Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Spectral]

Images aren't against the site rules. Posting image spam without it being relevant to discussion and without contributing to the thread is.

Maybe:

Forbidden Topics
...keep in mind the post contents/subjects that are not allowed:
Posts that contribute nothing ("what does this have to do with WoW" etc)
Meme replies (LOL, TL;DR, OVER 9000, /thread etc)
Image macros and image memes

Walking a pretty fine line there.

[Chrysia]

It is indeed malicious. The title of the article states that there has been a lot more warming than previously thought. Nonetheless, the article provides two corrections; only the one that supports the author's claim is the subject of the article. To this end, the author even admits that much is still unknown about satellite data. By questioning the same data he used to discredit the counter-argument, he is acting malicious.

Nonetheless, what i called into question was the reason for the correction largely happening around the year 2000. The article does provide a reason, but of course, an insufficient one. The 'decaying of the satellites' wouldn't just start happening in 1998. Yet, that is what the 'difference' curve is showing.

To go back to a previous point, the author of this article even admits the failure of climate predictions. Climate scientists have not 'been on the money', even according to their own papers.

They only recently discovered the error. The decay was so severe that post 1998 the temperatures were off by a lot.

[buck008]

Climate scientists have not 'been on the money', even according to their own papers.

Climate modeling has been remarkably accurate if you ever actually look at what is published. In actuality, climate scientists have found that they have been too cautious in constructing the models and reality has shown the temperatures to be changing even more. They attempted to not be the alarmists that you accuse them of being and were proven to be wrong in that regard.


Oh, and the reason that perfectly addresses your exact objection to the article is only "insufficient" because you disagree with it. There's literally no other reason to disregard such a large factor or claim that you know exactly when it would have become a factor.

[Endus]

Well, clearly i took the time, so let's put that silly conclusion out of the way.

Saying that polar bears depend on the ice (when research actually shows they have survived in periods of melting) and then implying the polar bears drowning is directly related to the melting of the ice due to global warming is indeed dishonest.

Polar bears DO depend on the ice. There's never NOT been an ice cap in the North, in the past several million years.

That they may be able to adapt to other conditions is uncertain, at best.

There's this as well:

"And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago."

By using the word beginning, he is lying. Kilimanjaro started to melt well before the effects of climate change should have started taking hold (to the degree purported).

Y'know, it's entirely possible for someone to be wrong about a particular point, and not be lying. And regardless, Kilimanjaro's melting may not just be due to global warming, but pretending that global warming isn't contributing is just wrong.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/mou...njaro-snow.htm

Because "Children just aren’t going to know what snow is?" You can BOTH be for the helping the environment and not making asinine predictions.

You're linking a conspiracy nutcase's website. You realize that, right? If that is where you're getting your information, you need to stop listening to propagandists and try looking at the actual data some time.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

It is indeed malicious. The title of the article states that there has been a lot more warming than previously thought. Nonetheless, the article provides two corrections; only the one that supports the author's claim is the subject of the article. To this end, the author even admits that much is still unknown about satellite data. By questioning the same data he used to discredit the counter-argument, he is acting malicious.

This is all garbage. There were not "two corrections"; they considered multiple options, and went with the middle ground;

Depending on the time of the observation correction approach chosen, the resulting temperature trends between 1979 and 2016 ranged from as low as 0.13C per decade to as high as 0.22C per decade. The RSS group ultimately decided that the most reasonable set of parameters give a temperature trend of 0.17C.

We can read the article ourselves, you know that, right? Why blatantly misrepresent it like that?

Nonetheless, what i called into question was the reason for the correction largely happening around the year 2000. The article does provide a reason, but of course, an insufficient one. The 'decaying of the satellites' wouldn't just start happening in 1998. Yet, that is what the 'difference' curve is showing.

You say "insufficient", and you have absolutely no justification for doing so. The decay is getting worse, and it likely wasn't worth correcting earlier data, or they simply didn't focus on doing so for the purpose of that particular study. That doesn't demonstrate anything.

You're also straight-up ignoring that satellite data is compared to surface-station data; there was a variance between the two, and this correction for orbital decay shows that the difference was due to that decay, not anything more complicated.

To go back to a previous point, the author of this article even admits the failure of climate predictions. Climate scientists have not 'been on the money', even according to their own papers.

Literally not in the paper anywhere. You're making that up. I've been over it three times now trying to see what I missed, and the truth is that you're just lying about what the paper says.

You've cited a source that directly and explicitly contradicts you at multiple points.
You've lied about what it states.
You've cited a conspiracy nutcase as "support".

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Gutpile]

Maybe:

Walking a pretty fine line there.

Everyone knows what the moderation is like here.

[unfilteredJW]

Everyone knows what the moderation is like here.

Yeah, out to get you all.

How does it feel to always need a boogeyman rather than realize your actions have consequences?

[Gutpile]

Yeah, out to get you all.

How does it feel to always need a boogeyman rather than realize your actions have consequences?

Easy to say as someone whose political views coincide with the moderators here.

[Deleted]

Yeah, out to get you all.

How does it feel to always need a boogeyman rather than realize your actions have consequences?

Not our Fault Endus breaks the rules constantly.

[alexkeren]

All those pesky universities and colleges and foundations and such, they are all on the government payroll, right? Or the oil companies, right?

Pretty much. Either they're Public Institutions paid for mostly by the government, are private and receive most funding from sources other than tuition, or receive grants from government or private institutions.

If you think things like tuition bring in enough revenue to support most research universities/colleges you are sorely mistaken.

[Chrysia]

Not our Fault Endus breaks the rules constantly.

Report to a supermod and get back on topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much. Either they're Public Institutions paid for mostly by the government, are private and receive most funding from sources other than tuition, or receive grants from government or private institutions.

If you think things like tuition bring in enough revenue to support most research universities/colleges you are sorely mistaken.

The research is usually funded after a grant proposal is made, so it's not like the government is routinely going around saying "we want you to investigate this to prove this." It's 99% of the time researchers going to the government or private institutions saying "we have this hypothesis, we'd like money to investigate."

[stomination]

Report to a supermod and get back on topic.

- - - Updated - - -



The research is usually funded after a grant proposal is made, so it's not like the government is routinely going around saying "we want you to investigate this to prove this." It's 99% of the time researchers going to the government or private institutions saying "we have this hypothesis, we'd like money to investigate."

That's like reporting Sean Spicer to Trump lol.



But yea no group is going to pay for something that goes against their beliefs over and over.

[Chrysia]

That's like reporting Sean Spicer to Trump lol.

But yea no group is going to pay for something that goes against their beliefs over and over.

You act like every government and most private institutions that sponsor research has an identical agenda on science. This is beyond stupid.

[Chrysia]

*SNIP*

Here's a great video series, including several direct refutations of "Watts Up With That" material. Watt is a fucking nutjob and liar.

[Endus]

To paint Kilimanjaro as melting because of our supposed contributions to global warming is indeed a lie. Unless you can provide evidence that suggests Al Gore, in all the research he did (he even films himself doing it!), did not know that Kilimanjaro was melting a long time prior to his photos.

Hell, even Huffington Post knows he made this false claim.

Hyperbole that was later shown to be overblown still doesn't make it a "lie".

RSSv4 is the fourth version of satellite data published by Remote Sensing Systems. UAHv6 is the sixth version of satellite data published by the University of Alabama. There are your two corrections. The last graph in the article neatly shows these two corrections, with the latter correction showing a negative difference.

Those aren't "two corrections". Those are two entirely separate datasets, produced by two entirely different teams. And these corrections are only the most recent; you'll note the "v4" and "v6" tags at the end of each.

So again, you're speaking about something you really don't know much about, and getting it wrong.

I'll attribute this to misspeaking. Surely you understand that opting not to correct all the data, but publishing the entire data set is blatantly unethical.

Fortunately, the scientists aren't this bad. They did make corrections to all the satellite data. They provided us with an insufficient reason because you have two trendlines. One pre-2000, and one post-2000. To attribute this to natural decay does not provide us with two trendlines. Labeling it decay even suggests an exponential trendline, but still only one.

Perhaps the other reasons (that aren't detailed in the least bit) are more prominent in the early years, and less prominent in the later years. But, the article skips this. They only state that satellite decay is the major factor, and that the major differences occur after 1998. Why this is so is never addressed!

It's explicitly addressed in the article. You're just wrong about your justifications, here.

They corrected the data since 1979 (which is as back as it goes). They only showed a trend line since 1998, which is irrelevant, because they still showed all the data. Their data indicates an accelerating trend, as they clearly stated, so using a single trend line for the entire stretch would be misleading.

The "two trendlines" on the graph are just before- and after-correction. To show how the corrections changed things.

This is all glaringly obvious in the first graph in the article, reposted here for those following along who don't want to dig back through the thread;
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-co...ing-since-1998

You are misrepresenting what their data shows and how they present it.

From the article i linked: "While the new RSS v4 record shows about 5% more warming than surface records since 1979, this behavior would to some extent be expected. Climate models on average project around 18% amplification over the 1979-2016 period, though this value ranges from as low as 6% to as high as 40% in individual climate models. Even with these new corrections, there is evidence that the rate of warming of the troposphere is a bit lower than expected by climate models in recent years."

If you think that section even remotely justifies your nonsense about "the failure of climate predictions", then you're just demonstrating that, yet again, you don't understand what you're reading and what it actually means.

You are refuting his claims because you don't like the author. If this author tells you the sun is too bright to stare at all day, would you start staring at the sun because he just a 'conspiracy nutcase'? A better question is why should i take you seriously, despite you making this obvious logical error?

He (Anthony Watts) is a blogger who's also a radio weather man (not a climate scientist), who's funded by the Heartland Institute. I'm not refuting his claims because "I don't like him", I'm refuting them because he's a paid shill and a deliberate liar.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm
https://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21...mation-on-pbs/

And because all it deserves is another blogger's critiques; https://wottsupwiththat.com/

It's like citing Ken fucking Hamm to argue that there should be a "debate" about evolution.

[Chrysia]

Hyperbole that was later shown to be overblown still doesn't make it a "lie".

I'm really, really curious if he read that HuffPo article, because it says that yes, the Kilamanjaro Glacier began retreating before the industrial age, but has done so at an accelerated rate since the 1970s.

[Endus]

I'm really, really curious if he read that HuffPo article, because it says that yes, the Kilamanjaro Glacier began retreating before the industrial age, but has done so at an accelerated rate since the 1970s.

Right. It's a case of "not JUST global warming, also deforestation", not "not global warming at all, ONLY deforestation". And Gore never stated that it was ONLY global warming that was affecting it, that I recall.

It's kind of like saying "It's a lie to say I stabbed you", just because you AND your friend BOTH stabbed the guy.

[Chrysia]

We are talking about two different things. Talk about 'glaring obvious', i clearly said a trendline pre-2000 and one post-2000. The article provided two trendlines, but both are post-2000 (just for the corrected data, and the non-corrected data). The pre-2000 trendline is not provided by the article. They are two different, linear trends. This is not a single parabolic trend (as you are suggesting). This is not a single exponential trend (as labeling it as decay, would suggest). This is two different, linear trends. Why this is so is never explained by the author. Hence, why it is not sufficient.



I don't understand. You want me to look at the tags (that i even addressed). Ok, i see one with v4, and one with v6. Then, you want me to accept that there is only one correction? No, i still see one with a v4, and a second with v6. You are reading between the lines when you shouldn't. I never said they were two corrections to the same data set. Of course, with the 4 and 6, they are 3 and 5 corrections to their respective data sets. I said that with these two corrections, only one is sitting in the title of the article.

But, i think you knew there were multiple corrections. Otherwise, you wouldn't pluralize the word correction.



This is indeed my fault. I should have never accused you of refuting his claims, because you aren't doing that. You are ignoring his claims because you don't like him. Refuting implies you actually have brought counter-evidence to them. The website listed out claims made by climate alarmists. Counter-evidence would be likely of one of two forms: 1) evidence that shows these claims have never been made by climate alarmists; or 2) the claims made by these climate alarmists being true (like evidence that shows kids don't even know what snow is anymore).

A liar claims that you stole his wallet today. You can bring evidence that he lied yesterday, the day before, last week, and last year. But that ain't gonna help you show that you didn't steal his wallet.

The two corrections for the post-2000 data are for two different satellites with two different decay rates. Trend lines are almost always represented linearly.

I linked you a video series that includes in-depth debunks of Watts' bunk. It even goes into detail about why Al Gore was being an alarmist in the same video series. It's quite well balanced. Give it a look.

Just because Kilamanjaro's recession began before anthropogenic climate change was a major factor (which it actually didn't, because the initial change in the climate seems to be related to deforestation) doesn't mean that we aren't making it worse. I don't recall Al Gore claiming that carbon emissions are the sole cause of glacier retreat.

[XangXu]

The fucking War Boys could be driving around post apocalyptic LA, warring over water and the climate denyers still wouldn't stfu.

[Endus]

We are talking about two different things. Talk about 'glaring obvious', i clearly said a trendline pre-2000 and one post-2000. The article provided two trendlines, but both are post-2000 (just for the corrected data, and the non-corrected data). The pre-2000 trendline is not provided by the article. They are two different, linear trends. This is not a single parabolic trend (as you are suggesting). This is not a single exponential trend (as labeling it as decay, would suggest). This is two different, linear trends. Why this is so is never explained by the author. Hence, why it is not sufficient.

Well, the confusion derives from your application here being completely wrong about what trendlines are and what they're used for, on graphs. There aren't two trendlines. There's one. You don't get to imagine up a second fictional trendline and complain that it would have a different slope, especially not when the data shows a widening gap which means you would expect that.

It isn't explained in detail because that's blatantly obvious, and shouldn't have to get stated. For the same reasons they aren't going to take time to explain how addition works.

I don't understand. You want me to look at the tags (that i even addressed). Ok, i see one with v4, and one with v6. Then, you want me to accept that there is only one correction? No, i still see one with a v4, and a second with v6. You are reading between the lines when you shouldn't. I never said they were two corrections to the same data set. Of course, with the 4 and 6, they are 3 and 5 corrections to their respective data sets. I said that with these two corrections, only one is sitting in the title of the article.

But, i think you knew there were multiple corrections. Otherwise, you wouldn't pluralize the word correction.

Nobody's disputing that there's been multiple corrections to the RSS and UAH datasets over the years.

You were claiming that there were two adjustments to one set of data, and that was a lie.

And of course they're only referring to one set of data; the article is about a new correction to the RSS data set. The UAH hasn't had such a correction. It's cited as a comparison.

At this point, you're not actually criticizing the article, you're complaining that it isn't a completely different article.

This is indeed my fault. I should have never accused you of refuting his claims, because you aren't doing that. You are ignoring his claims because you don't like him. Refuting implies you actually have brought counter-evidence to them. The website listed out claims made by climate alarmists. Counter-evidence would be likely of one of two forms: 1) evidence that shows these claims have never been made by climate alarmists; or 2) the claims made by these climate alarmists being true (like evidence that shows kids don't even know what snow is anymore).

A liar claims that you stole his wallet today. You can bring evidence that he lied yesterday, the day before, last week, and last year. But that ain't gonna help you show that you didn't steal his wallet.

And I provided some sites which go through his various lies and debunk them in detail.

You not bothering to read them is your problem, not mine. Don't pretend I didn't provide that debunking of Watt's claims.

And let's get back to this. I say two trendines (one pre- and the other post-2000). So, you go talking about two trendlines that are both post-2000. I say there are two corrections. You say that there is only one, but ask me to notice the numbers at the ends of the two corrections you pointed out. Who is doing the misrepresenting here?

You.

There is one trendline. Not two. You're imagining a second trendline, and complaining that it would show a different slope than the other in the earlier part of the graph, which just shows that the factor being corrected was worsening over time, which was already acknowledged in the data, and thus not something they were misrepresenting in the first place.

There are not "two corrections" in the article. There is one. To the RSS data set. The UAH data set is entirely separate and was only cited as a comparison.

That both data sets have had multiple corrections over the years (shown by their revision numbers) is irrelevant to the article, which was about the most recent correction to the RSS data.

These are clear attempts at producing disinformation. The article in no way supports any of that.

[Endus]

Ok, i checked this in the morning, before going to class. And this is still here. I'll give you a chance to read up on how trendlines work, and then you may correct this. If you choose not to, then i will.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles...trendlines.asp

Trendlines are not the tools you think they are. They just highlight a specific pattern over a specific time frame. That's it.