- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by JTB.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 25, 2016 at 9:05 pm #831418
CO2isPlantFoodParticipantNOAA Global Analysis – Annual – Land & Ocean – 2015
See Here – RECORD ??
Understanding & Interpreting Uncertainty Ranges
And Here – Uncertainties !
Much of the stated record warmth for the globe can be attributed to record warmth in the global oceans. Ocean temperatures for the year started with the first three months each third warmest for their respective months, followed by record high monthly temperatures for the remainder of the year as one of the stongest El Niños in the historical record evolved.
The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015 record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third highest on record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).
The 2015 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 1979–2015 record, at 0.49°F (0.27°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and fourth highest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by RSS.
2015 – Land and Ocean + 0.90 ± 0.08 °C + 1.62 ± 0.14 °F extracted from website on 01/20/16
2014 – Land and Ocean + 0.69 ± 0.09 °C + 1.24 ± 0.16 °F
2013 – Land and Ocean + 0.62 ± 0.09 °C + 1.12 ± 0.16 °F
2012 – Land and Ocean + 0.57 ± 0.08 °C + 1.03 ± 0.14 °F
2011 – Land and Ocean + 0.51 ± 0.08 °C + 0.92 ± 0.14 °F
2010 – Land and Ocean + 0.62 ± 0.07 °C + 1.12 ± 0.13 °FUp until 2009 NASA / NOAA were not reporting data error ranges
2009 – Land and Ocean + 0.56 °C (+ 1.01 °F)
2008 – Land and ocean + 0.49°C (+ 0.88 °F)
2007 – Land and Ocean + 0.55°C (+ 0.99 °F)
2006 – Land and Ocean + 0.54°C (+ 0.97 °F)
2005 – Land and Ocean + 0.62°C (1.12°F) ** Improved Data, Smith & Reynolds
2004 – Land and Ocean + 0.54°C (0.97°F) **
2003 – Land and Ocean + 0.56°C (1.01°F)
2002 – Land and Ocean + 0.56°C (1.01°F)
2001 – Land and Ocean + 0.51°C (0.92°F)
2000 – Land and Ocean no annual data
1999 – Land and Ocean + 0.41 C (0.74F)** The 1880 – 2003 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C ( 56.9°F )
DISCUSSION FOLLOWS
The essence of the story is that (a) in 1998 NOAA said the 1997 global average temperature was 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit, (b) in 2016 NOAA said that the 20th century global average temperature was 57 degrees Fahrenheit, and (c) in 2016 NOAA said that 2015 global average temperature was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century global average .
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv
According to the above URL ( link ), NOAA now says that the the absolute temperature for 1997 was 14.41 C (13.9 baseline plus 0.51 anomaly). 14.41 C = 57.94 F.
So in 1998, NOAA said the average temperature for 1997 was 62.45 F.
NOAA has since changed their baseline, and they now say that the average temperature in 1997 was 57.94 F.
This is not saying it was justified for NOAA to adjust their temperature data. but it also isn’t honest to say that NOAA has made a simple math error because they say 2015 was the warmest year and 62.45 F is 3.83 degrees warmer than 58.62 F when NOAA no longer says the temp in 1997 was 62.45 F. They now say it was 57.94 F, which is 0.68 F cooler than what they now say 2015 was.
The only thing we can say is that NOAA now says that 1997 is 4.51 F cooler than what they said it was in 1998.
I don’t believe it was a simple math error. More likely it’s a continual shift in methodology, basically rendering all past reports invalid by definition, and making individual reports incomparable with each other. It’s similar how to the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) has shifted the definition of “unemployment” over the decades. We use U-3 now, but during the Great Depression it was something closer to U-6. Just as the NOAA has politicians pressuring them to show continual warming, the BLS has politicians pressuring them to show low unemployment. So they’re always tweaking the methodology.
The anomaly for 1997 was different than for 2015 because the 30-year-average baseline was different.
For 2015 they used the 20th century average as the baseline. For 1997, they used the 30-year average (1961-1990) as the baseline.
Check this source:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csvIt shows a single table. So, this single table does not use a common base line ?
That single table does use the same baseline. In the original 1997 report, they used a different baseline average than they do today – presumable to show more warming, since the 1997 baseline was a 30-year average from 1960-1990, whereas in 2015 the baseline was the average from 1900-2000. Since the latter baseline will be lower, the calculated anomalies will appear higher now than they would’ve using the same baseline from 1997.
The baseline temp is only used for calculating the anomaly, not the global temperature.
The different versions of global average temperature (GAT) are unique so cannot be used to indicate anything about each other. Each team that provides estimates of GAT uses its own and unique definition of GAT and, therefore, provides different weightings and different homogenization to the source data (and, incidentally, the teams also alter their definitions most months so change their past data with this effect). Different definitions of GAT provide different values of GAT ( apples and oranges are fruit but an apple is not an orange ).
That is the point of this discussion,. In 1997 GAT was an apple. In 2015, 1997 GAT had become an orange. In 10 years time 1997 GAT could have turned into a tomato. Which is the correct fruit ?
“ If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees ? ” MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen.
January 25, 2016 at 11:38 pm #831445
dobroParticipantPlease add some analysis of all the scientists from other countries and organizations that agree we’re experiencing human-aided climate change. Are they all changing fruits?
January 26, 2016 at 2:41 pm #831526
CO2isPlantFoodParticipantIn sales, dobro’s above statement is called the ‘assumptive close’ technique. Instead of trying to persuade the customer ( me ) to buy ( that my analysis is flawed ), you ( he/she ) immediately start discussing the price ( something, anything else ). By engaging with a mutual view where the sale ( pitch [ human aided climate change] ) is assumed, you hope to deny the customer a first consideration of buying or not buying what your selling ( did dobro list ANY current “scientists” or “organizations” ?? ).
dobro, I’m not buying what you are trying to sell. Care to discuss global temperature data with some current climate science ? I see ….
January 26, 2016 at 3:11 pm #831539
JoBParticipantCO2isplantfood
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html
no bait and switch here.. just data.. lots and lots of data
- This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by JoB.
January 26, 2016 at 8:35 pm #831567
CO2isPlantFoodParticipantWelcome JoB, with ” data .. lots and lots of data ” ….
I presume you mean 3 links to three sites, where one finds ” facts ” supported by papers / studies which involve ” data .. lots and lots of data ” ?
So, lets pick one and explore :
From your first Link : http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
FACTS –> listing 9 points of evidence, so … I picked one of the evidences :
Warming oceans
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. Reference 8
Reference 8 : Levitus, et al, ” Global ocean heat content 1955 – 2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems, ” Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 ( 2009 ).
OK, so let me give you first shot at this. YOU tell all of us here why this is robust, current science that does not exhibit any degree of error or uncertainty – thus truly qualifying as ” evidence “. I’ll check back in 48 hours and respond with my observations on Levitus. Oh, perhaps you might want to note that the author has updated his ” work ” and now there is a 2012 version to this paper. You knew that didn’t you ?, as you have carefully studied the ” work ” of Levitus ! Me ?, I just love it when NASA/NOAA/GISS use words like ” compelling ” !
Please, your turn to drive. Comment on the methodology and use of ” data .. lots and lots of data ” !
We’re all waiting, JoB …
January 27, 2016 at 12:05 am #831598
JanSParticipantCO2…Google is your friend…why does everyone have to present you with something first? That’s the easy way out. Do more research, just as any of us out here in the public world would have to do. And then form your opinion. You copy and paste well…maybe you could do more. I know, for one, I’m not going to do the work for you.
January 28, 2016 at 6:13 pm #831812
JoBParticipantCo2..
You go for it..
humans are not influencing climate change
the climate isn’t really changing at all
and i have a bridge i’d like to sell youbet you haven’t been researching falling .. and rising.. water tables to figure out where to retire… have you?
if you had you would have noticed a huge change in climate patterns…
it’s not all just El Nino you knowJanuary 29, 2016 at 9:22 pm #831941
JTBParticipantIt’s noteworthy and appropriate that you posted this thread in the Politics forum.
Scientists examine historical data for accuracy and methodology as a matter of course. Errors are detected and noted, corrections are made and noted, and reports strive to account for new data. That’s why on the NOAA website you reference, there is a notation for the 1997 data:
“National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Climate of 1997
Annual Global Temperature Index
Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.”Otherwise, it is true that data from different teams are used in climate science. But your are entirely mistaken to say they therefore cannot be used to indicate anything about each other. On the contrary they can point to trends, inconsistencies, and outliers, all of which generate further analysis of the methodology used by the various teams and opportunities for improvements.
Any quality management process is continuous and will eventually identify opportunities for improvement—-for more precision, better data, and more confidence in analytical work. Science works that way. But you are hardly seizing on something that was previously unrecognized and unaccounted for. But then, you view this as a political matter, not actually a scientific one, so there you go.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.