• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RSS -Atmospheric temperature measured by satellites sets new record in 2016

longview said:
Precision and accuracy are not the same thing,
https://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/Experimental Design/accuracyprecision.htm

Like the actual sea level.

Like how close two measurements are two each other, but not to the actual sea level.
Click to expand...

No, precision rather than accuracy is what we are interested in here. We don't know the actual sea level (however you choose to define it), nor are we particularly concerned with it. What we want to know is not its absolute value, but the rate at which it is changing. Sufficiently precise measurements tell us this.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, precision rather than accuracy is what we are interested in here. We don't know the actual sea level (however you choose to define it), nor are we particularly concerned with it. What we want to know is not its absolute value, but the rate at which it is changing. Sufficiently precise measurements tell us this.
Click to expand...
The problem is the only place sea level matters, is where it meets the shore, and the precision they are speaking of does not measure that.
The tide gauges are at least 10 times more accurate, and show the rate of the sea level rise has not changed.
 
Jack Hays said:
Did you notice the note to Anthony Watts from the paper's lead author?
Click to expand...
Yes, it was very decent of Zeke Hausfather to email Watts, despite Watt's disgusting behavior.

Curious that you left out what Zeke Hausfather posted on WUWT:

"Hi Anthony,

I challenge you to find me an Ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. I for one haven’t been able to.

The reason that the figures shown in the paper end on January 1st 2016 is that we submitted the paper for publication in March 2016. No nefarious hiding of the data involved"​

annual_SSTs.webp

Watts also claimed that 2016 ocean temperatures were cooler than 2015 (FALSE).

From this lie, he then tried to invent a conspiracy that the authors deliberately didn't include a year's worth of data from 2016.

(from WUWT "the data only goes to December 2015. They’ve missed an ENTIRE YEAR’s worth of data!" )

Despite the fact that the paper was submitted in March 2016 when the data didn't even exist yet. :doh

WUWT is cesspool of blithering idiots, conspiracy theorists, and science denying liars.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I am suggesting that the rate of the sea level rise has been consistent for almost two centuries,
Long before Human involvement could have been much of an issue.
The sea level was already rising slowly, and has continued to do so at much the same rate.
The station in France has been recording since Napoleon Bonaparte ran France.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=190-091
New York's Battery Park, since before the Civil War,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The rate of the rise has not changed much.
Click to expand...

Using a 10-year mean, the one at New York shows a pretty steady rise throughout, though the early data is patchy. But the one at France shows little trend until around 1901-10, which is more consistent with the global temperature record.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Yes, it was very decent of Zeke Hausfather to email Watts, despite Watt's disgusting behavior.

Curious that you left out what Zeke Hausfather posted on WUWT:

"Hi Anthony,

I challenge you to find me an Ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. I for one haven’t been able to.

The reason that the figures shown in the paper end on January 1st 2016 is that we submitted the paper for publication in March 2016. No nefarious hiding of the data involved"​

View attachment 67212117

Watts also claimed that 2016 ocean temperatures were cooler than 2015 (FALSE).

From this lie, he then tried to invent a conspiracy that the authors deliberately didn't include a year's worth of data from 2016.

(from WUWT "the data only goes to December 2015. They’ve missed an ENTIRE YEAR’s worth of data!" )

Despite the fact that the paper was submitted in March 2016 when the data didn't even exist yet. :doh

WUWT is cesspool of blithering idiots, conspiracy theorists, and science denying liars.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I normally don't explore the comments section. After a quick look I see Zeke got into several exchanges there. Good for him.
 
Jack Hays said:
Thanks. I normally don't explore the comments section. After a quick look I see Zeke got into several exchanges there. Good for him.
Click to expand...

You mean Zeke Hausfather corrected Watt's lies.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Using a 10-year mean, the one at New York shows a pretty steady rise throughout, though the early data is patchy. But the one at France shows little trend until around 1901-10, which is more consistent with the global temperature record.
Click to expand...

What?

One of longviews pet memes is wrong AGAIN?

I didnt see that coming. :roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, no. Since they were discussions among adults no one talked about "lies."
Click to expand...

Watts lied, manufactured a conspiracy, and bashed scientists as he usually does. That's what WUWT is all about.

Hausfather corrected him politely with facts. Hausfather was the only adult.
 
Mithrae said:
Using a 10-year mean, the one at New York shows a pretty steady rise throughout, though the early data is patchy. But the one at France shows little trend until around 1901-10, which is more consistent with the global temperature record.
Click to expand...
Trends in high signal to noise ratio environments are difficult,
Worse when all of the data is not presented.
NOAA choose to stop reporting Brest France in 2010, perhaps because since 2010,
the sea level has dropped by more than 2 cm.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/1.rlrdata
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. I see.

It's a conspiracy!
Click to expand...
No conspiracy, It does raise questions why NOAA has not updated their records for that site since
July of 2010, over six years ago!
It could simply be a logistical thing, not enough funding/manpower to update their records from the PSMSL.
 
longview said:
Trends in high signal to noise ratio environments are difficult,
Worse when all of the data is not presented.
NOAA choose to stop reporting Brest France in 2010, perhaps because since 2010,
the sea level has dropped by more than 2 cm.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/1.rlrdata
Click to expand...

And there we have it :roll: 2014 set a record annual high at that location - more than 3cm higher than any previous year - but for some reason you are utterly incapable of avoiding some conspiracy bull**** that those years have been omitted because 2015 is a little lower.

You guys spend so much time "raising [idiotic] questions" and so little time looking at the available data, and then you wonder why you're so frequently getting stuff embarrassingly wrong.
 
Mithrae said:
And there we have it :roll: 2014 set a record annual high at that location - more than 3cm higher than any previous year - but for some reason you are utterly incapable of avoiding some conspiracy bull**** that those years have been omitted because 2015 is a little lower.

You guys spend so much time "raising [idiotic] questions" and so little time looking at the available data, and then you wonder why you're so frequently getting stuff embarrassingly wrong.
Click to expand...
Gee wasn't it just back on post #29, you were talking about using 10 year means, now
when I speak of high signal to noise ratio environments, you want to point to single years!
The fact that a single station went up 4.3 cm and then back down 7.4 cm in a 3 year period describes
the level of noise in the environment.
 
longview said:
Gee wasn't it just back on post #29, you were talking about using 10 year means, now
when I speak of high signal to noise ratio environments, you want to point to single years!
The fact that a single station went up 4.3 cm and then back down 7.4 cm in a 3 year period describes
the level of noise in the environment.
Click to expand...

Those high readings were probably just made up anyway, because, you know, Conspiracy.
 
Threegoofs said:
Those high readings were probably just made up anyway, because, you know, Conspiracy.
Click to expand...
No, simply variation in the readings, in a noisy environment with a net increasing trend, there will be some spikes.
 
longview said:
Gee wasn't it just back on post #29, you were talking about using 10 year means, now
when I speak of high signal to noise ratio environments, you want to point to single years!
The fact that a single station went up 4.3 cm and then back down 7.4 cm in a 3 year period describes
the level of noise in the environment.
Click to expand...

You're the one who pointed to a single year (2015), with an associated conspiracy theory for its absence from NOAA's site. The fact that you were apparently incapable of seeing the year before that (perhaps because it lays waste to the premise of low readings that you got from your cherry-picked figure) is certainly a relevant observation in that case.

This whole exchange "raises the question" of whether there is some nefarious agenda behind your selective blindness.
 
Mithrae said:
You're the one who pointed to a single year (2015), with an associated conspiracy theory for its absence from NOAA's site. The fact that you were apparently incapable of seeing the year before that (perhaps because it lays waste to the premise of low readings that you got from your cherry-picked figure) is certainly a relevant observation in that case.

This whole exchange "raises the question" of whether there is some nefarious agenda behind your selective blindness.
Click to expand...
On average sea levels have been increasing, yet after 2010, 4 of the 5 years, 2011,2012,2013, and 2015 were all lower than 2010.
On a 10 year mean, there was still an increase, about 2.45 mm per year, or just under 24.5 cm (1 foot) per century.
This is a little higher than the 16.5 cm average increase from 1900 to 2000, but when the year to year variation
is often over 5 cm, we are left to speculate the significance of a 10 cm per century change.
 
longview said:
No, simply variation in the readings, in a noisy environment with a net increasing trend, there will be some spikes.
Click to expand...

But you stated that a likely reason that it wasnt being reported anymore was because it dropped. Because.... conspiracy.

Why not just use Occams razor and just pretend any of the high readings were just made up ( I believe 'manufactured' and 'manipulated' is the current denier terms du jour)?

I mean - this is the crux of most of your argument here - why else focus on individual stations and tide gauges?
 
Threegoofs said:
But you stated that a likely reason that it wasnt being reported anymore was because it dropped. Because.... conspiracy.

Why not just use Occams razor and just pretend any of the high readings were just made up ( I believe 'manufactured' and 'manipulated' is the current denier terms du jour)?

I mean - this is the crux of most of your argument here - why else focus on individual stations and tide gauges?
Click to expand...
It seems odd that you would say such a misleading thing,
Here is what I said in post #38
Trends in high signal to noise ratio environments are difficult,
Worse when all of the data is not presented.
NOAA choose to stop reporting Brest France in 2010, perhaps because since 2010,
the sea level has dropped by more than 2 cm.
Click to expand...
I guess when you said I called something a "conspiracy" that was just creative editing on your part?
 
Threegoofs said:
Those high readings were probably just made up anyway, because, you know, Conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Professional data manipulators prefer the term "assumptions" to "made up".....;)
 
longview said:
It seems odd that you would say such a misleading thing,
Here is what I said in post #38

I guess when you said I called something a "conspiracy" that was just creative editing on your part?
Click to expand...

Oh, you didnt actually CALL it a conspiracy.

You just alluded to it, suggesting that NOAA stopped reporting because the data went the way you think they dont want to report.

NOAA choose to stop reporting Brest France in 2010, perhaps because since 2010,
the sea level has dropped by more than 2 cm.
Click to expand...

And, of course, you dont think its a conspiracy... it just 'raises questions'. Much like palentologists not being able to find transitional fossils 'raises questions' about evolution, and how clinical studies showing spinal manipulation cures diabetes but isnt mentioned by medicine 'raises questions' about a conspiracy to ban chiropractic medicine from helping people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom