2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Guilty as in getting caught manipulating and or manufacturing data such as...

"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.


The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.

Ewert (pictured) then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012."

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

Or this...

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/noaa-temp-data-flaws.516349/#post-1068146781

 

Garbage. The primary natural cause is the sustained multi-millennium high in solar activity in the 20th century. This was augmented by the up-phase of the 60-year temperature cycle in the 1970-1998 period of rapid increase that is the basis of all CO2 alarmist nonscience.

It is even more indisputable, and far more significant, that the earth's warmth comes from the sun. Duh. It is also more significant that ALL previous century-scale temperature variation, which we are far from being able to explain by natural causes, was indisputably NOT caused by human CO2 emissions, and that where it is associated with temperature, CO2 has generally trailed temperature because of the temperature relation of its solubility in ocean water.

 

Did you even bother fact checking that blog post?

 

These fact check sites have become nothing but left wing disinformation centers. They still deny climategate happened.

 

This made me laugh, given the combination with "CO2 alarmist nonscience". Go with something obvious and then David Icke folk!

 

Building a damn is humanly possible. Humans can't change the procession, the tilt or the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Do you understand that the Milankovitch Cycles control the climate?

 

Well, we are currently in an interglacial period that is 11,700 years old. The globe has been warming since then. That cycle I guess. That's if you believe your figure. I've seen data indicating that the temperatures haven't risen for 17 years. It's hard to say who's telling the truth in the land of fake news and fake science.

 

The land of fake news is typically the US. Sheep to the slaughter, given cretinous politicians and manipulative big business

 

What a stupid question. Asking me to name a "reputable worldwide scientific organization" that denies AGW is like asking me to find a labor union that favors employers over employees.

There are plenty of scientists that do not subscribe to the AGW conspiracy. Telling me that, "the National Academy of Science, IPCC, NOAA, NASA and many reputable worldwide scientific organizations support AGW theories", is like telling me that Christian churches believe in the Immaculate Conception. Global warming is their dogma and science is their god.

Here is an article of IPCC scientists who call BS on the IPCC fake data and conclusions:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08...imate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

 

Please give a percentage of scientists that agree with your outdated guff! Good luck

 

Changing our climate is humanly possible too. And I agree, Milankovitch Cycles do throttle the climate. The problem is that temperature changes are far more extreme now and in the past than what Milankovitch Cycles predict. Another problem is that ice ages wax and wane closer to 100,000 year cycles. That actually matches up pretty well with the eccentricity cycle which is odd because precession and obliquity alter solar insolation by a larger amount. The interesting thing is that computer models predict a 100,000 interval of ice ages using all Milankovitch cycles, but only when CO2 is also considered. The point is that 0.15C/decade is WAY too high of a rate to be explained by Milankovitch cycles.

 

What on earth do you even erroneously imagine you think you might be talking about?

 

The Earth had been cooling for 6000 years until the end of the Little Ice Age at which point it began to warm. Those that use the Milankovitch model predict that this longterm cooling trend should continue. Obviously there will be periods of more extreme short term (in geological terms anyway) warming and cooling embedded in the long term secular trend.

Using a 5yr moving average to smooth out the variability the warming over the last 17 years is approximately 0.4C. Note, if you don't like a 5yr moving average (many skeptics call this fraud) then the verbatim warming is closer to 0.6C. My recommendation is to smooth the data otherwise you'll overestimate the warming if your period of interest begins with La Nina and ends with El Nino like what the last 17 coincidentally lines up as.

 

I would if someone would do a scientific survey of scientists. Too bad that hasn't been done.

 

The UAH group led by Dr. Christy is critical of AGW...kind of. Dr. Christy actually acknowledges the primary tenants of AGW, but his group generally produces warming figures that are on the low side of the consensus. Dr. Christy is a reputable scientist who is often called a skeptic except that he agrees that the Earth is warming and that humans contribute 60% (his calculation) to that warming.

 

That is easily explained because the computer models you point to are a bogus pile of horse crap. The Milankovitch Cycles are not "predictors" any more than the hands on a clock are "predictors" of time. The big hand goes around in one hour cycles, and the little hand goes around in 12 hour cycles.

I think I posted the extremes on a chart. It shows much greater extremes than now. And like I said, I have trouble believing that fake number you keep posting.

 

The Milankovitch Cycles are not a model or a predictor.

Just as 5 years or 17 years are not great indicators of climate change that happens over thousands of years. Gauging climate change on tiny intervals of time is like predicting the tides based on the ebb and flow of the ocean over a few seconds.

 

It has though hasn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surve...ws_on_climate_change#Verheggen_et_al..2C_2014

 

That's not a scientific survey of climatologists. It's a survey of climatologists that agree with AGW. The requirement of the survey is that you have to have written and published at least 10 peer-reviewed articles and to get published, you have to agree with AGW. See how that works?

 

Its actually several surveys of scientists and how they agree with AGW. Can't you refer to anything to rebuke those surveys? Come on, at least try!

 

It's interesting you say this because numerical climate models provide the best predictions of the global mean temperature. No other theory or model can do better than a numerical climate model computation. They aren't perfect, but they are the best we have. So if a climate model is a "bogus pile of horse crap" then what do you call the Milankovitch model for climate prediction? I mean, I think the Milankovitch model is actually pretty useful because it has predictive power, but it's still not as good as numerical climate model that includes all known forcing mechanisms.

Review the following datasets.

NOAAGlobalTemp
NASA GISS
HadCRUT
Berkley Land+Ocean
UAH Satellite
RSS Satellite
CFSR Reanalysis
NCAR Reanalysis
NOAA 20th Century Reanalysis
ERA Reanalysis

The reanalysis datasets are the best and most accurate. There's actually a technical reason why that is, but I won't get into it now. Anyway, the above list represents a pretty diverse sampling of datasets that are prepared by different institutions using different techniques and different inputs and yet they all come to the same conclusion. The Earth is warming. The UAH version 6 dataset is the only one among the dozens that I know of that is below my 0.15C/decade claim. What can I say...I like to be conservative.

 

It absolutely is. It meets every definition of a theory. It makes predictions that can be tested. It's a model because it's formally defined and anyone can use it to make predictions. And it makes predictions (or postdictions in this case) that match observations. That makes it useful.

I agree with you there...mostly anyway. There may be some confusion about using a 5yr moving average. A moving average does not describe the total period being analyzed. It describes the procedure of averaging the last X amount (5 years in this case) worth of data to produce a value with a specific timestamp. You can analyze a 30yr or 100yr period using a 5yr moving average. The moving average like other smoothing techniques helps isolate the signal from the noise using a really trivial and easy to compute value. The 17 year thing was your idea.

 

All I have to refer to is the "surveys" themselves. They are not scientific surveys. Most are studies or analysis or examinations of articles or some other scam.
These are not scientific surveys because:
Verheggen et al., 2014 - "Must have 10 published articles to qualify for the survey."
Powell, 2013 - "analyzed published research"
John Cook et al., 2013 - "examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature"
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 - "analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science (AGU), a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know."
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010 - "reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers..."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 - "received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists"
Bray and von Storch, 2008 - "an online survey...of 2,059 climate scientists...375 responded"
STATS, 2007 - "surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either..."
Oreskes, 2004 - "summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change."



Wait, this one could be a scientific survey:
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012 - "surveyed members of the petroleum industry"... 36% for and 51% against the AWG conspiracy theory.

 

You still don't understand. The Milankovitch Cycles are not a theory, they are not a model, they are not a method, they are not "predictor's". It's a scientific fact. Like gravity.

There is no increase in global temperatures according to this article:

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record – The Pause lengthens again – just in time for UN Summit in Paris

 

How do you test the Milankovitch Cycles? Change the tilt of the Earth and see what happens? You can't test it. It is an observation made looking at the past historical patterns.

The 17 years refers to the current "pause" that the Earth is undergoing regarding global temperatures. There is no increase.