe they are better now???  At the time I quit watching FOX they were so far out there as to be laughable.  I don't believe....

For actual news reports most folks trust Fox more than the others

I think there are many like me that kicked FOX to the curb in favor of unbiased reporting.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/distort-attack-repeat-20110524

Dennis

Dennis,  Rolling Stone? Ultra Liberal mag? I would expect nothing less from them.

[PaulineMi]

Sometimes the line from a Buffalo Springfield song comes to mind..."Everybody's carrying signs that mostly say hooray for our side"  And that's  my two cents worth regarding our news media these days. 

[Mugwump]

Sometimes the line from a Buffalo Springfield song comes to mind..."Everybody's carrying signs that mostly say hooray for our side"  And that's  my two cents worth regarding our news media these days.

+1....pretty much so Pauline......all adjectives and adverbs.....play to the drama, bend the truth to suit the spiel....

[BallAquatics]

Good one Pauline.  I happened to que this up not too long ago and was struck by how current it is even today......

http://youtu.be/Sk3sURDS4IA

Monster
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope

Like good Christians some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands, to court the wild
But she just patiently smiled, and bore them a child
To be their spirit, and guiding light

And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon they went
And till the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end

While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands, to court the wild
But she just patiently smiled, and bore them a child
To be their spirit, and guiding light

The blue and gray they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog

And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

Suicide
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seemed generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't, pay it no mind

'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
Now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told

Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there watchin'

The cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand

We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole world's got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner, we can't pay the cost

'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into the noose
And it just sits there, watching

America
America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know, we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know, we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know, we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know, we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

America, where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know, we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

[Mugwump]

..a poignant song.......thanks for posting it...