A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

True, SCIENTISTS are not saying that. But AGW screamers are not scientists.

True. But AGW screamers are.

True. But AGW screamers are.

Open your eyes. The last two years have seen the sharpest temperature decline in over 100 years, just as the solar activity cycle weakened. We have not warming, but record cold in many places, including snow in places that haven't had snow in centuries. And what do the AGW screamers have? An inexhaustible supply of falsified data.

 

Yeah, swell. The obvious question is what the hell that has to do with two datasets that are four decades apart.

I don't give a damn about the validation of "techniques" just now. It's measurements I'm interested in.

Not one, and not all of them together, because we haven't been taking careful measurements long enough to know whether or not the anomalies observed are trivial.

 

So, you KNOW you are listening to the wrong people.

Yet, you keep doing it, over and over again!

Why???

And, if you think there is a temperature anomaly to report, then CITE IT!

Last year was the third warmest year on RECORD!

 

No, I know you are.

Because unlike AGW screaming, it is consistent with indisputable fact.

And I'd better be quick, before it's erased!

What record? The relentlessly falsified record?

 

So why do you even participate in these discussions? If you don't accept any dataset than you're not in a position to be making claims of any kind either for or against AGW.

 

First...false. Let's use the UAH dataset from the AGW deniers Spencer and Christy. From 2016/02 to 2018/02 the global mean temperature dropped 0.65C. From 1998/01 to 2000/01 the drop was 0.75C. I bet I could something lower if I tried. At any rate despite this drop from an El Nino the global mean temperature marched higher. You can get the UAH data here.

Second...I'll ask you the same thing I asked yguy. How can you possibly make a claim like this if you reject all of the data?

 

To highlight the fact that climatology has a helluva lot of growing up to do before it can be called a science in its infancy, wherefore its conclusions do not come close to justifying the implementation of draconian remedies.

Pilgrim, I call things like I see'em, and your opinion of the propriety of my contributions is not the least bit interesting.

 

Wrong comparison.

Or just changed some data...

Fell, but rose. Riiiiight.

Link doesn't load.

I only reject the falsified data.

 

What's wrong about it? 1998 and 2016 were both El Nino years.

Yep. And it's not that complicated to understand.

Yes it does. I just checked. Here it is expanded form. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/

There's even plain text file with the monthly data in there.

So give me an example of a dataset that publishes a global mean temperature which you do not reject.

 

What does this even mean? Are you saying that having data to back up claims isn't interesting to you? That's faith; not science.

 

And you picked the wrong months.

Ooooh, an "index" of temperature is it? I wonder what marvels of creative data massage went into that puppy.

No, it doesn't.

And...?

Any one published before 1980 and NOT ALTERED SINCE.

 

Which months was I supposed to pick?

It's the NASA GISS global mean temperature anomaly.

So...just ignore the last 40 years of warming then?

 

If, after all this conversation, you still think a dataset from 2000 can corroborate a dataset from 1960, I'd sure as hell be wasting my time to try and explain why this question is so insolently idiotic.

 

It's not just "from 1960" though. Those datasets are still active and collecting new data today. The fact that they agree with each other and with the more contemporary datasets like ARGO increases our confidence in their accuracy. Again, this concept of cross checking and corroboration is ubiquitous across all disciplines of science. The technique of validating the procedures and methods used to derive results only requires an overlap in data. If one dataset goes from 1940-present and another goes from 2000-present that necessarily means there is an overlap of 2000-present in which this validation could take place. What could be validated? Again, procedures, methods, software, etc. So while ARGO cannot say anything about the measurements collected in 1960 it can say a lot about how those measurements were used. This is all discussed in the literature I posted earlier in the thread. Did you read it?

Let's cut to the chase here. Are you actually arguing that ARGO decreases our confidence in the conclusion that the ocean has been warming for decades?

 

There is no such thing as an active dataset.

Didn't bother with the rest.

 

By "active" I mean someone is still maintaining the dataset and that the dataset is still collecting new data today under same regime of methods and procedures outlined when it was first commissioned.

 

Which includes changing past temperatures in that dataset on a regular basis.

 

Yes. Those adjustments and post processing techniques are well documented. Everybody acknowledges that they are necessary. But, this is my point. The naysayers claim it's these data processing techniques that are the problem. That claim is not supported by the other independent datasets like ARGO which employ different instruments and use wildly different techniques for processing the data. In other words, just like it is for the atmosphere our various ocean datasets agree with each other within a reasonable margin of error.

 

Thus the reason the changed the Argo data because it wasn’t showing warming.

 

Was it adjusted specifically to show warming or was there a legitimate reason for making the adjustment? Also, what was adjusted and how was it adjusted?

 

Yes, Karl et. al. Adjusted up to more follow the unscientific instruments of ship engine intake temperatures and bucket readings.

 

The claim that Karl had manipulated data came from Bates. It's important to note that Bates was forced to retract his allegation and concede that no data tampering had occurred. Furthermore, the reality is that Karl actually did consider the ERSST dataset (which incorporates ARGO among other things) as being far superior to the ship intake data. And at no time did Karl adjust any of the ARGO data. In fact, Karl actually adjusted the ship intake data down to correct for its warm bias. ARGO actually proved to be useful in calibrating this bias.

 

All the temp readings from 1960 constitute a dataset, which doesn't need maintaining, just protecting. If any entries (observations) in that dataset are obviously wrong, whatever you replace them with can never be anything but a guess; and replacing all the obviously wrong entries with "adjustments" does nothing about entries which are wrong but not obviously so - to say nothing of all the entries which are missing, relative to the number and distribution of observations available decades later.

All this being the case, for all but the original observer(s), the validity of the observation rests entirely on the integrity and competence of those in its chain of custody - which means, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that it's a matter of blind trust, irrespective of the sophistication of "hindcasting" methods.

 

To bring this and the improved Curry corner up to date:

 

1960 is just a subset. At the very least the data requires post processing to homogenize the data. Deficiencies, if they are discovered, need to be rectified. You can't just let a problem go and pretend like everything is okay.