Pope Francis' upcoming climate change encyclical 'Laudato Sii' (Praised Be)

[styrgwillidar]

dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/

“Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.”

…

"Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study.

The study was highly criticized for inflating the temperature record since the late 1990s to show vastly more global warming than was shown in older data. The warming “hiatus” was eliminated and the warming trend over the period was more than doubled.

“There’s been so much criticism of NOAA’s alteration of the sea surface temperature that we are really just going to have to use the University of East Anglia data,” Pat Michaels, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I don’t think that’s going to stand the test of time,” Michaels said of NOAA’s recent adjustments.

But what Michaels and others say is more problematic is the growing divergence between NOAA’s new temperature data versus satellite data and records from the UK Met Office. NOAA’s data shows significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records.

“It’s a major problem because outside of the north polar region, the upper troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface,” Michaels said.

“Pretty much every projection made by our climate models for sensible weather is simply not at all trustworthy,” Michaels said."

 

[lynnvinc]

dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/

“Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.”

That data is from the atmosphere and I think mixes in measurements somewhat higher up above the GHG area where the GH effect is actually expected to make the atmosphere cooler.

It’s corrupted, bogus data.

Need to also include ground level temps and sea temps, including deeper ocean temps – then you will see a distinct increase in temps and no “hiatus.”

Best not to fall for junk science.

 

[Theo520]

The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is hardly ‘junk science’
The measurement technology has proven very precise and comprehensive, something we lack with ground measurement. If it was junk, NASA would stop launching them.

That data is from the atmosphere and I think mixes in measurements somewhat higher up above the GHG area where the GH effect is actually expected to make the atmosphere cooler.

It’s corrupted, bogus data.

Need to also include ground level temps and sea temps, including deeper ocean temps – then you will see a distinct increase in temps and no “hiatus.”

Best not to fall for junk science.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is hardly ‘junk science’
The measurement technology has proven very precise and comprehensive, something we lack with ground measurement. If it was junk, NASA would stop launching them.

I think the “junk” Lynn was referring to was the application of this data to your favorite interpretation of the global warming observations. Finding the temperature lower in areas where global warming theory predicts they should be lower is no mark against global warming, but rather a mark in its favor.

 

[lynnvinc]

The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is hardly ‘junk science’
The measurement technology has proven very precise and comprehensive, something we lack with ground measurement. If it was junk, NASA would stop launching them.

Better watch out for those slight of hand tricks of mixing higher altitude data (which is expected to get cooler with the enhanced GH effect) with legit data a lower altitudes – that’s that issue, not whether the data are accurate or precise. Spencer & Christy are well-known for such tricks.

When teaching methodology we talk about precision, reliability, and validity. Just because a lady tells you she is 39 years old with precision, doesn’t mean it’s valid.

Just because you have an expensive watch that keeps precise time to the nano-second doesn’t mean it is valid time – if you forgot to set you watch ahead one hour on a flight from Houston to NY.

 

[Theo520]

I think the “junk” Lynn was referring to was the application of this data to your favorite interpretation of the global warming observations. Finding the temperature lower in areas where global warming theory predicts they should be lower is no mark against global warming, but rather a mark in its favor.

So you too are saying RSS dataset is not reliable as a temp dataset for monitoring global temps?

I just want to be clear so I respond correctly. styrgwillidar was talking about RSS measurement for this purpose.

 

[lynnvinc]

So you too are saying RSS dataset is not reliable as a temp dataset for monitoring global temps?

I just want to be clear so I respond correctly. styrgwillidar was talking about RSS measurement for this purpose.

styrgwillidar was talking about a “dailycaller” (probably purposely misunderstood and twisted) article – not directly a scientific article from a scientific journal.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you too are saying RSS dataset is not reliable as a temp dataset for monitoring global temps?

I just want to be clear so I respond correctly. styrgwillidar was talking about RSS measurement for this purpose.

What Lynn said in her previous posting.

 

[estesbob]

Better watch out for those slight of hand tricks of mixing higher altitude data (which is expected to get cooler with the enhanced GH effect) with legit data a lower altitudes – that’s that issue, not whether the data are accurate or precise. Spencer & Christy are well-known for such tricks.

When teaching methodology we talk about precision, reliability, and validity. Just because a lady tells you she is 39 years old with precision, doesn’t mean it’s valid.

Just because you have an expensive watch that keeps precise time to the nano-second doesn’t mean it is valid time – if you forgot to set you watch ahead one hour on a flight from Houston to NY.

Oh my! Surely you are not under the impression that satellites measure temperature only in the upper altitudes???

 

[Theo520]

styrgwillidar was talking about a “dailycaller” (probably purposely misunderstood and twisted) article – not directly a scientific article from a scientific journal.

Regardless of his source, he was talking about the global temp dataset from satellites, which you ridiculed with innuendo but not facts.

FYI, satellite measurement is accurate and 100% supports the theory of AGW, but not the degree of warming in the models. I’ve highlighted the interesting bits from their site.

TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE

There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

• Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as (name removed by moderator)ut to the model simulation.
• The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But…

• The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

 

[sps49]

Pope Francis has spoken on the matter, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences backs his views.

The NAS conducted a review of multiple studies and data sets and confirms AGW.

An independent study supported by skeptics also confirms the consensus.

NASA refers to three other studies plus multiple science organizations that confirm AGW.

The U.S. military, the Pentagon, various multinational banks, insurers, and private corporations, organizations like the IEA, and even former officials of previous Republican administrations also support the scientific consensus concerning AGW.

Simply firing unspecified NAS studies, or independent an unspecified study, or unspecified studies NASA allegedly referenced, or unspecified consensus like short rounds from your argument canon will not help your argument. Once you actually start reading the entire papers, you will see that the uncertainties, assumptions and methods are not anything like the sound bytes of the abstracts you are fed from the media sources.

 

[sps49]

Facts?

The planet’s oceans and glaciers have experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So, can you please assign an attribution value to each of those “facts” that clearly and unambiguously proves that these are the result of AGW and not natural variations? That is what the current analysis problem is.

 

[sps49]

The Pope’s encyclical is on the dot re climate change.

See noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/071615-international-report-confirms-2014-was-earths-warmest-year-on-record.html

And for the pdf report: www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/state-of-climate-in-2014/

Pope Francis is so smart and knowledgeable, and compassionate. One of the few true Christians of our time.

Awesome. Now a claim to know who is a true Christian; can you even hear yourself?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Awesome. Now a claim to know who is a true Christian; can you even hear yourself?

One would not think it would be a controversial statement to call the pope a Christian.

 

[sps49]

styrgwillidar was talking about a “dailycaller” (probably purposely misunderstood and twisted) article – not directly a scientific article from a scientific journal.

The question was not what styrgwillidar was talking about, but your claims about the RSS product. I noticed that you are slowly walking back from “bogus” to “slight of hand” to now making a subjective judgement about analysis methodology. A magnificent tour de force demonstrating how to make a solid scientific/technical argument, not.

 

[sps49]

One would not think it would be a controversial statement to call the pope a Christian.

One would also think that unless you knew the heart of another man you could not possible know if he were a “true Christian.” Don’t you wonder how lynnvinc got the “true Christian” list?

 

[estesbob]

One would also think that unless you knew the heart of another man you could not possible know if he were a “true Christian.” Don’t you wonder how lynnvinc got the “true Christian” list?

I think it has the same definition of “true” scientist-that is anyone who believes in AGW.

 

[Theo520]

One would also think that unless you knew the heart of another man you could not possible know if he were a “true Christian.” Don’t you wonder how lynnvinc got the “true Christian” list?

LOL, Anyone who is not on their “climate denier” list is eligible for the “true Christian” list.

Now try get a rational definition for “climate denier”

 

[lynnvinc]

Awesome. Now a claim to know who is a true Christian; can you even hear yourself?

I’m no saint myself. So when I say Pope Francis is a true Christian, I’m putting him way above myself.

I think there may be some 3% of Christians who are truly saintly and “true Christians.” The rest I think are bad.

I remember telling my husband that, and he said, what about our neighbors, the Olsens (an elderly couple), and I said, yes, they would be in that 3% of good people. He then said, maybe the Olsens consider us in that 97% bad category.

I said, oh no, they are much too good to think of other people as being bad.

I guess the issue is that simply doing the EC (environmentally correct) things does not make a person a good person or a true Christian. There would have to be consistency in all parts of their lives, in their thoughts and deeds, in their acknowledgement that all their good is actually God’s grace and not from themselves.

And since I go around knocking AGW denialists in a rude manner, that pretty much puts me in the bad category, that and a number of other short-comings.

However, it seems to me that refusing to do the needful to reduce one’s harms to others, denying one is harming others (even when information is presented to that person, such as thru a papal encyclical), and putting forth tremendous efforts to dissuade others from doing right (or accepting that encyclical) pretty much disqualifies those persons from being in the running for that 3% good category. But, hey, maybe I’m wrong and you’re right!

 

[lynnvinc]

The question was not what styrgwillidar was talking about, but your claims about the RSS product. I noticed that you are slowly walking back from “bogus” to “slight of hand” to now making a subjective judgement about analysis methodology. A magnificent tour de force demonstrating how to make a solid scientific/technical argument, not.

Again, any technique might be extremely precise and reliable, but that doesn’t make its results automatically valid.

I’ve read there are problems with RSS and UAH and their results need to be adjusted to make them valid.

Furthermore, there are many other sources of data re AGW, not just the satellites, and all of them robustly converge into one conclusion – AGW is real and is happening (tho maybe not a quickly and strictly increasing as the denialists seeking ever-increasing hotter weather would wish).