What's really warming the world?

[code1211]

Take from this what you will, but Bloomberg has a cool interactive graphic on what is causing our climate to warm:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

So according to the agency that is populated by people who are actively campaigning to assert a biased view of the data and who are habitually adjusting the data to fit their pre-drawn conclusions, the data adjusted to support their pre-drawn conclusions supports their pre-drawn conclusions.

Who could have anticipated that outcome?

 

[code1211]

Guy, don't you understand? If Ronald Reagan were to return with wings and in a white robe (with no more signs of dementia), and if he was flanked by Einstein, Franklin, and every other notable scientist in American history, and told the nation's conservatives that God wants them to know that global warming is very real and IS caused by human civilization in general and fossil fuels in particular, they'd immediately reject him.

It's gone far beyond simple debate - to those trapped within the conservative news echo chamber, global warming denial is a matter not of logic, but of faith.

Unlike you and everyone else who is trying mightily to claim that they do, this group might be able to prove and support their statements.

If they did, they would not say what you anticipate.

 

[code1211]

I think Bloomberg is missing his best opportunity ever, ... guns being fired is the cause of Global Warming.

Actually, I think you could pretty accurately graph the rise of social welfare programs with the warming of the climate.

Prior to 1880, there were very few institutionalized social welfare programs and following that there has been a constant increase.

Big Government causes Global Warming.

They certainly cause the adjustment of the data that is put forth to support it.

 

[MrT]

Either way, the Bloomberg graphic seems pretty obviously inaccurate when it comes to its representation of the sun's role.

And I appreciated the ELI5 summary there, I was definitely getting lost. Perhaps it would help to note that the chart from this graph is not reporting the IPCC, but rather the "ModelE2" climate model, and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

 

[MrT]

...agency that is populated by people who are actively campaigning to assert a biased view of the data

Do you have an actual, verifiable, reason for believing this about NASA?

 

[blaxshep]

Actually, I think you could pretty accurately graph the rise of social welfare programs with the warming of the climate.

Prior to 1880, there were very few institutionalized social welfare programs and following that there has been a constant increase.

Big Government causes Global Warming.

They certainly cause the adjustment of the data that is put forth to support it.

Then what we need is a Welfare Tax.

 

[Jack Hays]

Take from this what you will, but Bloomberg has a cool interactive graphic on what is causing our climate to warm:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

[h=1]Bloomberg’s made-up climate widget[/h] Guest essay by David Burton Bloomberg’s Eric Roston and Blacki Migliozzi are just regurgitating made-up, model-generated nonsense, in place of real data. You want proof? Look at their graph of “greenhouse gases.” I saved a copy on my web site, here (with four X-axis markers spliced together from four screenshots). Here’s a shrunken version: ​…
Continue reading →

 

[code1211]

Do you have an actual, verifiable, reason for believing this about NASA?

<snip>

Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.

<snip>

The data posted in 1999 was discarded in favor of data more desired by NASA.

NASA was once the gold standard in scientific research and accomplishment.

Our once impressive space agency has been reduced to the level of a PAC lobbying for a particular set of presuppositions.

 

[MrT]

The data posted in 1999 was discarded in favor of data more desired by NASA.

NASA was once the gold standard in scientific research and accomplishment.

Our once impressive space agency has been reduced to the level of a PAC lobbying for a particular set of presuppositions.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Have you ever tried to research the reasoning behind this adjustment to the data?

 

[code1211]

Then what we need is a Welfare Tax.

According to the wisdom that gave us the Failed Stimulus, if you take money from one pocket and put it into the other, you will create wealth.

I think you have presented the solution to the economic woes of the world.

 

[code1211]

Have you ever tried to research the reasoning behind this adjustment to the data?

The adjustment was due to the research of Dr. James Hansen.

In light of the Heat Island effect the may have been corrupting temperatures, Dr. Hansen used Satellite imagery to assess the spread of lights on the planet's surface.

The supposition was that the more recent temperatures recorded were artificially high due tot he spread of pavement and the implementation of electronic heat producing devices.

Astonishingly, after his adjustments, the recent temperatures, already artificially high due to the heat island effect, were adjusted higher. The temperatures recorded prior to the availability of images from satellites were adjusted lower.

It's almost as if Hansen was trying to create the impression that there was even more warming than there actually was.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/1998/ann/ustz_pg.gif

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif


This last link is very interesting. Between posting this study and his AGW epiphany, his understanding of the climate system and therefore the press releases from NASA were all suddenly Hansenized to reflect his new set of beliefs.

This is what he thought BEFORE he was enlightened enough to change data based on satellite observations for the period before satellites were in orbit.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

<snip>
Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2). We caution that linear trends, as in Figure 2, can mask temporal detail. Indeed, Figure 1(b) indicates that the last 20 years have seen a slight warming in the U.S. Nevertheless, our analysis (Hansen et al., 1999a), summarized in Figures 1 and 2, makes clear that climate trends have been fundamentally different in the U.S. than in the world as a whole.
<snip>

 

[Mithrae]

Have you ever tried to research the reasoning behind this adjustment to the data?

Of course he hasn't. Quite the opposite: Last year, over a period of eight or nine days I directed him to the specific peer-reviewed article in which the reasoning and changes to the 2001 GISS temperature record were documented, and repeatedly asked him to display even the slightest hint that he had read and understood it. Naturally, he failed to do so. So I asked him a few simple, obvious follow-up questions to his conspiracy theory against GISS, and again failed to receive any coherent answers (although he did manage to throw in some blatant lying about what he was claiming).

And as proof that he still hasn't managed to muster the intellectual integrity to bother with any reading or research, seems that to this day Code is still waffling ignorantly on about the urban heat island adjustment making temperatures warmer :lol:

For the record - for any more honest readers who might be actually interested in the answer - the information which Code struggled so valiantly yet ineffectually to discover was cunningly hidden in the abstract, the very first paragraph of the paper to which I repeatedly directed him. The biggest sources of the 2001 corrections to the US temperature history were "(1) incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a]."

Because they are scientists, the GISS team conscientiously provided a break-down of the various effects which their corrections had on the US data and explained them in exhaustive detail, yet for three days (indeed, eight or nine since I originally answered his request for this information on the GISS website) poor Code has laboured under the ignorant notion that "the heat island data in the actual data produced an increase in the temperature." GISS clearly illustrates that the urban heat effect required negative corrections to the raw data, but our conspiracy-loving friend was apparently just a little too blinkered to notice that fact :lamo




[ . . . . more at quote location . . . . ]


. . . . it's worth nothing that the downward adjustment for urban heat applied by GISS apparently was actually greater than that used by the US Historical Climatology Network. . . .

 

[Manc Skipper]

Progress report for May 2015. Red indicates warmer than average.

 

[MrT]

The adjustment was due to the research of Dr. James Hansen.

I'm just going to note that your answer is fundamentally incorrect. The reason for the adjustment was to account for the fact that, during the course of 100 years of temperature measurement, the time at which temperature measurements were made was not consistent. The data was adjusted to account for these inconsistencies. Numerous individuals have conducted their own analysis in order to verify the methodology used by NASA.

Second, I'm just going to note that Dr. Hansen no longer works at NASA - so you're stretching a bit to claim that research published by NASA today is still being controlled by someone who retired two years ago.

Finally, I just want to note that Mithrae has apparently crushed you many times in previous debates on this point (and done so today as well), explicitly, but you've shown some remarkable consistency, so I will give you credit for that, for what it is worth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And I appreciated the ELI5 summary there, I was definitely getting lost. Perhaps it would help to note that the chart from this graph is not reporting the IPCC, but rather the "ModelE2" climate model, and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

And just how many climate models provide accurate results?

Isn't it just under 5%?

 

[Lord of Planar]

<snip>

Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.

<snip>

The data posted in 1999 was discarded in favor of data more desired by NASA.

NASA was once the gold standard in scientific research and accomplishment.

Our once impressive space agency has been reduced to the level of a PAC lobbying for a particular set of presuppositions.

I wonder what it looks like now with the latest "corrections" that have introduced?

 

[code1211]

I'm just going to note that your answer is fundamentally incorrect. The reason for the adjustment was to account for the fact that, during the course of 100 years of temperature measurement, the time at which temperature measurements were made was not consistent. The data was adjusted to account for these inconsistencies. Numerous individuals have conducted their own analysis in order to verify the methodology used by NASA.

Second, I'm just going to note that Dr. Hansen no longer works at NASA - so you're stretching a bit to claim that research published by NASA today is still being controlled by someone who retired two years ago.

Finally, I just want to note that Mithrae has apparently crushed you many times in previous debates on this point (and done so today as well), explicitly, but you've shown some remarkable consistency, so I will give you credit for that, for what it is worth.

You can ignore reality if you like.

Here is the article from NASA that describes the efforts put forth to discard the data prior to 1999. Heat Islands is mentioned specifically as a major cause for the effort. Why do you question this when NASA says it is so?

NASA GISS: Research News: Satellites Shed Light on a Warmer World

Did I say that Hansen still controls NASA? You seem to infer things that are not implied.

Mithrae loves to get lost in details. I like to look at the big picture. Mithrae will write reams of paper to show that the world is warming because of the all of the various mathematical formulas he produces on the effects of CO2.

I just noted that the data gathering agencies all show that, in the real world, unencumbered by overworked justifications, a pause in warming was taking place at the time.

NASA shows a warmer global temperature that is warming at a faster rate than any of the other data gathering agencies.

I may conjecture as to why NASA seems to shows a warming bias. Whatever my conjectures may be, though, the fact is that NASA shows a warming bias.

 

[code1211]

I wonder what it looks like now with the latest "corrections" that have introduced?

I haven't run across that info yet.

I din't even know that additional corrections have been made.

I have noticed that GISS, already warmer than the rest, is now showing a faster rate of warming than the rest according to the WFT chart. I'll post it here to show the trends and to aggravate those who find issue with it.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[Mithrae]

NASA shows a warmer global temperature that is warming at a faster rate than any of the other data gathering agencies.

I may conjecture as to why NASA seems to shows a warming bias. Whatever my conjectures may be, though, the fact is that NASA shows a warming bias.

Yeah, when you line them up - surface record (NASA GISS), surface record (HadCRUT), satellite/troposphere record (RSS) and satellite/troposphere record (UAH) - you can really see that overwhelming warming bias of GISS :roll:

Spoiler

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In fact in the second half of that period, UAH shows more warming than GISS:

Spoiler

UAH version 5.6 that is. Its creators, Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christie of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are well-known as sceptics of anthropogenic global warming. And it turns out that after some recent adjustments, UAH version 6.0 runs much cooler.

Bring on the conspiracy theories!

 

[Jack Hays]

Because the notion has been thoroughly discredited. There is no correlation at all between cosmic rays and warming.

Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change - Scientific American

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?


Comprehensive study shows cosmic rays are not causing global warming - physicsworld.com

[h=2]Euthanizing Overholt et al.: How bad can a bad paper be?[/h] Blog topic:
astronomy, global warming, personal research, weather & climate



Last month I visited the U of Washington to give a talk in which I discussed the effects of cosmic rays on climate. At the end of it, not one, but two people independently asked me about Overholt et al., which supposedly ruled out the idea that passages through the galactic spiral arms affect the appearance of glaciations on Earth. I told them that the paper had really stupid mistakes and it should be discarded in the waste bin of history, but given that Overholt et al. is still considered at all, I have no choice but to more openly euthanize it.

By shaviv 0 Comments Read more...

 

[code1211]

Yeah, when you line them up - surface record (NASA GISS), surface record (HadCRUT), satellite/troposphere record (RSS) and satellite/troposphere record (UAH) - you can really see that overwhelming warming bias of GISS :roll:

Spoiler

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In fact in the second half of that period, UAH shows more warming than GISS:

Spoiler

UAH version 5.6 that is. Its creators, Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christie of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are well-known as sceptics of anthropogenic global warming. And it turns out that after some recent adjustments, UAH version 6.0 runs much cooler.

Bring on the conspiracy theories!

The amount of warming measured is so slight as to be a statistical error in all of the agencies and you are wise to point this out.

At this time, today, the GISS data is the warmest of the major data gathering agencies.

Beginning at the point in time at which each of the major data gathering agencies respectively showed the beginning of a pause in warming, I believe all are now showing warming, although for most it is very slight. GISS seems to be showing the fastest warming during this period.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

[h=2]Euthanizing Overholt et al.: How bad can a bad paper be?[/h] Blog topic:
astronomy, global warming, personal research, weather & climate



Last month I visited the U of Washington to give a talk in which I discussed the effects of cosmic rays on climate. At the end of it, not one, but two people independently asked me about Overholt et al., which supposedly ruled out the idea that passages through the galactic spiral arms affect the appearance of glaciations on Earth. I told them that the paper had really stupid mistakes and it should be discarded in the waste bin of history, but given that Overholt et al. is still considered at all, I have no choice but to more openly euthanize it.

By shaviv 0 Comments Read more...

The problem is the lack of correlation.



"The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs."

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

 

[Jack Hays]

The problem is the lack of correlation.

View attachment 67186470

"The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

On the contrary, while GCRs are up, global temperatures are also way up, and temperatures in recent years reached record highs."

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

You're playing checkers. Shaviv is playing chess.

https://www.ias.edu/ias-letter/2015/shaviv-cosmic-rays

". . . The results have two particularly interesting implications. First, they bring yet another link between the galactic environment and the terrestrial climate. Although there is no direct evidence that cosmic rays are the actual link on the 32-million-year time scale, as far as we know, they are the only link that can explain these observations. This in turn strengthens the idea that cosmic ray variations through solar activity affect the climate. In this picture, solar activity increase is responsible for about half of the twentieth-century global warming through a reduction of the cosmic ray flux, leaving less to be explained by anthropogenic activity. Also, in this picture, climate sensitivity is on the low side (perhaps 1 to 1.5°C increase per CO2 doubling, compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C range advocated by the IPCC), implying that the future is not as dire as often prophesied. . . .
It should be noted that the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate is by no means generally accepted. The link is contentious and it has attracted significant opponents over the years because of its ramifications to our understanding of recent and future climate change. For it to be finally accepted, one has to understand all the microphysics and chemistry associated with it. For this reason, we are now carrying out a lab experiment to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for linking atmospheric ions and cloud condensation nuclei. This should solidify a complete theory to explain the empirical evidence. . . ."

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You're playing checkers. Shaviv is playing chess.

https://www.ias.edu/ias-letter/2015/shaviv-cosmic-rays

". . . The results have two particularly interesting implications. First, they bring yet another link between the galactic environment and the terrestrial climate. Although there is no direct evidence that cosmic rays are the actual link on the 32-million-year time scale, as far as we know, they are the only link that can explain these observations. This in turn strengthens the idea that cosmic ray variations through solar activity affect the climate. In this picture, solar activity increase is responsible for about half of the twentieth-century global warming through a reduction of the cosmic ray flux, leaving less to be explained by anthropogenic activity. Also, in this picture, climate sensitivity is on the low side (perhaps 1 to 1.5°C increase per CO2 doubling, compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C range advocated by the IPCC), implying that the future is not as dire as often prophesied. . . .
It should be noted that the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate is by no means generally accepted. The link is contentious and it has attracted significant opponents over the years because of its ramifications to our understanding of recent and future climate change. For it to be finally accepted, one has to understand all the microphysics and chemistry associated with it. For this reason, we are now carrying out a lab experiment to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for linking atmospheric ions and cloud condensation nuclei. This should solidify a complete theory to explain the empirical evidence. . . ."

And yet there is no correlation at all between his hypothesis and observed temperature trends. He may well be right in terms of time scales over 32 million years, yet be wrong on time scales of a decades and hundreds of years. The reason why few of his peers buy into his hypothesis is probably more due to a lack of merit with it rather than their personal politics.

 

[Jack Hays]

And yet there is no correlation at all between his hypothesis and observed temperature trends. He may well be right in terms of time scales over 32 million years, yet be wrong on time scales of a decades and hundreds of years. The reason why few of his peers buy into his hypothesis is probably more due to a lack of merit with it rather than their personal politics.

As Shaviv notes, during the 20th century solar activity reduced cosmic ray influence, triggering warming. Your source seems not to have grasped that aspect of the work.