This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Very interesting "Research Report " Wayne. Any idea what journal it was published in ? Perhaps who peer reviewed it? (Don't look too long we already know the answer don't we ..)

Adjustments ? Sure. Lots of them. But they don't affect the final outcome in any good way.
The final result? After all the adjustments are noted world temperatures are still at all time records. Check out Gavin Schmidt Twitter account to see the graphs. (For whatever reason I cannot successfully copy a single image which I have saved . Any suggestions ?)
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin
 
Last edited:
While we are on the topic of adjustments to data.

For decades now climate sceptics have argued that temperatures measured by proxy in the lower troposphere are not actually increasing. Hence, it is stated, despite all the other temperature records around the world posting record departures - they can't be true because the conflict with these satellite observations.
These satellite observations as I noted earlier are even more prone to adjustments than world temperature records. Check out the most recent adjustments and the impact on the temperature records.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
30 June 2017 6:38
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.


Produced by Carbon Brief using data from RSS.

Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
 
What's surprising me Basilio is the Antarctic melt happening at present.
Most scientists didn't expect to see any real melting for a few decades yet.
 
 
Knobby22 said:
What's surprising me Basilio is the Antarctic melt happening at present.
Most scientists didn't expect to see any real melting for a few decades yet.
Click to expand...
Antarctic sea ice is currently building as per normal seasonal variation and tracking the 1980 trend. Not much difference in 37 years.
 
 
Bintang how closely do you read the documents you post on ASF ? I'm assuming that you don't scour the web looking for the range of documents you post. What you post would be ones you have seen on climate denier websites which as a complete rule either

1) Find or create doctored information and graphs.
2) Selectively quote elements of papers that suit their story and ignore the wider context
3) Use old information that has been superseded by updated research.

Having said that after I look at the Ministry of Climate truth video I can appreciate the skill that is used to debase the entire climate science community as Climate Mafia.

Lets pick up a few points.

1) Satellite recording of temperatures has often been adjusted because of acknowledged degradation of satellite capacity, distance from the earth, travel times. When you read the reasons for the adjustments it is reasonably clear what is happening. Again check out the ref below
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

2) You quoted the reference from the paper regarding the extent and mass of the Greenland ice sheet . Did you read the reference in full ? It says.

If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.

Greenland Climate Research Centre collaborates with DMI on research in both atmospheric impact on the Greenland Ice Sheet and the ice flow itself and its interaction with the rest of the climate system.
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

3) The adjustments made to climate data from weather stations around the world are not all upwards. I'll leave a reference which explains this in more detail. The locations of weather stations do change as once rural areas become urbanised and experience the increase in local temperatures that big cities produce.

But in the end the overwhelming proof of unprecedented global warming is not just measured by thermometers or satellites. It is seen in the effects on ecosytems which thrive or fail according to the climate they inhabit. The world wide collapse of coral reefs points to increasing sea temperatures. The breakdown of perma frost across the Northern Hemisphere shows the marked changes there. The march of trees to the northern latitudes is another sign.

These are the facts on the ground.
 
This article analysis the "research paper" that challenges all the data published on global temperatures.


Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming
The best efforts to undermine the established climate science behind the Endangerment Finding are pathetically bad

....
The errors in the white paper
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend:

....
Additionally, a peer-reviewed study last year led by Hausfather verified the validity of the temperature adjustments by showing that they bring the data in closer agreement with that from pristinely located temperature stations.

The white paper also claims that the adjustments remove a “cyclical pattern” that appeared more clearly in early versions of the temperature record. As Hausfather told me, that’s simply because we now have more data that better represent the planet as a whole:

What they don’t tell you is that the 1980 record in question only comes from around 500 land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and does not include any ocean data at all. There is a well-known warm period in the mid-to-high latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere in the 1930s and 1940s, but it does not really show up much in the oceans and not at all in the Southern Hemisphere. As scientists have collected more historical temperature records from around the world in the past 35 years, we have created more complete records that show less warmth in that period simply because they cover more of the planet.

....The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming
 
Knobby22 said:
That's ocean, not land mass. Check land mass, that is what matters.
Click to expand...
You referred earlier to the Antarctic melt. The only thing that melts in the Antarctic is the sea-ice, which is why I posted the chart showing the sea-ice seasonal variation.
Now you say it’s the ‘land mass’, by which I assume you mean the mass of the ice sheet which covers the Antarctic land mass. The ice sheet temperatures are too cold for the ice to melt, except at the edges due to sea temperature (see map of ice sheet mean temperature, scale in deg C:

https://nsidc.org/data/thermap/antarctic_10m_temps/dixon_map.html

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Oct. 31, 2015
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
 
Knobby22 said:
China has bought an area for a new sea port ready for the new trade route. They don't have to cope with politics and politicians paid by "interests"
https://www.porttechnology.org/index.php?/news/china_plans_arctic_shipping_route
Click to expand...

Northwest Passage Still Out of Reach Despite Rise in Shipping Traffic
https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/a...out-of-reach-despite-rise-in-shipping-traffic
Feb 2017
Researchers have charted an increase in Arctic shipping numbers, but Canada’s Northwest Passage is unlikely to become a regular route any time soon, due to the enduring presence of hard, thick, multi-year sea ice in the more northerly channels.
 
The Settled Science Of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Violates The Laws Of Physics
Published on July 10, 2017
http://principia-scientific.org/the...-global-warming-violates-the-laws-of-physics/
“Worrying about a future climate catastrophe has no basis in the physics of the climate. It turns out that the so-called settled science has internal flaws in the physics that constitutes its very most fundamental basis. The advocates of the global warming by carbon dioxide hypothesis have told us that the science is settled. They make some very specific claims about how so-called greenhouse gases cause the present temperatures of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere to be warm as a part of what they claim to be the settled science. Consequently, we can challenge the physics they claim to be behind the present conditions that control the Earth’s basic climate. We do not even need to wait to see if their catastrophic man-made (anthropogenic) global warming hypothesis makes correct predictions for the future. In challenging the physics of their theory, we may well learn more about what the effect of additional carbon dioxide on the climate in the future will be. In any case, if their reasoning for the present temperatures of the surface and atmosphere is substantially wrong and in violation of fundamental laws of physics, then any further predictions they may make have no basis in science. If they do not understand the present, they certainly do not understand the future."
 
Global warming is against the fundamental laws of physics! Classic. I did physics and am a trained engineer. That is quite funny. Simple experiments can be created showing how the greenhouse effect works. Satellites can measure the amount of heat entering and leaving outr atmosphere. Where's the violation of physics?

This is the graph you should have looked at. I should have named it. the one you posted shows how much melt per year and so is cumulative. Still a long way to go before it's mostly melted though.
 

Attachments

  • Sea ice.png
    101.6 KB · Views: 51
Knobby22 said:
This is the graph you should have looked at. I should have named it. the one you posted shows how much melt per year and so is cumulative. Still a long way to go before it's mostly melted though.
Click to expand...
The chart you posted is just a snapshot for the month of June which has a natural range of ~20%, i.e. 10.6 to 12.7 million sq km. Looks dramatic except that the complete natural range of summer minimum to winter maximum dwarfs this, ie. ~ 400% 4.0 to 16.0 million sq km
 
Well its at the peak of June obviously but if it was a share you would short it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...