2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[Fogdog]

And that presents an extremely good question. Is each temperature center added together to create this 'average'? And if so, are the temperature centers equidistant from each other regardless of terrain, population density, urbanization, etc? Or are the temperature centers more closely aligned with more densely populated areas?

You can take an average of anything but it could be completely meaningless.

You can find out on your own if you like. Its pretty complex, what they do and how they do it. We have computers in this country, you know. And some pretty good mathematicians too. The problem they face is basically what you infer. They solve the problem using temperature data to build a global temperature map in a similar way that elevations are diagrammed in a topographical map. You don't think somebody walked along those lines on the elevation map do you? Once the map is built, its a simple job to calculate the average global surface temperature.

If you really want to know, here is a reference for a starting point: http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

 

[Fogdog]

Science puts they "think, and believe" so why can`t I ?

To wit:

Statement 4, is interesting because it`s about losing heat, you came at me with adding heat. While I understand your reply, it doesn`t address what statement 4 is about.

Statement 6 has everything to do with currents. Water has currents within and above, Land has currents above but not within. That`s why land will always be warmer than over water. Small bodies of water can be overwhelmed by the breeze pushing warmer air over it. (variables)

Yes, should the land in Antarctica be exposed and not buried under frozen water,...it will be warmer than over the open water. Unless that land mass is so tiny that it is overwhelmed by air movement. (currents) The refrigeration effect wouldn`t be possible or at least it would be insufficient. The axis prevents that land from becoming exposed. (unlike the egg that is strait up and down in my cartoon)

Statement 9 , If you show me a graph like that, I can only conclude that average global temperatures say it started out down, goes up, and can not go down. If left of 1880 goes up and down, and right of 2016 goes up and down, you`ve purposely selected a section to fit your needs. That`s why I said I refuse to believe 120 something years is not even a tick on a geological clock.

No I do not believe you can use a global average surface temperature for conclusive evidence by comparing years to years.

The complexity in dynamics of air temperature that you describe is exactly why the earth's surface temperature is tracked so closely. Air temperatures are to dynamic to create a simple metric. Surface temperature, less so.

So you say you refuse to believe something? Well that's about the end of it isn't it? If you are curious and want to learn, I'm willing to go forward. But not with somebody that is ignorant and doesn't want to learn.

 

[NLXSK1]

You can find out on your own if you like. Its pretty complex, what they do and how they do it. We have computers in this country, you know. And some pretty good mathematicians too. The problem they face is basically what you infer. They solve the problem using temperature data to build a global temperature map in a similar way that elevations are diagrammed in a topographical map. You don't think somebody walked along those lines on the elevation map do you? Once the map is built, its a simple job to calculate the average global surface temperature.

If you really want to know, here is a reference for a starting point: http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

The problem is there is too much variablility. There is a heat island effect and bias towards urban centers. Maybe if we were talking a swing of 10 degrees but we are talking about tenths of a degree.

I can tell you that living in phoenix for 20 years the climate has changed. That is due to the expanding city and the heat island effect along with the amount of water that is brought in to irrigate landscaping and crops. Many temperature/weather stations are situated in this area. However, farther out in the desert where there is nothing they have not experienced anywhere near the change in climate that the urban landscape has.

 

[Fogdog]

The problem is there is too much variablility. There is a heat island effect and bias towards urban centers. Maybe if we were talking a swing of 10 degrees but we are talking about tenths of a degree.

I can tell you that living in phoenix for 20 years the climate has changed. That is due to the expanding city and the heat island effect along with the amount of water that is brought in to irrigate landscaping and crops. Many temperature/weather stations are situated in this area. However, farther out in the desert where there is nothing they have not experienced anywhere near the change in climate that the urban landscape has.

Absolutely, cities are hotter than forest or even desert land. Also, local human activities affect local temperature too. Do you think that a person with 22 years of education, the cream of the class, doesn't know this? Also, do you think that only one person gets to decide?

Here is a map of stations in the US:

With all this data, it's not a stretch to correct for the kinds of issues you mention.

Worldwide, the map of government weather stations are:

If you had accessed the link I provided in the post that you replied to you might know that the kinds of problems you list are small compared to worldwide variability in weather station locations. There is a well documented, transparent and rigorously reviewed methodology used to summarize this data into a worldwide temperature map. It's not perfect but it's really good. And better than holding a wet finger to the wind.

That said, you are at least is acknowledging that your local environment is warmer than in the past. Well that is a start. People all over the planet are saying the same thing. Imagine that?

 

[UncleBuck]

farther out in the desert where there is nothing they have not experienced anywhere near the change in climate that the urban landscape has.

you clearly don't even know what climate is.

 

[Fogdog]

you clearly don't even know what climate is.

Why don't we ask NLX and Oddball to work up an answer together. Its sure to be original.

 

[bluntmassa1]

I think 2015 and 16 are warmer it has barely snowed in New England and the temp is way above normal it's the dead of winter we should not be getting rain!! At least snow I can go outside and build a fucking snowman. Lol

 

[OddBall1st]

The complexity in dynamics of air temperature that you describe is exactly why the earth's surface temperature is tracked so closely. Air temperatures are to dynamic to create a simple metric. Surface temperature, less so.

So you say you refuse to believe something? Well that's about the end of it isn't it? If you are curious and want to learn, I'm willing to go forward. But not with somebody that is ignorant and doesn't want to learn.

If 70% of the surface is ocean, which moves just as much if not more than air giving it it`s own dynamics, an ever changing average surface temperature does little.

You want to throw in the towel because I refuse to believe 120 something years is not adequate to make a geological call.

If you had 5,000 years data you could barely call it a trend.

Look, the bars are going up, if that`s the only part of the chart that matters, why have the rest of it ? Nothing in it really goes one way for a short time.
I could see if I refused to believe Pb melts at a lower temperature than Fe,...but about the clock ??

 

[OddBall1st]

With that many cooperating weather stations around the globe, you can do better than an average, you could get concrete evidence, let me ask you dog, is the concrete evidence not cooperating as well as a global surface average ? Is it telling a different story ?
Be honest. Pretty please, with sugar and a boiled egg. and sprikles.

 

[OddBall1st]

I think 2015 and 16 are warmer it has barely snowed in New England and the temp is way above normal it's the dead of winter we should not be getting rain!! At least snow I can go outside and build a fucking snowman. Lol

This time last year, you and I were driving in canyons and walking in trenches.

 

[Fogdog]

If 70% of the surface is ocean, which moves just as much if not more than air giving it it`s own dynamics, an ever changing average surface temperature does little.

You want to throw in the towel because I refuse to believe 120 something years is not adequate to make a geological call.

If you had 5,000 years data you could barely call it a trend.

Look, the bars are going up, if that`s the only part of the chart that matters, why have the rest of it ? Nothing in it really goes one way for a short time.
I could see if I refused to believe Pb melts at a lower temperature than Fe,...but about the clock ??

The metric for annual Global Surface Temperature (GST) is useful in that it tracks along with a wide number of events associated with global warming. .Put another way, a lot of other events that go along with global climate warming track with the GST -- sea level is going up, glacial ice is shrinking in many parts of the world, ocean temperatures are rising in most areas of the planet, the Arctic ice pack is the smallest we've ever seen, this year's El Nino is the largest ever seen and on and on. All of these events track with the recent rise in GST and predicted by global warming models.

The following link takes you into a much better description of how the measurement is done. http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

I post the link to show that there is a lot of rigor that goes on behind this relatively simple number. We can then talk about why scientists think the recent trend is not some random event caused by sunspots or volcanoes without a reference metric. Annual GST is the best metric I know of. If you like, propose something else and I'll take a look at it.

So, take some time, search google, come up with better arguments for why its GST is not a valid metric other than "I don't believe it" and I'll be glad to discuss. If you stick with "I don't believe" without giving a technical reason, then we don't have anything to discuss.

 

[bluntmassa1]

The metric for annual Global Surface Temperature (GST) is useful in that it tracks along with a wide number of events associated with global warming. .Put another way, a lot of other events that go along with global climate warming track with the GST -- sea level is going up, glacial ice is shrinking in many parts of the world, ocean temperatures are rising in most areas of the planet, the Arctic ice pack is the smallest we've ever seen, this year's El Nino is the largest ever seen and on and on. All of these events track with the recent rise in GST and predicted by global warming models.

The following link takes you into a much better description of how the measurement is done. http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

I post the link to show that there is a lot of rigor that goes on behind this relatively simple number. We can then talk about why scientists think the recent trend is not some random event caused by sunspots or volcanoes without a reference metric. Annual GST is the best metric I know of. If you like, propose something else and I'll take a look at it.

So, take some time, search google, come up with better arguments for why its GST is not a valid metric other than "I don't believe it" and I'll be glad to discuss. If you stick with "I don't believe" without giving a technical reason, then we don't have anything to discuss.

For real I remember they blamed this warm winter on El Nino but we had it before and we still had plenty of snow global warming must be real.

 

[Bugeye]

Absolutely, cities are hotter than forest or even desert land. Also, local human activities affect local temperature too. Do you think that a person with 22 years of education, the cream of the class, doesn't know this? Also, do you think that only one person gets to decide?

Here is a map of stations in the US:

With all this data, it's not a stretch to correct for the kinds of issues you mention.

Worldwide, the map of government weather stations are:

If you had accessed the link I provided in the post that you replied to you might know that the kinds of problems you list are small compared to worldwide variability in weather station locations. There is a well documented, transparent and rigorously reviewed methodology used to summarize this data into a worldwide temperature map. It's not perfect but it's really good. And better than holding a wet finger to the wind.

That said, you are at least is acknowledging that your local environment is warmer than in the past. Well that is a start. People all over the planet are saying the same thing. Imagine that?

This piece is a little dated now but it describes the quantification and limitations of surface data sets very well: http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

As for drawing any conclusions based on local weather patterns, the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[OddBall1st]

The metric for annual Global Surface Temperature (GST) is useful in that it tracks along with a wide number of events associated with global warming. .Put another way, a lot of other events that go along with global climate warming track with the GST -- sea level is going up, glacial ice is shrinking in many parts of the world, ocean temperatures are rising in most areas of the planet, the Arctic ice pack is the smallest we've ever seen, this year's El Nino is the largest ever seen and on and on. All of these events track with the recent rise in GST and predicted by global warming models.

The following link takes you into a much better description of how the measurement is done. http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

I post the link to show that there is a lot of rigor that goes on behind this relatively simple number. We can then talk about why scientists think the recent trend is not some random event caused by sunspots or volcanoes without a reference metric. Annual GST is the best metric I know of. If you like, propose something else and I'll take a look at it.

So, take some time, search google, come up with better arguments for why its GST is not a valid metric other than "I don't believe it" and I'll be glad to discuss. If you stick with "I don't believe" without giving a technical reason, then we don't have anything to discuss.

Why is it that you can refuse discussion because you feel, yada, yada, and I can`t refuse to believe adequate time has elapsed to draw a conclusive conclusion ? It comes down to "ever seen", in that short time, you can actually say that, but can you say the same over a longer period of time ?

What`s wrong with the zones to calculate temperatures in, equator, North and South hemispheres and North and South poles. ? Using the averages in those zones seems more likely to get you usable data.

I find it difficult to convince someone in Cape Lisburne Alaska that the average surface temperature is 52 degrees f. At least with zones you can safely say it will never be 80 or 90 degrees in the Artic or Antarctic, at high noon, and you can safely say that it will never be in the teens and single digits in the Cayman Islands at high noon. If those start to approach each other, something wrong.

I look at your graph and say, yes the trend now is up,.. but before that, it was down,...now, if they had claimed .."Ice Age approaching, they would have been horribly wrong because the next 50 years is going up. How will GST tell me that the next 50 wont be going down, where it already was ?


ellipses for Buck.....................

 

[Fogdog]

This piece is a little dated now but it describes the quantification and limitations of surface data sets very well: http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

As for drawing any conclusions based on local weather patterns, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Totally with you regarding one person's observation not being data.

I am interested in why an informed person would be inclined to reject the universal conclusion from climate science institutes around the world that man caused global warming is already occurring. I recall that you don't disagree with this either, you just don't think that its happening as fast as projected.

I took a look at your link, I've been through that site before as well as others. They all say about the same thing, which I find interesting.

Nobody says there isn't error in the metric for global surface temperature (GST). The error is pretty small, however due to documented procedures for using the available data to interpolate between stations to account for spacing between them. The biggest source of error is the lack of data from the poles.

And this is not something pushed under the carpet by climate science, as many of the denial sites would have people believe. They tested their surface measurement methodology using satellite readings. The two independent measurement methods agree pretty well in terms of trend and magnitude of temperature rise:

This one shows satellite measurements of the Troposphere (middle layer of air, red line) to GST (blue line)

The trends are pretty much the same, with the line fitted to satellite measurements of Troposphere on a lesser rate of rise than the surface temperatures. If you look at the scatter of the data, you will see that the satellite measurements are more prone to error than GST readings, which is why they aren't used as a core metric. They are used in other ways, however.

SO, yes, you can find a huge number of science denial sites that claim surface temperature readings can't be any good because limitations. This isn't news to the science community and they have procedures in place to correct for this error. The procedures and methods are described here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature. The conclusion of temperature rise and approximate rate of rise has been independently verified using satellite data. This does not prove caused by man, it just shows that temperature rise is occurring and provides a measure of how fast the rise is also occurring.

 

[Bugeye]

Totally with you regarding one person's observation not being data.

I am interested in why an informed person would be inclined to reject the universal conclusion from climate science institutes around the world that man caused global warming is already occurring. I recall that you don't disagree with this either, you just don't think that its happening as fast as projected.

I took a look at your link, I've been through that site before as well as others. They all say about the same thing, which I find interesting.

Nobody says there isn't error in the metric for global surface temperature (GST). The error is pretty small, however due to documented procedures for using the available data to interpolate between stations to account for spacing between them. The biggest source of error is the lack of data from the poles.

And this is not something pushed under the carpet by climate science, as many of the denial sites would have people believe. They tested their surface measurement methodology using satellite readings. The two independent measurement methods agree pretty well in terms of trend and magnitude of temperature rise:

This one shows satellite measurements of the Troposphere (middle layer of air, red line) to GST (blue line)

The trends are pretty much the same, with the line fitted to satellite measurements of Troposphere on a lesser rate of rise than the surface temperatures. If you look at the scatter of the data, you will see that the satellite measurements are more prone to error than GST readings, which is why they aren't used as a core metric. They are used in other ways, however.

SO, yes, you can find a huge number of science denial sites that claim surface temperature readings can't be any good because limitations. This isn't news to the science community and they have procedures in place to correct for this error. The procedures and methods are described here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature. The conclusion of temperature rise and approximate rate of rise has been independently verified using satellite data. This does not prove caused by man, it just shows that temperature rise is occurring and provides a measure of how fast the rise is also occurring.

Yes, I believe in AGW and am still labeled a denier because I find the lower range of IPCC projections far more likely. I don't share your view that the surface temp records are better than the satellite data. Both have issues to be sure. The recent recast of temp data by NOAA seems clearly biased to me. How else to explain that they are adjusted the most reliable ocean sensors upward to match intake temps on boats? Completely illogical given the known heat bias on intake systems.

Watts recently did a study of weather stations and after adjusting for heat island and other issues, the pristine weather stations showed less recent cooling than the aggregate compilation of all stations. So I have a lot of trouble with the surface temp proxies which sample a tiny amount of the earth relative to the satellites.

My biggest beef is with people that say the science is settled. It is not. The amount of warming to be expected is not known with any certainty.

 

[NLXSK1]

We also know that there will be an ice age in our future.

If we spent more energy learning how to adapt to a changing planet it would be better for everyone's future.

 

[Fogdog]

Yes, I believe in AGW and am still labeled a denier because I find the lower range of IPCC projections far more likely. I don't share your view that the surface temp records are better than the satellite data. Both have issues to be sure. The recent recast of temp data by NOAA seems clearly biased to me. How else to explain that they are adjusted the most reliable ocean sensors upward to match intake temps on boats? Completely illogical given the known heat bias on intake systems.

Watts recently did a study of weather stations and after adjusting for heat island and other issues, the pristine weather stations showed less recent cooling than the aggregate compilation of all stations. So I have a lot of trouble with the surface temp proxies which sample a tiny amount of the earth relative to the satellites.

My biggest beef is with people that say the science is settled. It is not. The amount of warming to be expected is not known with any certainty.

Interesting point you bring up. I wasn't aware of this specific adjustment that you describe.

I found a paper from a Canadian researcher on this topic: http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf
If you want a detailed explanation of your question regarding the adjustment for earlier temperature data taken using buckets, you will find it there.

Three main methods of sampling water for measuring sea surface temperature were described:
Buckets
Intake water readings
Surface readings of the submerged hull


Use of bucket: A bucket is lowered into ocean, allowed to fill then pulled by rope up to the deck. Temp of water is measured shortly thereafter. This is the oldest method and most subject to errors. Most of these errors cannot be factored out because the error can be either up or down, which causes larger error bars for earlier data. For example thermometer calibration was seen as an issue -- calibration errors can affect the reading upward or downward and so cannot be corrected out of the data set.

The author of the paper found that sampling with a bucked cause an error bias due to cooling once the bucket is brought onto the deck. Wind causes evaporation cooling, especially canvas buckets, which were more commonly used after 1900. Buckets can be wood, canvas or tin. Each affect the reading in a different degree.The bias is between 0.1 and 0.5 degrees C.

From the paper: Bucket temperatures have generally been found to average a few tenths of ◦C cooler than simultaneous intake temperatures in field studies, although with considerable scatter amongst the individual bucket-intake differences (e.g. James and Fox, 1972)

The author also discusses error when measuring the temperature of intake water: From the paper:

Systematic warm error in intake temperatures is also a plausible explanation for negative average bucket-intake differences. For instance, Tabata (1978b, d) found EIT to average 0.3 ± 1.2 ◦C warmer than accurate in situ temperatures on a research vessel, while Brooks (192 found EIT to be overly-warm by 0.7 ◦C on average on an ocean liner. Given the large magnitude of these errors, it is possible that the principal cause of the 0.3 ◦C average intake-bucket difference found by James and Fox (1972) is EIT error rather than bucket cooling.

OK, now I'm confused.

So, you are right. It is a bit dicey what they are doing with surface water temperature readings on ocean going vessels. The bias error is about a half a degree. This is a valid cause for doubt. If by adjusting the data we change our conclusions or greatly change the forecast then I'd be skeptical of these forecasts too.

So, let's look at the data. The figure below show Sea Surface Temp with bias adjustments and error estimates: Prior to 1940 practically all readings were taken using a bucket of one type or another. The conclusion here is that Sea Surface Temperatures are definitely warmer after 1970.

What happens if we don't apply the bias? Sea surface temperatures are summarized below with and without the bias adjustment. The conclusion from this graph is that without the bias adjustment (blue line), we see a greater difference before 1970 and the oceans appear much warmer after 1970.



This was lifted from: ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/amp/mmop/documents/JCOMM-TR/J-TR-13-Marine-Climatology/REV1/joc1171.pdf

The various agencies involved in the decision regarding what to do with historical data decided to adjust the earlier data upward. Without correcting the data, we would conclude that the oceans have warmed much more than if we used corrected data. The adjustment upward appears to be something like 0.5 C. The paper referenced in the link above goes into deadly detail about how they tested this correction. It is important to the overall global surface temperature estimates and so it's reasonable to ask if the bias adjustment is valid. What I see is that the researchers did their due diligence. They compared results from studies on measurement methods, satellite data and computer simulations. They concluded that the correct adjustment to be applied is to adjust earlier data upward.

I can see how anybody looking at this hot mess would not be so sure.

I admit that the scope of this is beyond me. So, I'm going to leave right now and think on this.

 

[Bugeye]

Interesting point you bring up. I wasn't aware of this specific adjustment that you describe.

I found a paper from a Canadian researcher on this topic: http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf
If you want a detailed explanation of your question regarding the adjustment for earlier temperature data taken using buckets, you will find it there.

Three main methods of sampling water for measuring sea surface temperature were described:
Buckets
Intake water readings
Surface readings of the submerged hull


Use of bucket: A bucket is lowered into ocean, allowed to fill then pulled by rope up to the deck. Temp of water is measured shortly thereafter. This is the oldest method and most subject to errors. Most of these errors cannot be factored out because the error can be either up or down, which causes larger error bars for earlier data. For example thermometer calibration was seen as an issue -- calibration errors can affect the reading upward or downward and so cannot be corrected out of the data set.

The author of the paper found that sampling with a bucked cause an error bias due to cooling once the bucket is brought onto the deck. Wind causes evaporation cooling, especially canvas buckets, which were more commonly used after 1900. Buckets can be wood, canvas or tin. Each affect the reading in a different degree.The bias is between 0.1 and 0.5 degrees C.

From the paper: Bucket temperatures have generally been found to average a few tenths of ◦C cooler than simultaneous intake temperatures in field studies, although with considerable scatter amongst the individual bucket-intake differences (e.g. James and Fox, 1972)

The author also discusses error when measuring the temperature of intake water: From the paper:

Systematic warm error in intake temperatures is also a plausible explanation for negative average bucket-intake differences. For instance, Tabata (1978b, d) found EIT to average 0.3 ± 1.2 ◦C warmer than accurate in situ temperatures on a research vessel, while Brooks (192 found EIT to be overly-warm by 0.7 ◦C on average on an ocean liner. Given the large magnitude of these errors, it is possible that the principal cause of the 0.3 ◦C average intake-bucket difference found by James and Fox (1972) is EIT error rather than bucket cooling.

OK, now I'm confused.

So, you are right. It is a bit dicey what they are doing with surface water temperature readings on ocean going vessels. The bias error is about a half a degree. This is a valid cause for doubt. If by adjusting the data we change our conclusions or greatly change the forecast then I'd be skeptical of these forecasts too.

So, let's look at the data. The figure below show Sea Surface Temp with bias adjustments and error estimates: Prior to 1940 practically all readings were taken using a bucket of one type or another. The conclusion here is that Sea Surface Temperatures are definitely warmer after 1970.

What happens if we don't apply the bias? Sea surface temperatures are summarized below with and without the bias adjustment. The conclusion from this graph is that without the bias adjustment (blue line), we see a greater difference before 1970 and the oceans appear much warmer after 1970.

View attachment 3616803

This was lifted from: ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/amp/mmop/documents/JCOMM-TR/J-TR-13-Marine-Climatology/REV1/joc1171.pdf

The various agencies involved in the decision regarding what to do with historical data decided to adjust the earlier data upward. Without correcting the data, we would conclude that the oceans have warmed much more than if we used corrected data. The adjustment upward appears to be something like 0.5 C. The paper referenced in the link above goes into deadly detail about how they tested this correction. It is important to the overall global surface temperature estimates and so it's reasonable to ask if the bias adjustment is valid. What I see is that the researchers did their due diligence. They compared results from studies on measurement methods, satellite data and computer simulations. They concluded that the correct adjustment to be applied is to adjust earlier data upward.

I can see how anybody looking at this hot mess would not be so sure.

I admit that the scope of this is beyond me. So, I'm going to leave right now and think on this.

I think the bucket vs intake is adjusted okay. What I don't understand is why the SST buoys were adjusted upward by NOAA to match intake temps. Additionally, the ARGO floats have been excluded from the data altogether. These may be the most sophisticated measuring devices available. Seems like this was done to hide the hiatus in warming.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, I believe in AGW and am still labeled a denier

gee, i wonder why?

Watts recently did a study of weather stations...

perhaps it is because you quote debunked retarded deniers like watts?

My biggest beef is with people that say the science is settled. It is not.

or maybe it is because you contradict the first thing you said in your incoherent rant with the last thing you say in your incoherent rant, and expect people not to notice?

yeah, you're a dumbass denier alright.