Are Government Temperature Graphs Credible?

[mamooth]

They "corrected" their data over and over and over and over and over and over.....

"Corrections exist" is what you've proven, and which nobody has ever argued.

What you haven't done is provide any evidence that the corrections are wrong or fraudulent. That would be because you can't. You know nothing about the science and statistics, so you can't discuss this issue intelligently. Even if you weren't completely ignorant, you'd still lie deliberately about the corrections, because that's what your political/religious cult orders you to do.

When you do come up with something beyond "Corrections exist, and I don't like them, so it must all be a big fraud!", do let us know. Until then, keep on culting.

 

[Sunsettommy]

They "corrected" their data over and over and over and over and over and over.....

"Corrections exist" is what you've proven, and which nobody has ever argued.

What you haven't done is provide any evidence that the corrections are wrong or fraudulent. That would be because you can't. You know nothing about the science and statistics, so you can't discuss this issue intelligently. Even if you weren't completely ignorant, you'd still lie deliberately about the corrections, because that's what your political/religious cult orders you to do.

When you do come up with something beyond "Corrections exist, and I don't like them, so it must all be a big fraud!", do let us know. Until then, keep on culting.

Your rationalizations are all you have, I posted the evidence of repeated "corrections" which they obviously were not.

The changes accumulated are now TWO degrees in size!



Your inability to understand this is unsurprising since you can't read a simple chart showing the numerous changes.

 

[mamooth]

Here. Spend some time educating yourself.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here. Spend some time educating yourself.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

Ha ha, it is clear YOUR desperation to your failure to acknowledge the evidence I presented by bringing in a link using totally different temperature data centers, not only that Zeke is talking about justifiable adjustments, Zeke used these in his post:

"Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively."

bolding mine

I saw that post years ago.

=====

While my post is about PISS/NASA temperature data sets. Where they adjust the data over and over and over and over for the last 20 years, not even similar to what Zeke is talking about.

 

[jc456]

No trolling, off topic complaining and no attack on the source or the writer. I do request replying on the CONTENT of the article, good or bad.

Real Climate Science

Are Government Temperature Graphs Credible?
Posted on April 7, 2021 by tonyheller

Excerpt:


Ninety years ago, the New York Times reported unanimous consensus that Earth’s climate was controlled by the sun.



TimesMachine: July 2, 1931 – NYTimes.com

Now NASA reports 97% consensus that Earth’s climate is controlled by CO2.

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I agree with them – the warming trends over the last century are primarily due to human activities – data tampering by organizations like NASA and NOAA. For example, over the past 20 years NASA has turned a 70 year cooling trend in the US from 1930 to 2000 into a warming trend. This is the 1999 version.




NASA 1999

And this is NASA’s current graph.



NASA 2021

Here is an animation showing how the data has been altered over the past 20 years.

LINK

=======

This is a VERY LONG post, thus worth reading as it utterly destroys warmist/alarmists lies so effectively using their own material.

It is going to entertaining to see how warmists/alarmists will be able to handle all this.

So. . . what?

I heard on the radio this morning, that we had record high temps. yesterday. . . . was that a lie, is that what you are saying?

six inches of snow in Denver over night?

 

[jc456]

Gee no one can address the article's CONTENT at all, must be too hard to do and maybe 100% correct after all.

I asked you to discuss the content. Predictably, you refused, going the route of evasions instead. I think everyone takes that as your admission that you have nothing to back up the claim you make in the post title.

My challenge for you to actually debate still stands. Show us some evidence that the temperature record is wrong. So far, you haven't shown any such evidence.

However, don't do it by yelling "LOOK AT MY SOURCE!" and doing nothing else. That's not debate, that's a bad argument from authority. Show data from neutral sources, explain it in your own words. If your argument is good and you know the subject, you should have no problem doing that.

Colorado snow totals for April 15-16, 2021 (denverpost.com)

Actually, I'm more posting this for you to explain how this is different today for Denver with your extreme position that we're all gonna die if we don't give up our cars and furnaces.

 

[ding]

I bet they are are as accurate as the government's estimate of inflation.

 

[mamooth]

Colorado snow totals for April 15-16, 2021 (denverpost.com)

Actually, I'm more posting this for you to explain how this is different today for Denver

So you're back to your "DERPDERPDERP I SAW A SNOWFLAKE, SO GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!" babbling. Has nobody told you that AGW theory doesn't say there will be no more snow? Oh, that's right. We've told you. Many, many times.

with your extreme position that we're all gonna die if we don't give up our cars and furnaces.

I've never said or implied such athing, and you know it. You're deliberately lying because you know that you can't debate this topic honestly.

 

[mamooth]

While my post is about PISS/NASA temperature data sets. Where they adjust the data over and over and over and over for the last 20 years, not even similar to what Zeke is talking about.

Got it. You couldn't understand the article, so you repeated some weird cult myth about "adjusted the data over and over for the last 20 years".

Just admit it. You have no idea what the science says, you're in way over your head, and you're just making stuff up now.

 

[ding]

While my post is about PISS/NASA temperature data sets. Where they adjust the data over and over and over and over for the last 20 years, not even similar to what Zeke is talking about.

Got it. You couldn't understand the article, so you repeated some weird cult myth about "adjusted the data over and over for the last 20 years".

Just admit it. You have no idea what the science says, you're in way over your head, and you're just making stuff up now.

The earth is uniquely configured to become colder. That trend has existed for ~3 million years. If you don't know the reasons why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, then maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the climate data or science.

The data does overwhelmingly show 8C temperature swings over the past 3 million years, but those swings were colder. We're in a freaking ice age for crying out loud. Why in the hell would anyone want to make the planet colder during an ice age?

 

[mamooth]

The earth is uniquely configured to become colder.

Well, yes, the earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 years. It should have continued that slow cooldown. Instead, it suddenly started warming rapidly.

AGW theory explains that all perfectly. How does your theory explain it?

That trend has existed for ~3 million years.

Except when the earth has been warming.

If you don't know the reasons why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, then maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the climate data or science.

Says the guy who can't explain the recent switch from slow cooling to fast warming.

The data does overwhelmingly show 8C temperature swings over the past 3 million years, but those swings were colder. We're in a freaking ice age for crying out loud. Why in the hell would anyone want to make the planet colder during an ice age?

An ice age in 25,000 years. Many deniers fail hilariously at grasping the concept of "scale".

Ding here says we need to roast the earth now to prevent an ice age in 25,000 years. That's literally as stupid as saying you need to run the furnace full blast starting in June, because winter is eventually coming.

 

[ding]

The earth is uniquely configured to become colder.

Well, yes, the earth had been slowly cooling for the past 6000 years. It should have continued that slow cooldown. Instead, it suddenly started warming rapidly.

AGW theory explains that all perfectly. How does your theory explain it?

That trend has existed for ~3 million years.

Except when the earth has been warming.

If you don't know the reasons why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, then maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the climate data or science.

Says the guy who can't explain the recent switch from slow cooling to fast warming.

The data does overwhelmingly show 8C temperature swings over the past 3 million years, but those swings were colder. We're in a freaking ice age for crying out loud. Why in the hell would anyone want to make the planet colder during an ice age?

An ice age in 25,000 years. Many deniers fail hilariously at grasping the concept of "scale".

Ding here says we need to roast the earth now to prevent an ice age in 25,000 years. That's literally as stupid as saying you need to run the furnace full blast starting in June, because winter is eventually coming.

Slowly cooling for the past 6,000 years and then you go on to scoff at an ice age in 25,000 years? You seem to be arguing both ends against the middle. We are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles so we are still in the normal range of an interglacial temperature. Climate in an ice age is more erratic than it is in a greenhouse world. Not surprisingly we can see temperatures warming during periods of a glacial cycle and cooling during an interglacial cycle. It's perfectly natural and expected, so there's your explanation for a cooling trend during an interglacial cycle. As to the background conditions which led to this ice age, they still exist today. So your fear of a runaway hot house is unfounded. The very most you can expect the temperature to rise over the next 100 years is less than 2C which is still in the normal range of an interglacial cycle temperature. However, the most we can expect the planet to cool is 8C which would be a much more catastrophic situation for humanity than a 2C increase.

 

[Sunsettommy]

While my post is about PISS/NASA temperature data sets. Where they adjust the data over and over and over and over for the last 20 years, not even similar to what Zeke is talking about.

Got it. You couldn't understand the article, so you repeated some weird cult myth about "adjusted the data over and over for the last 20 years".

Just admit it. You have no idea what the science says, you're in way over your head, and you're just making stuff up now.

Where is YOUR refutation of it?

I posted hard evidence of which YOU ignored completely, showed the scale of the changes which magically is always in one direction, upward!

Snicker....

 

[mamooth]

Slowly cooling for the past 6,000 years and then you go on to scoff at an ice age in 25,000 years?

25,000 is a guess. Could be 50,000.

You seem to be arguing both ends against the middle.

How so? You're not making any sense. I simply stated a fact. The earth was very slowly cooling into the next ice age, until we changed that to fast warming.

We are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles so we are still in the normal range of an interglacial temperature.

Which is in no way relevant to the fact that we're causing fast warming, and it's getting worse, and it's causing problems.

Climate in an ice age is more erratic than it is in a greenhouse world.

Again, not releveant to the fact that humans have caused sudden fast warming.

Not surprisingly we can see temperatures warming during periods of a glacial cycle and cooling during an interglacial cycle. It's perfectly natural and expected, so there's your explanation for a cooling trend during an interglacial cycle.

I already had a perfectly fine and correct explanation, so I didn't need yours.

As to the background conditions which led to this ice age, they still exist today.

Except now humans have added CO2 to those background conditions, causing fast warming.

So your fear of a runaway hot house is unfounded.

Argue against what I actually say, not against your strawmen.

The very most you can expect the temperature to rise over the next 100 years is less than 2C which is still in the normal range of an interglacial cycle temperature.

Which would still be devastating to humanity. You might only worry about the planet itself, but I'm worried about the people on the planet.

However, the most we can expect the planet to cool is 8C which would be a much more catastrophic situation for humanity than a 2C increase.

Since there is no chance of such cooling in the next century, it's pointless to postulate it. It's very bad policy to devastate humanity to prevent a crisis that can't occur.

 

[mamooth]

Where is YOUR refutation of it?

You want me to refute my own source on why the temperature adjustments are made? That's peculiar.

I posted hard evidence of which YOU ignored completely, showed the scale of the changes which magically is always in one direction, upward!

No, you didn't. You're just pretending you did.

Let's try this again. Tell us which temperature adjustments being used are unjustified, and explain why ... in your own words.

 

[ding]

Slowly cooling for the past 6,000 years and then you go on to scoff at an ice age in 25,000 years?

25,000 is a guess. Could be 50,000.

You seem to be arguing both ends against the middle.

How so? You're not making any sense. I simply stated a fact. The earth was very slowly cooling into the next ice age, until we changed that to fast warming.

We are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles so we are still in the normal range of an interglacial temperature.

Which is in no way relevant to the fact that we're causing fast warming, and it's getting worse, and it's causing problems.

Climate in an ice age is more erratic than it is in a greenhouse world.

Again, not releveant to the fact that humans have caused sudden fast warming.

Not surprisingly we can see temperatures warming during periods of a glacial cycle and cooling during an interglacial cycle. It's perfectly natural and expected, so there's your explanation for a cooling trend during an interglacial cycle.

I already had a perfectly fine and correct explanation, so I didn't need yours.

As to the background conditions which led to this ice age, they still exist today.

Except now humans have added CO2 to those background conditions, causing fast warming.

So your fear of a runaway hot house is unfounded.

Argue against what I actually say, not against your strawmen.

The very most you can expect the temperature to rise over the next 100 years is less than 2C which is still in the normal range of an interglacial cycle temperature.

Which would still be devastating to humanity. You might only worry about the planet itself, but I'm worried about the people on the planet.

However, the most we can expect the planet to cool is 8C which would be a much more catastrophic situation for humanity than a 2C increase.

Since there is no chance of such cooling in the next century, it's pointless to postulate it. It's very bad policy to devastate humanity to prevent a crisis that can't occur.

There is no fast warming. We are still below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles. Our current sea level is ~26 ft below the sea level of previous interglacial cycles. It absolutely is relevant that there is more climate fluctuation with our present background conditions. The increase climate fluctuations are a function of the threshold of northern hemisphere glaciation. We are a lot closer to it than your think. And that's why we have more climate fluctuations.

The amount of CO2 added is a tiny fraction of the overall CO2 mass balance. The season fluctuation in CO2 is twice the average annual CO2 increase and there is no observed change in temperatures due to seasonal fluctuations. All it will take is a triggering event for the ocean to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and reinforce the colder temperatures. If I were you I wouldn't bet your house on there being no cooling over the next century.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Where is YOUR refutation of it?

You want me to refute my own source on why the temperature adjustments are made? That's peculiar.

I posted hard evidence of which YOU ignored completely, showed the scale of the changes which magically is always in one direction, upward!

No, you didn't. You're just pretending you did.

Let's try this again. Tell us which temperature adjustments being used are unjustified, and explain why ... in your own words.

Then you have nothing, enjoy a nice cool spring day.

 

[mamooth]

There is no fast warming.

Nonsense. You keep showing us temperature. I'm talking about rate of change of temperature. Two completely different things, the function and the first derivative. Talking about the value of the function says nothing about the first derivative.

The amount of CO2 added is a tiny fraction of the overall CO2 mass balance.

Yet CO2 has still increased from 280ppm to 400+, so I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

All it will take is a triggering event for the ocean to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and reinforce the colder temperatures.

No, that's not how the physics works. We've increased CO2 by 40%, and it's still climbing fast. Even an 8C temperature drop would only increase ocean absorption by ... less than 3%. Even in your impossible worst case scenario, CO2 levels would still be climbing.

And by the way, make up your mind. You just said that CO2 can bring temperatures down catastrophcially, but it can't raise them up that way. A magical gas indeed.

If I were you I wouldn't bet your house on there being no cooling over the next century.

I would. It's like betting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Trouble is, I wouldn't be alive to collect.

Now, I'd bet anyone that the 2020's decade will be warmer than the 2010's decade. I could only lose if there was some incredibly massive vulcanism, and in such a case, losing the bet would be the least of my worries.

 

[ding]

There is no fast warming.

Nonsense. You keep showing us temperature. I'm talking about rate of change of temperature. Two completely different things, the function and the first derivative. Talking about the value of the function says nothing about the first derivative.

The amount of CO2 added is a tiny fraction of the overall CO2 mass balance.

Yet CO2 has still increased from 280ppm to 400+, so I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

All it will take is a triggering event for the ocean to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and reinforce the colder temperatures.

No, that's not how the physics works. We've increased CO2 by 40%, and it's still climbing fast. Even an 8C temperature drop would only increase ocean absorption by ... less than 3%. Even in your impossible worst case scenario, CO2 levels would still be climbing.

And by the way, make up your mind. You just said that CO2 can bring temperatures down catastrophcially, but it can't raise them up that way. A magical gas indeed.

If I were you I wouldn't bet your house on there being no cooling over the next century.

I would. It's like betting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Trouble is, I wouldn't be alive to collect.

Now, I'd bet anyone that the 2020's decade will be warmer than the 2010's decade. I could only lose if there was some incredibly massive vulcanism, and in such a case, losing the bet would be the least of my worries.

D-O events say otherwise. 6 to 8C rises in a matter of a few decades. You are in an ice age, perilously close to the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation and you want the planet to be colder makes no sense. If the planet were warming at an unprecedented rate then the sea level would be rising at an unprecedented rate due to thermal expansion of water and increased ice melt. That's not happening. Sea level has always been a leading indicator of climate changes.

I can't believe you just argued against the ocean sequestering and releasing CO2 as a reinforcing agent to climate. We only have 55 million years of data on that. That is how the physics works. When the earth's temperature rises, CO2 is released from the oceans reinforcing the warmer climate. When the earth's temperature cools, the ocean sequesters CO2 reinforcing the colder climate. But here's the thing, we know CO2 only reinforces climate change because the climate switches back despite the reinforcing action of CO2. So we know that CO2 does not drive that process so we know there are triggering events which initiate the transition to and from glacial to interglacial cycles.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ding writes,

"I can't believe you just argued against the ocean sequestering and releasing CO2 as a reinforcing agent to climate. We only have 55 million years of data on that. That is how the physics works. When the earth's temperature rises, CO2 is released from the oceans reinforcing the warmer climate. When the earth's temperature cools, the ocean sequesters CO2 reinforcing the colder climate. But here's the thing, we know CO2 only reinforces climate change because the climate switches back despite the reinforcing action of CO2. So we know that CO2 does not drive that process so we know there are triggering events which initiate the transition to and from glacial to interglacial cycles."

bolding mine

=======

That is a long running error on the warmist/alarmists part, they can't understand that the CO2 molecule is reacting to temperature changes, it is a follower not a driver.

They also fail to understand on how little CO2 impacts the "heat" budget, it is very small and the additional CO2 in the air adds very, very little to it.

=======

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

Excerpt:

Here is my take on the issue. Please feel free to provide any input you have on this topic.

The question I asked of everyone was what would the temperature of the Earth be if everything else was held constant except there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

So questions of albedo and clouds must be ignored. Another thread can discuss the legitimacy of such feedbacks, but the question I want answered by everyone is what would the Earth’s temperature be if there was no CO2.

My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.