NOAA sued for witheld documents.... More clear evidence.

[_The CCC]

1. How many peer reviewed publications on climate science has Ivar published?

Answer: None. It is also an irrelevant question since logical and reasonable criticisms don't require you to publish on a topic. A hypothesis should be able to stand up to scrutiny and criticism if it is true.

2. When were sea surface temperatures first included in surface temperature indexes?

Answer: Before 1980, the data is unreliable. After 1980, reliable global SST samples came from satellite observations.

3. How are the major land-sea surface temperature indices created?

See 2.

4. Can you provide any evidence from mathematics (as opposed to your personal incredulity) supporting the notion that it is improper for these indices to express their values in tenths of a degree?

See 2.

5. Over the last several hundred thousand years, what is the difference in average surface temperature between ice ages and inter glacial periods?

Answer: We don't know what the Earth's average surface temperature was thousands of years ago since the means weren't around to take measurements from all around the planet (and even then one has to wonder if that methodology is even legitimate?!?). The question is patently absurd.

Yes science does take publishing in respected journals. I would suggest the periodicals of "Nature", and "Science".

What the Hell are you talking about? Temperatures have been accurately measured for about 200 years now, using a thermometer, and by proxies like ice cores, and tree rings.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

In other words You don't have clue as to what you're talking about.

You weren't there when your mother was born. Are you sure you were born?

[_Res Ipsa]

The OP claims that NOAA has completely reversed itself on the issue of whether there was an almost 20 year "pause" in global warming. The OP fails to give a reference for the alleged admission by NOAA that there was a "pause." Without that, it is impossible to verify the OP's claim that NOAA admitted that there had been such a "pause."

The whole "pause" issue is one of semantics. Although one can find multiple references in in the press, by global warming deniers, and by scientists to "pause", "hiatus," or "slow down," those terms are rarely defined. Thus, the use of those terms by different people at different times doesn't tell us a whole lot. It is critical to look at references in context to understand how the speaker or author is using those terms.

Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, explained this pretty well.

Part of the problem here is simply semantic. What do people even mean by a ‘hiatus’, ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’? As discussed above, if by ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ people mean a change to the long-term trends, then the evidence for this has always been weak (see also this comment by Mike). If people use ‘slowdown’ to simply point to a short-term linear trend that is lower than the long-term trend, then this is still there in the early part of the last decade and is likely related to an interdecadal period (through at least 2012) of more La Niña-like conditions and stronger trade winds in the Pacific, with greater burial of heat beneath the ocean surface.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... he-hiatus/ Gavin's entire post at Real Climate is extremely helpful in understanding the "pause" issue.

The global temperature record is very "noisy." There is substantial natural variability from year to year, largely due to ENSO -- the El Nino/La Nina cycle. The natural variation from year to year is much larger than the year-to-year increase in temperature from global warming. As a result, to determine the existence of a long term trend requires looking at a relatively long period of time. If the period is too short, the natural variability will swamp the trend. It is also important to avoid "cherry picking," i.e., picking a start and end date that are either peaks or valleys due to natural variation.

Global temperature records are generally set during El Nino years, when the natural variability is at the top end of the scale. Most of the claims of a pause are based on cherry picking a starting date at that is heavily influenced by an El Nino. That's why claims about the pause went from "no warming in the last 15 years," to "no warming in the last 16 years," to "no warming in the last "17 years". The common starting date is 1998, during an especially strong El Nino.

So, if by "pause" one means "the average annual temperature increase over the last X years is less than the long term average," one can find any number of such "pauses" in the temperature record depending on how big X is and when the first year starts. But that's a trivial result that exists in any noisy data set. The important question is whether the "pause" is statistically significant evidence of a change in a long term trend. And, with respect to the recent claims of a pause, the answer is clearly "no." In fact, statistician Grant Foster analyzed this question several times before the recent NOAA "pause" paper was published and before this summer's changes in data set methodology.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30 ... -surprise/ Read this post. Seriously. It is nearly two years old. It clearly demonstrates that, no matter which data set you use (including satellites), there is no evidence of a change in trend between the years before 1998 (temperature peak cherry picked by those who argue for a "pause") and the years after 1998. The notion of any sort of change in long term trend (pause, slowdown, hiatus) was busted long ago. The problem is, folks trusted their eyes to interpret graphs instead of doing the kinds of statistical analysis needed to understand the data.

Here are some other helpful posts by Foster on the subject of the "pause."

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09 ... t-to-soar/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30 ... n-skeptic/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/nasa-and-noaa/

Other helpful references:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e ... 56711.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ause-paper

There is also a huge volume of bleating from the denialosphere about manipulating of data to destroy evidence of the pause. If you read the above links with the intention of understanding the numbers, you'll realize that the only thing that "busted" the pause was the inclusion of the record temperature in 2014. The fact that adding one year's temperature to the record destroyed any impression of a pause is good evidence that the pause was never really there.

[_The CCC]

There has been no pause.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM

[_Tobin]

Yes science does take publishing in respected journals. I would suggest the periodicals of "Nature", and "Science".

Did you listen to the link and what Nature is up to? It has changed from a scientific journal into an advocacy magazine. That isn't science.

What the Hell are you talking about? Temperatures have been accurately measured for about 200 years now, using a thermometer, and by proxies like ice cores, and tree rings.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo

We were discussing the average temperature of the planet thousands of years ago and not specific locations 200 years ago.

In other words You don't have clue as to what you're talking about.

Well, obviously you don't as I've demonstrated above.

You weren't there when your mother was born. Are you sure you were born?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[_Tobin]

What are the "religious nuts" now including sea surface temperatures in and when did they start doing that?

Since about 2002 I believe.

2. What is the factual basis for your claim that satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures are reliable while other methods are not?

Before 1980, spotty and unreliable measurements were taken when ships would leave port for example.

3. What is the methodology used to produce the major land-sea temperature indexes?

As I've already pointed out, such methodologies are questionable at best. Let me explain. The urbanization of an area where samples are taken will affect results. An area that was mostly wilderness in the 1880s may be heavily developed now and since asphalt and other man-made structure retain heat, the temperature from that sample location may appear to have gone up. Does that mean the world is actually getting warmer or just that location because of development? Now, if many of your samples are contaminated like that, your indexes are worthless.

4. How do satellites measure temperatures at the surface of the ocean?

https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/SeaSurfaceTemperature

5. What is the range of temperatures shown by ice cores at those locations from ice ages to interglacial periods?

That will show the range of temperatures at that location. That is NOT the surface temperature of the world.

6. What would the average daily high temperature in Iowa be during the summer months if you added 80-100 degrees C to it?

You are missing the point. Given that most locations fluctuate over a large range of temperatures (80-100 degrees C or K), a 1/10th of a degree differerence over a decade is a meaningless result. For it to be meaningful, one would have to determine what the ideal average temperature of the planet is suppose to be? Maybe the ideal average temperature of the planet (whatever that is?!?) is 2 to 5 degrees K more than it is? And if you watched the link, even Ivar thought it was remarkable that the variance was soo little over a decade. You would think the WORLD average would go up by several degrees at least over a decade. This is great news if it is only changing this insignificant amount and it is remarkably stable actually.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, thanks for the responses. I think I understand your claims well enough to address them.

First, with respect to your "expert", Ivar is undoubtedly an expert in mechanical engineering, semi conductors, and biophysics. He has no background in climate science. He has never published. His statements indicate he has little to no understanding of climate science. His criticisms are one giant argument from personal incredulity.

You say none of that matters, because he's using logic. Logic depends on the accuracy of its premises -- if the premises are flawed, the best logic in the world can only generate flawed answers. Garbage in, garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what you are getting with Ivar.

I asked you twice to explain your claim that sea-surface temperatures were (recently?) added to something for the purpose of manipulating the temperatures. Neither time did you explain what they were added to. I suspect that's because you don't understand what global temperature indexes are or how they are produced. In any event, land and sea surface temperatures have been reported separately and in a combined fashion at least as far back as the first IPCC Assessment Report back in 1990. They continue to do so. The claim that they've added in sea surface temperatures for the purpose of manipulating (something?) is entirely baseless, especially since they continue to report both separately.

You assert that satellite measurements of SST are reliable and that all other methods are unreliable by an unsupported reference about some ships taking measurements as they were leaving port at some unspecified period of time. Here is a graph of sea surface temperatures over time with margins of error plotted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surfa ... rature.jpg As you can see, the people who study these things recognize problems with older data (pre-1960) that made that data less reliable. Improvements in data collection have made the measurements more reliable. Here is a map that shows just the drifter buoys that are collecting temperature data. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/index.php In addition, there are fixed buoys and observations from ships as well. A vague claim that there were at some times some problems with some ships taking measurements as they left port is nowhere near to establishing that all sea surface temperature data other than that obtained by satellites is "unreliable."

Another issue that you seemed to me to avoid is the reliability of satellites in measuring sea surface temperatures. There are two kinds of satellite measurements used for sea surface temperatures. The first is measurement of infrared radiation. There is, however, a known and recognized problem with this method: it doesn't work through clouds. Wikipedia actually explains this pretty well:

There are several difficulties with satellite-based absolute SST measurements. First, in infrared remote sensing methodology the radiation emanates from the top "skin" of the ocean, approximately the top 0.01 mm or less, which may not represent the bulk temperature of the upper meter of ocean due primarily to effects of solar surface heating during the daytime, reflected radiation, as well as sensible heat loss and surface evaporation. All these factors make it somewhat difficult to compare satellite data to measurements from buoys or shipboard methods, complicating ground truth efforts.[17] Secondly, the satellite cannot look through clouds, creating a cool bias in satellite-derived SSTs within cloudy areas.[2] However, passive microwave techniques can accurately measure SST and "see" through clouds.[13] Within atmospheric sounder channels on weather satellites, which peak just above the ocean's surface, knowledge of the sea surface temperature is important to their calibration.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

The other technique uses microwave radiation. Converting the brightness of microwaves into temperature is neither simple nor straightforward. The problems include accounting for orbital decay of the satellites, stitching together data from different satellites at different times, and problems with sensors. Just as with the land based thermometers and sea surface direct measurements, the microwave satellite measurements are regularly updated and adjusted. For example, for years the UAH data set showed global cooling in contrast to the results of surface measurements. The head of the UAH project, John Christy, was a very vocal critic of the global warming scientific consensus. Embarrassingly, he was forced to make a number of corrections to mistakes and to account for data problems he had overlooked. Today, UAH agrees with every other data set in showing warming over the last few decades. However, there is still significant disagreement between the two major sets of satellite data -- UAH and RSS. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming The fact that different teams interpreting the same basic satellite data get such significantly different results is not an indication of reliability. The fact is, there is no basis for claiming that satellite measurements of sea surface temperature are more reliable than direct measurements taken at the ocean surface.

Going to take a break...

[_Tobin]

Tobin, thanks for the responses. I think I understand your claims well enough to address them.

First, with respect to your "expert", Ivar is undoubtedly an expert in mechanical engineering, semi conductors, and biophysics. He has no background in climate science. He has never published. His statements indicate he has little to no understanding of climate science. His criticisms are one giant argument from personal incredulity.

You say none of that matters, because he's using logic. Logic depends on the accuracy of its premises -- if the premises are flawed, the best logic in the world can only generate flawed answers. Garbage in, garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what you are getting with Ivar.

So far, all you are doing is attempting to discredit a critic, which is asinine. Deal with the criticisms and leave personal attacks (like standing) out of it. When you do things like this, it only makes you look bad and cheapens your response.

I asked you twice to explain your claim that sea-surface temperatures were (recently?) added to something for the purpose of manipulating the temperatures. Neither time did you explain what they were added to. I suspect that's because you don't understand what global temperature indexes are or how they are produced. In any event, land and sea surface temperatures have been reported separately and in a combined fashion at least as far back as the first IPCC Assessment Report back in 1990. They continue to do so. The claim that they've added in sea surface temperatures for the purpose of manipulating (something?) is entirely baseless, especially since they continue to report both separately.

I said I believed they were added in 2002. You claim the first asserssments were created in 1990 without a citation. This isn't a credible response. I'll be happy to admit my error since I was uncertain when the first assessment was made. However, I think the reason you didn't provide the citation is likely because it isn't from a legitimate source that would stand up to scrutiny.

You assert that satellite measurements of SST are reliable and that all other methods are unreliable by an unsupported reference about some ships taking measurements as they were leaving port at some unspecified period of time. Here is a graph of sea surface temperatures over time with margins of error plotted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surfa ... rature.jpg As you can see, the people who study these things recognize problems with older data (pre-1960) that made that data less reliable. Improvements in data collection have made the measurements more reliable. Here is a map that shows just the drifter buoys that are collecting temperature data. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/index.php In addition, there are fixed buoys and observations from ships as well. A vague claim that there were at some times some problems with some ships taking measurements as they left port is nowhere near to establishing that all sea surface temperature data other than that obtained by satellites is "unreliable."

So your response is guess-work makes data reliable?!? That is laughable. Piecing together unreliable data into neat graphs and splices of data does not make it reliable. The reason data after 1980 is considered reliable is because it comes from consistent locations on the Earth and the data can be reassessed if necessary (or even critically scrutinized if there are any questions about the results). The reason data pre-1980 isn't considered reliable is because the methodology involves simply drifting in the sea recording temperatures at inconsistent locations (remember there was no civilian GPS before 1980).

Another issue that you seemed to me to avoid is the reliability of satellites in measuring sea surface temperatures...

Since I provided the link to NASA's site on the material, I really don't need you to provide your own quotes. You are welcome to point out how or if I'm mistaken in some of my claims if you wish (or even if NASA's information is in error if you can).

[_Res Ipsa]

OK, back.

Next, I want to address what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about the purpose of global temperature indexes. Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA's GISS program, says it better than I could:

The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. We do not have direct measurements of the global mean anomaly, rather we have a large database of raw measurements at individual locations over a long period of time, but with an uneven spatial distribution, many missing data points, and a large number of non-climatic biases varying in time and space. To convert that into a useful time-varying global mean needs a statistical model, good understanding of the data problems and enough redundancy to characterise the uncertainties. Fortunately, there have been multiple approaches to this in recent years (GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, Berkeley Earth, and NOAA NCEI), all of which basically give the same picture.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... he-hiatus/

Climate scientists fully understand they aren't actually measuring the average temperature of the globe. What they are doing is taking a set of data and using it to estimate the average. And they aren't particularly interested in the absolute value of that number. They are interested in the change of that number over time. Now go back and click on that link. Look at the first graph. Look at the different estimates by different groups, including the satellite people. They all tell the same basic story -- the estimated average temperature using different methods and different sets of data shows consistent warming. The point is not to set an arbitrary "best" temperature. The point is to see if the estimated average is increasing and, if so, at what rate. Your argument that it is impossible to "measure" global average temperature misses the point completely. It's a simple straw man argument.

You compared increases in annual average temperature to fluctuations in daily temperature, arguing that the large magnitude of daily fluctuations makes smaller changes in the long term average meaningless. First of all, I don't know where you live, but the temperature where I live doesn't fluctuate by 80-100 C. I checked the all-time records for temperature measured in Seattle, and the difference between the all time high and the all time low is about 55C Even so, there is a significant difference between a temperature fluctuation that occurs over a matter of hours and a sustained change in average temperature. You ducked my question about the temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial period twice. The answer, based on a wealth of evidence, is about 10 C. A daily 10 C fluctuation in temperatures in Seattle is barely noticeable. But a 10 C change in global average temperature is the difference between Seattle existing as a city and Seattle being buried under a mile of ice. Your analogy is faulty because the magnitude of temperature changes in daily weather have completely different effects than long term changes in climate. What the climate scientists are doing is looking at all the available evidence, including basic physics, and projecting the effects of increasing temperatures. Simply dismissing that based on faulty analogies and personal incredulity are hallmarks of anti-science attitudes.

Finally, the claim that we can't tell anything about the past if we weren't there to see it (measure it, etc.) is simply nonsense. It is the kind of silliness that YEC types spout all the time. Inferences about the past based on evidence we see today combined with our knowledge of physics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. can be perfectly valid despite the lack of eyewitnesses. If you are going to seriously press that claim, then from here on out I'm going to dismiss you as a science denier that isn't worth spending the time on.

[_Tobin]

It's a simple straw man argument.

It isn't a straw man argument. I'll explain. As you pointed out by citing Gavin Schmidt, determining what the world average is (or should be) isn't reasonable. The reason I'm pointing out this flaw in the reasoning of global warming alarmists is because it is a flawed assertion that they are making. They are claiming the world average (whatever that is) that it is now (or some time in the past) is the average of what it should be and that the degree of global warming (1/10th of a degree per decade) will have negative effects if it continues. And that we must stop it. That is the argument that global warming alarmists (really religious fanatics if you are realistic about it) are making if you don't understand it.

You compared increases in annual average temperature to fluctuations in daily temperature, arguing that the large magnitude of daily fluctuations makes smaller changes in the long term average meaningless. First of all, I don't know where you live, but the temperature where I live doesn't fluctuate by 80-100 C. I checked the all-time records for temperature measured in Seattle, and the difference between the all time high and the all time low is about 55C Even so, there is a significant difference between a temperature fluctuation that occurs over a matter of hours and a sustained change in average temperature. You ducked my question about the temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial period twice. The answer, based on a wealth of evidence, is about 10 C. A daily 10 C fluctuation in temperatures in Seattle is barely noticeable. But a 10 C change in global average temperature is the difference between Seattle existing as a city and Seattle being buried under a mile of ice. Your analogy is faulty because the magnitude of temperature changes in daily weather have completely different effects than long term changes in climate. What the climate scientists are doing is looking at all the available evidence, including basic physics, and projecting the effects of increasing temperatures. Simply dismissing that based on faulty analogies and personal incredulity are hallmarks of anti-science attitudes.

Let's put this silliness to bed, I didn't say daily. The changes we are discussing are year-over-year!!!!

Finally, the claim that we can't tell anything about the past if we weren't there to see it (measure it, etc.) is simply nonsense. It is the kind of silliness that YEC types spout all the time. Inferences about the past based on evidence we see today combined with our knowledge of physics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. can be perfectly valid despite the lack of eyewitnesses. If you are going to seriously press that claim, then from here on out I'm going to dismiss you as a science denier that isn't worth spending the time on.

I didn't make that claim. However, I did say it isn't valid science to take temperature data from a single location and imply that data is true world-wide.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, thanks for the responses. I think I understand your claims well enough to address them.

First, with respect to your "expert", Ivar is undoubtedly an expert in mechanical engineering, semi conductors, and biophysics. He has no background in climate science. He has never published. His statements indicate he has little to no understanding of climate science. His criticisms are one giant argument from personal incredulity.

You say none of that matters, because he's using logic. Logic depends on the accuracy of its premises -- if the premises are flawed, the best logic in the world can only generate flawed answers. Garbage in, garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what you are getting with Ivar.

So far, all you are doing is attempting to discredit a critic, which is asinine. Deal with the criticisms and leave personal attacks (like standing) out of it. When you do things like this, it only makes you look bad and cheapens your response.

Examining the qualifications of an purported expert who is speaking about an area of scientific specialty is a perfectly valid criticism. You appear to be relying on him as the source for many "facts", such as certain sea temperatures being "unreliable." If you want to rely on a source other than Ivar for your facts, I'll address those sources.

I asked you twice to explain your claim that sea-surface temperatures were (recently?) added to something for the purpose of manipulating the temperatures. Neither time did you explain what they were added to. I suspect that's because you don't understand what global temperature indexes are or how they are produced. In any event, land and sea surface temperatures have been reported separately and in a combined fashion at least as far back as the first IPCC Assessment Report back in 1990. They continue to do so. The claim that they've added in sea surface temperatures for the purpose of manipulating (something?) is entirely baseless, especially since they continue to report both separately.

I said I believed they were added in 2002. You claim the first asserssments were created in 1990 without a citation. This isn't a credible response. I'll be happy to admit my error since I was uncertain when the first assessment was made. However, I think the reason you didn't provide the citation is likely because it isn't from a legitimate source that would stand up to scrutiny.

My apologies. I thought a citation to the IPCC First Assessment Report (1990) was sufficient. Here is a link to the report. On pages 207-213 you will find and index of land temperatures, an index of sea surface temperatures, and a combined index of land-sea surface temperatures. I await your happy admission of error. And an apology for a false accusation would be nice, too.

You assert that satellite measurements of SST are reliable and that all other methods are unreliable by an unsupported reference about some ships taking measurements as they were leaving port at some unspecified period of time. Here is a graph of sea surface temperatures over time with margins of error plotted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surfa ... rature.jpg As you can see, the people who study these things recognize problems with older data (pre-1960) that made that data less reliable. Improvements in data collection have made the measurements more reliable. Here is a map that shows just the drifter buoys that are collecting temperature data. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/index.php In addition, there are fixed buoys and observations from ships as well. A vague claim that there were at some times some problems with some ships taking measurements as they left port is nowhere near to establishing that all sea surface temperature data other than that obtained by satellites is "unreliable."

So your response is guess-work makes data reliable?!? That is laughable. Piecing together unreliable data into neat graphs and splices of data does not make it reliable. The reason data after 1980 is considered reliable is because it comes from consistent locations on the Earth and the data can be reassessed if necessary (or even critically scrutinized if there are any questions about the results). The reason data pre-1980 isn't considered reliable is because the methodology involves simply drifting in the sea recording temperatures at inconsistent locations (remember there was no civilian GPS before 1980).

No, my response is that you are mischaracterizing the data and labeling it "unreliable" without providing any evidence of its reliability other than Ivar. Cite me a source for your claim that all pre-1980 data is considered "unreliable." Also, please clarify whether you are claiming that only satellite data for SST is "reliable" after 1980. If you are, please again provide a source. Simply repeating over and over again that you think the data is "unreliable" is not evidence for anything beyond your own personal incredulity.

Another issue that you seemed to me to avoid is the reliability of satellites in measuring sea surface temperatures...

Since I provided the link to NASA's site on the material, I really don't need you to provide your own quotes. You are welcome to point out how or if I'm mistaken in some of my claims if you wish (or even if NASA's information is in error if you can).

So now you simply refuse to consider evidence because you find a general description of satellite temperature measurements on a NASA web page? A page that contains the following tidbits:

Infrared satellite sensors have better spatial resolution but are more susceptible to cloud contamination than microwave. This is due to the absorption of the ocean emitted infrared energy by clouds.

Today in addition to satellite and shipboard measurements there are thousands of floats in the oceans measuring temperature and salinity. These are used to validate satellite instruments in addition to sampling throughout the water column.

The page you cited recognizes the cloud problem that I cited with infrared satellites. It also says that those other methods of measuring temperature that you claim are "unreliable" are used to validate the satellite results. Odd, huh?

Nowhere does NASA support your claim that all SST data before 1980 are unreliable. Nowhere does NASA support your claim that satellites are more reliable in terms of measuring SST than are other methods. What it does say is that satellites can generate a helluva lot more data than can surface measurements. That makes sense to me.