/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Making up temperature histories

>>7950712
That's because the Global temps are chock full of "fill ins" by Hansen et al. (global instrumental data is very sparse). Look back at that graph again, look at the very high correlation between predicted U.S temps and global temps. >>7950628 And more importantly, because they have different means values to measure the deviations.

That is, what you fail to understand is that these are graphs of temperature deviations from a Given Value. That value is arbitrarily chosen.

ITS NOT THE SAME VALUE FOR THE DIFFERENT GRAPHS.

Did you forget middle school algebra? What counts is how much change has happened. The graphs clearly correlate in that regard. You're clearly upset. Isn't it past your bedtime?

>>7729408
And look how well the solar record matches un-"corrected" Historical Climate Network data.
>nb4 U.S. is not the world
The U.S. has the best surface temperature records in the world and its anomalies strongly correlate with global temp anomalies. The rest of the surface temp record is much more speculative especially oceans and poles.

>>7717889
Gosh I don't know. "Scientists" are so forthright and honest about it. And it has nothing to do with money.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

>>7091648
As long as we're going, please explain the NOAA's change in temperatures.

>>6577146

These tampered data can not be ignored because of popularity.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.
See the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6568692

How about data tampering?

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.
See the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6559020

Politics may explain the tampering of temperature data.

>>6543964

>tempered data doesn't correlate with the sun

This correlates pretty well with untampered NOAA data.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

See the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6519814
>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-had-4th-warmest-january-even-as-eastern-us-froze/

Since data tampering began.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.
Don't believe it? Check the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6511565

It is really man-made. Men tampered with the temperatures.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red. Changes documented at the NOAA website, see their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6483542
The data is always "the data." It gets "corrected," in a way that always makes warming seem more extreme.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

Documented on the NOAA website with their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6471623

Its special because its been tested and worked on for 100s of years. Climate is nothing but mean weather over time.

It beat the "global cooling" hypothesis that came in the 1970s, see:
>>6471629

More importantly, its special because its much harder to prove a theory than falsify one. This means to falsify the null hypothesis (natural climate variation) you need to prove AGW. That's a huge burden. And your failed models and failed predictions
>>6471581
and tampered data don't help.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red. See the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6459733

Like here.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.


See Check the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6437941
>http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-4/

this is exactly what you get when you have politicized "science," you have to reach a foregone conclusion. Notice how they say "no net increase in solar forcing" (paraphrase) in 30 years.

Now looks at this graph in:
>>6437920

Notice the dip in solar activity at about 1975? Roughly 30 years ago? More to the point, that isn't the only thing going on. For example the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (something the models love to ignore) have very strong effects.

Things fit even better when you don't fudge the data.Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

Skeptical? Look at the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6424928

By the way, things fit even better when you don't fudge the data.Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

Skeptical? Look at the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

Specious arguments:
>>6424928
+ data fudging = pseudo-science

>>6364205
Graph here.