Why 2014 Wasn't the Hottest Year on Record, and How we Knew Before 2015

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Why 2014 Won

In the article, Dr. Roy Spencer talks about why, even in 2014, he knew 2014 couldn't be the hottest year on record.

The clearest point is that all surface temperature data is flawed to some extent due largely to a lack of consistency in monitoring devices globally, as well as monitoring methods. Other factors, such as UHI (urban heat island effect) have also skewered the results to an extent.

I can't really illustrate his point as well, so be sure to read the article if you're interested.

 

[Explorer]

Here's a funny article about a skeptic deciding on the best data to disprove warming.

Climate researcher wins wager with climate sceptic

Late 2009, in the run-up to the international climate conference in Copenhagen, PBL climate researcher Bart Strengers had an online discussion with climate sceptic Hans Labohm on the website of the Dutch news station NOS (in Dutch). This discussion, which was later also published as a PBL report, ended in a wager. Strengers wagered that the mean global temperature over the 2010–2014 period would be higher than the mean over 2000 to 2009. Hans Labohm believed there would be no warming and perhaps even a cooling; for example due to reduced solar activity.

At the request of Labohm, it was decided to use the UAH satellite temperature data set on the lower troposphere (TLT) (roughly the lowest 5 km of the atmosphere). These data sets are compiled by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Satellites are used to measure radiation in the atmosphere, after which the temperature of the various layers of the atmosphere is derived using a complex algorithm.

According to the UAH today, temperatures appear to have been an average 0.1 °C warmer over the past five years than over the 10 years before that. Thus, Strengers has won the wager. The stakes: a good bottle of wine.

So, the skeptic chose what said skeptic believes to be the most accurate data choice ahead of time, and lost the bet.

----

canadianguy, I'm assuming that you have rational reasons for believing your particular expert, instead of the scientific consensus from the majority of climate scientists, just as I have rational reasons.

And if one's reasons are rational, then one can think of possible reasons to change one's mind.

If I had to decide that the majority of those climate scientists were wrong, what evidence would I need?

Among other things, I would need good evidence that the process used by all the independent labs to measure CO2 levels in ice core samples had been in error, and that there was an improved process which gave significantly different numbers which was independently replicated and verified by a consensus of independent researchers. That would cast into doubt the support for the huge amount of CO2 being caused by human activity.

Assuming that you also have rational reasons for believing that the scientific consensus is wrong, here's my question to you:

What evidence would convince you that your expert is wrong, and that the scientific consensus is correct, regarding global warming?

(You really set the bar low. A lot of anthropogenic global warming denialists have already moved the goal posts from the claim that global warming isn't happening, and instead are now arguing about the cause. You need to catch up with the cutting edge of denialism, so you don't repeat the parts which evidence has already forced such denialists to concede. That's the kind of thing which makes the more extreme creationists and Intelligent Design advocates so easy to refute.)

 

[asher]

[citation needed]

I was somewhat expecting it to basically be a denialist piece with a headline sounding like it wants to be a "gotcha!", but I read it anyway.

But I'm pretty sure that you need should really have good data when you're claiming that all the numbers are skewed. That's a thing you can show. Or at least show some other research on, because surely something so seemingly obvious is known and documented.

But we get one graph.

And then a bunch of bunk about "it's not as bad as they're saying, but anyhow it doesn't matter," which is outright false. So color me more than a little skeptical.

Ed:

 

[Explorer]

Asher, I'm really hopeful that we'll get an intelligent and well-reasoned response on what evidence would be sufficient for ThatCanadianGuy.

It will be so disappointing if it's just universal conspiracy nonsense.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I didn't read your entire post, because I've read others you've wrote, and they really don't hold any merit to me anymore.

Research the actual consensus, and I'm sure you'd be surprised to find yourself in the minority.

And what proof would I need? I've seen the evidence that CO2 changes global temperature. I'm convinced of that, as I'm sure we all are. I've seen the evidence that climate changes rather frequently, to the point where it has never truly been a constant, and I'm practically certain of that. I've also seen evidence supporting the hypothesis that our involvement in nature will kill us all, as well as the evidence that it won't. The evidence that the human race will come to an end is underwhelming not only to me, but to the vast majority of climate scientists.

TLR?

Is the earth warming up? Probably.
Is the earth going to cool back down? Absolutely.
Is it going to wipe us off of the face of the earth? A heat wave won't. Flooding won't. An ice age might do it though, as we are a weaker species that we used to be.
Am I the crazy one for thinking the earth isn't going to just melt and cause everything that's grown on a planet that's dealt with much bigger problems than us to just vanish? Absofruitley, amigos. I'll just sit here with a banjo, picking the rest of the time the earth has left away while the "sane" people spend billions of your (and my) dollars on things they hope will help a problem we don't actually know exists.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I honestly welcome you all to research it. I hate seeing politics get in the way of science.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w

 

[Explorer]

Actually, I'm asking: What evidence it would take for you to convince you that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is correct?

If your argument is that there is no scientific consensus: What evidence would it take for you change your mind, and decide that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

There is no consensus. That's what you don't seem to get. There's no "over 90%" either. Dr. Roy Spencer, the head scientist on the instrumentation used to measure global atmospheric temperature (the stuff that matters) found one of his papers, which claimed CO2 is a greenhouse gas (a scientific fact, only three percent of scientific papers dispute this, which is the three percent that CORRECTLY corresponds to this consensus everyone is claiming) in that jumble of 97%. It's a misrepresentation of the facts, and scientific blasphemy. If you didn't notice, Dr. Roy Spencer and his findings don't correspond with AGW or as I like to call it "The Doomsday Hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming".

 

[Explorer]

There is no consensus. That's what you don't seem to get. There's no "over 90%" either.

I get that you're saying there is no scientific consensus.

What evidence would it take for you change your mind, and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Show me actual evidence that water vapour warms up the atmosphere to the extent that it produces more water vapour and heats up the earth, exponentially increasing the greenhouse effect and dooming us all. Don't show me a climate model, show me evidence. Then, will I believe you.

 

[Explorer]

You're saying that the only convincing proof for you, about how CO2 released by human activity is causing a global warming, would be proof of a water vapor mechanism?

*sigh*

I'm trying to get at the rational basis (if any) of your denial of AGW. So, let me again start smaller, with what I hope is a rational basis for saying there is no scientific consensus among climate scientists. That seems to be a fairly straightforward claim which you've advanced.
I'm curious as to your claim that there is not scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and agreement by the majority (more than 90%) of climate scientists.

That's a claim about facts.

And the facts are about what the majority of climate scientists have concluded.

I'm curious about the rejection of the published statements of those scientists, and their conclusions about AGW, as well as rejection of they themselves affirming that they are part of that consensus.

What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

This is funny now. It's pretty common knowledge that CO2 isn't what's believed to be the actual problem. The climate models predict that the real problem is CO2 driving a heating system that evaporates water (water vapour is, by definition, a greenhouse gas) and heats up the earth more, evaporating more water, so on and so forth. The problem is that the water vapour is forming clouds, which are reflecting the sun's energy back into space, cooling the earth.

If you don't understand the theory, why are you arguing it?

 

[ferret]

He's not arguing about the theory. He's arguing what will it take to convince you that there is a consensus?

There's clearly a consensus, even if you believe they're wrong, but you keep saying there isn't a consensus at all.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

He's not arguing about the theory. He's arguing what will it take to convince you that there is a consensus?

There's clearly a consensus, even if you believe they're wrong, but you keep saying there isn't a consensus at all.

There is no consensus, a point I already alluded to. The numbers were skewered to falsify a point. In fact, the majority of climate scientists are skeptics.

I also stated exactly what evidence it would take for me to concede my point.

EDIT: And why are we arguing how many people think one way and not the theory? That's rather absurd for a conversation that's supposed to be about science.

 

[Explorer]

I understand that you deny there is a consensus.

What evidence would it take for you change your mind about what you claim (a lack of scientific consensus among climate scientists), and convince you that the majority of climate scientists (more than 90%) agree?

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

So what are we calling this now? Still "climate change" or have they gone back to global warming or cooling?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Straw man argument. Don't come at me with any more logical fallacies, or I'll go through all of your posts and list them one by one.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

So what are we calling this now? Still "climate change" or have they gone back to global warming or cooling?

It's just climate change. It's neither inherently bad, or good. It just is. Haha.