Originally Posted by RedCloud

Great job there George............or maybe not ?

It may be a little too early to mock old George, he could be right in saying "Climate extremes would trigger meteorological chaos -- raging hurricanes such as we have never seen, capable of killing millions of people; uncommonly long, record-breaking heat waves; and profound drought that could drive Africa and the entire Indian subcontinent over the edge into mass starvation. ... Even if we could stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, we would still be committed to a temperature increase worldwide of two to four degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the twenty-first century. It would be warmer then than it has been for the past two million years. Unchecked it would match nuclear war in its potential for devastation," you never know.

Originally Posted by Steve Case

It clearly illustrates what's going on. Nearly without fail the
data is adjusted to favor a point of view.

Originally Posted by Steve Case

It clearly illustrates what's going on. Nearly without fail the
data is adjusted to favor a point of view.

But even the skeptics come up with the same results as the official records. Roy Spencer's UAH data for the US is a bigger trend than NCDC for the same period. So you're saying Roy Spencer and John Christy have adjusted their data to be warmer than the surface data sets - because they favour more warming?

You can keep saying what you're saying, but maybe one day it will sink in that the adjustments seem to be warranted. The skeptics have proven time and again that they are.

Here are a bunch of other links from independent sources experimenting with raw and adjusted data, with GHCN and with other data.

moyhu: Comparison of GHCN results
Better Late Than Never | Trees for the Forest
Thermal Hammer Part Deux « the Air Vent
moyhu: Global Land/Ocean - GSOD and GHCN data compared

You can use different datasets to GHCN and the results are close. You can subdivide, use only 'good' stations, cut out airports, or use only airports, use only rural stations, pull out cities to check for UHI.

The results are robust.

That old station drop-out issue isn't an issue

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect

Airports, contrary to skeptical opinion, show less of a trend than the rest of the data

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » Airport Warming

How does rural compare with the rest?

moyhu: Just 60 stations?.

Do they adjust the temps down anywhere?

The great conspiracy to destroy freedom, sabotage the USA, increase taxes, undermine the economy, institute world government based on socialism with Al Gore as dictator, and of course … drive us all back to the stone age | Open Mind



You were saying upthread that the UAH trend adjustment was ONLY 7 hundredths of of a degree. And here you are getting your knickers in a twist over trend adjustments of 2 hudredths of a degree. What's up with that?

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

But even the skeptics come up with the same results as the official records. Roy Spencer's UAH data for the US is a bigger trend than NCDC for the same period. So you're saying Roy Spencer and John Christy have adjusted their data to be warmer than the surface data sets - because they favour more warming?

Only over the satellite period since 1979, which obviously prevents too much manipulation but prior to that there isn.t the satellite data avaialble for comparison.

It is notable that the temperature trend over the entire satellite period - more than 30 years - is only 1.2-1.3 degrees per century. Disasater? What disaster.


And the UHI is a genuine physical phenomenon. It has been measured many time, but is not adjusted for going back in time past the satellite period when it would have had it largest impact.

The positive correlation between temperature bias at locations and population density at those locations:

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

But even the skeptics come up with the same results as the official records.
Roy Spencer's UAH data for the US is a bigger trend than NCDC for the same
period. So you're saying Roy Spencer and John Christy have adjusted their
data to be warmer than the surface data sets - because they favour more warming?
You can keep saying what you're saying, but maybe one day it will sink in
that the adjustments seem to be warranted. The skeptics have proven time
and again that they are.

You can drag out the changes made to climate sensitivity if you want but
the changes to various data nearly without fail favors one point of view.
Are the changes warranted? Of course they are. The changes that should
have been made that went the other way because they were warranted were
ignored and never made. Do I know what those are? No of course I don't.
I can only guess that they are there. I can only observe the pattern and
the pattern is there. You don't want to acknowledge the pattern. You want
to pretend that the pattern isn't there.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

You were saying upthread that the UAH trend adjustment was ONLY 7 hundredths
of of a degree. And here you are getting your knickers in a twist over trend
adjustments of 2 hudredths of a degree. What's up with that?

See above for what's a knicker twister.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

Only over the satellite period since 1979, which obviously prevents too much manipulation but prior to that there isn.t the satellite data avaialble for comparison.

It is notable that the temperature trend over the entire satellite period - more than 30 years - is only 1.2-1.3 degrees per century. Disasater? What disaster.


And the UHI is a genuine physical phenomenon. It has been measured many time, but is not adjusted for going back in time past the satellite period when it would have had it largest impact.

The positive correlation between temperature bias at locations and population density at those locations:

Summary: The global warming we said was not happening, and then had paused? Well, it was not really happening all along!

Thanks for nothing. Your shiny new graph is well known and accounted for in the temperature record.

Now that the 15-year pause and the Met Office changes having proved ephemeral arguments, the men who "agreed the world was warming" are now like the dog back eating its vomit: it's all made up, and those record heatwaves, bushfires, storms and droughts are not happening.

Basically, after blinking in the sunlight for a few minutes, the lads are back in fantasy-land.



If you want to read up more on the urban thingy, go here: Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?

Originally Posted by Steve Case

You can drag out the changes made to climate sensitivity if you want but
the changes to various data nearly without fail favors one point of view.
Are the changes warranted? Of course they are. The changes that should
have been made that went the other way because they were warranted were
ignored and never made. Do I know what those are? No of course I don't.
I can only guess that they are there. I can only observe the pattern and
the pattern is there. You don't want to acknowledge the pattern. You want
to pretend that the pattern isn't there.
.

Thanks for the evidence, Steve. Your "pattern" is an artifact of your political playbook. As barry says, the changes are trivial, your politics makes you want to thinks its important.

Ok the debate about whether temperatures have increased over the last 15 years or not is now officially over.

James Hansen has come out on the record with the following:

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

Anyone with an ounce of mathematical knowledge will know that the only way for a 5 year trailing average to remain flat for 10 years is if the data is flat for 15.

Case closed. No warming for the last 15 years. So says James Hansen.

Originally Posted by Steve Case

It clearly illustrates what's going on. Nearly without fail the
data is adjusted to favor a point of view.

All looks fishy to the fishy eye.

barry has shown the effects are trivial and so not affect warming rates. Dr Spencer had to be shamed into adjusting for orbital decay, plus his coding errors, and no one ever mentions that - the biggest data scandal in climate science.

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

UAH satellite temperature dataset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

Ok the debate about whether temperatures have increased over the last 15 years or not is now officially over.

James Hansen has come out on the record with the following:

Anyone with an ounce of mathematical knowledge will know that the only way for a 5 year trailing average to remain flat for 10 years is if the data is flat for 15.

Case closed. No warming for the last 15 years. So says James Hansen.

As usual, scared to give the link so that we can go and see this is just spin. So now the guy you regularly claim is faking the data is talking the gospel truth. Well, what next? You will be voting for Al Gore.

Actually, I think he is just agreeing with me, as I showed yesterday:



The rate of change of warming may have slowed, but as I pointed out, that is not a "pause" or a "no warming" event. The earth climate system is not at equilibrium - therefore it must warm up long term.

James Hansen is spinning?

Is that quote attributable to him or not? Did he write that the 5 year mean temperature has been flat for a decade or did he not?