Throughout the media, these tragedies are reported as impacts of El Niño: a natural weather oscillation caused by blocks of warm water forming in the Pacific. But the figures show that it accounts for only one-fifth of the global temperature rise. The El Niño phase has now passed, but still the records fall.
…
To pretend that newspapers and television channels are neutral arbiters of such matters is to ignore their place at the corrupt heart of the establishment. At the US conventions, to give one small example, the Washington Post, the Atlantic and Politico were paid by the American Petroleum Institute to host a series of discussions, at which climate science deniers were represented. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the purse is mightier than the pen.
Why should we trust multinational corporations to tell us the truth about multinational corporations? And if they cannot properly inform us about the power in which they are embedded, how can they properly inform us about anything?
If humanity fails to prevent climate breakdown, the industry that bears the greatest responsibility is not transport, farming, gas, oil or even coal. All of them can behave as they do, shunting us towards systemic collapse, only with a social licence to operate. The problem begins with the industry that, wittingly or otherwise, grants them this licence: the one for which I work.
So says George Monbiot, a climate change reporter for the Guardian.
He reviews a laundry list of cherry picked factoids to support his case that the earth is getting hotter than ever.
Cherry picked factoids like "This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014"?
The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments.
Here is NOAA's treatment of the American Southeast climate data, for an example:
Who would have imagined that a morass of stations in a well-populated region could possibly need any raw data corrections? :roll:
Since we're discussing global temperatures, why did you decide to not look at those adjustments? (This seems to be a recurring theme...)
GISS global adjustments:
GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE - Hansen - 2010 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library
BEST global adjustments:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
This theory, and it's solution, requires total subservience of every human being on the planet. And it requires constant adjustment and reassessment by the people who plan to do the controlling.
When cherry-picking the data fails, you can always fall back on the conspiracy theories, eh?
When cherry-picking the data fails, you can always fall back on the conspiracy theories, eh?
It the fact that temperature records have been "corrected" a CT?
I'm not sure what you mean. How did anything I posted relate to a conspiracy theory?
No, that's a fact.
On the other hand to suggest that the raw data is being fraudulently manipulated - rather than actually corrected, without the scare quotes - by HadCRUT and NOAA and GISS and the JMO and BEST and RSS (for atmospheric temperatures) and UAH...?
Well, some might say that's a bit of a stretch. That's not what I was talking about in this case, however.
Who said it was fraudulently manipulated?
On the other hand, how do we know the corrections are correct?
To let one's own bias interfere with the results, isn't fraud by default.
That is a fact. I've seen old records in my area vs. recent corrections, and found as large as a 3F change in some old thermometer data.Jmotivator declared that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments"; literally, that the raw global temperature series have record highs at some point other than the most recent years.
I'll agree it's a bad analogy, but can you explain why daytime high readings from a mercury thermometers are lowered in many corrections from the 30's through the 70's?This is utterly and obviously false, as I showed, and the accusation of >0.5 degree changes to the global record is also unambiguously an accusation of fraud, not some subtle unconscious bias, as further confirmed by comments in the rest of his post - "artificially lowering," "subtracting home rums from Babe Ruth" and so on.
They used a statistical analysis. Facts make statistics, statistic rarely make fact.How do we know the corrections are correct?
Why, by checking it yourself if you feel the urge, or looking at others who have done so. That's why the NOAA temperature series exists in addition to HadCRUT. That's why GISS started doing its own analysis. That's why the Japanese Meteorological Organisation publishes its results. That's why the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project did its own (land) analysis. If there were any major problems with the earlier records, the later analyses would have picked up on them.
There should be no corrections. It should be accepted that you cannot "correct" one small series to fit another.And indeed there have been minor problems found with earlier analyses; that's why we look at HadCRUT4, not 3 or 2 or 1; that's why we look at UAH 5 or 6, not 4 or 3 or 2 or 1. Have you noticed that Steve McIntyre hasn't promoted his own 'corrected' global temperature series? Even those who think that HadCRUT4 and NOAA and GISS and JMO and BEST are all in on the conspiracy, surely they can't imagine that McIntyre or others like him are also overlooking or keeping quiet about some glaring errors?
Do you really buy the ± 0.05 degrees?The only reasonable conclusion is that the analysis and adjustment methods are pretty damn solid, and hence the temperature series are reliable within their stated uncertainty margins (+/-0.05 degrees 21st century, +/-0.1 degrees late 19th century).
That is a fact. I've seen old records in my area vs. recent corrections, and found as large as a 3F change in some old thermometer data.
I'll agree it's a bad analogy, but can you explain why daytime high readings from a mercury thermometers are lowered in many corrections from the 30's through the 70's?
Do you really buy the ± 0.05 degrees?
I know, but the monitoring station hasn't moved nor has the landscape of it changes for more than 40 years as it is an old established area.Your area isn't a global temperature series, of course :lol:
And how do we know such corrections are correct?If those stations were moved from inner cities to the outskirts, the temperatures before the move might have been found to be artificially high due to urban heat, and therefore adjusted downwards (station history adjustment); the magnitude of the adjustment can be correlated both against the new locations' data and nearby rural stations' data. If a later standardized time of measurement for daytime temperatures was 10am, but a station had previously measured at 1pm, the earlier temperatures may have been higher than the 10am standard, and therefore adjusted downwards (time of day debiasing); the magnitude of the adjustment can be correlated against measurements throughout the day, and against nearby stations which had already measured at 10am.
None of the equipment is accurate enough to justify an accuracy of 0.05 degrees. In fact, the modern electronic temperature equipment is less accurate then mercury thermometers. Satellite data varies from surface data, and are not always in sync.Do you not? One station might take a measurement an hour too early, but just as likely another will take it an hour too late; the net effect of (random/unaccounted-for) human or instrumental error is likely to be rather low. More importantly, there's now been over 30 years of satellite data to cross-check against for spatial and temporal distribution of temperatures in the lower atmosphere; higher quality measurements of ocean temperatures; and more precise, automated measurement systems in many land stations.
Those are the uncertainty estimates of GISS, but HadCRUT's are about the same:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
Jmotivator declared that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments"; literally, that the raw global temperature series have record highs at some point other than the most recent years.
This is utterly and obviously false, as I showed, and the accusation of >0.5 degree changes to the global record is also unambiguously an accusation of fraud, not some subtle unconscious bias, as further confirmed by comments in the rest of his post - "artificially lowering," "subtracting home rums from Babe Ruth" and so on..
I know, but the monitoring station hasn't moved nor has the landscape of it changes for more than 40 years as it is an old established area.
And how do we know such corrections are correct?
Think about it. We don't. To claim any accuracy in them is a total joke.
But the problem is that BEST is not NOAA, and also, BEST data is in no shape to prove any all time record temps given how dramatically uncertain BEST climate records are in the past:
View attachment 67205421
You can't claim any statistical significance of any current record versus BEST full data set.
You stated that there are "people who plan to do the controlling" and require "total subservience of every human being on the planet," who are using climate science to (somehow) achieve that end.
Not only is that the mother of all conspiracy theories, it's an utterly ridiculous one: Adjusting the global temperature trend of the past century from roughly +0.8 degrees C (raw data) to about +0.82 degrees C (corrected series)... you really think that's an important milestone on the road to taking over the world? :doh
Wish I could remember who it is who's got that signature about a cool movie plot: A plucky bunch of billionaires and multinational oil companies band together and struggle to save humanity from the scientists' world domination plans!
Edit: The funniest part about all this is that there are a couple of points worthy of criticism in Monbiot's article, and a few important issues raised also: But people who find themselves unable to even acknowledge the fact that, with two and perhaps soon three record-breaking years in a row, global surface temperatures are the hottest on instrumental record (and hence with high probability the hottest in at least 6-8 centuries) will only ever end up making themselves look foolish.
There is no part of my statements you posted that are not true.
From agreements in Paris, and via UN resolution, the human race will be expected to alter the way it lives to address the agenda that has been agreed to.
Who elected the people who are working out these plans?
Let's start with the basics here: You claimed of global temperature series that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments," which is obviously complete bull****, as I showed. Can you acknowledge that, or if not then try to offer something to substantiate your claim? The unadjusted temperatures series do not come even remotely close to matching modern temperatures at any point before the past two decades. Modern temperatures are at record highs in the unadjusted global data, and your appeal to a graph of temperatures from the south-eastern USA was and is utterly disingenuous regardless of which analysis you pointed to.
You can't claim that any previous year or period was a record based on that data or the unadjusted raw data on which it was based, and yet that is what you did. I'll look forward to your retraction.
Now, looking at the annual mean and starting from 1880 (like the NOAA and GISS series), the record high temperatures of recent years are obviously well above the 95% confidence interval. This data seems to finish up around 2009, showing the 1998, 2002, 2005 and 2007 peaks:
Of course data from longer ago has greater uncertainty, that's a no-brainer. The Global Historical Climatology Network has ~1650 instrumental records going back before 1906, but only ~220 going back before 1856. Furthermore, the Southern Hemisphere data suffers from much poorer coverage, even relatively speaking, the further back we look.
Fortunately where instrumental records fail us proxy records can provide an alternative.
Mann et al 2008 report the use of 460 proxy records going back to 1600 and 177 going back to 1400. For slightly different reasons, the Southern Hemisphere is again under-represented in proxy reconstructions (although having much more ocean, it's less likely to have bigger temperature spikes than the NH anyway), and again proxies are less reliable further back in time. Nevertheless, there's enough information available to conclude with high confidence that the past 10-20 years have been the hottest period of that length in at least the past 6-8 centuries.
IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch5 Figure 5.7:
Do you understand that saying there are "people who plan to do the controlling" and require "total subservience of every human being on the planet" is a far, far, oh yes very far indeed, cry from talking about the agreements in Paris?
If you offered substantive points of discussion (which, wrong though they may occasionally be, folk like Lord of Planar and Jmotivator certainly do) it would undoubtedly be possible to have an actual discussion. Instead you've gone off the rails with nothing but exaggerated rhetoric, vague insinuations and obvious non-sequiturs.
Example:
Well gee, the US delegation negotiates the position set by the elected US government. The Australian delegation negotiates the position set by the elected Australian government. Maybe things are a tad more complicated in Europe, but really this is a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?
More importantly, the discussions between governments at climate summits in Paris or Doomadgee or Copenhagen have absolutely no effect on the facts of climate science which prompted them in the first place. For crying out loud, that's like arguing that nuclear non-proliferation talks are evidence that there must not be many nukes!
The conspiracy theory - scientists want to take over the world and have concocted this AGW plot to do so - follows a comprehensible logical sequence, but is utterly absurd in any empirical evaluation. What you seem to be proposing here may well attempt to look at empirical realities - the Paris summit obviously occurred *gasp* - but has roughly zero logical coherency.
Maybe you will now combine the two, and propose some shadowy, unidentifiable supra-national group which controls both the scientists and the government discussions? I can just see the name Maurice Strong galloping towards the tip of your tongue, or maybe I'm just remembering past discussions :lol:
The execution of the plan to address AGW being worked out by the UN and other global bodies, requires a fundamental change in the way human beings go about living and working.
Yes, or No?
No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does?
I told you how; comparison with before and after or whole day records from a given station, and with other nearby stations which haven't shared the same adjustment requirement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?