How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: The "controversy" (i.e. the uncertainty) is concerned only with the "long-tail" portion of the probability curve that lies to the right of 4.5 degrees C warming. The scientific consensus on climate sensitivity to CO2 remains, as it has for years, in the 2C to 4.5C warming range.
Projections have not even been *close*. Not even once.
NASA GISS and James Hansen:
From the IPCC AR4, 2008:
Currently, from the draft of the next IPCC report (AR5):
When do you stop believing projections that are consistently WRONG?
I refuse to believe that scientists are overwhelmingly deceitful.
I agree. But when I've repeatedly shown cases of deception, data manipulation and "stagecraft" (as the Senator is quoted from the video), when do we stop believing them.
Put another way...if someone deceives you, how many times before you stop trusting them? Do you continue to trust them because they have a title, such as "climate scientist"?
quote
It's not a 50-50 he said-she said thing concerning global warming. Scientists are pretty much in search of truth wherever it leads. The fact that an occasional "study" refutes global warming doesn't negate the vast arsenal of pro warming studies.
And that is where you are wrong. It is ENTIRELY possible for ONE study to negate every study before it. That's how science works. Not by vote, not by majorities (no mater how vast), but by either being true or not.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-08-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: the net increase is linear, not following the logarithmic increase in CO2.
I need to give you a correction here. The CO2 increase has been linear, not logarithmic. The heating from CO2 *has* been linear, but not following the increase in temperatures (temps have increased at a LOWER rate than CO2). You may be thinking of CO2's potential for heating the atmosphere, which *is* logarithmic, but CO2's potential heating drops off as you add more CO2. Doubling CO2 does NOT double the amount of heating.
I tried to get thru your post and gave up. could you summarize it for me? Seriously. congratualations on your 300,000 mile Fiero!
To give a short answer to your question, climate sensitivity is a critical component to whether our CO2 emissions will cause problems or not.
Think of it this way. If you are walking on a beam that is 4 inches wide, and someone shoves you from the side, there is a good chance that you will fall off. If you are walking down a 3 foot wide sidewalk, and get a similar shove, it is unlikely you will fall off the sidewalk. That is one way to look at climate sensitivity.
If the climate is highly sensitive, then additional heat will "shove" the climate into an upward spiral (runaway greenhouse effect) of higher temperatures. If climate sensitivity is medium to low, the earth will deal with the additional heat with few or no catastrophic consequences. Without high climate sensitivity, CO2 increase simply isn't an issue.
I agree. But when I've repeatedly shown cases of deception, data manipulation and "stagecraft" (as the Senator is quoted from the video), when do we stop believing them.
Put another way...if someone deceives you, how many times before you stop trusting them? Do you continue to trust them because they have a title, such as "climate scientist"?
You've repeatedly regurgitated the denial of scientific agreement and repeated cherry picking and attempted misinformation.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Put another way...if someone deceives you, how many times before you stop trusting them? Do you continue to trust them because they have a title, such as "climate scientist"?
No, you would be better IMO to trust the science that is being refined daily and has been shown correct over and over again not conspiracy theories and misinformation by those who have the most to lose.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
And that is where you are wrong. It is ENTIRELY possible for ONE study to negate every study before it. That's how science works. Not by vote, not by majorities (no mater how vast), but by either being true or not.
I suppose it is possible no matter how unlikely, feel free hold on to that....doesn't stink like blind faith and desperation at all, it also helps explain your unwavering belief in the denier bs on the blogs and right wing sites. It's reminiscent of the shock by those convinced that Romney would win the last election because they had been getting their info from places like Fox and other biased right wing shows and sites.
Got it. Kind of like you were explaining it to a child, but as I've aged my memory has gotten so bad that by the time I get to the bottom of a lengthy article, I can't remember what was at the top.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
To give a short answer to your question, climate sensitivity is a critical component to whether our CO2 emissions will cause problems or not.
Think of it this way. If you are walking on a beam that is 4 inches wide, and someone shoves you from the side, there is a good chance that you will fall off. If you are walking down a 3 foot wide sidewalk, and get a similar shove, it is unlikely you will fall off the sidewalk. That is one way to look at climate sensitivity.
If the climate is highly sensitive, then additional heat will "shove" the climate into an upward spiral (runaway greenhouse effect) of higher temperatures. If climate sensitivity is medium to low, the earth will deal with the additional heat with few or no catastrophic consequences. Without high climate sensitivity, CO2 increase simply isn't an issue.
It is ENTIRELY possible for ONE study to negate every study before it. That's how science works.
No. That is not "how science works." One "study" may point in a new direction, but it does not "negate every study before it." Until confirmed by evidence, and by multiple investigators, no single "study" constitutes definitive science. Example: More than 50 years after Albert Einstein first published the Special Theory of Relativity, other scientists were still conducting the very difficult experiments necessary to confirm various aspects of it.
This is a huge part of the problem. You (both you personally and people like you) don't understand science ... either the principles or the process ... so you give equal weight to evidence and opinion. In science there is no "winner," and the prize doesn't just go to the guy who can shout the loudest.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-09-2013).]
No. That is not "how science works." One "study" may point in a new direction, but it does not "negate every study before it." Until confirmed by evidence, and by multiple investigators, no single "study" constitutes definitive science. Example: More than 50 years after Albert Einstein first published the Special Theory of Relativity, other scientists were still conducting the very difficult experiments necessary to confirm various aspects of it.
This is a huge part of the problem. You (both you personally and people like you) don't understand science ... either the principles or the process ... so you give equal weight to evidence and opinion. In science there is no "winner," and the prize doesn't just go to the guy who can shout the loudest.
It *is* possible. Unlikely, but possible. That was the only point.
Science is also NOT done by consensus or vote, but that doesn't keep certain people from claiming it is.
The case still is, as you have also pointed out, that the trend of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase despite what many are claiming as being the "main contributing factor".
The case still is, as you have also pointed out, that the trend of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase despite what many are claiming as being the "main contributing factor".
Exactly. If it was, they'd be screaming it from the rooftops. When it doesn't, they just lie. Or do yet another "adjustment" to the temperature data.
I am curious as to why this graph is showing an average flat (0 increase) since about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's as there was a big boom in industry during this time frame?
Also why a similar rate of increase from ~1910 to ~mid-1940's as there is today? The economy was stagnate (ie. less manufacturing) during much of this time due to the depression. Yet the rate of increase seems to match the current rate, even though we are polluting more (kind of indicates that CO2 is not the main enemy as once again the warming rate is not seemingly following the increased CO2 rate).
I also notice that this graph looks like it is leveling off again in the 2000's.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I am curious as to why this graph is showing an average flat (0 increase) since about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's as there was a big boom in industry during this time frame?
Also why a similar rate of increase from ~1910 to ~mid-1940's as there is today? The economy was stagnate (ie. less manufacturing) during much of this time due to the depression. Yet the rate of increase seems to match the current rate, even though we are polluting more (kind of indicates that CO2 is not the main enemy as once again the warming rate is not seemingly following the increased CO2 rate).
I also notice that this graph looks like it is leveling off again in the 2000's.
As far as the period from the 1940s until the mid 1970s, a "warmist" would likely say that there was an upwards trending global warming contribution from increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, driven by the expanding scale of human activities; but at the same time, a cooling effect from increasing levels of aerosols and soot in the atmosphere from agriculture (burning of vegetation), smokestack industries and road vehicles. The aerosols and soot in the atmosphere were reflectors (or absorbers?) of solar energy--not sure exactly how it works--but it's well documented that this has a cooling effect. So the temperature didn't go up that much or hardly at all over this period.
But at the end of the mid-1970s, there was a big global push on air pollution which started the elimination of many of the human-released aerosols and soot, and so then, with the corresponding reduction in the cooling effect as the skies cleared, CO2-driven global warming became more significant, starting in the mid-1970s.
Aerosols and soot: "Global dimming". = search phrase for Google.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-12-2013).]
That's a simple, direct, and very broad assertion. Prove it.
I already have. The lie is constantly "adjusting" historical temperature records. The data is either good or it isn't. Adjusting it can't make it better. Polishing a turd results in a polished turd.
(also from the New York Times, if you don't like the above source: Link )
Still, Dr. Davis said, reviewers did not point out scientific errors. Instead, he said, “the most common response was, ‘It has to be wrong. I don’t know why it is wrong, but it has to be wrong.’ ”
OK. Please post links. Most of the alleged "proof" I've seen you post here is not proof at all, but rather opinion or circular references (i.e. secondary sources quoting each other) or both.
For reference, your exact assertion was, "When [the trend of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase], they just lie." I challenged you to prove it.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-13-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I am curious as to why this graph is showing an average flat (0 increase) since about the mid 1940's until about the mid 1970's as there was a big boom in industry during this time frame?
Also why a similar rate of increase from ~1910 to ~mid-1940's as there is today? The economy was stagnate (ie. less manufacturing) during much of this time due to the depression. Yet the rate of increase seems to match the current rate, even though we are polluting more (kind of indicates that CO2 is not the main enemy as once again the warming rate is not seemingly following the increased CO2 rate).
I also notice that this graph looks like it is leveling off again in the 2000's.
A combination of CO2-induced long term warming and cyclical influences, such as PDO/AMO that we've already seen to be cyclical with a mean about zero.
Together, they result in a cycle with a overall upward trend.
I already have. The lie is constantly "adjusting" historical temperature records. The data is either good or it isn't. Adjusting it can't make it better. Polishing a turd results in a polished turd.
IIRC FlyinFieros responded directly to the assertion that the temperature records were "adjusted" to bias results in a certain way.
The "adjustments" were made to stations that had poor quality data, i.e. began having significant deviations in periodic readings (which indicates an outside influence on the station, such as a recently installed air conditioner, or faulty measuring equipment). This data was still included in the dataset, but it's "weight" was reduced significantly.
Let's pretend we had a measuring station that read 60 degrees F +/- 0.5 F for 4 years. One day it begins measuring 75 F +/- 10 F. Would you blindly include the data? How would YOU, as a scientist or analyst, deal with the issue of potentially inaccurate measuring stations?
Is it coincidence that GISS, NOAA, Hadley CRU and BEST all came up with essentially the same results, using different methods of adjusting data?
I am still unclear what your position is. You began vehemently rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Then you began arguing that it's happening, but its not as bad as once thought. Then you started saying warming would actually be good for us. And now you are rejecting it again because you think the "adjustments" destroyed the data.
IIRC FlyinFieros responded directly to the assertion that the temperature records were "adjusted" to bias results in a certain way.
The "adjustments" were made to stations that had poor quality data, i.e. began having significant deviations in periodic readings (which indicates an outside influence on the station, such as a recently installed air conditioner, or faulty measuring equipment). This data was still included in the dataset, but it's "weight" was reduced significantly.
Let's pretend we had a measuring station that read 60 degrees F +/- 0.5 F for 4 years. One day it begins measuring 75 F +/- 10 F. Would you blindly include the data? How would YOU, as a scientist or analyst, deal with the issue of potentially inaccurate measuring stations?
Is it coincidence that GISS, NOAA, Hadley CRU and BEST all came up with essentially the same results, using different methods of adjusting data?
I am still unclear what your position is. You began vehemently rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Then you began arguing that it's happening, but its not as bad as once thought. Then you started saying warming would actually be good for us. And now you are rejecting it again because you think the "adjustments" destroyed the data.
The lack of a consistency does seem to undermine his argument, it almost seems desperate in a way.
OK. Please post links. Most of the alleged "proof" I've seen you post here is not proof at all, but rather opinion or circular references (i.e. secondary sources quoting each other) or both.
For reference, your exact assertion was, "When [the trend of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase], they just lie." I challenged you to prove it.
the bear is a total flack for the coal industry he ignores any point that is not in support of his dogma like the start of the current sun spot cycle at a low rate then claims global warming a lie as temps did not follow the predicted rate of course they did not go up as much as the solar inputs were less but never notes the less solar heat did NOT reduce temps as logic would suggest
something is happening but you have no idea what it is mr bear
No, misunderstanding my various arguments invalidates your argument. I'll get back to this tonight.
That's fine but I'd rather you address the direct questions posed to you.
As for my post,
I've stated many times before that I merely have an opinion just as you do, mine agrees with the overwhelming majority of experts and science, yours seems to be willing to believe whatever any denier website or blog says even in the face of peer reviewed, exonerated studies by courts, and countless research papers.
If you have somehow come up with your own theory then please feel free to post it.
Again you are indeed correct that someone may come along sometime and find new information that turns the man made climate change science on it's ear but so far it has not.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-13-2013).]
As far as the period from the 1940s until the mid 1970s, a "warmist" would likely say that there was an upwards trending global warming contribution from increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, driven by the expanding scale of human activities; but at the same time, a cooling effect from increasing levels of aerosols and soot in the atmosphere from agriculture (burning of vegetation), smokestack industries and road vehicles. The aerosols and soot in the atmosphere were reflectors (or absorbers?) of solar energy--not sure exactly how it works--but it's well documented that this has a cooling effect. So the temperature didn't go up that much or hardly at all over this period.
But at the end of the mid-1970s, there was a big global push on air pollution which started the elimination of many of the human-released aerosols and soot, and so then, with the corresponding reduction in the cooling effect as the skies cleared, CO2-driven global warming became more significant, starting in the mid-1970s.
Aerosols and soot: "Global dimming". = search phrase for Google.
Ok, but if this was the case, then when the 'cooling' effect was eliminated from the equation, shouldn't the temperature rate of rise be greater from the 70's+ than what the graph is showing when comparing to the rise rate of the ~1910 to ~mid-1940's section due to the build up of CO2 during the 40-70's time frame (since the CO2 production was never eliminated, in fact it has steadily increased)?
Also, while I find this plausible, the data in the graph does not really support this. If the cooling effect was suddenly turned off (skies instantly cleared) and warming was allowed to continue the graph would be accurate, but in reality, why wouldn't the temperature rise show a logarithmic type curve to them as the skies slowly cleared and recovered? This graph and others posted in this thread are all suggesting the temperature rise is linear vs CO2 non-linear production as it is increasing every year.
This also does not explain the apparent flatting indicated in the graph (2000+) as CO2 production has NOT decreased.
quote
Originally posted by newf: I've stated many times before that I merely have an opinion just as you do, mine agrees with the overwhelming majority of experts and science
No offense, but just how many times are you going to harp on this statement? I personally understand your point of view and why you are taking in, but that seems to be your only argument is that you "agree with the overwhelming majority of experts and science" (despite other "peer reviewed" and published papers posted here that say there might be something else in play). You agree with "your side", fine, here's your cookie - there is no need to keep saying it.
BTW you should reword that to the, "majority of climate scientists" as there are many other scientist that have no argument in this and are working in other fields.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 02-13-2013).]
No offense, but just how many times are you going to harp on this statement? I personally understand your point of view and why you are taking in, but that seems to be your only argument is that you "agree with the overwhelming majority of experts and science" (despite other "peer reviewed" and published papers posted here that say there might be something else in play). You agree with "your side", fine, here's your cookie - there is no need to keep saying it.
BTW you should reword that to the, "majority of climate scientists" as there are many other scientist that have no argument in this and are working in other fields.
No offense taken....my point is that we all have our own opinions and reasons for them, some based on science and the experts interpretation, others based on cherry picking and conjecture by lone wolves. Neither are wrong per se but it's seems some can't accept the possibility of their opinion being incorrect and pose as experts who understands what they apparently do not.
I find questioning the "consensus" is constructive but being so willing to prove ones opinion that they accept whatever is against good science without question seems fool hardy IMO.
OK. Please post links. Most of the alleged "proof" I've seen you post here is not proof at all, but rather opinion or circular references (i.e. secondary sources quoting each other) or both.
For reference, your exact assertion was, "When [the trendh of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase], they just lie." I challenged you to prove it.
I am doing this on my phone, so pardon the rough formatting :
That is an anti-global-warming opinion site that does not PROVE anything.
quote
This web site is written by Alan Cheetham. I can be contacted at: gw@appinsys.com
I am an engineer with 30 years experience including extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics. I have several published papers dealing with data modeling. Although I am not a "climate scientist" by trade, my knowledge and training enables me to scientifically evaluate the data and the scientific studies.
When I began to look into the science behind the global warming issue, I started to realize that the scientific debate is not over (the political debate may be over, but it shouldn't be) -- because the science doesn't match the scary scenarios portrayed by the media. So I started documenting my findings on this web site.
Unfortunately, the media do not provide a balanced portrayal of the issue -- the media are in the business of selling fear, and if global warming is not the end of the world, there is no story.
OPINION is not PROOF. Please post the PROOF you claimed you already had. Or we can just agree that you either don't have any proof or won't produce it, and move on.
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Most of the alleged "proof" I've seen you post here is not proof at all, but rather opinion or circular references (i.e. secondary sources quoting each other) or both. [emphasis added]
For reference, your exact assertion was, "When [the trend of the warming rate is not consistent with the rate of CO2 increase], they just lie." I challenged you to prove it.
To prove that "they just lie," you must:
1) Prove that what "they" (all of them) said was factually incorrect;
2) Prove that "they" (all of them) knew at the time that it was incorrect;
3) Prove that "they" (all of them) said it anyway.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-13-2013).]
“Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.
Dr. Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings. But he said there was no inconsistency between the apparent stable trend in the United States and the rise in global temperature because the 48 states cover a very small fraction of the earth's surface and there are bound to be regional variations in climate.”
What's happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.
...
Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2). We caution that linear trends, as in Figure 2, can mask temporal detail. Indeed, Figure 1(b) indicates that the last 20 years have seen a slight warming in the U.S. Nevertheless, our analysis (Hansen et al., 1999a), summarized in Figures 1 and 2, makes clear that climate trends have been fundamentally different in the U.S. than in the world as a whole.
========================
Then came the "adjustments". When temperature data doesn't cooperate, just adjust it!
In 1999 NOAA provided a summary of the adjustments made to the US temperature data as shown in the following figure. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html] The report states: “The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century.” This is similar to the total amount of warming “observed” up to 2000.
========================
The figure above shows that the significant change in data adjustments made to the historical data after 2000 resulted in an increased 1998 of more than 1 degree (F). The figure below shows that if the significant change in data adjustments hadn’t been made, the 2012 temperature would be virtually identical to 1934.
While the alarmists are exclaiming that the warmest ever, 2012 US temperature, is more than 1 degree warmer than 1998, the fact is that it’s only due to revised data adjustments that 1998 seems warmer than 1934, by increasing 1998 by more than 1 degree. Without those creative adjustments, there is really no difference between 1934 and 2012.
========================
There are also adjustments to HadCRUT that I'll get to later.
Bluster all you want, but OPINION is still not PROOF; OPINION is not FACT. Shouting it loudly does not make it so. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Saying it crudely does not make it so.
It is worth noting that the claimed "adjustments" you're so concerned about (would) have an insignificant effect on the slope of the long-term trend line ... illustrating once again that WEATHER is not CLIMATE.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-15-2013).]
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Bluster all you want, but OPINION is still not PROOF; OPINION is not FACT. Shouting it loudly does npt make it so. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Saying it crudely does not make it so.
And criticizing the site doesn't invalidate the information. And it is not opinion, I provided you with the data. The use of all caps is meant to be emphasis, not shouting. I'll be sure to use bold, so as to short circuit yet another deflection argument from your use.
quote
It is worth noting that the claimed "adjustments" you're so concerned about (would) have an insignificant effect on the slope of the long-term trend line ... illustrating once again that WEATHER is not CLIMATE.
It isn't about weather, it is about temperature. The temperature anomaly disappears without the adjustments.
"Without those creative adjustments, there is really no difference between 1934 and 2012."
Your argument isn't getting any better.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-13-2013).]
The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.[/b] Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.
Which argument are you going with this time?
That the U.S. hasn't seen much warming (up to 1999 that is) but the earth has?
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: It is worth noting that the claimed "adjustments" you're so concerned about (would) have an insignificant effect on the slope of the long-term trend line
In his mind, the adjustments "create" global warming.
