NOAA Caught changing temp data...........AGAIN.

Again, I was merely pointing out that you admit you are ignorant on the subject, yet feel qualified to comment on it, which is ridiculous. Address your ignorance, and your posts will be worth answering.

 

Bound to happen when the data doesn't support the predetermined conclusions you've drawn, without actually having said data.

 

The urban heat island effect is caused by anthroprogenic land use changes that retain heat. It is most pronounced in densely populated areas thus the inclusion of the word urban. The effect is most pronounced at night and during the winter. You're statement that temperatures were in the single digits is an attempt at incredulity that is misplaced. Again, the UHI effect is more pronounced during the winter; not less.

It's a not a bad location. Afterall, that is THE temperature in that area. It is of vital importance to aviation and weather forecasting that we record THAT temperature. Moving the station to a rural area and then using the reading to represent city temperature will lead to more problems than it solves.

The rub here is that with proxy datasets that only use surface stations there will be an overweighting of urban inputs vs rural inputs and land vs ocean which will lead you to falsly conclude that the Earth is warming faster than it really is. That's why proxy datasets adjust for that effect.

And again, reanalysis is a completely different way of measuring the global mean temperature that does not adjust any of the inputs at all. They actually millions of observations of various types as opposed to proxy datasets that use thounsands of surface temperature readings. They produce true global mean temperatures and are more useful for climate research. It's just that proxy datasets have been around for longer and can be (theorectically) calculated by hand. They are yet another line of evidence used to cross check other datasets.

 

You implicitly admitted it by asking a question that exposed your complete ignorance of why and how the raw temperature data is adjusted.

I repeat: maybe you should educate yourself and comment from a position of knowledge, rather than pontificating on subjects you know nothing about.

 

There is no dataset in existence that refutes the hypothesis that the Earth is warming. Literally...none. On the flip side there are dozens of datasets that show similar amounts of warming and they are developed and maintained by different institutions using different techniques with different inputs. Some are publicly funded, some private, and some have no funding at all. Some are even ran by AGW skeptics. And yet they all come to the same basic conclusion.

 

Nobody disputes the climate changes.

We are simply pointing out that yet again the MMGW Cult is caught red handed changing data to fit their narrative.

Your feeble attempt to spin that isn't gonna work. Sorry.

 

I want you to read this paper outlining the adjustments made in NASA's GISS dataset. What "lies" do you see here? How did the "lies" affect the global mean temperature?

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf

 

Well, when a certain group worships a "scientist" like Al Gore, one does wonder about the application of dumbness.

 

Scientists do not worship Al Gore. In fact, many of them openly repudiate him when he takes their research out of context.

 

In 20 years when the impact of global warming will be undeniable I wonder how conservatives will defend their denial of it. The only group in the planet who denies it exists.

 

Again, that's not what happened. Be honest, are you desperately trying to hold onto this narrative to save face or do you really not understand what happened?

 

The debate is about causation, not so much about measurable change. At least in the broader discussion. Credibility is the specific point here. Credibility affects ever aspect of that broader discussion.

 

Really? What evidence is that and where did you get it?

 

I agree. So what's causing the Earth to warm if it's not the net effect of all anthroprogenic components (greenhouse gases, aerosols, land use changes, etc.)?

 

The sun.

 

I'm not worried about the scientists worshiping Al, it's the unbelievable mass of low-information voters.

 

Yes ... the list of theories is long. I'm witholding my personal conclusion until I have more credible data to support it. Not a bad rule of thumb.

 

No. And let me be perfectly clear here. I'm specifically saying that the climate has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. This will happen with or without human influence. The climate has been changing for millions of years. I know this because that's what the evidence says.

I'm asking you point blank how YOU know that the climate has changed in the past? What evidence are you considering? And where did you get it?

 

That's one option. And it is implicated in climate change in the past. However, total solar irradiance has been in a secular decline for 60 years. During this time both the atmosphere and the ocean has warmed...significantly. So how did the Earth warm while the Sun cooled?

Also, keep in mind the solar only advocates (like Easterbrook, Soon, Balinus, etc.) have been predicting that the Earth would cool for decades. You don't need me to tell you that it never happened. And with each passing year that the Earth warms their predictions get further and further away just from breakeven nevermind the amount they thought the Earth would cool by. They're predictions are so bad that they couldn't even get the direction right. Meanwhile, scientists that consider everything have done a pretty good job. It's not been perfect, but it's been pretty close; certainly far better than deniers.

 

I don't listen to Gore or any other liberal for that matter.

 

So you agree with me that climate change is natural. Baby steps.

 

I don't give Breitfart any benefit of the doubt. I'm quite sure their writers are purposely deceiving and misleading their readers. It certainly keeps them in the green, having all those deluded, uneducated readers sharing and visiting their site's links to drum up ad revenues.

 

So...you're saying you are only writing to liberals here to upset them?

 

What I thought we were supposed to already be there, aren't we supposed to be dying from global warming already? In the late 70's and early 80's we were going to all be under ice by now.

 

Some climate change is natural and some is anthroprogenic. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Again, I ask...how do you know that climate changes? What evidence are you looking at and who did you get it from?