Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[RealityCheck01]

.

..snipped usual nonsense...

.

.

Heissonear, maybe you can answer the question that was actually asked since you seem to agree with it:
Heissonear: Please list the data that was purposely adjusted to produce a warming trend ("their conclusions").
An answer is that that statement was wrong - no data was purposely adjusted to produce a warming trend.
What really happened is that raw data from instruments that changed was adjusted to fix errors introduced by those changes.


.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yep, nothing to see here, move along, my warmist minions:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

C3: Newest Research: NOAA Adds Extreme Global Warming Bias To U.S. Climate Records

Scientific Scam: Temperature Data “Adjusted” To Push Global Warming Lies

Forget Climategate: this 'global warming' scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

Blog: Another alarmist temperature lie

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph

C3: The Curse of Modern Climate Science: Seeking The Truth Replaced By 'Kardashian-Science'?

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

C3: Climate Fraud/Lies, Climategate, Fakegate

Yeah, cause quoting denialist echo-chambers is science!

Wake me up when you stop being so cliché?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yeah, cause quoting denialist echo-chambers is science!

Wake me up when you stop being so cliché?

Yes - those links that andypro7 listed look like ignorant bloggers linking to the blogs of totally ignorant bloggers !

These are the widely known (especially to climate scientists) and well published techniques to get the best data possible out of the noisy weather station data and we see these climate change deniers call the science "fabricated".

 

[RealityCheck01]

For people interested in the science (not you andypro7 or Heissonear ), Skeptical Science is running a good series of posts about the instrumental record:
Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Understanding Time of Observation Bias

The Berkley Earth project (started by actual climate change skeptics!) was designed to test whether the existing methods of minimizing errors in data were correct by coming up with a new methodology and automating it so that accusations of human bias would be removed.
Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data

Christopher Booker’s recent piece along with a few others have once again raised the issue of adjustments to various temperature series, including those made by Berkeley Earth. And now Booker has double-downed accusing people of fraud and Anthony Watts previously insinuated that adjustments are somehow criminal.

Berkeley Earth developed a methodology for automating the adjustment process in part to answer the suspicions people had about the fairness of human aided adjustments. The particulars of the process will be covered in a separate post. For now we want to understand the magnitude of these adjustments and what they do to the relevant climate metric: the global time series. As we will see the “biggest fraud” of all time and this “criminal action” amounts to nothing.

Another Berkley Earth related blog entry: Just the facts, homogenization adjustments reduce global warming

Zeke Hausfather, an independent researcher that is working with Berkeley Earth, made a beautiful series of plots to show the size of the adjustments.

The first plot is for the land surface temperature from climate stations. The data is from the Global Historical Climate Dataset (GHCNv3) of NOAA (USA). Their method to remove non-climatic effects (homogenization) is well validated and recommended by the homogenization community.

They adjust the trend upwards. In the raw data the trend is 0.6°C per century since 1880 while after removal of non-climatic effects it becomes 0.8°C per century. See the graph below. But it is far from changing a cooling trend into strong warming. (A small part of the GHCNv3 raw data was already homogenized before they received it, but this will not change the story much.)
...
Not many people know, however, that the sea surface temperature trend is adjusted downward. These downward adjustments happen to be about the same size, but go into the other direction. See below the sea surface temperature of the Hadley Centre (HadSST3) of the UK MetOffice.

And the combined effect of the adjustment is to lessen (cool) the trend!

 

[andypro7]

Yep, those right-wing looney climate office researchers publishing to their denialist Geophysical Research Letters are really, really stupid. Not as smart as you fellas, huh?

MISSOULA – In a recent study, University of Montana and Montana Climate Office researcher Jared Oyler found that while the western U.S. has warmed, recently observed warming in the mountains of the western U.S. likely is not as large as previously supposed.
His results, published Jan. 9 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, show that sensor changes have significantly biased temperature observations from the Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) station network

 

[RealityCheck01]

...MISSOULA – In a recent study, University of Montana and Montana Climate Office researcher Jared Oyler found that while the western U.S. has warmed, recently observed warming in the mountains of the western U.S. likely is not as large as previously supposed.
His results, published Jan. 9 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, show that sensor changes have significantly biased temperature observations from the Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) station network

Wow - you need to read what you quote, andypro7.
This is a researcher confirming the need to adjust weather station records to account for sensor changes to produce more accurate data ! Climate scientists have been doing this for many decades.
Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States by Jared W. Oyler, Solomon Z. Dobrowski, Ashley P. Ballantyne, Anna E. Klene, Steven W. Running.

Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (U.S.) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here we critically evaluate this network's temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network's 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16°C decade−1 to +0.106°C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western U.S. elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western U.S.

N.B. This is that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations in the mountainous western U.S. is largely due to sensor changes. The local area is affected but the influence on global temperatures is unknown.

 

[andypro7]

Hey man, thanks for posting this. Finally something we can agree upon.

Man, did you screw the pooch on this one:

This is a researcher confirming the need to adjust weather station records to account for sensor changes to produce more accurate data!Climate scientists have been doing this for many decades.
No, what he is saying is that the models they are using to adjust weather station records are now, and have been for decades, WAY off, and the bias is towards warming.

Here we critically evaluate this network's temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic condition

NOT the result of climatic condition, unlike what all the models show

With artifacts removed, the network's 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16°C decade−1 to +0.106°C decade

They OVERHYPED the warming by a FULL DEGREE in just 21 years.

Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western U.S. elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%

Since you obviously don't understand this or you wouldn't have posted it:
Translation: climate products (models) lead to a FALSE temp trend, reading so that it shows warming 217 to 562 TIMES as much

In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western U.S.

COMPROMISED the ability to ACCURATELY attribute climate change impacts

Translation: EXACTLY what I've been saying.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, what he is saying is that the models they are using to adjust weather station records are now, and have been for decades, WAY off, and the bias is towards warming.

Man, did you screw the pooch on this one, andypro7:
* there are no models that are used for adjust weather station records - there are methodologies
* the researchers say nothing about global temperatures.

Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States by Jared W. Oyler, Solomon Z. Dobrowski, Ashley P. Ballantyne, Anna E. Klene, Steven W. Running.

Here we critically evaluate this network's temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions.

That "systematic artifacts" is the change in sensors.
The warming at higher elevations is NOT the result of climatic condition, unlike what the original data without these artifacts showed.

With artifacts removed, the network's 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16°C decade−1 to +0.106°C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends.

They OVERESTIMATED the warming by a FULL DEGREE in just 21 years because the sensors fooled them!

Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western U.S. elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%.

Obviously ignorance about climate science is continuing at a pace:
* no models!
* no evaluation of the impact of the systematic artifacts on global temperatures in the paper
* western U.S. elevation-dependent warming

In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western U.S.

And here we get to the only mention of global warming in the abstract.
They say that the climate is warming. There will be a local effect of this in the mountainous western U.S. It will be hard to separate the effects of climate change out from the other effects.

andypro7: What have you said about the mountainous western U.S? Wait I know - nothing

P.S. SIx outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[andypro7]

..http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-48/#post67144659

I think I finally get it. You believe in global warming (and presumably Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well) because you read these blogs, and articles, and papers and when you're done you THINK they tell you about global warming.

But after reading your last post, I'm convinced you don't know how to read these things at all, and that is the source of your ignorance on the subject. It took me a long time to explain the last one, so I certainly don't have time to teach you how to understand the stuff you read.

Sorry.

 

[andypro7]

western U.S. elevation-dependent warming

Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe

 

[RealityCheck01]

I think I finally get it. You believe in global warming...

I know I finally get it. You are a global warning denier, andypro7 - someone who is in so much ignorance or denial of the temperature record that they think that world has not warmed

Give the evidence for global warming that is actual belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and maybe fairies at the bottom of the garden . Even dedicated climate change skeptics have abandoned that.
So which of the non-warming climate myths are you into, andypro7?
Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?
The 97% consensus on global warming
Are surface temperature records reliable?

Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. Natural temperature measurements also confirm the general accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

P.S. SIx outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[RealityCheck01]

Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe

Oh let me count the ways you are wrong, andypro7, oh yes - it is those "THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe" !
I hope that this is not the idiocy that was expressed in those blogs you linked to where the authors were so ignorant that they did not know about the need for adjusting weather station readings?

ETA: I had better check this out given what seems to be an amazing ignorance about climate in the last post (global warming is an observation!).
11th March 2015 andypro7: Do you understand that weather stations change, this affects their readings and thus has to be adjusted for?

P.S. Six outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[andypro7]

I hope that this is not the idiocy that was expressed in those blogs you linked to where the authors were so ignorance that they did not know about the need for adjusting weather station readings?

This guy, CLIMATE RESEARCHER and Global Warming Believer, PUBLISHED in Geophysical Research Letters, knew all about the need for adjusting, so much so that he examined it and found that:

IT SHOWED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT DID NOT EXIST!!

But who am I kidding, you already have proven that you're not able to comprehend what he wrote. Oh well.

 

[RealityCheck01]

This guy, ..lots of irrelevant yelling....

Oh dear, andypro7: was that the ignorance of thinking that that mountainous western U.S. is the entire world?

11th March 2015 andypro7: Can you understand that the Oyler et al paper is not about global warming?
The paper is about mountains of the western United States. Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States by Jared W. Oyler, Solomon Z. Dobrowski, Ashley P. Ballantyne, Anna E. Klene, Steven W. Running.

 

[sculleywr]

You didn't understand the problem, specifically They take the raw temp data, swirl around in their little hockey stick machine, and THEN give us the adjusted data. EVERYTHING you post here is data that has been adjusted. Posting the adjusted data shows us nothing, unless you place it beside the original data. I've shown what happened in two small examples. At the Darwin station, the difference is nearly TWO DEGREES. Not 2/10 of a degree, TWO DEGREES! On the US gif, we see that the original data showed that approx. 1933/1934 was over a degree warmer than ANYTHING we've seen since. With the hockey-sticked data, we now get...Warmest Year Ever! Those are two examples. There are thousands. Yet somehow you still trust them. Post what you want, tell us all how terrible it is, it won't mean a thing, since your assessment is not based in the factual reading of the temperatures.

conspiracy theorist much? Need a tin foil hat?

How about you please do a little something, prove the conspiracy. Because NINETY FIVE OUT OF A HUNDRED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE "HOCKEY STICK" IS ACCURATE. You don't have that kind of consensus on any publicly controversial topics outside of climate change. It doesn't matter what civilized country you go to. Even Russia agreed with it.

The burden of proof is on you. I showed you the graphs. The hockey stick is there BEFORE the adjustments AND after. NDCC and NASA and Berkeley all show it.

You're the minority and you're the one saying the evidence was tampered with worse than what the data shows. How are we to know that your graphs weren't tampered with since it doesn't even follow the same format as the graphs used by the place they supposedly came from.

I posit that since your graph doesn't share formatting or style with its source, it's a false graph.

Occam's Razor: the explanation that both answers all the questions AND uses the least assumptions is most likely to be true.

Yours assumes an elaborate, unprofitable conspiracy scheme is pushing global warming. Because nobody who supports it is making money like big oil is by pushing your side of things. Climate scientists lose money.

Your source(s) must meet the following criteria:
They must be objective. They cannot be funded by companies that profit off of either side of the debate.

They must be peer reviewed scholarly articles that show the methodology in detail.

If this is science you're claiming to use, this should be easy. I'll start in my next post

 

[sculleywr]

Yep, nothing to see here, move along, my warmist minions: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ C3: Newest Research: NOAA Adds Extreme Global Warming Bias To U.S. Climate Records Scientific Scam: Temperature Data “Adjusted” To Push Global Warming Lies Forget Climategate: this 'global warming' scandal is much bigger - Breitbart Blog: Another alarmist temperature lie Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph C3: The Curse of Modern Climate Science: Seeking The Truth Replaced By 'Kardashian-Science'? The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph C3: Climate Fraud/Lies, Climategate, Fakegate

Let's see, blogs, blogs and more blogs. Here's an article about the effect of climate change on actual biomes

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6879/full/416389a.html

 

[sculleywr]

http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2007/06-07-07/Item 10b.pdf


The IPCC on the reality of climate change

 

[andypro7]

Repeat:


Oh, by the way, as I said, there are THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe

 

[andypro7]

NINETY FIVE OUT OF A HUNDRED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE "HOCKEY STICK" IS ACCURATE.

I don't think you understand this issue, allow me to explain.

A few weeks before the 2004 election, Dan Rather and CBS came out with a fraudulent report about Bush and Vietnam. It was soon exposed as fraud. Rather's explanation was that even though THAT PARTICULAR REPORT was proven to be false, Rather still believed the SUBSTANCE of it.

It's the same thing with the hockey stick. If 95% of climate scientists believed that Michael Mann's hockey stick is accurate, then they cease to be scientists.

What you mean to say, like Dan Rather, is that they still believe the substance of what the fake, fraudulent hockey stick represents.

Additionally climate scientists would not be in any position to determine whether the original hockey stick was accurate, since the issue WAS NOT the climate, but rather the phony, fake, fraudulent, lying STATISTICAL METHOD that was used to present the graph.

McIntyre proved, after attempting to replicate Mann's fraud, that virtually ANY numbers you put into Mann's graph produced a hockey stick shape. That's ANY random numbers at all.

Now, if you call that science, or if climate scientists call that science, then they and you have disqualified themselves to discuss science.

 

[andypro7]

The IPCC on the reality of climate change

IPCC Predicted Temps vs. Actual Temps:

IPCC Predicted CO2 levels vs. Actual CO2:

I don't think you or the IPCC know what the word 'reality' means.