Okay, what's the deal with the Global Surface Temperature - HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.

Where Australia's electricity comes from

This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.

Okay, what's the deal with the Global Surface Temperature

I've had a chance to spend a little time with Bates' text from Curry's blog, nastly little bugger that guy is.  Don't know yet, but I suspect he hasn't walked back a damned thing to his little tribe.  His words are very calculated and I get the feeling much thought has gone into his revenge plot.  Not to mention the predators who are his new adoring friends and I'll bet full of encouragement and advice.

It amazes me, all the diversion over basically irrelevant stuff in comparison to the greater issue involve.  

But okay enough bitching, lets get down to my business.  Someone please help me out on this.


Doing some homework I saw John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart.  I read Hawkins article at ClimateLabBook
I was happy to read the following quote, but it still seemed way too timid to make a meaningful impact to the layperson's frame of reference.
Firstly, climate scientists agree that global warming has not ‘stopped’ –
global surface temperatures and ocean heat content have continued to increase, sea levels are still rising,
and the planet is retaining ~0.5 days of the sun’s incoming energy per year.
 
On the one hand its a great improvement from others, still why not explain in a more complete and meaningful way.
Firstly, climate scientists agree that global warming has not ‘stopped’ – 
global surface temperatures and ocean heat content have continued to increase,
     {the tempo of cryosphere melting and sea level rise also continues increasing.

     Because of our atmosphere's insulating greenhouse gases} 
the planet is retaining ~0.5 days of the sun’s incoming energy per year.

     {As greenhouse gases continues increasing, so too will the amount of heat being retained by our planet.
What we are discussing is tracking the heat moving within the climate system, including the oceans (reservoir of ~90% of the heat}.

~~~~~~~~~
But beyond that and this is why I'm really posting this.  
My understanding is that these Surface Temperature claims are made on data sets that exclude the polar regions.  

But I rarely hear that mentioned.  Hawkins doesn't.
Why does that not get stressed?


Am I mistaken about that fact?


Any clarification would be appreciated.

PG_Antioch

Comments

  • There's another thing I'm wondering about Bates writes;
    I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisitionproduction, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs)

    I did find this, but couldn't find more.

    http://hr.commerce.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@cfoasa/@ohrm/documents/content/prod01_010464.pdf
    Page 31
    John Bates, Jeff Privette, Walter Glance, Nancy Ritchey, Ken Knapp, Drew Saunders, Thomas Karl, Michael Tanner
    National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]

    The group is recognized for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe Earth’s changing environment. The nominees established a new paradigm for research-to-operations with an open and transparent standard that preserves the data and scienti c skill needed to operationally produce CDRs in the future. The group secured key climate decision-making assets in perpetuity for the Nation, which can now be freely capitalized on by industry, government, and the public.

    I'm assuming Bates was lead on that.

    If anyone can suggest where to find out more about his team and how important their work is.

    How do their guidelines fit into the scheme of older data archiving protocols?  What does it change, how is improvement is it?  or not?  

    What if anything does it have to do with data accuracy?

    It seems there's a bit of controversy amongst scientists - would love to find out more about it.  Any suggested reading for this non-scientist playing eternal catch up would be much appreciated.    =)

  • Bates writes: "I was dumbstruck that Tom Karl, the NCEI Director in charge of NOAA’s climate data archive, would not follow the policy of his own Agency nor the guidelines in Science magazine for dataset archival and documentation."

    But when I read http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00015.1 about Bates' protocol it seems like it's about big reference datasets.  This impression is reinforced by the two examples Bates uses for  how Karl15 should have been archived.

    "NOAA Climate Data Record (CDR) of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), NRLTSI Version 2" and "Mean Layer Temperature - RSS". Those are big time reference data set that lots of people turn to.  Karl 15 on the other hand was a study that processed data for the sake of their study and the questions they were pursuing.  Furthermore the data was available, so where's the beef?

    Seems like two very different animals.  Anyone have any clarifying thoughts to share?

    How much extra work is involved in following Bates' protocol?


    VictorVenema
  • I think you're right there, CC, about the archiving process. I've been told (by an NOAA person) that my take on it was pretty spot on, particularly about the length of time it would take to publish any research if they had to wait to go through John Bates' process. (Also the observations about John Bates himself.) It's not practical or desirable to hold up publication of important climate research for seven years.
  • It's mostly personal with Bates, but of course deniers have latched onto him like he's some sort of savior/saviour for their cause. Ultimately it's all nonsense, since Hausfather et al's independent analysis showed that the Karl-15 NOAA revisions were absolutely right.
  • edited March 1
    Unfortunately they got Fyfe 2016 et al.  Mention of that gold mind worth of tidbits to misinterpret and misrepresent seems to be popping up in the most unexpected places.

    And tragically the bottom line, no matter what anyone tries explaining, nothing soaks in.

    I've got my new analogy - Trying to get through to the GOP is tougher than trying to reason with a three year old, its more like trying to hold a dialogue with a profoundly autistic child.

  • That is because the did not arrive at his position by reason. The position of a GOP politician is the one of his donors. Because it is indefensible, even within the conservative ideology, an adult conversation is not possible. This is completely different from decades ago or from conservatives in Europe. Fighting corruption (in both parties) does more than fighting Fyfe.
    https://justicedemocrats.com/
  • edited March 12
    Victor, you link is great, hundreds of these efforts are needed, perhaps a little coordination between them would be productive.

    But I'll take umbrage at labeling my efforts regarding Fyfe et al. 2016 as "fighting Fyfe."  

    Fyfe 2016 was written in about as idiotic rambling confusing manner possible - it offered zero ->  when it came to constructively informing anyone who wasn't already intimidate with the science.  

    In other words handling such a thing to politicians and then having the gall to label it:

    "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown

    The thing demanded that someone give it a hard critique.  The report didn't make sense of a damned thing - rather it fed confusion and played right into the contrarians script.

    Engaging in an the effort to make these scientists aware of this tendency to feed into the contrarian game plan - IS NOT AN ATTACT !!!   IT'S CALLED CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM !!!

    Mind you Victor I take no umbrage at you and actually very much appreciate you taking the time to make your comment - it's much better than the sound of one hand clapping - and I appreciate it probably reflects the scientists feelings towards this - at least the one who may have taken more than a second before discarding it.    

    I understand that in these days, it seems that any critique is taken as an attack and dismissed without even the slightest effort - that's why my curb appeal is zero - I don't have the time for that thin skinned bullshit.  Learning and seeking objective truth is a contact sport.

    I've grown up in a rough and tumble world where if I hadn't learned how to handle serious critique along with predatory critique, not to mention malicious insults and hurt feelings, while attempting to absorb the truth in them and learn from them - I'd have been flattened like a pancake decades ago.


     March 6, 2017
    Fyfe et al. 2016: stamp collecting vs informing and clarifying. Examining a failure to communicate

    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/fyfe2016-stampcollecting-vs-informing.html
  • Victor, okay all caps does distract, even as it's supposed to drive home a point.  I just hope you also noticed that I very much appreciated you taking the time for your thoughtful comment and in fact chewed on it for awhile.

    I'll admit between the reality of this Trump Presidency and a still very sleepy USA citizenry, Lamar Smith and his science bashing Congressional committee, Bates' malicious bull poop, Fyfe took me for an emotional spin.  The failure of my first attempt drove me to try to come up with a short (I managed to keep it <500 words*, not including quotes from the study I used.) elevator pitch.  I posted it at my blog yesterday and I've sent it out to the authors today, I imagine that's the last I'll hear of it.  

    What I'm left with is that I gave it my best effort considering the 
    constrains I'm stuck with.  

    Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification

    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/elevator-pitch-to-coauthors-fyfe2016.html
    ______________________________________
    Okay I snuck in another 150 words below my signature.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Getting around, etiquette, guidelines and terms of use.

HotWhopper Chat Close
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.