Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

[Natural Citizen]

The climate changes. What are ya gonna do?

Pollution is a problem. But, you know, the government is the worst polluters of all.

Japan had a car that ran on water. River water. Tap water. Rain water. And apparently, even tea would do.

Unfortunately, they got hit with that sudden tsunami shortly after they announced it and we haven't heard much about it since. Heh heh. I guess they learned their lesson.

This from just prior to 2011...

 

[koshergrl]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 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. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Wow! That is a lot of numbers.
Don't tell Fort Fun, he's allergic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And there it is, the deniers ***** about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they ***** about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

Actually some of those corrections to the 30's are BECAUSE the siting has been changed. Or that's the excuse. I can't imagine if they are cooling the 30s HOW they find stations that were TOO HOT. Heck -- Air conditioning and central heating wasn't even a thing then. Neither were big airports and big asphalt.

It's a real "highly processed" product that they are cooking everyday at GISS and NOAA.

Again the only data PROVEN to be cooked was the satellite data of Spencer and Christy at UAH. When it was "uncooked" it matched the ground station data almost exactly.

Radiosonds say you have it 180 out... They are in perfect agreement with the satellites. it is your buds twisting and chewing up the USHCN AND HGCN SITES THAT ARE IDIOTS!..

But I'm sure you wont let empirical evidence dissuade you from your fantasy...

You have no empirical evidence, you simply refuse to accept the empirical evidence when it contradicts your built in bias.

Your modeling is pure bias and you call it evidence... When real evidence, empirically observed evidence, is presented you run off crying that the consensus says your models are right.... EVEN WHEN THE FACTS SAY YOUR WRONG! Screw you and your politically contrived bull shit consensus...

 

[Old Rocks]

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

ebruary 19, 1859
– October 2, 1927


Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this
value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that through a combination of skill and luck he came within a factor of two of the IPCC estimate. His calculations were important only in a qualitative way in showing that this was a significant effect. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS: CO2 FORECASTS

OK.

You're not really an atmospherics PHD just because you register democrat.
Copying and pasting text from a lefty AGW propaganda site doesn't make you an expert either.

And where have I ever claimed that I was? All I have ever claimed is that I am a journey level millwright. Now Flacaltenn challenged me to go back to the original scientists for sources.

A propaganda site? It states exactly what Arrnhenius's research led him to believe. And Arrnhenius was a Nobel prize winning chemist. One of the giants in science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

There you go again, Flacaltenn, telling Westwall sized lies. Yes, the readings on those stations are adjusted for the surroundings.

Global Temperature Report for 2017 - Berkeley Earth

Annual Temperature Anomaly
Year Rank Relative to 1981-2010 Average Relative to 1951-1980 Average
Anomaly in Degrees Celsius Anomaly in Degrees Fahrenheit Anomaly in Degrees Celsius Anomaly in Degrees Fahrenheit
2017 2 0.47 ± 0.05 0.85 ± 0.08 0.83 ± 0.05 1.49 ± 0.08
2016 1 0.58 ± 0.04 1.05 ± 0.08 0.94 ± 0.04 1.70 ± 0.08
2015 3 0.44 ± 0.04 0.79 ± 0.08 0.80 ± 0.04 1.44 ± 0.08
2014 5 0.30 ± 0.05 0.54 ± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.05 1.19 ± 0.08
2013 9 0.23 ± 0.05 0.42 ± 0.08 0.59 ± 0.05 1.07 ± 0.08
2012 13 0.21 ± 0.04 0.38 ± 0.08 0.57 ± 0.04 1.03 ± 0.08
2011 15 0.20 ± 0.04 0.35 ± 0.08 0.56 ± 0.04 1.00 ± 0.08
2010 4 0.31 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.08 0.67 ± 0.04 1.21 ± 0.08
Uncertainties indicate 95% confidence range.



In the analysis that Berkeley Earth conducts, the uncertainty on the mean temperature for recent years is approximately 0.05 °C (0.09 °F). Since 2016 was warmer than 2017 by 0.11 °C (0.20 °F), more than double the uncertainty, we regard 2016 as unambiguously warmer than 2017.

When comparing 2017 to 2015, the smaller difference is less than the estimated uncertainty. Based on the best estimates for each of these years, and the uncertainties involved, we believe there is roughly an 80% likelihood that 2017 was warmer than 2015. Consequently, it is likely that 2017 was the 2nd warmest year overall. These uncertainties can be understood using the schematic below where each year’s estimate is represented by a distribution reflecting its uncertainty.



Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study

• Read moreabout Charles Koch Admits Climate Change is Happening, Then Denies the Problem
  
• Connor Gibson's blog
  
• 5 Comments

The Daily Show Notes Irony of Koch-Funded Study Affirming Global Warming is Real
Read time: 1 min
By Steve Horn • Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 11:19

Last night's entire first segment of The Daily Show focused on the recent study funded by the Koch Brothers that confirmed (again) that climate change is indeed a reality - an ironic twist given the Kochtopus' track record of fueling the climate change denial echo chamber with upwards of $55 million.

As described in an earlier piece on DeSmogBlog, “The [Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)] paper, an effort to confirm or debunk whether the urban heat island (UHI) effect was skewing climate records, has affirmed - again - that global temperature records are accurate and worrisome.”

In a manner that only John Stewart and his Daily Show team can, they unpacked the hilarious irony of the whole situation. The segment, roughly ten minutes long, is well worth watching for the laughs alone, especially the McRib-ing of the mainstream media's pathetic coverage of climate science and fixation on corporate advertising ploys. And Aasif Mandvi's interviews, of course. Watch the video below:

Loved this report.

 

[flacaltenn]

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

ebruary 19, 1859
– October 2, 1927


Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this
value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that through a combination of skill and luck he came within a factor of two of the IPCC estimate. His calculations were important only in a qualitative way in showing that this was a significant effect. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS: CO2 FORECASTS

OK.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And the IPCC estimates depend on what AReport year that was in. Since it's come down by MORE than a factor of 2 since the IPCC first started to calculate the phony number.

It's phony because the reduction to a single number is a very NON-SCIENTIFIC scalar constant. In REALITY there's not just ONE climate sensitivity for entire ******* planet. The Earth does not have a single homogenized climate zone. And furthermore, it's certainly NOT a single number constant. There are factors for short, medium, long TIME CONSTANTS associated with CSensitivity that Arrhenius probably had NO guesstimation of . It's a full on, spatially and temporally variant system of equations. Otherwise, the modeling is crap.

So LIKELY, the reason the IPCC only ever hit the LOWEST end of their estimates is because when you actually account for all the variables, the TOTAL effect on the planet surface is MUCH MUCH lower.

 

[flacaltenn]

There you go again, Flacaltenn, telling Westwall sized lies. Yes, the readings on those stations are adjusted for the surroundings.

How do you "adjust" for jet blast? Or the hot days when the HVAC blowing on the station pumps the readings? Or the fleet of panel trucks are idling within 20 yards of the station? Those stations need to be decommisioned and MOVED. That's how you "adjust" them..

I know that on my home temp stations in the house, If I STAND within 4 feet of them, it pumps the temps up by at least 0.4degF..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, since the temperature lags the amount of CO2 by about 30 to 50 years because the oceans create a lot of inertia in the system. Yet, the anomaly for 2017, from only 1951-1981 average was 0.85 C. I expect that by 2030, the anomaly will exceed 1.5, and, maybe, even 2.0. And that anomaly does not represent the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

ebruary 19, 1859
– October 2, 1927


Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this
value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that through a combination of skill and luck he came within a factor of two of the IPCC estimate. His calculations were important only in a qualitative way in showing that this was a significant effect. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS: CO2 FORECASTS

OK.

You're not really an atmospherics PHD just because you register democrat.
Copying and pasting text from a lefty AGW propaganda site doesn't make you an expert either.

And where have I ever claimed that I was? All I have ever claimed is that I am a journey level millwright. Now Flacaltenn challenged me to go back to the original scientists for sources.

A propaganda site? It states exactly what Arrnhenius's research led him to believe. And Arrnhenius was a Nobel prize winning chemist. One of the giants in science.

Your link includes IPCC which is effectively a globalist propaganda entity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well now, since the temperature lags the amount of CO2 by about 30 to 50 years because the oceans create a lot of inertia in the system. Yet, the anomaly for 2017, from only 1951-1981 average was 0.85 C. I expect that by 2030, the anomaly will exceed 1.5, and, maybe, even 2.0. And that anomaly does not represent the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The oceans aren't the sole cause of "lag". The atmos itself has a "retention" time constant. And the surface responds to increased CO2 in many other ways. It's QUITE complicated. Which is why I call bullshit when so much effort is put into a single stupid "global" STATIC number.

I don't take the anomaly numbers from NOAA/GISS seriously anymore. SOMEONE has to come up with more honest accounting since they greatly diverged from agreement with space measurements. And I'll never accept that they CONTINUE to cool the 40s just to make things look scarier.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been ******* with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them. It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study. Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.

 

[edthecynic]

How do you "adjust" for jet blast? Or the hot days when the HVAC blowing on the station pumps the readings? Or the fleet of panel trucks are idling within 20 yards of the station? Those stations need to be decommisioned and MOVED. That's how you "adjust" them..

You realize that the conditions you describe give LOWER anomalies and when they do what you say, the warming trend will increase, and you will then whine, "they adjusted the data."

 

[edthecynic]

BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been ******* with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them. It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study. Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.

You are not going to accept any study data, no matter who does it, even if you do it yourself.

 

[abu afak]

BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been ******* with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them. It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study. Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.

So let's be clear.. YOU are a Conspiracy theorist.
Suggesting NOAA, GISS, etc, are in this plot to fake the rate of warming- if there is warming at all! Right?
And sea level may also Not be rising with a little more help from another couple hundred scientists.
Right?
Then you gotta combine the PLOT with Thousands more scientists Worldwide

You're no better than a 9/11 Troofer.
"Deep State", "Fake News", ATTICA, ATTICA!
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

97% was propaganda

Wrong. Several surveys of published work get that number and even 98%. And you sound daft, anyway...any of those numbers is an overwhelming consensus comparable to that enjoyed by evolution and relativity theories.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Suggesting NOAA, GISS, et,c are in this plot to fake the rate of warming

Right, it's cometely insane. The only reason these deniers are not embarrassed of themselves is because they can find nodding sycophants on the internet. And that is only the case because of the entire industry which tries to sow doubt in this science.

 

[flacaltenn]

How do you "adjust" for jet blast? Or the hot days when the HVAC blowing on the station pumps the readings? Or the fleet of panel trucks are idling within 20 yards of the station? Those stations need to be decommisioned and MOVED. That's how you "adjust" them..

You realize that the conditions you describe give LOWER anomalies and when they do what you say, the warming trend will increase, and you will then whine, "they adjusted the data."

Really? So jet blast, HVAC and asphalt produce LOWER thermometer readings? Who knew?

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been ******* with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them. It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study. Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.

So let's be clear.. YOU are a Conspiracy theorist.
Suggesting NOAA, GISS, etc, are in this plot to fake the rate of warming- if there is warming at all! Right?
And sea level may also Not be rising with a little more help from another couple hundred scientists.
Right?
Then you gotta combine the PLOT with Thousands more scientists Worldwide

You're no better than a 9/11 Troofer.
"Deep State", "Fake News", ATTICA, ATTICA!
`

Happens CONSTANTLY. Almost every month the ENTIRE HISTORICAL record changes. All the ******* way back to the 1880s. I have NASA GISS/NOAA data and graphs from 2006 CLEARLY showing the major El Nino event in 1998.. It's now GONE. Disa -- *******-- ppeared. Thousands of folks trying to follow along have the record of all this "data preparation and cooking".

NASA's Rubber Ruler

A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

I thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.

I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA's web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.


In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Suggesting NOAA, GISS, et,c are in this plot to fake the rate of warming

Right, it's cometely insane. The only reason these deniers are not embarrassed of themselves is because they can find nodding sycophants on the internet. And that is only the case because of the entire industry which tries to sow doubt in this science.

They ARE changing the baselines and temperature data over and over, you are willing to LIE to yourself about it but the evidence is absolute since it all from NASA/GISS themselves.

Their old temperature charts are still floating around that now fully contradicted by their recent ones, they vanished the COOLING from the 1940's-1970's that was once around .5C now it is about zero, all from the SAME GISS organization!

I and others have posted them here before, but gets resisted because because it shows the deliberate lies they are promoting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They ARE changing the baselines and temperature data over and over,

And you have no idea whatsoever why, you understand less than nothing about any of this, and you are nothing more than a crazy person on the corner with a bullhorn.

So, keep right on squawking and whining....it affects nothing.

Or, step up to the plate and produce some science. Join a debate at a university.

Haha, just kidding...you would get laughed out of the room....