What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations).

Moving stations from cities to airports in the period prior to 1990 would have “possibly” meant “generally cooler,” though that is doubtful — perhaps you could do your burden of work here and show that with evidence — because airports after 1990 could have warmed considerably due to air traffic intensity. This needs to be demonstrated — just as you demand Heller does — by YOU deciphering Hansen and proving it. Why should I be the only one to have to wade into the weeds and prove every iota while you bask in generalities and trust of so-called authorities?

Heller deals with time of observation bias later in that video and shows that it makes no discernible difference to the past vis a vis the present so a 0.5° C adjustment is unwarranted. Morning and afternoon stations show virtually no difference in trend over the entire historical record so the warrant for cooling the past by 0.5° C doesn’t exist.

Here are three graphs to demonstrate how the TOB isn’t a legitimate concern and doesn’t justify the adjustment.

Here is the data from the consistent weather stations that reported from 1920 to the present. The higher reading of the morning stations is because these were/are predominantly located in the south where it is warmer and people were more likely to take morning readings.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Note the consistent downward (cooling) trend at all the weather stations, no matter whether those were read in the morning or the afternoon, and very little difference between all the stations and those which were “stable” in the sense of reporting every year from 1920.

To make it clear what the trend is and plots are very similar so TOB isn’t a thing, Heller normalizes all the plots to 1990. There is very little difference between them.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In this chart Heller adds the “adjusted” plot line from NOAA in light blue. It is completely discrepant from the other plot lines including the dark blue “stable” line in that it alone shows a warming trend.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Now here is where your refusal to look any deeper into your side of the data by deferring to the “authority” of NOAA and Hansen comes into play. I am forced to justify every iota of Heller and then forced to look for and debunk every iota of Hansen, et al, while you sit on your comfy desk chair pretending your gesturing at vague generalities from Hansen, et al, is sufficient to prove your case, while nothing I do can ever prove mine.

Heller makes a strong case — one that won’t persuade you, of course — but my intention isn’t to convince you, it is to present information that someone more willing to be unbiased will actually look into for themselves.

 

[HarryStotle]

Heller isn’t hiding anything…

I see. I am just supposed to trust him. Very scientific.

Let’s apply the same standard to Hansen, et al…

We are just supposed to trust them? Very scientific!

About as “scientific” as a 97% consensus (widely debunked) that is still the warrant for “We’re just supposed to trust them.” I.e., the “authorities” you keep gesturing towards.

As you say: “Very scientific!”

 

[Ender]

I was aware that NOAA/NASA had serially modified the temperature data but I had never seen the adjustments so clearly presented, nor had I read the objections to their rationale for doing so. I was, however, aware that they have continued to adjust even the data from this century, and I could never understand the justification for doing so. How is it that the most modern temperature stations are no more accurate than the ones we had 100 years ago? And why are the new ones all reading cooler than actual when all of the older ones read hotter?

No one can look at that last graph without recognizing that something is seriously wrong. It is easy to see how the hiatus in warming since 1998 was disappeared, but the adjustments only postponed the day of reckoning. Perhaps the warning that we only have 12 years to fix global warming better applies to NOAA. After then the adjustments will be so great they will be unbelievable to pretty much everyone.

 

[GLam1761]

Have you NO opinion? I recently watched a documentary
“Pope Francis: a Man of His Word” He has a LOT to say
and address the problems of modernity!! He saw and greeted
the problems of poverty in ALL the Countries he visited…
the Poor, the Prisoners, the Palliative care patients. He saw
First-hand the problems of Industrial and Technological
advancements causes to the Third World countries!! HE
had ANSWERS by the Wisdom His God-given World-view
and for the Problems of Mother Earth, saying: and I quote
“She is the most abused and neglected One of all, the
Poorest of the poorest of the poor”(From the Documentary)

 

[Metis1]

It’s “interesting” how some simply blow-off Pope Francis on this and some other matters that also includes the issue of capital punishment that he’s condemned and is now included in the Catechism. It seems the this “some” I’m referring to simply are more apt to follow right-wing politicians and their media than the Pope and the Catechism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Moving stations from cities to airports in the period prior to 1990 would have “possibly” meant “generally cooler,” though that is doubtful

Are you sure you are accurately representing the justification used for these homogenizations?

This needs to be demonstrated — just as you demand Heller does — by YOU deciphering Hansen and proving it.

First point is I am not arguing with Heller. He is not a participant in this forum. And if you are still playing at “arguing like a scientist”, you cannot use Heller as a source to prove that Heller is right. Remember? Primary sources. As much as you decry appeals to authority, you are still doing it, while at the same time forbidding me to do it. Also, you must realize the asymmetric roles we have. You are proposing a hypothesis: That NOAA/NASA has falsely represented global temperature trends. As it usual with someone proposing an hypothesis, the burden is on the one who proposes the hypothesis to support his hypothesis. I don’t have to prove anything. My role is to review your “paper” and point out where it goes wrong if I can. As you can see, neither you nor I are really equipped to debate these questions of science as if we were scientists. You do not understand the details of long-term data homogenization and neither do I. If you think you understand something better than I do, it is your responsibility to explain it to me in ways I can understand. But I will only accept primary sources, not Heller (unless Heller has some peer-reviewed publication you have not mentioned, in which case you can refer to that and only that.) If you cannot do that, you are essentially saying you are the expert and I am not, which is again appealing to authority, even if that authority is yourself.

Now here is where your refusal to look any deeper into your side of the data…

Again, as you the one trying to prove an hypothesis, it is not my job to “look deeper in the the data.” It is your job to present the data into which you think I ought to look deeper.

 

[Poet]

Have you NO opinion? I recently watched a documentary
“Pope Francis: a Man of His Word” He has a LOT to say
and address the problems of modernity!! He saw and greeted
the problems of poverty in ALL the Countries he visited…
the Poor, the Prisoners, the Palliative care patients. He saw
First-hand the problems of Industrial and Technological
advancements causes to the Third World countries!! HE
had ANSWERS by the Wisdom His God-given World-view
and for the Problems of Mother Earth, saying: and I quote
“She is the most abused and neglected One of all, the
Poorest of the poorest of the poor”

So now I can get attacked online for HAVING an opinion AND ALSO for not having one! My how the world is evolving at a rapid rate such that really just to exist is to get someone angry!

However, I did give an opinion. I gave the opinion that this is a thread full of snarkiness (to which I have just added in the first paragraph). I gave the opinion, by which I stand, that absolutely nothing is being accomplished by this thread.

Maybe you could tell me exactly what it is you’d like me to give an opinion ON. Are you not getting enough opinions from 2,000 other people on what they think of climate change? What difference does my opinion make and how would giving my opinion add to the melee?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Moving stations from cities to airports in the period prior to 1990 would have “possibly” meant “generally cooler,” though that is doubtful

Are you sure you are accurately representing the justification used for these homogenizations?

This needs to be demonstrated — just as you demand Heller does — by YOU deciphering Hansen and proving it.

First point is I am not arguing with Heller. He is not a participant in this forum. And if you are still playing at “arguing like a scientist”, you cannot use Heller as a source to prove that Heller is right.

I am not using Heller to prove Heller is right, I am using Heller to show NOAA / NASA are unwarranted in tampering with temperature data.

Incidentally, you haven’t even attempted to …

… review your “paper” and point out where it goes wrong if I can.

You deferred to …

As you can see, neither you nor I are really equipped to debate these questions of science as if we were scientists.

Which means you are using NOAA to prove NOAA is right. Or Hansen to prove Hansen is right.

Which, I thought was a no-no by the new rules you agreed to, reluctantly?

And if you are still playing at “arguing like a scientist”, you cannot use Heller NOAA as a source to prove that Heller NOAA is right. Remember?

Oh, unless you are punting to authority, which you keep claiming that you “should stop doing that.”

That’s not arguing like a scientist. That is appealing to authority, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But that is I have constantly hounded to stop doing. So I have to stop doing that, so should you.

Old habits die hard, I suppose, especially when that card remains in your back pocket to be played whenever you run out of “expertise.”

 

[HarryStotle]

No one can look at that last graph without recognizing that something is seriously wrong. It is easy to see how the hiatus in warming since 1998 was disappeared, but the adjustments only postponed the day of reckoning. Perhaps the warning that we only have 12 years to fix global warming better applies to NOAA. After then the adjustments will be so great they will be unbelievable to pretty much everyone.

Ah, so there is an easy remedy to this. NOAA/NASA merely needs to reduce the “recorded” temperatures of the past 30 years or so, on some scientific sounding pretext or other, and that will reduce the level of alarmism, panic and the need to gut our economies (or what’s left of them after COVID) and everyone will be totally convinced the climate isn’t a problem purely on the authority of what they say. No need even to justify it in a way that commoners might comprehend because, as @LeafByNiggle states

As you can see, neither you nor I are really equipped to debate these questions of science as if we were scientists.

Which is odd because the claim is…

If you think you understand something better than I do, it is your responsibility to explain it to me in ways I can understand.

And yet Leaf doesn’t hold scientists accountable to explaining in the way the rest of us commoners can understand. Clearly the scientists have catastrophically failed to do so because …

neither you nor I are really equipped to debate these questions of science as if we were scientists

So, I am compelled to explain the science in ways that Leaf can understand, but scientists are not held to that same standard, even though they alone are equipped to understand the science to begin with.

So the “authorities” need not explain the science in a way we commoners can understand, but we commoners who ostensibly CANNOT understand the science must explain the science we CANNOT understand in ways that the authorities themselves are NOT required to.

I suspect that is the crux of the problem.

What is puzzling is why Leaf isn’t clambering to have the scientists clarify their work to commoners, but demands those who CANNOT understand must.

Perhaps the reason that NOAA isn’t explaining to commoners is because then their entire narrative will fall apart. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Heller does a remarkable job putting the science in clear terms, which is why Leaf doesn’t trust him. The assumption being that if it is bona fide science it MUST be obscure and incomprehensible.

 

[GLam1761]

I am sorry for picking on you!! I just needed to vent,
so sorry for picking YOUR post for it. Lord have Mercy…

 

[Ender]

So, I am compelled to explain the science in ways that Leaf can understand, but scientists are not held to that same standard, even though they alone are equipped to understand the science to begin with.

Scientists should at least be held to the standards they profess, and one of those is transparency. “Trust me” is not a scientific concept, yet what NOAA has done with the adjustments is exactly that: they alone know why the data have been manipulated as they were.

What is no less ironic is that it is the “deniers” who are accused of being anti-science even as it is the “alarmists” who are unwilling or unable to debate the science, data, and arguments relevant to climate change. One does not have to be a scientist to discuss this even as one does not have to know what E, M, or C represent to correctly note that E = MC2.

There are reasonable objections that reasonably intelligent people can make. If there are no reasonable rebuttals to those objections one very possible reason is that the objections are valid. The fact that so many alarmist claims are false (increasing hurricanes, drowning islands, disappearing polar bears, flooding cities…) is sufficient reason for skepticism. Fool me once, etc. Other than “because they say so” I’ve not seen anything convincing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t much doubt there is at least some global warming and perhaps other climate changes because of the massive desertification being caused worldwide by agricultural mismanagement. Virtually all of North China has been turned into a desert due to Chinese efforts to become self-sufficient in food by intensively farming places that shouldn’t be farmed at all. A great deal of Central Asia has as well. A lot of American grasslands have been desertified by mismanagement and are only now beginning to be restored.

But even so, I can say that I experience none of it. I’m out a lot, but there is no “climate change” going on here, even though I live in a “transition zone” that ought to be showing some effects if MMGW is significant.

But we’re assured that it’s all happening somewhere else, and as a consequence we should do without transportation, a lot of the food supply, heat and other of the benefits of fossil fuel use. And irony of ironies, it’s going to take quite a lot of fossil fuel use to restore a great deal of the desertified land.

 

[HarryStotle]

But we’re assured that it’s all happening somewhere else, and as a consequence we should do without transportation, a lot of the food supply, heat and other of the benefits of fossil fuel use. And irony of ironies, it’s going to take quite a lot of fossil fuel use to restore a great deal of the desertified land.

There was an interesting analysis of headlines a few months ago. The journalists writing the headlines were all claiming their part of the world (country, region, biome) was heating up “twice as fast” as the rest of the world.

Odd that virtually every place on Earth is heating up twice as fast as all the other places combined. I wouldn’t suppose that could be possible, unless tampering that divorces the data from the real world comes into play.

What Heller is very good at doing is pulling real world news from the past to show that the “adjusted” data just doesn’t align with what was being reported on the ground in newspapers that, back then, had no particular narrative to support.

 

[Ender]

But even so, I can say that I experience none of it. I’m out a lot, but there is no “climate change” going on here, even though I live in a “transition zone” that ought to be showing some effects if MMGW is significant.

One possible reason you have not noticed any climate change in your area is that the US has not experienced an increase in temperature since the 1930’s…at least according to the thermometers. The increase in warming is due exclusively to the adjustments to the actual readings. It is probable that you have not felt the warming because you are not a scientist.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m a much more primitive person than that. When I was a kid, there were roadrunners south of Springfield, Mo, but not north of it. Still the same today. They’re temperature sensitive because they leave their eggs exposed more than most other birds do.

Also, when I was a kid, you could raise a good hay crop of Bermuda here. But very far north of Springfield, you couldn’t because the season was a wee bit short. Still the same today.

 

[Ender]

Yes, well that is merely anecdotal and unscientific. Besides, we cannot expect birds to adjust their living patterns as rapidly as NOAA adjusts its temperature data. Birds are stuck with actual temperatures; there is not much they can do with recalculated ones.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My offer to “try to argue like a scientist” with you is hereby rescinded, since you have made no attempt to do the same. The offer is still open to Ender, however.

 

[Ender]

My offer to “try to argue like a scientist” with you is hereby rescinded, since you have made no attempt to do the same. The offer is still open to Ender, however.

Thank you, but I have not found such exchanges to be productive. It seems to me that your restrictions on what should be considered data excludes way too much. I look at the chart of the NOAA adjustments and accept it; you clearly do not. The thing is, most people don’t invent data, and when they do it usually gets debunked fairly rapidly, so it seems much more likely than not that that graph is exactly what it purports to be. If so, the question of the validity of those adjustments is an obvious one, especially given that NOAA doesn’t show anyone the calculations behind them.

If you’re unwilling to accept the data and arguments @HarryStotle has presented then I think the probability is quite low that you would accept mine, especially as my approach seems very similar to his.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OK. I didn’t think it would work anyway. Mostly because of my own limitations.