Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

[Guest]

 

 

You folks? I'm not Republican. I'm largely apolitical. It's obvious that you rolled through here with a preconceived idea of who I am and what this is about and jumped to many assumptions. Climate denial is a broad term. There's no denying climate change, obviously. There is however denying claims of man made climate change that have fallen short through out the entire life of the movement, and the dramatic impacts and projections that have been claimed. There's fowl play going on in the manipulation of data to try and save face aspect of all of this. 

 

When you read a sensational headline that warming is 140% higher, guess what? 

 

Big red flag. 

 

Dig deeper into the claim and it's methodology, surprise everyone!

 

Peer review showing the claims as "spurious." 

 

That's why these "spurious" claims are so apologetic in scope in depth. 

Call yourself apolitical, but you're drawing from the same sources they are, and is the apparatus behind which climate change denial is spread.  Climate denial loosely means rejection of anthropogenic climate change which is the consensus position within the field, sorry, that's a fact.  

 

Here is the actual study, and how did we have peer review already when this was published in late June of this year?  Wondering where you are getting more information on the methodology and also that the claims are "spurious."  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

 

If a detective compares stories of a possible crime, and the stories don't line up, with the visible and measurable facts, the story given said detective is not deemed credible.  That is how I see it.  Either they GW proponents are telling the truth or they are not.  There is no such thing as "CONSENSUS" in science.  Either it is right or it is wrong.  It does not matter if all the scientists in the world agree on something, but the one who has it right proves it, the rest are still wrong.  If I cannot see the water rise on that beach, next to that old fort that has been there over 170 years with consistent use and there has been no change, sorry, I don't buy it. I have been hearing some form of 'Sky is falling' narrative the GW segment, yet I have seen NO EVIDENCE, and not just me, but other scientists.  Are those scientists who don't buy it wrong?  I could post many more, and several are members of the IPCC if you like?  

 

I was not arguing the truthfulness of the proposition, I was arguing your method for determining that truthfulness. You are conflating the two.

 

Like BAA I am pointing out that REGARDLESS of what position you or I hold, either of us eyeballing the local landmark and declaring our position on the matter based on that one data point is using fallacious reasoning to come to the conclusion. I don't have a problem with your position, I have a problem with your primary source of data being your eyes and memory. You would have had to remember where the level was 30 years ago using visual reference, then measure it today with your eyes and rely on memory for comparison. That is not reliable in the slightest. You are then using any negative report from any source to backup your eyeball conclusion.

 

Now here are some generally accepted facts:

 

1) The planet is warming, has been for some 9-11,000 years

2) Sea level has been rising over the same period

 

Both 1 and 2 of course are the general trend and have ups and downs.

 

The question then is not what is happening, but what is causing it, and is man having an impact over the natural rate?

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

The problem is that the elevation is VERY low.  Any difference would be very noticable.  That fort has a wall that is fairly close to the water, if you actually see it, you would understand.  

 

Do you mean the slope of the land is shallow? I'm not sure how elevation has any bearing on it?

 

If you are saying the slope is shallow then you would be implying that x rise in sea level should result in water covering a lot of the land in from he beach, as opposed to a steep slope where the rise might only result in a small creep inland?

 

However, I think this line of thinking also implies that an x rise in location A should also result in an x rise in location B which is not the case per what information BAA has provided.

 

Bornagainatheist Says:

"

The difference between 107 and 85.4 is 192.4.

Converting meters to feet yields a result of 631.23 feet.  That's the maximum oceanic height difference in the world.  So, against common sense and contrary to what we might expect, water on the Earth's surface doesn't seek a common global sea level.  Instead, variations in our planet's gravity field raise and lower the oceans hundreds of feet, relative to each other.  

 

Which is another reason why measuring everything in the world from what you can see with your own eyes at Fort Pickens is dead wrong, BO.  "

 

BAA also points out that land itself can rise (There are areas that over the last 50 years you can see this happening) so if you can't tell the rate at which the land may be rising, along with the sea level then your eyeballing is pointless.

 

However I note in your reply to BAA that you "don't trust the models" which seems to be your go to whenever someone provides a source that goes against what you think. You simply say you "don't trust the source" rather than discussing the issues raised.

 

But we've been here before haven't we?

[LogicalFallacy]

Nice.

 

Now here are some articles on predicted rise in your area for both high and low estimates. Note they don't show equal effects around the area - some areas, even locally may be worse affect than others, and certain areas won't even notice effects of sea level rise.

 

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/FL Climate.pdf

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/1/1198375/-Florida-Rising-Sea-Level-Floods-Road-to-National-Park

 

Also, if you went from current to 1 foot rise overnight, then yes you'd expect to see a dramatic difference. But we are talking in the realms of 1/2 foot to 1 1/2 feet by 2080... you won't notice real effects for decades.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Basic fluid dynamics.  If you pump enough new water on top of old water, it is going to rise.  Yes, you do have some gravitational and other anomolies, but if the volume increases, it will rise no matter where it is.  The rest comes off as an excuse for not matching past predictions. 

 

Basic fluid dynamics yields to basic math.

The sea level height difference due to gravitational variation is 630 feet.  The equatorial diameter of the Earth in feet is 41,850,758.  Divide the larger number by the smaller and that will tell you the average.  That is what you're claiming you're eyeballing BO, not allowing for regional variations.  What's the answer?  In feet and inches please.

 

Please note that you and I are only discussing your ability to eyeball gravitational variations in sea level height.  Nothing else.

 

The answer?

[pantheory]

 

 

 

 

Nice.  It is great to listen to multiple sides of a science issue, especially when it is available from a respectable source. Prevailing theory, by its zealous promotion, is often a disservice to science by squashing other points of view, alternative ideas and hypothesis, not considering other possibilities, dismissing contradictions without consideration, mainstream publishers dismissing out-of-hand papers reaching alternative conclusions, etc. 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

99% of that whole island is no more than 1 yard/1 meter above sea level. There are a FEW sand dunes that may go to about 5 feet/1.6 meters above sea level.  Any rise in sea level, even a slight one will be VERY noticeable.  

 

So during a major storm or hurricane it is completely swamped and changes it character?

[bornagainathiest]

 

I see what you saying but it still does not change basic fluid dynamics.   The water level has gravitational anomalies.  I already acknowledged that.   BUT,  if you stack new water on top old water it STILL WILL GET HIGHER. Irregularities included, all being relative,  they would all get higher. There is also margin for error in measurement.  What you are trying to allude to falls in that range.   SO FUCKING WHAT?  When you get something that is outside the margin for error and affects people in any real way,  then wake me because it is nothing more than a statistically insignificant academic exercise that doesn't amount to diddly shit. It is like a business deal amounting to millions of dollars and you are bickering over a penny.   

 

So will you please concede that it's not possible for you or anyone to eyeball gravitational variations in sea level, either from where you are or from any location on Earth?

 

That this needs to be precisely measured by instruments?

 

And that measurements taken in just one location are meaningless?

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

NO!  I don't buy what is being said.  The ONLY thing I base anything that is said is if I can see corresponding physical confirmation.  That comes with observation.  Have you ever considered that the water level may be mostly the same but the measurements may be slightly off due to outside factors, equipment issues, weather anomolies, etc.?  Many of those bouays that are used, hell, they get barnacles all over them and the weight of those barnacles can weigh down the device and cause the readings to be off.  Again, MARGIN FOR ERROR.  

 

Then you are committing the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

You seem to want your observations to be taken as special, when they cannot be.

 

Either you conform to the same standards as everyone else doing science or you treat yourself as special.

 

Which is it?

[Joshpantera]

 

Call yourself apolitical, but you're drawing from the same sources they are, and is the apparatus behind which climate change denial is spread.  Climate denial loosely means rejection of anthropogenic climate change which is the consensus position within the field, sorry, that's a fact.  

 

Here is the actual study, and how did we have peer review already when this was published in late June of this year?  Wondering where you are getting more information on the methodology and also that the claims are "spurious."  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

 

I had addressed the issue with an article in post # 9

 

Here's some linkage to counter arguments: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22720-global-warming-satellite-data-gets-suspicious-makeover

 

   

 

In his conclusion, Spencer said the evidence suggests that the latest RSS data set has “spurious warming” due to a lack of correction for calibration drift in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument, which gathers data from a satellite. “Somewhat smaller increases in their warming trend are due to their use of a climate model for diurnal [daily] drift adjustment, compared to our use of an empirical approach that relies upon observed diurnal drift from the satellite data themselves,” he added. “While the difference in diurnal drift correction methodology is a more legitimate point of contention, in the final analysis independent validation with radiosonde data [from weather balloons] and most reanalysis data sets suggest better agreement with the UAH product than the RSS product.”

Speaking to meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs one of the world's leading websites focused on climate science, Spencer was even more blunt about the problems. “So, it looks like they [RSS] decided to force good data to match bad data,” he said. “Sound familiar?” Watts responded by saying, “Yes, yes it does.” Considering the fact that there “aren't many satellite temperature data experts in the world,” Watts also asked Spencer at UAH whether he or Dr. Christy, also a climatologist at UAH, had been asked to review the paper by RSS' scientists “finding” the spurious warming. Spencer said that Christy reviewed the original one and requested more evidence, but the paper was ultimately rejected anyway. Eventually the RSS scientists submitted the claims to another journal “and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers,” Spencer noted.

 

Watts also tore into the latest adjustments, lambasting what he called the “Karlization” of temperature data — a term named after National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl, currently under congressional scrutiny, who was called out even by fellow warmists for trying to make the past seem colder so the present would seem warmer. “It seems to me based on his recent comments that Dr. Mears has gotten fed up with people using his RSS data set to suggest that the world isn’t warming as he expects it should,” Watts said about the recent adjustments to RSS data. “Taking a cue from the other Karl, he publishes a paper and claims that new and improved adjustments have 'found' that missing warming.”

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

And you are committing the fallacy fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy and the fallacy of appeal to consensus and appeal to authority. 

 

You are trying to ignore the margin for error.  Is it not valid?  Admit that the margin for error does exist.  

 

My appeal is not to a consensus of opinion or to authority, but to a methodology (science) that works.

 

I am not ignoring the margin for error because taking such margins into account is an established part of the scientific methodology.

 

Your link fails to say anything about the fallacy fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

So do you want your observations to be taken as special or will you conform to the proper scientific methodology, BO?

[bornagainathiest]

As a further reminder BO, the only issue between us is how you make your observations.

 

That is all.

 

Do you follow the proper scientific methodology or not?

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

It would be better if you put up material by a climate scientist rather than a physicist - his nobel prize was to do with work on superconductors, not the earths climate.

 

By stating that "this nobel prize fellow says xyz" is in my opinion appeal to authority. While he might be very smart in his field, that does not make him qualified to speak about the climate. Much like a Surgeon is not qualified how to tell you about the electrical grid.

 

This fellow - Ivar Giaever - is a science adviser to the Heartland Institute, who among other things have worked to protect the tobacco industry by denying the risk of smoking.

 

The Heartland Institute doesn't argue on what is right or wrong, but works to protect big corporations and the almighty dollar.

 

And you don't trust NASA, but you trust these guys who are fed from big corporations? 

 

 

Sorry BO, but I check out sources and see if they are reliable - you and I seem to differ greatly on the definition of "reliable"

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

IF you trust NASA and NOAA, I don't, what makes them any better than Heartland?  Oh...forgot, they are governent, that makes them sacred...forgot.  

 

They have a better record for being right that Heartland.

 

You do realize that NOAA and NASA are are not the only organisations saying the climate is warming right? Like... there are others, all over the world. It's just the Americans as usual have the biggest, best, loudest and best funded organisations so they tend to get referenced a lot.

 

Back to  Ivar's actual arguments, he seems to be wanting perfect correlation, which no scientist says happens - it's a strawman much like the question "what is the optimal climate?" We don't know, but we do know that too much increase results in ice melt, results in sea rise, results in problems for humanity.

 

At 10:22 he state the temperature has not increased, indicating  the graph provided. However even with that graph you can see the temperature trend has increased - there are higher highs and lower lows indicating an upwards trend.

 

He is right about one thing - right at the end he says that "things are not sustainable" I think he's referring to the current trends in pollution, using up natural resources etc, and in that he's dead correct.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Why should I trust YOUR sources?  I have shown you sources who are not funded by any groups deemed political, hint...Dr. John Christy.  Even left his contact info, but you never complain about him.  I am not even saying he is right, but just that what he has said lines up with what I see.  Why are you ignoring him? And are you saying the government sources NEVER lie?  

 

I am not saying you should trust my sources, though my personal opinion is that they are more reliable than other sources.

 

No, Governments lie all the time.... how do you know a politician is lying?.... their lips are moving!

 

BO, I am not ignoring sources, nor am I unaware of questions that are raised. 

 

I actually agree with the position that is stated in the thumbnail of that vid you first posted - hopefully its what you see. It states the agreements - so climate warming, CO2 produced by humans, co2 contributes to warming, then the disagreements how much, if any effect does man have, is it dangerous, can the current warming cycle actually be stopped? So I basically agree with all that.

 

Now I read somewhere that we are nearing a solar minimum - which is basically the sun is having its least influence on temperature for a while. But following a minimum will come a maximum and that could heat things up faster... just a point of interest there. 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

I am sure he will be amazed at your wide knowledge of the subject he knows intimately:  

 

Yeah... I might tell him I'm measuring the temperature using my body thermometer and ask if its scientific

 

... I might mention eyeballing the ocean as well.

 

 

While you're at it, here is a list of his PEER REVIEWED publications for your perusal.  I am sure you will find an excuse to find fault with them.  

 

I'm going to channel you at this stage and just state I don't trust your sources. Now I don't have to bother dealing with the actual arguments raised

 

Ok that's enough for one day mate, I'm off. Shall I post some counter videos to yours next time?  

[LogicalFallacy]

Hey, I was just on another site researching sea level rise, trying to find out if the sea rises at the same rate over the globe.

 

BAA has mentioned the mean sea level is different, but what about rise? 

 

Well this graph is interesting - it shows from 1993 to 2008 that some areas have increased in height, while some areas have decreased... and some haven't changed, including your area BO which could be the reason for your eyeballing problem. The sea level at Fort Pickens doesn't appear to have risen because..... *Trumpets* *Fanfare*... it hasn't! Problem solved... meanwhile in Australasia.....

 

 

 

The skeptic in me asks what the margin of error is in these readings... if you have a +/- 10cm then these readings mean nothing.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

If the methodology produces stats that are not matching the live issue, in this case the REAL WATER LEVEL, then the methodology is flawed.  I don't care what it say, if it does not match what I am seeing, then I trust my eyes.  As for the fallacy fallacy, is, in short, just because you disagree with something you call it a fallacy.  

 

Additionally, those people who CLAIM the figures state the water level is rising, if it comes from NASA and NOAA, they have been caught red handed fudging data. 

 

I am not addressing what anyone else says about the water levels.

 

What you say about them, your observations and the conclusions you make are what I'm addressing.

 

If you place your observations and conclusions about them, made from just one location, above that of global measurements then you are treating your observations and conclusions as special.

 

Whereas, everyone else who conforms to a common standard (the scientific methodology) is not treating their measurements and conclusions as special.

 

So long as you treat yourself, your observations and your conclusions as special you are committing the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

 

Description: 

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

If the SO-CALLED "Proper scientific methodology" is not representing the actual fact before my naked eye, then it is not "Proper" even if it is presented as such.  There is a blatant misrepresentation or in other words, PROPAGANDA. 

 

Special pleading.

[bornagainathiest]

Once again I would like to clarify my position, presence and purpose in this thread.

 

MY POSITION

I do not do politics and I am a-political.

I do not do have a position, one way or another, on the issue of global warming. 

I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about global warming.

When it comes to global warming... 

...I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about any governments, any govt agencies or any govt policies.

...I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about any private organizations, their agencies or their policies.

...I will not comment on or respond to any opinions, quotations, citations, videos, images or stats about any conspiracy theories. 

 

MY PRESENCE

My current presence in this thread stems from this post and those that have resulted from it.

Posted Sunday at 05:57 PM by BurnedOut

I have still seen no water rise on the island I mentioned in posts past where Fort Pickens, near Pensacola FL is.  How do I know what is said vs what I have seen is pure bullshit? 

 

MY PURPOSE

My purpose in this thread is solely to challenge BurnedOut on his claimed ability to draw meaningful conclusions about global sea levels from what he observes at just one location.

There is nothing personal, unusual or atypical about how or why I am making this challenge. 

In the Lions Den I've challenged the Stranger and OrdinaryClay about their claims to draw meaningful, across-the-board conclusions, based on what only they themselves observe.

If any other member were making these claims I'd be doing the same or similar.

If this thread were about any other worldwide phenomenon and any other member claimed to be able to draw meaningful conclusions about it only from what they observe from just one location, I'd be challenging them in the same or a similar way.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

I will make my point as succinctly and concise as I can:

 

1. I do not trust government sources as the main ones in the area being discussed here because they have been caught lying on their websites.

 

2.  If I do not trust them, then the only other source I can trust are my own 5 senses even though they are not 100% perfect.  

 

3.  Any other source I might throw out there is not 100% perfect either so any sources I look at that do not match my 5 senses, I disregard.  

 

If people cannot accept that, they can eat shit. If you insist that I trust government sources then the only thing I can conclude is that you are blindly trust them and are either misguided, or have trust that is misplaced.  

 

Re: # 2. 

 

BO, You take what your senses tell you at one specific location and then use that area-specific information to make world-wide conclusions.

 

As I made clear in my earlier post, nothing to do with governments, websites, conspiracies or anything else.

 

Just you, what you observe in one place and the global conclusions you draw from one, isolated data set.

 

Got it now?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But what do you want me to trust?  Why should I trust it?

 

I'm not asking you to trust anything.

 

I'm simply challenging you on your ability to extrapolate from the local to the global.

 

My challenge is just that and no more.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

You are trying to do that in a vaccum.  Our reality does not exist in a vaccum. When the publications that say something is or is not have lied in the past, then what can you trust?  All you have is your 5 senses.  Dat simple.

 

I agree.

 

Now apply that to yourself and your observations at Fort Pickens.

 

When you are there, can your eyes tell you anything meaningful about the sea level in Antarctica?

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

It doesn't, but, if I don't see water level rise, and if what I am being told in the media, which is where most OPs on the subject on here come from and those supposedly come from government sources, then I don't buy it.  That simple.  

 

Once again I must remind you that my challenge has nothing to do with the media or any other source.

 

My challenge is only about what your senses can tell from just one location and how you use that local information to draw worldwide conclusions.

 

Now, please answer my question.  Here it is again. 

.

.

.

 

When you are at Fort Pickens, can your eyes tell you anything meaningful about the sea level in Antarctica?