Welcome to the Adjustocene

[IanC]

nope, you never can tell what the temperature will be.

things are slow so I checked out Steve Goddard's blog and found this

he says its from NOAA data but I cannot access NOAA. so I checked a few other places.

GISS v2

GISS v3

dont forget to notice the change in temp range on the y axis

BEST graph

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.65
After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44
Regional expectation during same months 0.57 ± 0.17
National average during same months 0.90 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.01 ± 0.05

hahahaha. BEST goes from -0.62C/century for quality controlled data to +0.44C/century for homogenized data. WOW!!!!



welcome to the Adjustocene Era.

 

[IanC]

 

[elektra]

Government dictates what the temperature is.

 

[IanC]

I think it is probably more like the Govt makes it known what they would like to see, and the governmental agencies do their best to produce a pleasing result.

 

[elektra]

Lets not forget the government uses the universities, colleges, and schools to spread the propaganda with full support of television and radio broadcasts.

 

[IanC]

propaganda to one person is simply consensus to another.

there are many degrees of freedom in constructing a temperature dataset. when your boss makes it known what general results are wanted or needed then the choice between competing methodologies and adjustments usually go towards the ones that give the most favoured results.

for example....adjustments for the Urban Heat Island Effect could swing wildly if there was a need to cool the trend in temperatures. a cooling adjustment for cities could easily be justified at 1C or higher. but because there is a need for increasing trend the adjustments have been justified (in their minds anyways) at zero for UHI.

 

[IanC]

just so I dont lose it.
./foiextract20131121-28074-u20zz2-0

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think it is probably more like the Govt makes it known what they would like to see, and the governmental agencies do their best to produce a pleasing result.

"expected" rise....

BEST is not the best at manufacturing the rise... Tom Karl at NOAA is the best at that..

 

[Billy_Bob]

propaganda to one person is simply consensus to another.

there are many degrees of freedom in constructing a temperature dataset. when your boss makes it known what general results are wanted or needed then the choice between competing methodologies and adjustments usually go towards the ones that give the most favoured results.

for example....adjustments for the Urban Heat Island Effect could swing wildly if there was a need to cool the trend in temperatures. a cooling adjustment for cities could easily be justified at 1C or higher. but because there is a need for increasing trend the adjustments have been justified (in their minds anyways) at zero for UHI.

UHI, according to Anthony Watts paper, is in excess of 3-5 deg C (aggregate rise over the period) at 61% off all HCN stations rated a 3, 4 or 5 for the NOAA HCN... IF were worried about potential influence of the historical records all you got to do is ignore that bias induced rise.. NOAA and BEST, as you stated above, ignore it..

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

nope, you never can tell what the temperature will be.

things are slow so I checked out Steve Goddard's blog and found this

he says its from NOAA data but I cannot access NOAA. so I checked a few other places.

GISS v2

GISS v3

dont forget to notice the change in temp range on the y axis

BEST graph

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.65
After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44
Regional expectation during same months 0.57 ± 0.17
National average during same months 0.90 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.01 ± 0.05

hahahaha. BEST goes from -0.62C/century for quality controlled data to +0.44C/century for homogenized data. WOW!!!!



welcome to the Adjustocene Era.

Steve has it right. He used the unadjusted global mean V.3, which shows no warming. Only cyclical warming and cooling with strong correlation to the solar cycle.

 

[IanC]

nope, you never can tell what the temperature will be.

things are slow so I checked out Steve Goddard's blog and found this

he says its from NOAA data but I cannot access NOAA. so I checked a few other places.

GISS v2

GISS v3

dont forget to notice the change in temp range on the y axis

BEST graph

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.65
After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44
Regional expectation during same months 0.57 ± 0.17
National average during same months 0.90 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.01 ± 0.05

hahahaha. BEST goes from -0.62C/century for quality controlled data to +0.44C/century for homogenized data. WOW!!!!



welcome to the Adjustocene Era.

Steve has it right. He used the unadjusted global mean V.3, which shows no warming. Only cyclical warming and cooling with strong correlation to the solar cycle.

here we go again. are you speaking from information, or just pulling shit out of your ass and sniffing it?

show us this unadjusted global mean V.3. and the comparison showing a strong correlation to the solar cycle.

 

[IanC]

Billy Bob- every time you lie or exaggerate it makes my job as a reasonably well informed skeptic more difficult to accomplish. the other side has already done enough exaggerating and misdirecting to last a millennium. our side can only win by being honest, otherwise it is just one lie vs another lie.

I really wish you would stop making unsubstantiated comments on the science. perhaps you could just stick to your opinions on the political side of the debate where you would do less harm.

 

[IanC]

mamooth and others here have taken up the rallying cry of 'adjustments make the warming trend less pronounced'.

I have been willing to discuss this, and break down into components which adjustments increase, and which decrease the trend. while all adjustments are to some extent discretionary, some have very specific reasons why they are necessary. it is the adjustments to the ocean data which are the only major factor in reducing the warming trend. and one specific ocean adjustment....for bucket measurements.

this graph from the working notes of IPCC AR3 gives both an idea of the size of adjustment for bucket measurement, and also a reason why it was implimented. the climate models at the time were out of touch with reality. I suppose it was easier to change the reality than change the models, hahahahaha. just sayin'

 

[IanC]

here is another graph from AR3, that caught my attention.

the satellite data and radiosonde data were in good agreement, even the surface based data was pretty good.

we know that surface temps and satellite temps diverged significantly after 1998. I wonder where the balloon data is now? mamooth says it doesnt agree with satellites anymore. should we believe him? UAH says they still track with the satellites, should we believe them?

I wonder if the new and improved radiosonde 'reanalysis' still looks like this graph? so much uncertainty, so many opposing voices.who should we believe? how is it possible that every time climate science needs an extra tenth here or a tenth less there, that it always seems to magically appear?

 

[Decus]

nope, you never can tell what the temperature will be.

things are slow so I checked out Steve Goddard's blog and found this

he says its from NOAA data but I cannot access NOAA. so I checked a few other places.

GISS v2

GISS v3

dont forget to notice the change in temp range on the y axis

BEST graph

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.65
After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44
Regional expectation during same months 0.57 ± 0.17
National average during same months 0.90 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.01 ± 0.05

hahahaha. BEST goes from -0.62C/century for quality controlled data to +0.44C/century for homogenized data. WOW!!!!



welcome to the Adjustocene Era.

Steve has it right. He used the unadjusted global mean V.3, which shows no warming. Only cyclical warming and cooling with strong correlation to the solar cycle.

here we go again. are you speaking from information, or just pulling shit out of your ass and sniffing it?

show us this unadjusted global mean V.3. and the comparison showing a strong correlation to the solar cycle.

Billy Bob- every time you lie or exaggerate it makes my job as a reasonably well informed skeptic more difficult to accomplish. the other side has already done enough exaggerating and misdirecting to last a millennium. our side can only win by being honest, otherwise it is just one lie vs another lie.

I really wish you would stop making unsubstantiated comments on the science. perhaps you could just stick to your opinions on the political side of the debate where you would do less harm.

Ian can I ask if in your reading in this area you've found anything that addresses solar and cosmic ray influence on the earth's climate, taking into consideration the earth's weakening magnetic field and a loss of ozone?

I found a brief mention of how variations in the earth's magnetic field impacts the historical record of solar activity but nothing more:

"Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity."

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

.

 

[IanC]

nope, you never can tell what the temperature will be.

things are slow so I checked out Steve Goddard's blog and found this

he says its from NOAA data but I cannot access NOAA. so I checked a few other places.

GISS v2

GISS v3

dont forget to notice the change in temp range on the y axis

BEST graph

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.65
After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44
Regional expectation during same months 0.57 ± 0.17
National average during same months 0.90 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.01 ± 0.05

hahahaha. BEST goes from -0.62C/century for quality controlled data to +0.44C/century for homogenized data. WOW!!!!



welcome to the Adjustocene Era.

Steve has it right. He used the unadjusted global mean V.3, which shows no warming. Only cyclical warming and cooling with strong correlation to the solar cycle.

here we go again. are you speaking from information, or just pulling shit out of your ass and sniffing it?

show us this unadjusted global mean V.3. and the comparison showing a strong correlation to the solar cycle.

Billy Bob- every time you lie or exaggerate it makes my job as a reasonably well informed skeptic more difficult to accomplish. the other side has already done enough exaggerating and misdirecting to last a millennium. our side can only win by being honest, otherwise it is just one lie vs another lie.

I really wish you would stop making unsubstantiated comments on the science. perhaps you could just stick to your opinions on the political side of the debate where you would do less harm.

Ian can I ask if in your reading in this area you've found anything that addresses solar and cosmic ray influence on the earth's climate, taking into consideration the earth's weakening magnetic field and a loss of ozone?

I found a brief mention of how variations in the earth's magnetic field impacts the historical record of solar activity but nothing more:

"Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity."

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

.

yes, I have but I dont have any special interest in it. aa few years ago Cern had an experiment on cloud nucleation by increased cosmic rays that produced a small effect. it is one of a number of factors that may have an effect on climate but who knows? CO2 gets the lion's share of funding and attention.

 

[westwall]

ADDRESS the facts in the OP.

 

[flacaltenn]

nope, you never can tell what the temperature will be.

things are slow so I checked out Steve Goddard's blog and found this

he says its from NOAA data but I cannot access NOAA. so I checked a few other places.

GISS v2

GISS v3

dont forget to notice the change in temp range on the y axis

BEST graph

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -0.65
After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44
Regional expectation during same months 0.57 ± 0.17
National average during same months 0.90 ± 0.11
Global land average during same months 1.01 ± 0.05

hahahaha. BEST goes from -0.62C/century for quality controlled data to +0.44C/century for homogenized data. WOW!!!!



welcome to the Adjustocene Era.

Well here's the problem...

After quality control -0.62
After breakpoint alignment 0.44

Should have taken it to Midas to get the brakes aligned...

 

[flacaltenn]

So Rome, Ga got inspected, neglected, homogenized and totalitized. (my Jesse Jackson impression)..

So how FAR from Rome GA do you have to go to get 0.5 degree UP correction? And what did the "regional values" get homogenized with to be so far off from the Raw reported data?

 

[IanC]

I keep repeating this but I don't think people get the implication. Muller of BEST admitted that 1/3 of long running stations had negative temperature trends in the unhomogenized data.

There are NO negative trends in the homogenized data. None, Nada, Zilch. Every place has been adjusted to match local expectations, which are adjusted to match regional expectations, which are adjusted to.....global expectations. The methodology forces the trend while keeping some of the shape of the variation. Rinse and repeat.