2016 Global Temperatures

[pazzo83]

So this thread was about global temps until BillT decided to take us way off the rails about some unrelated experiment about water tanks.

[BillT]

2 hours ago, FloridaJohn said:

First, let me apologize if my response was insulting to you. That was not the intent. I was not trying to point out that water will flow out of a hole in a bucket, but WHY that is the case. More specifically, I was trying to illustrate the physics behind it. Clearly I did not communicate that effectively.

However, after reading some of your responses, I think I have figured out where the disconnect is. The difference between your hose example and the bucket example is that the hose is a constant pressure system, and the bucket is a variable pressure system.

Due to Bernoulli's Law, in a closed system, pressure is equal against all surfaces. That means that when you have your thumb completely covering the end of the hose, the pressure is the same against your thumb, against the walls of the hose, and against all the plumbing in your house. When you remove your thumb from the end of the hose, the pressure inside the hose is still the same.

As the water leaves the hose, it is no longer constrained by the walls of the hose, and the pressure drops to zero (Bernoulli's Law again). The pressure differential between the water in the hose and the water leaving the hose causes the water to flow out of the hose (moving from a high pressure area to a low pressure area).

When you partially block the end of the hose, you are creating a restriction in the system. The pressure inside the hose is still 45 psi (or whatever the city water pressure is in your house) and the water outside of the hose is still 0 psi. Since the pressure differential is still the same, the water still flows at the same rate (probably around 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) or so).

Since the pressure differential is still the same, and the flow rate is still the same, then the only thing that can change to account for the restriction on the hose (your thumb) is the velocity of the water. It speeds up to get around your thumb. Since the water is now going at a faster velocity, it shoots further out into the lawn.

That is what you are seeing when you partially cover the end of the hose with your thumb. The more you cover up the hose, the faster the velocity of the water, the farther it goes. The less you cover the end of the hose, the slower the velocity, the closer the stream of water comes to your shoes. The pressure inside the hose never changed. If that was not the case, then, as pointed out earlier, if pressure increased as you added more restriction, there would be ever increasing pressure inside the hose and the hose would burst when you completely stopped the flow.

Also, this is why the pressure in the faucet does not add to the pressure of the water in the bucket. Once the water leaves the confines of the faucet, the pressure drops to zero. This completely separates the pressure inside the faucet from the pressure at the bottom of the bucket. They are not additive because the water enters the bucket at zero pressure.

Sorry for the wall of text. I hope this clarifies the physics behind what we are discussing.

ty for the civil response, but even the bucket's pressure depends on the INPUT water......and the experiment suggested REQUIRES the bucket NOT be a variable pressure.....also putting your finger over the hole at the bottom of the bucket has the same impact, cover it a tiny bit the same flow leaves the bucket it just moves faster just like with the hose........the POINT is the only thing altered in their experiment is the size of the hole and that alone alters the pressure on the hole, the water does NOT slow down until more force is built inside the bucket, the bucket and hose BOTH react the same to the tiny closing of the aperture.

[BillT]

1 hour ago, pazzo83 said:

So this thread was about global temps until BillT decided to take us way off the rails about some unrelated experiment about water tanks.

NO why LIE?    i did not in any way suggest this experiment......another poster did that i only corrected their proposal using a real world example.

[FloridaJohn]

40 minutes ago, BillT said:

ty for the civil response, but even the bucket's pressure depends on the INPUT water......and the experiment suggested REQUIRES the bucket NOT be a variable pressure.....also putting your finger over the hole at the bottom of the bucket has the same impact, cover it a tiny bit the same flow leaves the bucket it just moves faster just like with the hose........the POINT is the only thing altered in their experiment is the size of the hole and that alone alters the pressure on the hole, the water does NOT slow down until more force is built inside the bucket, the bucket and hose BOTH react the same to the tiny closing of the aperture.

The bucket is not constant pressure. When you restrict the size of the hole in the bottom, the incoming water raises the level of the water in the bucket, therefore increasing pressure. I refer you back to this picture I posted earlier:

With a different level of water in the bucket, you have a different pressure acting on the hole in the bottom. Different pressure = different flow characteristics.

If there was no incoming water to the bucket, the water pressure at the hole would drop as the water drains out. Eventually, you would not have enough pressure to overcome the resistance from the restriction in the hole, and the flow would stop. If the hole is small enough, the flow would stop while there is still water in the bucket.

Putting your finger over the hole, does increase the velocity, but only for a short while. As the level of the water decreases, the pressure differential between the water in the bucket and the water leaving the bucket decreases, and then the flow rate decreases. Then the water being pouring into the bucket increases the depth of the water, which increases the water pressure at the hole, which increases the flow rate. This happens until the flow rate into the bucket reaches equilibrium with the depth of the water in the bucket and flow rate out of the bucket.

[BillT]

17 minutes ago, FloridaJohn said:

Putting your finger over the hole, does increase the velocity, but only for a short while. As the level of the water decreases, the pressure differential between the water in the bucket and the water leaving the bucket decreases, and then the flow rate decreases. Then the water being pouring into the bucket increases the depth of the water, which increases the water pressure at the hole, which increases the flow rate. This happens until the flow rate into the bucket reaches equilibrium with the depth of the water in the bucket and flow rate out of the bucket.

let us examine that last part please.......putting your finger over the hole as you said does increase the velocity, that is the only change the finger partly over the hole and you admit that does speed up the water exiting which in so doing does balance the flow.....your claim that at first it decreases the water in the bucket is WRONG, unless there is no input then of course the pressure drops to zero as the water is gone.......the input keeps the water level the SAME, the smaller aperture increases the flow pressure but NOT its volume the same amount flows through the smaller opening at a faster rate, but it doesnt alter the water level because it remains the same coming in and going out......

[FloridaJohn]

5 hours ago, BillT said:

let us examine that last part please.......putting your finger over the hole as you said does increase the velocity, that is the only change the finger partly over the hole and you admit that does speed up the water exiting which in so doing does balance the flow.....your claim that at first it decreases the water in the bucket is WRONG, unless there is no input then of course the pressure drops to zero as the water is gone.......the input keeps the water level the SAME, the smaller aperture increases the flow pressure but NOT its volume the same amount flows through the smaller opening at a faster rate, but it doesnt alter the water level because it remains the same coming in and going out......

Let's try this. How about you write up a description on how you think this experiment will work, and what the physics are behind it? Try to be as detailed as possible and assume we don't know anything. This will eliminate the problem of us trying to interpret what you mean from your posts. I think this is leading to confusion both your and our parts. Thanks. 

[BillT]

37 minutes ago, FloridaJohn said:

Let's try this. How about you write up a description on how you think this experiment will work, and what the physics are behind it? Try to be as detailed as possible and assume we don't know anything. This will eliminate the problem of us trying to interpret what you mean from your posts. I think this is leading to confusion both your and our parts. Thanks. 

no thanks.......as i already pointed out i DID the needed experiment with a hose when i was a kid........my POINT remains intact and undisputed, you close the aperture a tiny bit the force already in place(no matter its source) is sufficient to push the same volume of water out faster, that is the basic physics in simple terms without all the nonsense you are discussing about pressure from columns of water......the source of the pressure is irrelevant to the real world physics.

[FloridaJohn]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

no thanks.......as i already pointed out i DID the needed experiment with a hose when i was a kid........my POINT remains intact and undisputed, you close the aperture a tiny bit the force already in place(no matter its source) is sufficient to push the same volume of water out faster, that is the basic physics in simple terms without all the nonsense you are discussing about pressure from columns of water......the source of the pressure is irrelevant to the real world physics.

Please explain those real-world physics, please.

[BillT]

11 minutes ago, FloridaJohn said:

Please explain those real-world physics, please.

with all due respect you demand much IF you dont know the physics then you shouldnt be participating....you already a

greed that closing the aperture a bit speeds up the flow......that is the physics.

[FloridaJohn]

21 minutes ago, BillT said:

with all due respect you demand much IF you dont know the physics then you shouldnt be participating....you already a

greed that closing the aperture a bit speeds up the flow......that is the physics.

With all due respect, I have explained my understanding of the physics. You have disagreed, which is fine. But you failed to explain why my interpretation is in error and why your's is correct. More than one poster has written detailed explanations to you and the most response we can get from you is the equivalent of a "no it isn't". You rely on others to interpret what you are saying, and then disagree with their interpretation without providing one of your own. Your arguments are unsupported by references, links or documentation. You are not participating in this discussion in good faith.

[Mallow]

13 hours ago, FloridaJohn said:

With all due respect, I have explained my understanding of the physics. You have disagreed, which is fine. But you failed to explain why my interpretation is in error and why your's is correct. More than one poster has written detailed explanations to you and the most response we can get from you is the equivalent of a "no it isn't". You rely on others to interpret what you are saying, and then disagree with their interpretation without providing one of your own. Your arguments are unsupported by references, links or documentation. You are not participating in this discussion in good faith.

I would be happy to discuss this topic further with blizzard1024. However, I believe that while my explanations and justifications have been more than adequate towards Mr. BillT, my main points weren't being sufficiently addressed and discussed. I was unable to ascertain whether or not he even agreed with a simpler experimental design which avoided some of the complications of my original experiment, a question I posed multiple times with no forthcoming discussion. While disappointed that I was unable to clarify my point with Mr. BillT, I no longer believe that this inability was due to my own lack of communication ability, as my attempts to clarify were never addressed. Therefore, I believe it is in my best interest to end this particular dialogue with that individual, as I do not believe any further understanding can be achieved on either side when one party does not even acknowledge the existence of the others' main points.

If there is another individual who is reading this thread, and would like additional clarification about any point that Mr. BillT brought up, or to discuss any other point regarding my analogy (perhaps there is a design flaw that I'm unaware of, perhaps there is a concept that I can help to clarify, or anything else), please feel free to respond. I would be happy to discuss it further!

[donsutherland1]

From NASA:

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

[JC-CT]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

From NASA:

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

I love how Fox News doesn't even have this story in their Science section.

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

I love how Fox News doesn't even have this story in their Science section.

That omission says a lot about its coverage, especially as the story broke just over an hour ago.

The NOAA also reported 2016 was the warmest year on record since its record began in 1880:

With eight consecutive record warm months from January to August, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA scientists. During the final month, the December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature departure from average was the third highest on record for any month in the 137-year record.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/assessing-global-climate-2016

[BillT]

9 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

That omission says a lot about its coverage, especially as the story broke just over an hour ago.

The NOAA also reported 2016 was the warmest year on record since its record began in 1880:

With eight consecutive record warm months from January to August, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA scientists. During the final month, the December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature departure from average was the third highest on record for any month in the 137-year record.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/assessing-global-climate-2016

based on a claimed precision down to hundredths of a degree well within the margin of error = statistical noise.

[donsutherland1]

2 minutes ago, BillT said:

based on a claimed precision down to hundredths of a degree well within the margin of error = statistical noise.

The numbers are an average global land and ocean anomaly. Averages can be calculated out to many decimal points, even when based on whole numbers.

For example, consider the January 1-17 high temperatures in New York City. All daily maximum temperatures are measured in whole degrees. Yet, the January 1-17 average high temperature for New York City (expressed to three decimals) came to 41.647°F. The average does not mean that the Central Park thermometer was measuring high temperatures to a thousandth of a degree.

 

[BillT]

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The numbers are an average global land and ocean anomaly. Averages can be calculated out to many decimal points, even when based on whole numbers.

For example, consider the January 1-17 high temperatures in New York City. All daily maximum temperatures are measured in whole degrees. Yet, the January 1-17 average high temperature for New York City (expressed to three decimals) came to 41.647°F. The average does not mean that the Central Park thermometer was measuring high temperatures to a thousandth of a degree.

 

not posting about ONE location with ONE thermometer.....talking about the global average of many readings, and i agree the MATH can be carried out the many decimal places, but the measuring precision across the many data gathering points creates a large margin of error that does NOT exist in your single data point example.

 

[JC-CT]

8 minutes ago, BillT said:

not posting about ONE location with ONE thermometer.....talking about the global average of many readings, and i agree the MATH can be carried out the many decimal places, but the measuring precision across the many data gathering points creates a large margin of error that does NOT exist in your single data point example.

 

Actually, no, having many data points decreases the margin of error due to individual errors cancelling each other out.

But just keep saying things that only exist in an alternative universe with the physical properties you describe, because it "makes sense" to you.

[donsutherland1]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

not posting about ONE location with ONE thermometer.....talking about the global average of many readings, and i agree the MATH can be carried out the many decimal places, but the measuring precision across the many data gathering points creates a large margin of error that does NOT exist in your single data point example.

 

Some error exists, but the error as it relates to annual measurements and the trend is very small (>95% level of confidence).

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/robert-rohde-memo.pdf

The observed warming that has been underway is indisputable.

[BillT]

7 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Actually, no, having many data points decreases the margin of error due to individual errors cancelling each other out.

But just keep saying things that only exist in an alternative universe with the physical properties you describe, because it "makes sense" to you.

wow, you accuse me of being in an alternate universe with the bizarre claim the many MORE ERRORS make the margin of error smaller because of "errors cancelling each other out", in the REAL world the errors could also MULTIPLY the error and NOT cancel out anything they could all be in the same direction.

[JC-CT]

15 minutes ago, BillT said:

wow, you accuse me of being in an alternate universe with the bizarre claim the many MORE ERRORS make the margin of error smaller because of "errors cancelling each other out", in the REAL world the errors could also MULTIPLY the error and NOT cancel out anything they could all be in the same direction.

Are you claiming there is some systemic reason that not only would the errors be only a single direction, but would also be increasing in magnitude as they advance towards the present?

Maybe to sell more air conditioners? What are you getting at here?

The fact that random errors will equalize out over a large sample isn't news to anyone...you are claiming that out of a million coin flips, a million could have been heads, so the odds of it averaging out to heads instead of being equally heads and tails is multiplied the more times you flip the coin. It's utter nonsense.

[JC-CT]

Haha, I just read back to some other threads and you have been spewing this bullsht for weeks, and getting told off for weeks.

Just delete your account, TIA.

[BillT]

5 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Haha, I just read back to some other threads and you have been spewing this bullsht for weeks, and getting told off for weeks.

Just delete your account, TIA.

why?

[ORH_wxman]

The margin of error if you include methodology in addition to just typical statistical uncertainty with x number of data points is probably around one tenth of a degree. Given that GISS beat last year by over a tenth, it is extremely unlikely that a new record was not set. In addition, we know that coming off of a very strong El Nino, global temperatures tend to spike, so the value isn't out of line with that thinking either.

[JC-CT]

2 minutes ago, BillT said:

why?

Because you will gain nothing here. You don't actually listen to what people who know more than you are telling you.

[BillT]

6 hours ago, JC-CT said:

Are you claiming there is some systemic reason that not only would the errors be only a single direction, but would also be increasing in magnitude as they advance towards the present?

Maybe to sell more air conditioners? What are you getting at here?

The fact that random errors will equalize out over a large sample isn't news to anyone...you are claiming that out of a million coin flips, a million could have been heads, so the odds of it averaging out to heads instead of being equally heads and tails is multiplied the more times you flip the coin. It's utter nonsense.

the nonsense you wrote about coin flipping is not anything i suggested but it does make a POINT about "equilibrium" a person could start flipping a coin and indeed the factual odds are it is 50/50 no matter what actual flips yield, so a run of one side will be offset by a run of the other BUT the reality is you may NEVER encounter a time when your flipped are in "equilibrium" and if you do find that point it is GONE with the next flip...the odds like thermodynamics means a balance will be sought but the real world says you wont be able to find it and if you do it will be fleeting.

[chubbs]

Link below gives Hanson's write-up on 2016 with graphs showing temperatures relative to a 1880-1910 baseline and impact of enso and regional trends. Last year was 1.26 above a 1880-1910 baseline well above the linear trend estimate for 2016 of 1.07. Note also how 11-year averaging takes out almost all of the natural variability.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/20170118_Temperature2016.pdf

 

[JC-CT]

16 hours ago, BillT said:

the nonsense you wrote about coin flipping is not anything i suggested but it does make a POINT about "equilibrium" a person could start flipping a coin and indeed the factual odds are it is 50/50 no matter what actual flips yield, so a run of one side will be offset by a run of the other BUT the reality is you may NEVER encounter a time when your flipped are in "equilibrium" and if you do find that point it is GONE with the next flip...the odds like thermodynamics means a balance will be sought but the real world says you wont be able to find it and if you do it will be fleeting.

What are you talking about? Serious question. You go from questioning the accuracy of temperature readings to talking about equilibrium. Nobody is claiming the data is 100% accurate. The NOAA fully discloses what they have calculated the margin of error to be. The more times you flip the coin, the closer you will get to 50/50 - see Pascal's triangle.

The problem is that you lack a basic understanding of high school level statistics. You shouldn't be questioning the ideas of real scientists who post here, you should be reading and learning from them.

[BillT]

15 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

What are you talking about? Serious question. You go from questioning the accuracy of temperature readings to talking about equilibrium. Nobody is claiming the data is 100% accurate. The NOAA fully discloses what they have calculated the margin of error to be. The more times you flip the coin, the closer you will get to 50/50 - see Pascal's triangle.

The problem is that you lack a basic understanding of high school level statistics. You shouldn't be questioning the ideas of real scientists who post here, you should be reading and learning from them.

is it possible you rebut anything i wrote? your LYING personal comments are not science and violate the rules here........point out any error please?  and basic stats = i could flip ten time and have 5 heads and 5 tails being exactly 50/50 then i could keep on flipping and NEVER get back to 50/50, it will always be close but may never be exact just like your silly claim that more data points makes the error margin smaller more flips of the coin do NOT alter the odds and adding MORE ERRORS to the data cant make it more accurate(lessen the margin of error). note how i address your claims and not YOU the person.....and so far you have not addressed any of the 100% valid points i have made....you personal insults and telling me to close my account are NOT a discussion, NOT civil, and certainly not science in any way......btw i made an A is 2 different stats courses in college.....i also know something said long ago there are 3 kinds of liars, liars, damned liars and STATS!

[chubbs]

A couple of charts from real climate. First shows enso-corrected GISS. Second the linear trend predicted in 1997 vs the actual showing that the rate of temperature increase is now slightly larger when the post-97 data is added.