I guess global warming is man caused after all

[AFTiger 282]

EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a studypublished June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

More: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

[AUDub 11,164]

LOL "peer reviewed"

Seriously, the idea that global warming isn't happening at all is so pants on head stupid that most contrarians don't even use it anymore. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming

Quote

As we well know, climate myths are like zombies that never seem to die. It’s only a matter of time before they rise from the dead and threaten to eat our brains. And so here we go again – American conservatives are denying the very existence of global warming.

Working backwards from a politically-motivated conclusion

The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. 

The Endangerment Finding concluded that the scientific research clearly shows that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare via climate change impacts, and therefore according to the US Supreme Court, the EPA must regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Conservatives who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo and oppose all climate policies have urged the Trump administration to go after the Endangerment Finding.

Both papers are rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion – that the science underpinning Endangerment Finding is somehow wrong – and work backwards trying to support it. In this paper, the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been validated time and time again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding. 

The errors in the white paper

The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend:

Additionally, a peer-reviewed study last year led by Hausfather verified the validity of the temperature adjustments by showing that they bring the data in closer agreement with that from pristinely located temperature stations. 

The white paper also claims that the adjustments remove a “cyclical pattern” that appeared more clearly in early versions of the temperature record. As Hausfather told me, that’s simply because we now have more data that better represent the planet as a whole:

What they don’t tell you is that the 1980 record in question only comes from around 500 land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and does not include any ocean data at all. There is a well-known warm period in the mid-to-high latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere in the 1930s and 1940s, but it does not really show up much in the oceans and not at all in the Southern Hemisphere. As scientists have collected more historical temperature records from around the world in the past 35 years, we have created more complete records that show less warmth in that period simply because they cover more of the planet. 

And of course natural thermometers validate this global warming as well. Ice is melting, species are migrating, spring is arriving earlier, sea levels are rising, oceans are warming, humidity is rising, and so on. The contrarian white paper also references satellite estimates of the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere – estimates that one group recently found are in close agreement with the global surface temperature record.

 

 Comparison of NASA surface temperatures with RSS satellite temperatures. Illustration: Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief.

The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

 

[AFTiger 282]

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

 

Depends on where you start your charting. When you omit the hottest weather from the 1930s it looks bad. When you include that data, today's weather looks pretty good.

 

[AUDub 11,164]

LOL. 

[AFTiger 282]

[AUDub 11,164]

For the teachable people reading this thread, read this paper to understand why the graph above looks the way it does. 

[homersapien 11,423]

AFTiger posts global warming is a hoax?

Wow, is it already that time of the month again?  

[SaltyTiger 7,847]

Hypothetical question. I say the science is skeptical. I live in the same fashion believers do other than vote. What am doing I wrong? 

[alexava 6,973]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Hypothetical question. I say the science is skeptical. I live in the same fashion believers do other than vote. What am doing I wrong? 

Voting 

[SaltyTiger 7,847]

8 minutes ago, alexava said:

Voting 

So its all political? 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Hypothetical question. I say the science is skeptical. I live in the same fashion believers do other than vote. What am doing I wrong? 

What are your scientific credentials? If you have none (same as me) what are you basing your skepticism on? I base my beliefs on what virtually all scientists say. I hope like hell they are wrong but can't, or feel no urge to dispute science. 

Only a deranged idiot would claim it's a Chinese hoax. If you voted for this idiot then it is all politics to you. 

[AFTiger 282]

Ah the anti-science folks weigh in. You can manipulate data to say anything you want. Such as pasting instrumental temperatures to paleo derived estimates to create a graph that resembles a hockey stick.

[SaltyTiger 7,847]

8 hours ago, alexava said:

What are your scientific credentials? If you have none (same as me) what are you basing your skepticism on? I base my beliefs on what virtually all scientists say. I hope like hell they are wrong but can't, or feel no urge to dispute science. 

Only a deranged idiot would claim it's a Chinese hoax. If you voted for this idiot then it is all politics to you. 

https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-like-michael-hockey-stick-mann-sabotaged-lawsuit-dr-ball/ 

[AFTiger 282]

Home, Alexva, when you resort to calling us names, you belong in the smack talk, not here. Anyway about that data manipulation:

[ArgoEagle 1,793]

20 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Home, Alexva, when you resort to calling us names, you belong in the smack talk, not here. Anyway about that data manipulation:

And lying in your beds many years from now, would you trade one chance to say They can take away our lives, but they can never take our Freedommm!

[AUDub 11,164]

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Home, Alexva, when you resort to calling us names, you belong in the smack talk, not here. Anyway about that data manipulation:

Dishonest bull****. AFTiger doesn't understand how baselines and anomalies work. Go fig.

[homersapien 11,423]

2 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Ah the anti-science folks weigh in. You can manipulate data to say anything you want. Such as pasting instrumental temperatures to paleo derived estimates to create a graph that resembles a hockey stick.

So, you apparently don't know the difference between actual data and projections.  

I am not surprised.

[alexava 6,973]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, you apparently don't know the difference between actual data and projections.  

I am not surprised.

That is why I leave it to scientists. But we are probably talking about people who would also say secretly meeting with Russian nationals and lying about it is not collusion. It's just the side they're on I guess. 

[homersapien 11,423]

7 minutes ago, alexava said:

That is why I leave it to scientists. But we are probably talking about people who would also say secretly meeting with Russian nationals and lying about it is not collusion. It's just the side they're on I guess. 

This has nothing to do with understanding the science. He doesn't want to understand the science.  

He is rejecting the scientific conclusion based on political reasons.  But nevertheless, he feels the need to justify that rejection by challenging the science - which he doesn't understand in the first place.

That's because - at some level - he does understand rejecting it simply based on his political beliefs is irrational. This is why he is receptive to arguments that seem like they are actually challenging the science even though they are totally bogus.  

These arguments are specifically designed for the scientifically illiterate for that purpose. 

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, politics has nothing to do with my conclusions. Al Gore introduced politics to climate science years ago. If you have to modify actual data to justify projections then you have introduced bias to the conclusions. You have chosen to ignore the scientific method and have chosen to accept the religion of AGW.

As far as projections are concerned, global warming is based on climate models and the models are wrong.

From a real scientist: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

[AUDub 11,164]

Who wants to know why the above image is a blatant distortion? LOL Spencer is a deceptive individual.

Hint, I've explained this in the past.

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Homer, politics has nothing to do with my conclusions. Al Gore introduced politics to climate science years ago. 

Irony

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

As far as projections are concerned, global warming is based on climate models and the models are wrong.

See, you are making my point.  Global warming is not based on models.  It is based on actual data. The effects of global warming can be, and have been observed.

Models make projections about the future based on algorithms, which are in turn based on known science and defensible assumptions. As the actual data is accumulated over time, these models will become more and more accurate, but - complexity being what it is - a given model will never be 100% accurate.  And we won't know which ones are the most accurate until after it happens.

In fact, the best way to consider models is they represent a calculated range of what is likely to happen. Unfortunately, the "worst" they predict is no less likely than the "best" they predict.

Having said that, there is no doubt that warming is occuring.  But the models don't tell us that, the actual data does.  

Regarding the future, there is no reason for the layman to assume the models with minimal increase are any better than ones with maximum increase - at least for those of us who are not conversant enough with the algorithms and assumptions to have an opinion on their strength.  That includes me and - I am pretty sure - everyone else on this forum. 

But, the fact that global warming is occuring and it is primarily cased by man is not in doubt by those who understand the science. We have hard data that proves that.  That has nothing to do with any model projecting the future.  To make an argument otherwise simply reflects ignorance of the science.

As far as "hockey stick" models, there are good reasons to think such a radical increase over a short period - an extreme change in the slope of the curve - is possible at some point in the future.  

For example, we know there is a huge amount of methane that is sequestered in Arctic permafrost.  As the thawing of the arctic regions progresses, this methane will be released.  Such a release could lead to a positive feedback in temperature increase.  The implications of that are horrendous.

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4271_f10/presentations/Carbon_Storage_GEOG5271.pdf

Unfortunately, since there is a huge lag time for the effect of greenhouse gas reductions to show effect. We already know that we will likely exceed the 2 degree milestone even if we started to approach the problem yesterday.  

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/climate-2c-global-warming-target-fail

od only knows (at this point) if we trigger a positive feedback in temperature increase which will guarantee we go far beyond that.  But there is plenty of science that suggests it could happen.

Personally, at age 66, I probably won't live to see the worst that will happen, but I am fairly certain I could live long enough for the deniers to disappear and observe the panicked reaction that will occur when people finally lose their complacency about this.  I reckon this will happen within 20 years, possibly sooner.

 

 

[lost 452]

If it is based on actual data--- Then 2013 lowest temp ever recorded in antartica, then highest in 2017--- so there is nothing there to indicate global warming, just a spike one way then another. And sea ice has began to reform and replace that which was melted after the recent "cycle" of warmth.  Many meteorologists are calling for winters as such as we had in the 50's soon to be felt here in the states as the recycling event happens again in the weather cycles as they see a "mini ice age" such as we had in the 50's and other dates.  Just these things happen and anyone can understand it.   No doubt man has made a mess of things but  let us not think we can control

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, lost said:

If it is based on actual data--- Then 2013 lowest temp ever recorded in antartica, then highest in 2017--- so there is nothing there to indicate global warming, just a spike one way then another. And sea ice has began to reform and replace that which was melted after the recent "cycle" of warmth.  Many meteorologists are calling for winters as such as we had in the 50's soon to be felt here in the states as the recycling event happens again in the weather cycles as they see a "mini ice age" such as we had in the 50's and other dates.  Just these things happen and anyone can understand it.   No doubt man has made a mess of things but  let us not think we can control

A single temperature reading taken at one location in two different years doesn't mean squat.  That's the difference between "weather" and "climate".

I suggest you spend some time doing a little reading on the subject.  Here's a good site that has compiled a lot of information in one place:

https://skepticalscience.com/