The Politics of Climate Change: How Data Is Being Manipulated To Fit A Theory

[Veritas]

This Blog article which was picked up by WAPO states that 2016 was the hottest ever on record. However, analysis of the actual raw data show a completely different story.

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year

In all likelihood, the U.S. is going to have its second-hottest year on record, trailing only 2012. Every state is slated to have a top 10 warmest year and even at the city level, unrelenting warmth has been the main story in 2016.

However, another blog which presents data and charts from the raw data prove the above allegation false.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

Note how most of the made up data is in the last 15-20 years.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

On a personal level, I live in a metro area of about 500,000 and we had one of the mildest summers on record...breaking several temp records. So far in Dec., we've also had colder than average temps. This is true for other parts of the country.

 

[archer75]

I'm not a climate expert, but I think the political stuff is pretty simple. No politician wants to do anything about global warming because it would mess with their money (or they fear it will). Some politicians use GW as a talking point, others use denial of it as a talking point.

If it's real and we ignore it, it gets worse and we ruin the planet for ourselves.

If it's not real and we do something about it...nothing bad happens.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

.

 

[USincognito]

I agree. Climate Change is a political issue for Conservatives. Liberals want political action on the issue, but their position is informed more by science.

 

[USincognito]

" So far in Dec., we've also had colder than average..."
Well, if local weather is the metric by which we determine if GLOBAL WARMING is, or is not occurring, then the fact that it was 80 degrees in Dallas on Christmas means AGW is real.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So far in Dec., we've also had colder than average temps. This is true for other parts of the country.

Not true for my part of the country. Three days before New Years and it got up to 79.

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USCA0638:1:US

 

[JackRT]

Last week the temperature at the North Pole was 30C above normal and the Arctic actually lost ice cover in December. Almost all the old multi-year sea ice is gone. The North West Passage has been completely open for the eight or ten summers so much so that even cruise ships have made the passage. The high Arctic is the canary in the mine. I think we should heed it.

 

[pat34lee]

If it's not real and we do something about it...nothing bad happens.

Nothing bad? Really?

I guess wasting billions or trillions of dollars is nothing bad, then. Until the price hikes hit home, at least.

 

[archer75]

Even assuming that the money would be "wasted", I think any amount of money wasted is less a risk than destroying the planet as a place for humans to live. God only gave us one.

 

[rturner76]

This just some of what NASA has to say about it. NASA uses satellites with thermal technology that can take measurements of the air, land, and ocean temperature trends and have been doing so for decades. They can see seal levels, ice cap retreats, sea ice, polar ice caps, global slow cover and so much more I can't even list it all. Take a look at some of these facts that have been reports using the latest science, not philosophy and ideology


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

(Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise

• 
  
  Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
  
  
  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

 

[fargonic]

They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.
Both claims are easily debunked.

You are wrong.

Gridding the data is a means of averaging over larger areas.

TOBS bias is real. IF YOU PREFER BIASED DATA then definitely DO NOT ADJUST FOR TIME OF OBSERVATION.

But further, you do realize that TOBS adjustments have been known and publically discussed for OVER 30 YEARS RIGHT? Do you think you guys just uncovered something? Sorry, but you guys found nothing new...except to you.

The fact that you don't actually know anything about the background science shouldn't make this "news".

The original article that describes Time of Observation bias is from 1986.

You can read it here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/karl-etal1986.pdf

(Don't worry, I know you won't. It requires actually admitting you didn't know a thing about this topic when you posted it.)

 

[fargonic]

Nothing bad? Really?

I guess wasting billions or trillions of dollars is nothing bad, then. Until the price hikes hit home, at least.

It's real. That's why the DEFENSE department takes it seriously. You may not, but then maybe you don't have to live in the real world.

The science is very solid, the basics are there. Much of the basic science we've known for about a century. The details we are filling in now show exactly what happens when a hypothesis gains sufficient data to get the majority of professionals who do this for a living concerned.

Face it, most of the folks who are "climate skeptics" on things like Christian Forums don't have the science background. They don't know what they're talking about.

That's why they take it back to "money". That's how you know they don't understand the science they are debating.

I say this, not as a climate scientist, but as someone with a PhD in geology and 20+ years as a research chemist. The science looks pretty solid to me. Am I a fool and being "led astray" or are the people with zero science background who rely on fringe blogs that are usually debunked quickly and easily being led astray?

Which of us is more statistically likely to be backing the wrong horse?

 

[rturner76]

It's real. That's why the DEFENSE department takes it seriously. You may not, but then maybe you don't have to live in the real world.

The science is very solid, the basics are there. Much of the basic science we've known for about a century. The details we are filling in now show exactly what happens when a hypothesis gains sufficient data to get the majority of professionals who do this for a living concerned.

Face it, most of the folks who are "climate skeptics" on things like Christian Forums don't have the science background. They don't know what they're talking about.

That's why they take it back to "money". That's how you know they don't understand the science they are debating.

I say this, not as a climate scientist, but as someone with a PhD in geology and 20+ years as a research chemist. The science looks pretty solid to me. Am I a fool and being "led astray" or are the people with zero science background who rely on fringe blogs that are usually debunked quickly and easily being led astray?

Which of us is more statistically likely to be backing the wrong horse?

I wish you could be around to post this in every one of these silly threads that pop up on here. It'snot quite as bad but it's almost to the point of debating someone who believes in the "Flat Earth conspiracy" This is unanimously recognized by the scientists of all the countries on Earth!

The scientific studies have been published and peer reviewed. This is the globally recognized method of proving scientific data. Throw all that out-it's the left wing government trying to get us to spend money on technology! [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] anything but that!

The smarter idea is to ignore all the science and use fuel sources that will soon run out. Yeah, let's base our entire economic system and infrastructure on something that will dry up in a couple generations. That makes more sense to me

 

[Goonie]

This just some of what NASA has to say about it. NASA uses satellites with thermal technology that can take measurements of the air, land, and ocean temperature trends and have been doing so for decades. They can see seal levels, ice cap retreats, sea ice, polar ice caps, global slow cover and so much more I can't even list it all. Take a look at some of these facts that have been reports using the latest science, not philosophy and ideology


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

(Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise

• 
  
  Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
  
  
  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

Yes well we all know Trumps solution to this. Withdraw funding from NASAs climate research and order them to only look into deep space, because if you see no evil/ hear no evil, it does not exist

 

[SteveB28]

" So far in Dec., we've also had colder than average..."
Well, if local weather is the metric by which we determine if GLOBAL WARMING is, or is not occurring, then the fact that it was 80 degrees in Dallas on Christmas means AGW is real.

Not to mention the record summer temperatures we are experiencing down here in Australia.


.

 

[cordie]

Given that this is my educational field I thought I'd chime in. Ok so maybe the average temp has gone up 1 degree. But this is how climate works. The sun is the source of our climate & lo & behold we have an atmosphere & are just the right distance from the sun. We have a differentiated layer geoid. We have these things called tectonic plates (land & ocean) that do slowly move around the globe over time. Past records show that the geography looked much different. The masses move by magma convection beneath in the mantle-it's whole cake geology. Faultlines stitch together the plates. The geometry of these masses & seas in turn set up our ocean currents, our wind belts, & our semi-permanent pressure cells. We have an axis with a tilt that produces 4 seasons. It is the differentiation in the pressure gradients that set up cyclones & anticyclones which rotate around the globe. They in turn are affected by mountain ranges, beaches, valleys, forests, open deserts, tundra. That is what drives weather. Carbon dioxide is a gas exhaled by living things, including plants at night (inhaled by them in daytime). We are still coming out of the Ice Age because not every glacier has disappeared. The sun's energy varies with sunspots & power output. The distinct jet streams often distribute themselves sometimes at higher latitudes, sometimes lower. Sunlight that we receive at surface level is re-radiated back to space at night. It is the re-radiation that creates surface warmth during summer (infrared). The politicians are trying to make an issue of something they cannot control. Man being arrogant (go back to the Galileo story) thinks it can. Now co2 can contribute to a greenhouse effect locally (visit a greenhouse in summer) but the little gas put out on the globe cannot change the whole picture. The biggest sink for CO2 is the ocean & lakes, followed by forests. So why all the fuss? Simple. The Democrats want this issue so they find another way to drive a tax into the economy. They want to punish people either at the gas pump, or those with electric heat, or AC. This gives them more money to spend. Imagine that-our own govt wants to punish people. I.E. the govt does not want you to use your AC when its 90+. They want you to suffer all to save planet earth. Ditto in the winter. They want $7 a gallon gas. It's easy for Leo & George to stick their nose in it but do you think it's gonna stop them from using their private jet or Ferrari. The local heat effect in a metropolis is known as a heat island. All the emissions from vehicles, utilities, businesses, restaurants, hospitals, collect in one place & they are blocked in by tall buildings, things that absorb heat like concrete, steel, & asphalt. Of course when you settle more people here-the more the effect on the grid. What would help is maybe more city trees. All energy actions lead to entropy. What this means is energy is never 100% efficient. It goes off to waste--heat waste. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it's an emission which in turn is used by algae, fungi, plants, crops, trees. This is how we make our food. Our troposphere is 78% nitrogen 20% oxygen, & the balance a small % of co2, argon, sulfur compounds, maybe some xenon, helium, & hydrogen. The reason we have nitrogen as the highest % is two-fold: if we had 100% oxygen, this gas being highly volatile-we would burn up. The nitrogen is there in a sense to buffer us. The nitrogen accrual came earth's early years when bacteria began to fix nitrogen. Now certainly we'd all like a clean earth but you won't get to 100%. CO2 does not create low pressure system such as a tornado; it does not create an Alberta clipper; it does not make a dust storm or cirrus clouds. The sun is roughly 50% thru it's life cycle as a not so big star. As it ages, it will begin going thru consecutive shells of hydrogen & helium burning. This will eventually increase its diameter. It will become a red giant & albeit cool off (red is cool), it will absorb the entire solar system & we will all perish. At some point it will fuse thru the next elements in the periodic table until it gets to iron. The cost of burning iron is where it ends-it's too great a cost-the sun will blow up as a nova & become a tinier white hot dwarf. That is the end. Stardust we are born & to stardust we return.

 

[USincognito]

Given that this is my educational field I thought I'd chime in.

Oh really? What field is that?

Ok so maybe the average temp has gone up 1 degree. But this is how climate works.

1. The last time there was a fluctuation of 1°C it was the Little Ice Age. It doesn't take much change in the global average temperature to cause great changes.
2. Yeah, we know about the natural cycles. The current warming isn't a natural cycle.

Man being arrogant (go back to the Galileo story) thinks it can. Now co2 can contribute to a greenhouse effect locally (visit a greenhouse in summer) but the little gas put out on the globe cannot change the whole picture.

Oh brother, not this garbage again. CO2 has gone up 80ppm in the last 100 years. It's due to human activity and it's causing the planet to warm.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Given that this is my educational field I thought I'd chime in.

If climate science is your "educational field", why didn't you actually talk about it?

This bit:

Ok so maybe the average temp has gone up 1 degree. But this is how climate works. The sun is the source of our climate

...is the only part of your entire post that even attempted to broach the subject of climate science. The rest was a bunch of word salad.

 

[cordie]

I have a masters in earth science which includes meteorology, oceanography, geology, & astronomy. I'm well aware of periods like the Little Ice Age, the Mt. Pinatubo episode, the Younger Dryas, the polar vortex. The Himalayas have a lot to do with orienting jet streams. A gaseous compound does not weather make. Politicians are designed to see if they can persuade people. It does not matter that NOAA keeps stats. The sun, at its mid-age, is at its highest peak of intensity.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I have a masters in earth science

Interesting. Can I ask where it's from?