Global warming just ended

That is called a model. Why do you think the past data always changes every iteration they put out? Also, the computer model have never been validated.

 

Homogenization is a mathematically based statistical method for removing discontinuities from non-climatic factors such as instrument changes, observation methods, station relocation, etc. When there is no way to tell "good data" from "bad data", it would be ludicrous to draw conclusions from the raw data without such corrections.

 

No, a climate model is a set of differential mathematical equations used to represent the forces that control global climate. Temperature is just one of the variables that feeds these equations to calculate long term trends.

The past data only changes when scientists identify a new non-climactic bias and a method to remove that bias.

Climate models are constantly being validated, and they are very good at projecting long term climate trends.

 

You evidently don't know there are different kinds of models.

 

No, it is indisputably not, because it would be different if the instruments were sited differently.

Wrong. Farm today was likely farm 100 years ago. Likewise forest, likewise desert, mountaintop, etc.

Wrong.

But the local effect of changing land use is not a warming of the whole earth.

By being honest, knowledgeable and intelligent. If someone claims that they can measure how tall people are by measuring the length of their feet, I don't have to produce all their heights to say, correctly, that the height data based on measuring their feet are wrong.

Ah, yes, it does.

And neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

By applying knowledge, intelligence, and logic. See above.

 

There absolutely is a way to tell good data from bad data. Marohasy & Abbot (Southeastern Australian Maximum Temperature Trends, 1887 - 2013: An Evidence Based Reappraisal - Chapter 5 of Evidence Based Climate Science) has done using a control chart (I-M/R-R/S) methodolgy. Additionally Zhang, De Freitas, Oyler, Stockwell, Boretti, and Baker have published recent studies (2012 - 2015) showing an artificial warming bias resulting from homogenization of UHI contaminated data with good data.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12...tation-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12...tation-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/


Why have the gov funded climate scientists not looked into this ??

 

Well Stated. Trump of course is much too smart to fall for this Chinese Hoax. Researchers Find Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk in 100 Years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...gbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

In 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’ There is now a 100% chance the Gore is conniving huckster and the world's first "Carbon Billionaire.'

 

Scientists can only work with the data they have, and since we don't have instruments at every single point on Earth's surface, the only way to determine Earth's global mean surface temperature is to calculate an area-weighted average of the temperature measurements we do have.

But how much urban land today was urban even 10 years ago, much less 100?

Which is exactly why studies like the one from Berkeley Earth shows that changing land use has no effect on global temperature trends.

Since the claim is that global mean surface temperature can be measured by taking an area-weighted average of discrete temperature measurements, your analogy doesn't appear very honest, knowledgeable or intelligent.

 

I believe it was Singapore scientist that discovered the last 50 years of temperature rise there was solely due to change in land use. The urban heat affect.

 

Isn't I-M/R-R/S control chart methodology for monitoring variation in processes which are supposed to produce consistent results, such as manufacturing? What makes Marohasy & Abbot think they can apply this to something for which they don't know what the actual value should be?

I couldn't find any papers by these authors discussing UHI and climate data, so you'll have to be more specific. I did find one paper from 2013 that specifically addresses the issue. They find that without homogenization, temperature data would show even more warming than it does.

Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records

When two of the authors of the paper above work for NOAA, what makes you think that they are not?

 

Maybe you should learn the difference between Antarctic sea ice and the north polar ice cap. Notice anything unusual about the following chart?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZMyw_UoAAhd75.jpg

 

That isn't even close to what is shown on the NSICD website.

 

Maybe you should learn the difference between 90% and less than 10%. 90% of the world's ice and 70% of the world's fresh water is at the SOUTH pole, not the north pole.

 

I wonder if anyone posting seems ice data realizes that we just came out of a rather large El Nino.

 

El Nino? I'll pass that along to the climate scientists. They will be shocked!

 

No one is shocked other than the true believers. Do you know what ENSO is? Do you know what warms the oceans? Do you know what has the most significant impact on Northern hemisphere weather? Do you understand that much is still not understood?

 

And you should learn that 96% of the ice in Antarctica is land ice, and while Antarctic sea ice may be increasing slightly, the overall ice volume is decreasing.

 

Mainly because of the Arctic and the last El Niño. One year is not a trend.

 

How about the 15 years shown in the chart?

 

Control charts can also be used to evaluate the quality control of individual site temperature time series. Sites producing non compromised data are chosen and are not contaminated by UHI biased sites.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z (the paper is behind a paywall)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062803/full

http://eae.sagepub.com/content/23/8/1273.short

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0859-3 (the paper is behind a paywall)


NOAA is using control charts ??

 

15 years isn't even long enough to span one 60 year cycle which is considered a measuring stick of climate cycles.

 

How do you use a control chart when you don't have a control to compare it with? Control charts work in manufacturing because you know what the ideal product is supposed to be, so you can measure variation from the control. When there is no idea control temperature to measure variation against, how can you use I-M/R-R/S or any other control chart methodology to determine the quality of data.

Climate scientists developed the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm to detect and correct localized temperature biases due to station moves, instrument changes, microsite changes, and meso-scale changes like urban heat islands.

When temperature trends like those measured at Beijing station are cooler than trends in the surrounding area, is it any wonder that homogenization leads to warming? After all, the purpose of homogenization is to remove local bias regardless of their direction. And since the urban heat island effect is a warming bias, wouldn't removing it through homogenization lower the overall global warming trend?

No, they are looking into any artificial warming bias resulting from homogenization, the second part of your post that immediately preceded your question about gov funded climate scientists.

 

You have data from certain sites which are uncorrupted by siting problems. The methodology looks for discontinuities in the temperature record. Only good data is considered.

Homogenization is a scam. Why again is known bad data utilized ?? It's ridiculous to use known bad data to make policy decisions.

 

Likely the work of föhn winds. I'm tired of this ice age, I ready for it to end. It's too cold, too dry, there isn't enough CO^2 in the air so we have to compensate with too much artificial fertilizer and too much land that will be arable once the ice-age ends is desert today. So, I don't fear warmth, quite sensibly, I welcome it.

Shoreline Gentry Are Fake Climate Victims

A Sarasota couple found it harder to sell their Florida house when shoppers noticed a $7,000 annual flood insurance bill. “This experience will become more common, economists say, as the federal government shifts away from subsidizing flood insurance rates to get premiums closer to reflecting the true market cost of the risk,” the paper notes in passing.

Bingo. When Teddy Roosevelt built his Sagamore Hill on Long Island, he did so a quarter mile from shore at an elevation of 115 feet not because he disdained proximity to the beach or was precociously worried about climate change. The federal government did not stand ready with taxpayer money to defray his risk.

Estimates vary, but sea levels may have risen at two millimeters a year over the past century. Meanwhile, tidal cycles along the U.S. east coast range from 11 feet every day (in Boston) to two feet (parts of Florida).

On top of this, a “notable surge event” can produce a storm surge of seven to 23 feet, according to a federal list of 10 hurricanes over the past 70 years.

We need to stop funding this foolishness with taxpayer subsidies.

http://www.freemarketcentral.com/post/3696/shoreline-gentry-are-fake-climate-victims

 

All of the raw temperature data is available to anyone willing to put in the effort to analyze it. That is how Berkeley Earth created their own temperature record. If anyone seriously doubts the validity of the methods used to produce current temperature records, then why don't they produce a better temperature record? Until they do, I am not likely to take their concerns seriously.