There was no global warming hiatus.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: SaturnFX

You are unable to put a number on how much funding flowed to the other side during the same time frame?

You're asking how much money is spent globally on earth sciences.

Its like asking how much money goes into physics. vast sums from a million sources.

btw, you realize you just added a link to a corporatist website that is a mouthpiece of special interest oil barons.

a reply to: SaturnFX

I provided links. I look forward to the propaganda to try and dismiss the scientific american link.

No, you provided a link. Singular.

Your link did not address how much money goes to Global Warming proponents.

I do not dispute the article you linked. I simply state it shows one side only, which it does.

Do you state that scientists conducting pro-Global Warming research are doing so for free and providing their own equipment?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SaturnFX

I provided links. I look forward to the propaganda to try and dismiss the scientific american link.

No, you provided a link. Singular.

Your link did not address how much money goes to Global Warming proponents.

I do not dispute the article you linked. I simply state it shows one side only, which it does.

Do you state that scientists conducting pro-Global Warming research are doing so for free and providing their own equipment?

TheRedneck

Science doesn't start with a goal, it starts with a question. a climatologist isn't trying to prove anything, they analyse the results of gathered data, form hypothesis's, then test it to see if the results align with the hypothesis. If so, then a theory is born.
the AGW theory isn't a laymans term theory in the same way gravity isn't a "theory"..its a fact, but there are details and research that is still needed for a full understanding.

science doesn't work the way you are explaining it...the deniers work that way, because they are not using the scientific method..they are trying to push a explanative result regardless of the data...a scientist doesn't do that.

Who makes money for AGW? do climatologists? no...the only real "winners" are green companies, start ups, etc. thats it...and they are dirt poor scientists due to oil barons crushing them whenever possible.

No big winners in AGW

Bowties dont lie

a reply to: SaturnFX

btw, you realize you just added a link to a corporatist website that is a mouthpiece of special interest oil barons.

That speaks nothing to the content of the article that I posted, do you have issues with the actual content?

'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research

Brulle’s paper and the media narrative may score some temporary points with members of the general public who do not closely follow the global warming debate, but ultimately Brulle’s paper and the media narrative will backfire on global warming activists. The narrative will backfire because the general public is not stupid. Slick lies may win some converts who will not check the facts, but the greater number of people will check the facts and hold the liars accountable.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Science doesn't start with a goal, it starts with a question. a climatologist isn't trying to prove anything, they analyse the results of gathered data, form hypothesis's, then test it to see if the results align with the hypothesis. If so, then a theory is born.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Exactly right. There are no pre-assumptions in science (or shouldn't be)... the data speaks for itself. I'll admit to laying that little trap for you.

So, if there are no pre-assumptions, only interpretation of data based on physical principles, why does it matter who is funding what? Are you saying all climatologists receiving funding from oil companies are violating scientific principles? If so, that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence to back it up?

Also, you are terribly incorrect that there is no advantage to anyone with money should Global Warming countermeasures be implemented. Carbon credits are the only accepted answer to the problem should this happen. These credits will be sold to producers of energy. Who sells them?

GOVERNMENTS.

Who gets the money from the initial sales?

GOVERNMENTS.

The same governments who fund these angelic scientists that agree with you.

Who winds up paying for them?

AVERAGE CONSUMERS.

Who just passes costs along to them, losing nothing in the process?

OIL COMPANIES.

The same oil companies who you apparently think should be prohibited from giving out research grants because they're protecting their interests.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SaturnFX

Bowties dont lie

huh? Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He also has six honorary doctorate degrees, including Ph.D.s in science from Goucher College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

a reply to: watchitburn

Narrative? No.

Science? Yes. There is a difference. Science is a process, not an ideology, and therefore has no dog in the fight, except the truth.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Its funny to see you and Greven defending this study considering that both of you have argued till your blue that the PAUSE never existed.

I was looking at ocean heat content measurements, and there was no pause there, and for physical reasons I think this is a better dataset than surface temperatures.

The appearance of a slowdown was more likely, in my mind, due to transient effects of changing ocean currents and turnover (more mixing from top to lower layers from new weather/climate patterns, resulting in the extra heat going more to depth than surface), and/or experimental problems.

Can you clarify something?

Are you now saying that it did exist but now that the data has been adjusted yet again, it no longer exists or are you saying that the PAUSE never existed and this study is just an exercise in lying with statistics???

Tired of Control Freaks

There was what appeared to be a slowdown in the rate of increase some sea surface temperature datasets---up through 2013. It was controversial whether this actually reflected a decrease in the increase of forcing from human induced greenhouse effect. It was not clear whether this was statistically anomalous or not given natural variability. My personal feeling was 'no all along' based on physics (nothing is changing the forcing in atmosphere), but I would defer to high quality peer-reviewed science.

However this was used extensively by pseudoskeptics and denialists to assert outright falsehoods like "there has been no global warming since 1998".

The recent analysis of the data shows that even the questionable hints turn out to be a systematic instrumental error, significantly and so observations are more consistent with the baseline 'global warming keeps on warming' assumption which is what most scientists in the field have expected since about 1993.

In any case, the post 2013 data, even before correction, showed quite sharp warming resuming, so even if there was a 'pause', the pause has already stopped with a major snap up in temperatures.

The present analysis shows the root cause of the appearance of the slowdown---a transition overtime from measurements taken with one instrumental technique to another. When this effect, which is an artifact and error and not reflective of physical reality, is correctly accounted for, the appearance of slowdown on sea surface temperatures is diminished to insignificance. So: case closed.

This scenario has played out before: XYZ sees a seeming decrease in warming seemingly contrary to or challenging AGW hypothesis, but it turns out later that it was due to calibration errors in instruments or not correctly accounting for changes in satellite orbits correctly (when satellites were the original source of the data) which induces spurious effects.

And this is not remotely unexpected---because the hypothesis of global warming from increased greenhouse effect is not based on statistics and observations alone, but correct understanding of fundamental laws of physics which are extraordinarily powerful in explaining everything about the observable physical world. We don't turn off our brains when the results are emotionally and economically uncomfortable.

In sum: surface temperatures seemed to have a lower rate of increase from 1998 through 2013. Since 2013 this slowdown has reverted back up to sharp warming emphatically. Deeper ocean heat content warming showed no slowdown from 1998-2013 or now.

Now the apparent lower rate of increase in the surface dataset is shown to be primarily a spurious experimental artifact due to changing measurement technology. Everything is as the "pro-AGW" (none of us want it, we just accept the physics of the universe) scientists said would happen decades ago.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

The reasons for the PAUSE (that didn't exist) are so many and so varied that it is impossible to list them all here in text box.

Now we know that global temperatures dropped dramatically in the last half of 2016.

Not true (I assume you don't mean the obvious seasonal cycle, but relatively).

www.sciencedaily.com...

data.giss.nasa.gov...

November 2016 was the second warmest November in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

You see the plot of 2016? It's the one with the black dots. It is higher than all the other ones (i.e. all time record) until October & November, when there is one year which was higher. That year was 2015.

a reply to: mbkennel

The non-existent pause started in 1998 through to 2013 (says you) And was primarily a spurious experimental artifact due to changing measurement technology. All of this due to temperature of surface water and not including land

BUT according to nasa:


podaac.jpl.nasa.gov...

Since the 1980's most of the information about global SST has come from satellite observations. Instruments like the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on board (MODIS) onboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites orbit the Earth approximately 14 times per day, enabling it to gathering more SST data in 3 months than all other combined SST measurements taken before the advent of satellites.

Care to take a shot at explaining why the non-existent PAUSE did not affect the data prior to 1998?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: mbkennel

mbkennel

Stop playing games with posting graphs that do not show the required level of detail to prove your point or to disprove mine

Here is RSS temperature data Version 6.0

www.nsstc.uah.edu...

Look specifically at global temperature 2016 data.

In February 2016, the global temperature was 0.84 degrees, by December 2016, the global temperature has dropped to 0.24 degrees. Now to remove any seasonal variation - look at September 2016 when the temperature has now dropped to 0.44 degree

So I believe that I have proved my point - temperatures are dropping and they are dropping fast. All this crying of the Arctic ice is merely heat being discharged into space from the El Nino

Don't play games with graphs with me again. You are famous for posting graphs that no one really understands in order to stall debates. I will not fall for it again. Use data - not graphs.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

To all:

The narrative of this thread has been that people who dispute alarmist climate change predictions have been playing unfair and raising havoc over the Pause (that apparently now no longer exists).

What is the story of the Pause:

Well it all started with James Hansen, Grandfather of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC). Yes, unlike the scenario that people who dispute (CACC) cherry picked data and made up the Pause all on their own, the real story the phrase was first used in an article by James Hensen

www.historicalclimatology.com...

Nevertheless, the so-called “pause” in global warming barely registered in the public consciousness until early 2013. In January of that year, an article by lead author James Hansen – perhaps the most responsible and vocal voice in global warming scholarship – began with alarming news. In 2012, it announced, temperatures the world over had been 0.56 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 base average. This was in spite of a La Niña that had chilled the waters of the equatorial Pacific, and therefore had the opposite effect on global temperatures of an El Niño.

Link to article by James Hansen:

www.columbia.edu...

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the satellite data manipulated at some point in time as well?

a reply to: mbkennel

The appearance of a slowdown was more likely, in my mind, due to transient effects of changing ocean currents and turnover (more mixing from top to lower layers from new weather/climate patterns, resulting in the extra heat going more to depth than surface), and/or experimental problems.

I wonder if ocean currents are something that is accounted for in the climate models the IPCC utilizes?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

That's troposphere data, which is not the same thing as the dataset I plotted. The troposphere is most influenced by transient weather.

GISTEMP data: data.giss.nasa.gov...

The instruments in question for the calibration correction were the secular transition from direct measurement data taken from ships to buoys and Argo aquatic drones. The data sets use combinations of inputs from numerous different data sources.

Satellites also have calibration issues, as they do not directly measure temperature but image radiation and that needs to be converted. Satellites in low orbit also have finite lifetimes, so that long-term records are taken from different satellites with potentially different instruments, and may have instrumental drifts and other artifacts as well from the strong heat/cool cycle in space as the satellites go through their orbit.

The absolute calibration of a thermometer which is directly touching the water could be more accurate or stable than inferences from satellite, though of course satellite can cover wider areas. Satellite data reduction also requires compensating for atmospheric effects as well that does not apply to direct sampling. Scientists use multiple physical channels of measurement so that they can cross-check results and check for systematic artifacts, such as the artifact which was validated to be present by the current study in the original post in the thread.

advances.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: D8Tee

It depends on the models used. All the climate models thus far are attempts to get the relationships right. Climate factors are typically not linear functions, and contain many many feedbacks. The trick right now is to develop a model that matches observed data over a wide variety of different conditions. Once such a model is developed, it can be used to predict trends. If those predictions are proven accurate, confidence in the model will allow for longer-range predictions.

It is the same as it was with weather prediction models. Growing up, we were lucky if the three-day forecast panned out; a week ahead was a wild guess. Now forecasts for 7-10 days are common and more often than not are accurate.

Some models use some feedbacks; others don't. It depends upon the personal opinion of the scientists who develop it. Even if feedbacks are considered, the functions they play in climate may not be calculated correctly. We're getting better, but we're just not there yet.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Care to take a shot at explaining why the non-existent PAUSE did not affect the data prior to 1998?

Because the appearance of the pause in some measure is a consequence of the transition to more automatic buoys and Argo floats away from ship measurements. The transition started after 1998. If you assume that nearly all the data prior to that was from ships then all of it would have had a similar bias but no trend---if you start to have a trend in the distribution of instrument type, which is the factual situation---you need to look if that induces a spurious artificial trend in the data----it did, downward somewhat, and when this effect is corrected, the data look closer to the physical predictions and show less or no pause.

There may be authentic physical effects relating to sea turnover as well, I don't know for sure.

There is no evidence the forcing from global warming slowed down: if there were, the ocean heat content would have had a slowdown, but it did not.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

That was 2012, and the data available then.

Now is 2017, and the data has been corrected. There may not have been a statistically significant pause from 1998 through 2012, and there is certainly not one now.

a reply to: TheRedneck

from your article

All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data."

Translation:
"we make a political decision based on our bias, and BTW we get funding if we don't rock the boat"

a reply to: mbkennel

Is there a map to indicate where these sea temperatures from the boats were taken? If they were taken from ocean going vessels, wouldn't they be only on shipping routes? Does that leave a lot of the ocean surface with no data points?