Climate Change Consequences

Peer reviewed studies, all based on the very same manipulated data, are useless.
Take for instance ship-based temperature readings vs buoy-based temperature based readings. Ships impact surrounding waters with heat from the ship causing their readings to be higher than those from buoys. So what did the climate scientists do to adjust the readings? THEY ADDED TO THE BUOY READINGS. All to make the ocean look warmer than it actually is in order to match what they needed for their models.
Every peer-reviewed study using this manipulated data will have an inherent bias toward global warming built-in and it won't even be obvious.
This is why so many skeptics simply don't believe the models can possibly work. We know they don't match reality. The manipulated data may be one reason!

 

And you base this on your own uninformed "analysis"? That f of some fossil fuel industry paid hack?

 

It is based on reviews and criticism of the Karl Et. Al. Paper that adjusted the buoy temperatures up because they did not show warming. 8 other datasets are in disagreement with this one used to inspire alarmism.

 

Hmmmm yes eventually but in the meantime there are thermoclines

 

Hang on. Just who is manipulating the data??

 

None of them?? Like to link to a few?

 

Where did you get that rubbish???

 

Why do you believe that NASA and the NOAA are not credible?

Let me try it another way. I challenge you to try and play devil's advocate. Try and locate the most credible source that would support my position, namely that the Earth is warming and that humans are playing a significant role in that warming.

If you are willing to do such, I will do the same, i.e. find the source that I believe is the most credible for supporting the notion that the Earth is not warming or that humans are not a significant factor in that warming.

Are you up to the challenge?

 

First, I would love to see your evidence for the assertion of their data differing so much from balloon and satellite data.

Do you have an understanding on why data gets manipulated? The reason that they give specifically. Do you also recognize that balloon and satellite data gets manipulated?

Finally, I would like to note that literally, TRILLIONS, of dollars in economic activity depends on the accuracy of temperature measurements and reports given by NOAA.

 

And that is relevant, how exactly?

 

Does that explain why the Gulf Stream is warmer than the waters it passes through, and largely responsible for the temperate climate of Great Britain, some of which is at the same latitudes as Northern Canada and Siberia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...i=oJrrWJjxPNjYjwOvgYi4Bw#imgrc=f8XAwbsKc-t25M:
Are there many palm trees in Northern Canada?

 

"Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis." "

 

Do you even know what a thermocline is?
It is a transition layer between warmer "surface" water and colder "deep" water. The deep water is much colder than the surface water. If heat were to be injected into the deep water, the heated water would begin to rise and thermocline would move.
Besides, coral doesn't live below the thermocline. It lives near the surface. Where water gets mixed by wind and wave action. Ocean currents at the depth the coral lives soon reach the equilibrium temperature of the rest of the water because of entropy!

 

NOAA for one.
"Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis." "

 

Oh. You missed it? I sent it. Here it is again: ipcc.ch

 

How do you link to something that doesn't happen?
*EVERY* global warming study depends on flawed data if they use land/sea temperature measurements.
Vast areas of the globe have no measurement devices. Scientists *guess* at what the temperatures are in those areas. The satellites *can* actually measure that vast area.
And guess what? The models using the land/sea measurements are *vastly* different than the satellite measurements.
Are you trying to convince us that the satellite measurements are wrong?

 

The temperatures of vast areas of the globe just get guessed at because there are no measuring devices there - the ultimate manipulation.
The satellite records primarily get manipulated to control for orbit pertubations, not because they don't measure vast portions of the globe!
Those people that want *accurate* forecasts, both short and long term, depend on private companies, not NOAA. People like Judith Curry make their living at it.

 

"GULF STREAM. A powerful, warm, surface current in the North Atlantic Ocean, east of North America, the Gulf Stream is one of the strongest known currents. It originates in the Gulf of Mexico as the Florida Current, with an approximate temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit, a breadth of no more than fifty miles and a depth of a mile or more. It passes through the Straits of Florida and up along the eastern coast of the United States to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, Canada, driven northward by southwest winds.

As the Gulf Stream reaches Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, the cold Labrador Current that flows from the north separates it from the coast. At this confluence, the warm Gulf Stream waters combine with the cold winds accompanying the Labrador Current, forming one of the densest concentrations of fog in the world. Because of this immense heat transfer, atmospheric storms tend to intensify in this region. Also at this location, the Gulf Stream is split into two currents: the Canary Currents, which are diverted southeast and carry cooler waters to the Iberian Peninsula and northwestern Africa; and the North Atlantic Drift, which flows northwest toward western Europe, providing temperate waters to the western coastal areas of Europe. The water temperature decreases with the northward flow and the breadth of the current spans several hundred miles at its widest. The average speed of the Gulf Stream is four miles per hour, slowing to one mile per hour as the current widens to the north. The Gulf Stream transports as much as 3.99 billion cubic feet of water per second, an amount greater than that carried by all of the world's rivers combined. The current's core, or jet, follows the contours of the continental rise." (bolding mine, upside)

 

So what is the relevance to my post? The warm waters of the Gulf Stream are responsible for our temperate climate. If it were not for this influence we would have similar weather and climate to the countries I mentioned above. You can argue against that if you want, but you'll lose.
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/North-Atlantic-Drift-Gulf-Stream.htm

 

That's why there is peer-review.

If the data is wrong or in any way skewed, then it won't pass the review. And if the reviewers don't realize that it was skewed before it's published, once published it will also be reviewed by the whole scientific community. And if there are errors, the study is summarily removed from the database. It has happened. Most of the time they are removed by the authors themselves. But sometimes it takes a third party. That's how Science works.

 

How do Satellite's measure temperature for specific regions of the atmosphere? Do you see any data manipulation occurring there?

Similarly, while I appreciate the weather balloon and satellite temperature measurements, I would note that they are going to measure differently compared to surface temperatures (and the models which are predicting surface temperatures) because they measure different portions of the planet - and the higher you go in the atmosphere, the colder are your measurements.

 

Both satellite datasets are manipulated for drift and both are in close agreement along with agreeing with radiosonde datasets. The outlier is the land/ocean dataset that incorporated the Karl et. al. Paper they adjusted the buoy data because it showed no warming.

 

Totally false misconception about peer review. There is a crisis in peer review in the medical industry and climate change is no different.

 

Source?

 

Can you not read? The Gulf Stream loses heat constantly as it travels north and is contact with colder water.
"Because of this immense heat transfer"
"The water temperature decreases with the northward flow "
What do these words mean to you?