Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
..
..snipped usual nonsense...
.
Yeah, cause quoting denialist echo-chambers is science!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
Yes - those links that andypro7 listed look like ignorant bloggers linking to the blogs of totally ignorant bloggersYeah, cause quoting denialist echo-chambers is science!
Wake me up when you stop being so cliché?
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.
And the combined effect of the adjustment is to lessen (cool) the trend!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.
Wow - you need to read what you quote, andypro7....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
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.
Man, did you screw the pooch on this one, andypro7: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.
That "systematic artifacts" is the change in sensors.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.
They OVERESTIMATED the warming by a FULL DEGREE in just 21 years because the sensors fooled them!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.
Obviously ignorance about climate science is continuing at a pace: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%.
And here we get to the only mention of global warming in the abstract.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.
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 warmedI think I finally get it. You believe in global warming...
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.
Oh let me count the ways you are wrong, andypro7, oh yes - it is those "THOUSANDS of these from all over the globe"Oh, by the way, as I said, there are 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 ignorance that they did not know about the need for adjusting weather station readings?
Oh dear, andypro7: was that the ignorance of thinking that that mountainous western U.S. is the entire world?This guy, ..lots of irrelevant yelling....
conspiracy theorist much? Need a tin foil hat?andypro7 said: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.
Let's see, blogs, blogs and more blogs. Here's an article about the effect of climate change on actual biomesandypro7 said: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
NINETY FIVE OUT OF A HUNDRED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE "HOCKEY STICK" IS ACCURATE.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?