2017 WAS the hottest on record.

by Andy Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:43 am

First topic message reminder :

And it has taken natural events such as el Nino into account.

No doubt. No controversy.

Just fact.

http://dailym.ai/2FQC3Fz

So Stench Skunk and Tommy can stick this up their arses.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:12 am

Didge... how many more times do you have to be told...!?

skepticalscience.com is not a source for facts!!!

They have completely been caught out on their bullshit lying and twisting!!!

The Greenland ice core data is the best most reliable indicator of temps in the northern hemisphere region over the last 10,000 years...!!!

And the best indicator of global temps over this 10,000 years too!!!

And the best indicator of what temps we should consider as being NORMAL!!!

Most of the last 8000 to 10,000 years have been warmer than now!!!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:17 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... how many more times do you have to be told...!?

skepticalscience.com is not a source for facts!!!

Hilarious

Tommy making unsubstanciated claims

Even worse he ignores the actual evidence I am presenting which makes Tommy look very stupid

What does global warming mean compared to local warming Tommy?

Take your time

You have been weighed measured and left truely found wanting

Best you disprove my evidence weasel or run along

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:21 am

Tommy clearly did not watch this did he, or read my link, as he would then understand how again he has massivley fucked up

As again today with are facing global warming, globally, what does the ice cores in Greenland show? Local warming which is not see the same globally at the time in other areas from evidence

Like I say it helps if tommy actually read thinks properly

It proves he a is a complete dummy

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:25 am

The Greenland ice core data is the best most reliable indicator of temps in the northern hemisphere region over the last 10,000 years...!!!

And the best indicator of global temps over this 10,000 years too!!!

And the best indicator of what temps we should consider as being NORMAL during an interglacial warm period!!!

Most of the last 8000 to 10,000 years have been warmer than now!!!

The evidence is there to see!!!

Your sources have been caught out using corrupt data!!!

lol!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:26 am

Didge wrote:

Tommy clearly did not watch this did he, or read my link, as he would then understand how again he has massivley fucked up

As again today with are facing global warming, globally, what does the ice cores in Greenland show? Local warming which is not see the same globally at the time in other areas from evidence

Like I say it helps if tommy actually read thinks properly

It proves he a is a complete dummy

See he still cannot grasp it..... Laughing

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:34 am

Warming during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was not global

During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, some areas, most notably in the North Atlantic and parts of Europe, were at least as warm as today, if not warmer. However, other areas were colder, and overall evidence suggests that global temperatures during this period were similar to those at the beginning or middle of the 20th century, and colder than today. This period is explored in more depth here.

So not only was Greenland already mostly covered in ice when Europeans settled there, but also the relatively warm conditions during this period were not a global phenomenon. This contrasts with what we are seeing today, where warming is truly global. Figure 1 is a map showing reconstructions of temperature anomalies during the Medieval Warm Period. Blue colours show lower temperatures and warm colours show higher temperatures when compared to the 1961-1990 reference period.

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Temperature_Pattern_MWP

Figure 1 - Reconstructed surface temperature anomalies for the Medieval Warm Period(950-1250) compared to a 1961-1990 reference period. (Source: Mann et al., 2009)

We can compare this with a similar reconstruction looking at surface temperature anomalies for the 1999 to 2008 period. This clearly shows the global nature of recent warming.

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA

Figure 2 - Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. (Source: NOAA)

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

I wonder when the point will sink in for poor Tommy

by 'Wolfie Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:52 am

Tommy just keeps on digging himself in deeper and deeper...

Despite having veya, Ben, Victor, Didge and Andy, as well as my most humble self flooding him with actual facts and supporting evidence through dozens of reputable sources numerous times over the past couple of years, poor little Tommykins just keeps on rehashing his tired old dross, peddling his same old non-evidence, and fallaciously claiming his propaganda as "facts"...

When is it going to filter through that thickhead of yours, Tommy ==

* There were no such things as proper "mini ice ages" a few hundred years ago;

* The world's temperatures didn't stop rising 20-something years ago;

* Just because you, Tommy, declare a site like 'ScepticalScience' fraudulent and fake doesn't make it so;

* There are other ways of recording climatic changes besides written records from the last few centuries -- including ice core samples from the Antarctic and within the Arctic Circle, growth rings in trees, and fossilised layers in geological formations, (and sometimes allied with old tidbits hidden away in ancient history, myths and legends that may correlate with physical evidence..).
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 2686688521

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 2686688521

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:58 am

Didge... you do not understand any of the stuff you are posting... or any of the stuff I am posting...!

You are a complete numpty on all of it!!!

Your source has been shown to be complete bullshit, using falsified data... but you still post it as fact, without question, and without any understanding of any of it...!!!

You are just a spammer of bullshit...!!!

And nothing I say is going to stop you keep repeating and spamming this thread with lies and spin bullshit from sources that have been caught 'red handed' in producing lies and spin bullshit...!!!

Because you are too stupid to understand any of it...!!!

You are like a child dressed in a spiderman suit, who claims that he really is 'spiderman', although we all know that he isn't... as well as the fact that 'spiderman' doesn't even really exist!!!

lol!

Keep repeating the lies, Didge...!

You're such a clever boy!

lol!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:59 am

Didge wrote:
Warming during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was not global

During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, some areas, most notably in the North Atlantic and parts of Europe, were at least as warm as today, if not warmer. However, other areas were colder, and overall evidence suggests that global temperatures during this period were similar to those at the beginning or middle of the 20th century, and colder than today. This period is explored in more depth here.
So not only was Greenland already mostly covered in ice when Europeans settled there, but also the relatively warm conditions during this period were not a global phenomenon. This contrasts with what we are seeing today, where warming is truly global. Figure 1 is a map showing reconstructions of temperature anomalies during the Medieval Warm Period. Blue colours show lower temperatures and warm colours show higher temperatures when compared to the 1961-1990 reference period.
Figure 1 - Reconstructed surface temperature anomalies for the Medieval Warm Period(950-1250) compared to a 1961-1990 reference period. (Source: Mann et al., 2009)
We can compare this with a similar reconstruction looking at surface temperature anomalies for the 1999 to 2008 period. This clearly shows the global nature of recent warming.
Figure 2 - Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. (Source: NOAA)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

I wonder when the point will sink in for poor Tommy

And Tommy still cannot figure it out

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 3489511464

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:00 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy just keeps on digging himself in deeper and deeper...

Despite having veya, Ben, Victor, Didge and Andy, as well as my most humble self flooding him with actual facts and supporting evidence through dozens of reputable sources numerous times over the past couple of years, poor little Tommykins just keeps on rehashing his tired old dross, peddling his same old non-evidence, and fallaciously claiming his propaganda as "facts"...

When is it going to filter through that thickhead of yours, Tommy ==

* There were no such things as proper "mini ice ages" a few hundred years ago;

* The world's temperatures didn't stop rising 20-something years ago;

* Just because you, Tommy, declare a site like 'ScepticalScience' fraudulent and fake doesn't make it so;

* There are other ways of recording climatic changes besides written records from the last few centuries -- including ice core samples from the Antarctic and within the Arctic Circle, growth rings in trees, and fossilised layers in geological formations, (and sometimes allied with old tidbits hidden away in ancient history, myths and legends that may correlate with physical evidence..).

Its hilarious mate

I just come online at the moment to continue to watch him continually embarress himself on this

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:20 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy just keeps on digging himself in deeper and deeper...

Despite having veya, Ben, Victor, Didge and Andy, as well as my most humble self flooding him with actual facts and supporting evidence through dozens of reputable sources numerous times over the past couple of years, poor little Tommykins just keeps on rehashing his tired old dross, peddling his same old non-evidence, and fallaciously claiming his propaganda as "facts"...

When is it going to filter through that thickhead of yours, Tommy ==

* There were no such things as proper "mini ice ages" a few hundred years ago;

* The world's temperatures didn't stop rising 20-something years ago;

* Just because you, Tommy, declare a site like 'ScepticalScience' fraudulent and fake doesn't make it so;

* There are other ways of recording climatic changes besides written records from the last few centuries -- including ice core samples from the Antarctic and within the Arctic Circle, growth rings in trees, and fossilised layers in geological formations, (and sometimes allied with old tidbits hidden away in ancient history, myths and legends that may correlate with physical evidence..).

The 'climate change/global warming' claims are only coming from those who are trying to use the last 150 years of 'since records began' data, that is wholly inaccurate for the most of it, as well as the latter part of data being highlighted as highly suspicious in accuracy as evidence suggests the data has been widely tampered with...!!!

Antarctic ice core data not really reliable as indicator of global temps either...

However... the Greenland ice core data would be a much more likely indicator of the northern hemisphere temps around the location where Greenland is... and where the rest of the northern hemisphere countries are...!!!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:26 am

Tommy still has not grapsed the difference.

Eiether he cannot read or is stupid

Its got to be one or the other

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:32 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you do not understand any of the stuff you are posting... or any of the stuff I am posting...!

You are a complete numpty on all of it!!!

Your source has been shown to be complete bullshit, using falsified data... but you still post it as fact, without question, and without any understanding of any of it...!!!

You are just a spammer of bullshit...!!!

And nothing I say is going to stop you keep repeating and spamming this thread with lies and spin bullshit from sources that have been caught 'red handed' in producing lies and spin bullshit...!!!

Because you are too stupid to understand any of it...!!!

You are like a child dressed in a spiderman suit, who claims that he really is 'spiderman', although we all know that he isn't... as well as the fact that 'spiderman' doesn't even really exist!!!

Keep repeating the lies, Didge...!

You're such a clever boy!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:35 am

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:
Warming during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was not global

During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, some areas, most notably in the North Atlantic and parts of Europe, were at least as warm as today, if not warmer. However, other areas were colder, and overall evidence suggests that global temperatures during this period were similar to those at the beginning or middle of the 20th century, and colder than today. This period is explored in more depth here.
So not only was Greenland already mostly covered in ice when Europeans settled there, but also the relatively warm conditions during this period were not a global phenomenon. This contrasts with what we are seeing today, where warming is truly global. Figure 1 is a map showing reconstructions of temperature anomalies during the Medieval Warm Period. Blue colours show lower temperatures and warm colours show higher temperatures when compared to the 1961-1990 reference period.
Figure 1 - Reconstructed surface temperature anomalies for the Medieval Warm Period(950-1250) compared to a 1961-1990 reference period. (Source: Mann et al., 2009)
We can compare this with a similar reconstruction looking at surface temperature anomalies for the 1999 to 2008 period. This clearly shows the global nature of recent warming.
Figure 2 - Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. (Source: NOAA)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
I wonder when the point will sink in for poor Tommy

And Tommy still cannot figure it out

It must be that he is very dumb

lol!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:39 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy just keeps on digging himself in deeper and deeper...

Despite having veya, Ben, Victor, Didge and Andy, as well as my most humble self flooding him with actual facts and supporting evidence through dozens of reputable sources numerous times over the past couple of years, poor little Tommykins just keeps on rehashing his tired old dross, peddling his same old non-evidence, and fallaciously claiming his propaganda as "facts"...

When is it going to filter through that thickhead of yours, Tommy ==

* There were no such things as proper "mini ice ages" a few hundred years ago;

* The world's temperatures didn't stop rising 20-something years ago;

* Just because you, Tommy, declare a site like 'ScepticalScience' fraudulent and fake doesn't make it so;

* There are other ways of recording climatic changes besides written records from the last few centuries -- including ice core samples from the Antarctic and within the Arctic Circle, growth rings in trees, and fossilised layers in geological formations, (and sometimes allied with old tidbits hidden away in ancient history, myths and legends that may correlate with physical evidence..).

I wonder how posts he will continue, until the penny drops on his fuck up?

Tommy really is clueless.

Anyway the evidence is for all to see and why many must cringing when ever he continues to fail to grasp this

The evidence is all there to see how Tommy Fucked up.

Lets watch him continue to look very dumb

My work is done, as you simple cannot educate someone as simple as Tommy

Laughing

Enjoy

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:47 am

Didge... you are spamming this thread with stuff that has been shown to be absolute bullshit!!!

lol!

Repeating it doesn't make it any less bullshit!!!

YOUR SOURCE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED AS IT HAS BEEN PROVED TO BE FULL OF SHIT!!!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:52 am

PMSL, yet again Tommy makes an accusation he cannot back up.

Even the site links to countless sources and Tommy has not even attempted to counter them

Its Tommy's only defense, claim they are lying.

One moment

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 3489511464

I doubt many will take Tommy seriously on anything scientific again, after the many gaffs he made here, not even taking on the damning evidence that makes him look very silly.

Anyway, let Tommy have the last word, and continue to look very silly. This has been the best laugh for ages at Tommy's expense Laughing

Night everyone

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:56 am

What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science

		"Skeptical Science has reached an international audience that stretches across the world, and which has come at a time when accurate information is critically important in terms of understanding and responding to climate change, and shockingly hard to find. The website, iPhone apps and other Internet inventions have provided support and climate change knowledge to hundreds of thousands of people, and I frequently refer people to it. This is extraordinary in terms of advancing knowledge about climate change." Naomi Oreskes Professor of History and Science Studies, University of California, Co-author of Merchants of Doubt
		"There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts or industry-funded fake science organizations. One place to start is at skepticalscience.com. Click on the tab that says “Arguments” for scientific responses to all the main climate change denier talking points." David Suzuki
		"Skeptical Science’s broad reach across more than 20 languages, even more countries and cultures, and hundreds of thousands of site visitors each month set a new standard for responsible climate science literacy outreach. These are not my opinions alone, but rather those of many in the responsible climate change science and policy community across the United States. One need only attend and participate in the annual conferences of some of the U.S.’s leading science organizations – the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), or the American Meteorological Society (AMS), for instance – to see how often Skeptical Science activities are formally and informally mentioned or cited from the podium…by panelists…by audience members. As I personally witnessed at these conferences, the site is repeatedly identified as the “essential” web resource, the one web site to be visited frequently by those wanting to be and stay informed." Bud Ward Editor, The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media
		"As a glaciologist focused on the impacts of climate change on glaciers, I have come to rely on Skeptical Science as the first blog to go to each day to keep up with climate change developments. It is like a daily briefing on current arguments confronting climate change science that support inaction." Mauri Pelto Professor of Environmental Science, Science Program Chair Director, North Cascade Glacier Climate Project, Nichols College
		"I read at least one article on SkepticalScience nearly every day and I regularly consult my SkepticalScience iphone app! I am an ecologist and I study the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems, but a few years ago I realized I needed to understand much more about the physical processes underlying the biological changes we are documenting. In part to improve the quality of our science but also because I frequently am challenged when giving public talks by so-called climate change "skeptics". They always ask the same questions and make the same points, eg, "It's the sun!", "it has happened before" and my favorite "it was cold here last week!". The resources provided by SkepticalScience have helped me recognize and respond effectively to these canards. SkepticalScience also helps me keep up with advances in the physical science of climate change by providing excellent, accurate coverage of key papers in the field (in journals I wouldn't regularly read). I regularly use SkepticalScience as a teaching resource (my students love it), for background research when writing blog posts and I frequently use John Cook's graphics when giving talks. Finally, SkepticalScience has taught me a lot about the "debate" about climate change and about communicating climate change science and how to politely and effectively debunk the ideological talking points we all routinely encounter. In short, I find the content reliable, concise, graphically appealing, well presented and organized. SkepticalScience has become a key resource to me and many other environmental scientists." John Bruno Associate Professor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
		"...there are great websites where you can go and get reliable information about the science of climate change, whether it's the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences. There's a great website called Skeptical Science that has sort of a list of all of the various myths about climate change that have become commonplace in sort of among those who deny the reality of climate change and the actual scientific responses." Michael Mann Director of the Earth System Science Center, Penn State
		"Skeptical Science is based on a simple notion: take each climate related argument and match it up to the latest science, first in simple language that everyone can understand, and then in depth, backed up by links to the peer-reviewed science. The result is a website which clearly identifies what we know and what we don't know regarding climate change. It is enormously useful and is currently the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world. Perhaps even more remarkable is that the contributions to the advancement of climate change knowledge do not end with the website. Skeptical Science has also produced popular iPhone and Android apps, which provide up-to-date clarity on the truth or otherwise associate with over 150 popular arguments for why climate change isn't happening or its impacts are trivial. The clarity and portability that the iPhone and Android apps have provided represents an enormous and innovative resource for experts and the general public to understand the state of knowledge that we have about climate change and its impacts." Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Professor and Director, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland
		"In writing The Inquisition of Climate Science, I referred to SkS constantly. I had room only to address the most frequent denier arguments; SkS told me what those were and how best to refute them. Perhaps the most important thing about SkS is not the details but the way in which it shows that it takes only one short sentence to refute each denier argument, revealing that the deniers have constructed a house of cards that falls apart the moment it confronts the implacable facts of science. Future historians will look back at these web pages as either showing how the facts allowed reason to triumph, or as revealing how the opportunity to save humanity was squandered. Regardless, when anyone in the future asks John Cook "What did you do in the war?" he will have an answer he can be proud of." James Lawrence Powell James Lawrence Powell, author of 2084 and The Inquisition of Climate Science
		"There is probably no issue subject to as much misinformation as climate change. Fortunately, there is one place that cuts through the nonsense and provides scientific facts in a clear, well organized, and easy-to-understand format. In preparing presentations on climate change and solutions, I find it to be a wealth of information. With its introduction of smart phone apps, Skeptical Science is now available at your fingertips 24 hours a day." Chuck Kutscher, Ph.D. National Renewable Energy Laboratory and leader of the American Solar Energy Society study, Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.
		"Skeptical Science does two things extremely well: 1) the site relies on peer-reviewed literature to frame the discussion of climate change; and 2) the site realizes that most of us are visual learners, the key plots and graphs are always available. Because of its focus on high quality peer-review publications, SkS draws a bright line between opinion and observation, between the politics of science and science, between tainted skepticism and scientific skepticism. I use SkS in several ways: as a library; for updates on works I may have missed; for climate news; and as a source of scientific points of view." Chip Fletcher Associate head for Academic Affairs and Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
		"I was in attendance at a panel discussion at the Fall 2010 American Geophysical Union Conference with panelists Dr. Richard Sommerville, Susan Hassol, and Chris Mooney. Each of these participants is a giant in their own right. The room was overcrowded and a dividing wall had to be removed to double the seating capacity. The topic of the conversation was how to communicate climate science effectively. During that panel discussion and the interaction with the crowd that followed, Skeptical Science was mentioned four separate times as the premier repository for science information and communication strategies. The persons extolling Skeptical Science were noteworthy climate scientists who recognized the important role the website plays in the international discussion." John Abraham Associate Professor, University of St. Thomas
		"I used John Cook’s SkepticalScience.com as the student resource for this semester’s research papers. As you will see from the four example papers highlighted on this blog, information found at SkepticalScience.com is accessible to the typical college student and likely to the general public." Scott Mandia Professor of Global Climate Change, Suffolk Community College
		"A note of thanks to you for your amazing website Skeptical Science. It has been a great resource as I’ve been preparing for my upcoming talk on ethics and science denial in Perth." Lawrence Torcello Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology
		"Climate's changed before. It's just the sun, or a natural cycle--or both. Mars' ice cap is melting. Carbon dioxide is plant food. And we'd all prefer a warmer planet anyways, right?" If any of these myths sound familiar, check out Skeptical Science - they've got an answer to each of these common myths, and over 200 more. I love how there's a 30-second short answer, a longer "basic" answer, and then the full enchilada for people who want all the scientific references, links, and figures. Warning: a dismissive (someone who no amount of facts, no matter how convincing, will ever convince) will say this is a politically biased website. Why? Because they can't agree with the science it cites. For them, a thermometer really IS liberal. But for the rest of us, this is the best resource for information on climate myths on the internet. I can't recommend it highly enough. They even have an iPhone app! Katharine Hayhoe (source) Professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:04 am

Didge... what is wrong with you...!!!???

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:07 am

NASA?

Not skeptical science then?

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 3489511464

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:08 am

Looks like Didge is unable to hear the truth because he is caught up in an echo chamber of bullshit...!

Oh dear...!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:11 am

[size=33]Nothing False About Temperature Data[/size]

Rep. Gary Palmer falsely claimed on a radio show that temperature data used to measure global climate change have been “falsified” and manipulated.
Palmer, a Republican from Alabama, cited the so-called Climategate episode of five years ago, in which emails written by climate scientists purportedly showed evidence of data manipulation, and a more recent accusation of climate scientists tampering with data from temperature monitoring stations. The Climategate scandal has been subject to several separate investigations, all of which exonerated all scientists involved from any wrongdoing, and the latest data manipulation charges are a mischaracterization of standard and well-validated methods for adjusting temperature records to eliminate factors that could produce inaccurate readings.

‘Manipulating Data’

Radio host Matt Murphy in Birmingham, Alabama, asked for Palmer’s thoughts on the snowstorms in the Northeast and climate change:

Palmer, Feb. 10: I think it might be a matter of the report that came out last week about the government manipulating data and misleading people a little bit. But two feet of snow ought to get their attention. … It’s not the first time. I mean, I wrote about this a couple of years ago, when it came out that the scientists at East Anglia University in England had done this, and that was the data that the United Nations report was based on. It was a huge scandal, there were emails going around where they were, the scientists were literally talking about how they were going to change the data. We are building an entire agenda on falsified data that will have an enormous impact on the economy.

The “report” to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in two stories by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:

Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?
Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.

NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 SciCHECKsquare_4

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 SciCHECKsquare_4

As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.
For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.
Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.
The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.
Another paper, from 2010, looked into the siting of U.S. monitoring stations in particular, and again found no problem with the homogenization methods. “[T]he adjusted [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements. … In summary, we find no evidence that the [conterminous United States] average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.”
Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.
An October 2011 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research provides an overview of the entire Global Historical Climatology Network’s temperature data set, including detailed information about adjustments. In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Temperatureadjustments-475x355

Lawrimore et al, Journal of Geophysical Research
A spokesman for Palmer told us in an email that “it’s very apparent that some of the temperature records have been mangled by the computer in an attempt to make them conform to certain standards.” As the research we describe above shows, no such “mangling” or other manipulation is at all apparent. The spokesman cited a 2007 paper by an economist at the University of Guelph and a scholar at the Cato Institute that found that correlations between temperature readings and socioeconomic data call into question the overall global temperature trend. A subsequent paper by a NASA climate scientisthighlighted the problems with this finding, most notably a very limited set of correlations (primarily the U.S., Japan and Western Europe). He concluded that “there is no compelling evidence from these correlations of any large-scale contamination.”
Scientists have criticized the Telegraph’s Booker (and by extension Homewood) for spreading misinformation on climate science. In a post on RealClimate.org, Norwegian Meteorological Institute senior researcher Rasmus Benestad quickly debunked the details of Booker’s and Homewood’s claims. He said of the Telegraph story, “a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers.”

Climategate Revisited

The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.
Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.
According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.
Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception.
Editor’s Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.
– Dave Levitan

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Yet again Tommy looks a dummy

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:16 am

Remembering that NASA is only one of about 170 national science academies in the world and that the data set they use can be validated or repudiated if incorrect, I'm confident all of these sources and their ability to weed out and identify bad data.
There are a convincing number of records and studies that all support the theories of greenhouse gases and anthropogenic global warming. Noting the billions of tons of carbon and methane we've taken out of the ground and put into the atmosphere, it's pretty arrogant for anyone to claim that for that action, there would be no reaction.
That said, the various models and records are all directionally the same:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Main-qimg-f88a5b754c42899d71a9c9fc0811447d

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Main-qimg-f88a5b754c42899d71a9c9fc0811447d

Finally, “fiddled” is a buzzword certain members of the paid denier propaganda community have used in the past. Paid deniers with multiple fake “sock puppet” accounts seem to like that word.

lol!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:21 am

So nothing to refute skeptical science by Tommy

Just some more fuck ups by him

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:25 am

Didge wrote:NASA?

Not skeptical science then?

What the fuck are you talking about now you complete prick...!!!???

Your fucking graphs were created by that Dana Nutelli prick, chief editor of skepticalscience.com, one of which was from dodgy data that was falsified by the Goddard institute!!!

PLUS THAT GRAPH ONLY PURPORTED TO SHOW THE LAST FEW DECADES, ALTHOUGH YOU POSTED IT TO TRY TO SHOW SOMETHING I HAD SAID OVER THE LAST 8000 YEARS WAS WRONG!!!

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK YOUR GRAPH OF 70 YEARS, HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY CLAIM OF LAST 8000 YEARS...???

lol!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:26 am

NASA and the Y2K bug

Steve McIntyre deduced, and NASA recently admitted, that NASA programmers had a Y2K bug in their source code that processes temperature data. This bug introduced a 0.02% change in the temperature data that has been corrected. Before this correction 1998 was listed as the hottest year recorded, but this difference was statistically non-significant with the second place year 1934; with the correction 1934 becomes the hottest year. 1934 was a period of intense drought in the United States, as it was during the Dust Bowl years in the Great Depression.

The change does not affect the global temperature; it only changes the temperature data for the United States.
This confuses global warming deniers, who largely do not understand that the world extends beyond the borders of the United States.
The old temperature series data for the U.S. was as follows:

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Gissusold

With the correction it changes dramatically, to:

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Gissusnew

Denialists jumped on the bandwagon in regards to this shift making many grandiose claims that it invalidates all of the data that proves this has been the hottest decade in recorded history.

This is not the case; it only makes a tiny difference that does not change the decade averages or the global averages.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#NASA_and_the_Y2K_bug

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:28 am

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

'...international temperature databases have been tampered with...'

More about that here...

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:31 am

Tommy was easily rumbled again and he cannot take it

ha ha ha ha ha ha

You see, I have a counter to every single one of your claims Tommy and yet you have none for mine

Still waiting for the evidence to claim skeptical science is wrong and not to be trusted

Please take your time dummy

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:37 am

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

'...international temperature databases have been tampered with...'

More about that here...

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:40 am

Ha ha ha, Tommy is completely stuck

His claim on Nasa as seen was easily refuted and showed that it was a simple bug which made next to no difference on the data.

He has the added problem of other nations scientists climate data which coborates the NASA data.

Does Tommy have an links to on all of these also trying to claim from another geologist (Professor Friederich-Karl Ewert is a Geologist and climate denier by the way and not a climate scientist, which was priceless)?

lol!

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:06 am

Someone was as taken in by this poor claim as Tommy

Just read how this person is helped understand why not to be taken in by Breibart

This is a tired, old trope deniers trot around like it is new and evidence of tampering. Looking at just raw data is frankly dumb; the 'tampering' NASA is supposedly doing is simply data homogenisation, they even state what they do in their methodology page. Ewert should know this. Short outline of the 'tampering' on the 6th header down. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

I think this is mostly a version of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22086/… See my answer there (and particularly the paper by Trewin that explains why homogenisation is required.). Note also the satellite and surface records are not measuring the same thing (so we would expect them to be different) and the satelite measurements are more affected by ENSO. The code and data are all publicly available, so the idea there has been something dodgy going on is just silly IMHO.

BEST are a team of scientists based at Berkely who were skeptical about climate change, so they developed a homogenisation algorithm to see if there was any unjustified tampering of the data. What did they find? Their temperature dataset shows pretty much the same thing as the NASA and UEA datasets (land only). This issue really has been done to death already, and it is telling that some continue to promulgate it, despite the fact that the answers are all ready well known, the code and data are all available and the work replicated by skeptics and found to be good.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36045/is-this-refutation-of-climate-change-scientifically-valid

Razz

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:10 am

This has been great.

Night everyone

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:39 pm

Don't be a tit Didge... the data has been tampered with to show warming that hasn't happened!!!

The data measured from the ground was changed upwards in all cases found, showing higher temperatures than were actually recorded!!!

And the "records" aren't reliable for giving a long term view of what's normal anyway, because they only started about 150 years ago, and for many decades were few and far between geographically/globally, as well as the inaccuracy factor of measurements, so not even reliable for the last 150 years!!!

The Greenland ice core study shows that most of the last 8000 years has been warmer than it is now... and that we are coming out of the long and unusual cold period known as 'the mini ice age'...!!!

Look at the graph I posted...!!!

It is all the scientific evidence you need, to see that todays temperatures are nothing unusual at all!!!

If you had the slightest idea about what you are posting, then you would understand that what I say is correct!!!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe I can help Didge with a temperature graph for the last 10000 years...

And an interesting read here...

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:From the article...

The graph of temperature from the ice core for the last 10,000 years (the current interglacial period) shows that Greenland is now colder than for most of that period (vertical scale in degrees C below zero). We can see the Medieval Warm Period 800 to 1,000 years ago was not particularly warm, and the Little Ice Age 150 to 650 years ago was one of the longest sustained cold periods during this interglacial. We are now recovering from this abnormal cold period, and the recovery started long before anthropogenic greenhouse gases were produced in any quantity. The curved trend line in green shows that we have been experiencing declining temperatures for the past 3,000 years, and are likely to be heading down toward the next ice age. Temperatures are only considered to be increasing if viewed for the last 150 years, from 1850 onward, which is roughly when thermometers began collecting global data, and is also the period of time the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has chosen for its review. The red portion of the curve is the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The amount of 20th century warming is unknown, since it was recently revealed that unknown portions of the international temperature databases have been tampered with, and the amount and extent of the tampering has not been publicly documented. It is likely that some warming has continued into the 20th century, but it is also likely that the amount of warming is not as great as the 0.6 degrees C that the global warming advocates would lead us to believe.

Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago). Great advances in government, art, architecture, and science were made during these warmer times.

This also answers another of my questions about when the "records began" in the OP claim...!!!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

From the article above...

'...international temperature databases have been tampered with...'

More about that here...

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

Oh dear...!!!

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:47 pm

Looks like Didge has run away...!

by Guest Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:26 pm

Didge wrote:Someone was as taken in by this poor claim as Tommy

Just read how this person is helped understand why not to be taken in by Breibart

This is a tired, old trope deniers trot around like it is new and evidence of tampering. Looking at just raw data is frankly dumb; the 'tampering' NASA is supposedly doing is simply data homogenisation, they even state what they do in their methodology page. Ewert should know this. Short outline of the 'tampering' on the 6th header down. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

I think this is mostly a version of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22086/… See my answer there (and particularly the paper by Trewin that explains why homogenisation is required.). Note also the satellite and surface records are not measuring the same thing (so we would expect them to be different) and the satelite measurements are more affected by ENSO. The code and data are all publicly available, so the idea there has been something dodgy going on is just silly IMHO.

BEST are a team of scientists based at Berkely who were skeptical about climate change, so they developed a homogenisation algorithm to see if there was any unjustified tampering of the data. What did they find? Their temperature dataset shows pretty much the same thing as the NASA and UEA datasets (land only). This issue really has been done to death already, and it is telling that some continue to promulgate it, despite the fact that the answers are all ready well known, the code and data are all available and the work replicated by skeptics and found to be good.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36045/is-this-refutation-of-climate-change-scientifically-valid

Everyone stopped debating you on here Tommy, as you are a simpleton, when you have evidence I presented that rubbishes your claims

Not only that. I have easily shown the claim on Nasa is false. Or the fact the claim made by Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is not peer reviewed. Which should give you a clue as to why nobody is taking seriously his claims. As Ewert was the one being disingenious. His whole claim is based on two years.
Which shows he either never researched propeley how Nasa collates its data on tempreture. Using GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment). Thus being an idiot, not to have factored this in. Rendering his claim nulified. Or he did know, being as he is a climate denier himself and deliberately ignored this important method. In order to lay a false charge against Nasa and why hardly any academic takes his claim on this seriously.

Now I posted all this evidence and people can see, you have not got a clue. At least I read opposing articles on views I am critical of. As seen here, you ignored many I presented and if you had of read them, instead of making unfounded claims, that you have still not backerd up. Then you would actually learn something for a change

I have shown you have no idea what local to global means

I posted an article and video that covers what you clearly do not understand over the last 10000.

Now I have had a great laugh at your expense this week as you have emphatically proven. You do not know what you are talking about and are simple gullible to some claims made. Were I read such claims and hence why I can then easily prove why they are wrong. As seen this was done with evidence

I countered all your crap, you failed to even read, understand and counter.

You lost the debate very badly. That is the reality of the situation

So please have the last word Laughing

Enjoy

by Tommy Monk Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:53 pm

When ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS are ALTERED... THEY STOP BEING TRUE!

by nicko Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:03 pm

I'd like a bit of "Global Warming" over Birmingham !

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:02 am

And Didge... it wasn't 2 years worth of data that was 'altered'... and Ewert didn't just look at 2 years of data either...

He 'painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881'... and he compared this already widely published data with the data that the Goddard institute was trying to use for their claims... and found that the Goddard data was wrong... he found that the Goddard institute had been changing the data, increasing the figures, then claiming warming that hasn't happened!!!

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/

But if you had a clue what you are posting about, then you would know this, as well as the implications of it all...!!!

by 'Wolfie Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:59 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Don't be a tit Didge... the data has been tampered with to show warming that hasn't happened!!!

The data measured from the ground was changed upwards in all cases found, showing higher temperatures than were actually recorded!!!

And the "records" aren't reliable for giving a long term view of what's normal anyway, because they only started about 150 years ago, and for many decades were few and far between geographically/globally, as well as the inaccuracy factor of measurements, so not even reliable for the last 150 years!!!

The Greenland ice core study shows that most of the last 8000 years has been warmer than it is now... and that we are coming out of the long and unusual cold period known as 'the mini ice age'...!!!

Look at the graph I posted...!!!

It is all the scientific evidence you need, to see that todays temperatures are nothing unusual at all!!!

If you had the slightest idea about what you are posting, then you would understand that what I say is correct!!!

Getting pretty pathetic there, Tommy...

Resorting to outright lies by disreputable bloggists and lobbying Repub' politicians to back up your own lies..

Claiming that genuine scientists and sources are fake, that your dubious "references" are the only real facts, that 97% of the world is conspiring against you..

You have already lost the arguments before you even start, Tommy.
How's that Waffle Shoppe going these days.. 2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 3922118137

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 3922118137

**************************************************************************

Any 'climate change' denialists that don't want to believe that all of mankinds activities over the past few hundred years, including :

• Increasing industrial activity fouling the atmosphere;

• Increasingly messing up the oceans, depleting plankton, diminishing fishlife and whales;

• Removing 25% of the tree cover, increasing desertification;

• Growth of cities, lots of concrete and bare open spaces; allied with more intensive farming..

Could possibly have any negative, destructive and deleterious effects on the planets biosphere ?

Well, all I can say is that they must be truly "fucked in the head" to be so easily manipulated by corporatist shonks, and led into such self-destructive and anti-social beliefs..

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:46 am

...says fleakeeper from his waffle factory...!

The Greenland ice core study is independent scientific research... and the data is clear for all to see...

The NASA Goddard institute have been caught out fiddling the figures... showing claims of warming that they have totally made up... backed up by their 'altered' figures...

Your 97% claim is total bullshit...!!!

Spurious nonsense!!!

RUMBLED!!!

by Original Quill Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:30 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

...says fleakeeper from his waffle factory...!

The Greenland ice core study is independent scientific research... and the data is clear for all to see...

The NASA Goddard institute have been caught out fiddling the figures... showing claims of warming that they have totally made up... backed up by their 'altered' figures...

Your 97% claim is total bullshit...!!!

Spurious nonsense!!!

RUMBLED!!!

I don't seen any links or substantiation here, either. What are we to make of that? Bullshit?

by Guest Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:31 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Don't be a tit Didge... the data has been tampered with to show warming that hasn't happened!!!

The data measured from the ground was changed upwards in all cases found, showing higher temperatures than were actually recorded!!!

And the "records" aren't reliable for giving a long term view of what's normal anyway, because they only started about 150 years ago, and for many decades were few and far between geographically/globally, as well as the inaccuracy factor of measurements, so not even reliable for the last 150 years!!!

The Greenland ice core study shows that most of the last 8000 years has been warmer than it is now... and that we are coming out of the long and unusual cold period known as 'the mini ice age'...!!!

Look at the graph I posted...!!!

It is all the scientific evidence you need, to see that todays temperatures are nothing unusual at all!!!

If you had the slightest idea about what you are posting, then you would understand that what I say is correct!!!

Getting pretty pathetic there, Tommy...

Resorting to outright lies by disreputable bloggists and lobbying Repub' politicians to back up your own lies..

Claiming that genuine scientists and sources are fake, that your dubious "references" are the only real facts, that 97% of the world is conspiring against you..

You have already lost the arguments before you even start, Tommy.
How's that Waffle Shoppe going these days..

**************************************************************************

Any 'climate change' denialists that don't want to believe that all of mankinds activities over the past few hundred years, including :

• Increasing industrial activity fouling the atmosphere;

• Increasingly messing up the oceans, depleting plankton, diminishing fishlife and whales;

• Removing 25% of the tree cover, increasing desertification;

• Growth of cities, lots of concrete and bare open spaces; allied with more intensive farming..

Could possibly have any negative, destructive and deleterious effects on the planets biosphere ?

Well, all I can say is that they must be truly "fucked in the head" to be so easily manipulated by corporatist shonks, and led into such self-destructive and anti-social beliefs..

Its emabarressing mate.

I get the fact Tommy is easily led, but its the fact he does not even read anything that conflicts with his beliefs on climate change

He made so many gaffs on here and the fact he still does not see them, shows how poor he is at researching and learning. All the evidence and data is there that easily refutes the poor claims made. They are not even knew claims and like I say. It proves Tommy has no understanding here.

All you need to understand in regards to the accusation made by Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Is that his paper was written in 2012. So it was already old news. Al the main media took no notice of this claim, for good reason.

Its bollocks

Like I said Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert made many assumptions to fit his belief on claimate denial. Worstof all, he never even factored in the methods used by Nasa. Even worse, All other nations record tempretures as well. Its not even been printed in the main media. Its not peer reviewed and as seen. Its poor unsubstanciated claims. That deliberately ignore the process of Nasa.

Now the article Tommy posted was published 3 years after. Which shows you, how little the main media valued his claims. Mainly as they knew they were bollocks

I have shown this and Tommy cannot respond to damning evidence
He has not even read any of the links I posted or arguments I presented. He has no understandiung of local compared to global. Where what is even more hilarious. He looks with suspicion at records collated with tempretures, but now changes his position. When its a climate denier, a Geologist.

I mean the fact that climate deniers from Berkley set out to find out how accurate they were. Ended up with near enough the same figures as Nasa.

Didge wrote:This is a tired, old trope deniers trot around like it is new and evidence of tampering. Looking at just raw data is frankly dumb; the 'tampering' NASA is supposedly doing is simply data homogenisation, they even state what they do in their methodology page. Ewert should know this. Short outline of the 'tampering' on the 6th header down. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

I think this is mostly a version of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22086/… See my answer there (and particularly the paper by Trewin that explains why homogenisation is required.). Note also the satellite and surface records are not measuring the same thing (so we would expect them to be different) and the satelite measurements are more affected by ENSO. The code and data are all publicly available, so the idea there has been something dodgy going on is just silly IMHO.

BEST are a team of scientists based at Berkely who were skeptical about climate change, so they developed a homogenisation algorithm to see if there was any unjustified tampering of the data. What did they find? Their temperature dataset shows pretty much the same thing as the NASA and UEA datasets (land only). This issue really has been done to death already, and it is telling that some continue to promulgate it, despite the fact that the answers are all ready well known, the code and data are all available and the work replicated by skeptics and found to be good.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36045/is-this-refutation-of-climate-change-scientifically-valid

If Tommy cannot understand the basics here, or understand how again the world's main media clearly saw his claim also as bollocks. Even the likes of the Daily Mail. Which is a known media climate denier. Did not even write a story about his claims. Shows even the climate denialists see this Professors claims as false and embarressing

Its still fun to see Tommy have the worst one sided view going. His other source is David Lappi, another Geologist, who's graphs are very wrong and again a climate denialist.. Laughing

Another nobody in the claimat

Let him continue to struggle and post more crap

He has to go back and counter the many points made to him

He has failed to counter a single one

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:08 pm

Didge...

"...Oxygen isotope measurements of the GISP2 ice core show that about 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades. The most recent 1 500 years, including the Little Ice Age were cooler. Temperature reconstructions from borehole data confirm the oxygen isotope data and show that about 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent decades..."

http://www.kaltesonne.de/temperatures-over-the-past-10000-years/

by Guest Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:24 pm

Quelle surpise

Where Tommy continues to excell himself, by again failing to counter any point and fact raise to him.

Instead and sadlt as seen. He once againt turns to someone who is not a Climate scientist. but a Geologist?

That is 3 Geologists now as Tommy's flawed defense.

Now did Tommy at any point actually actually research the claims being made by this Geology Proffessor?

Or did they, like Tommy, take as gospel, anythinbg he claims?

Oh dear

At the recent scandal-plagued Heartland climate conference, Don Easterbrook gave a presentation in which he discussed his previous predictions of global cooling. Given the inaccuracy of those predictions after just one decade, we were surprised to learn that Easterbrook had highlighted them in his talk, going as far as to claim that his global cooling projectons have thus far been more accurate than the global warming projections in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR).

However, to make this claim, Easterbrook had to distort the IPCC's actual model projections, claiming:

"In fact the IPCC predicted in the year 2000 that we would be experiencing 1 degree increase in temperature between the year 2000 and 2010."

As Skeptical Science readers are undoubtedly aware, and as we will show in greater detail below, this assertion is an outright falsehood. Distortions of the IPCC projections aside, was Easterbrook correct in his claim that his temperature predictions were more accurate than those in the TAR? As Figure 1 shows, the simple answer is no.

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Easterbrook_vs_IPCC_1900-2100

Figure 1: Easterbrook's two global temperature projections A (green) and B (blue) vs. the IPCC TAR simple model projection tuned to seven global climate models for emissions scenario A2 (the closest scenario to reality thus far) (red) and observed global surface temperature change (the average of NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4) (black).

Easterbrook vs. IPCC - Fantasy vs. Reality

The IPCC TAR produced global temperature projections based on a number of possible greenhouse gas emissions scenarios from their Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). As we recently showed in our discussion of the 2011 International Energy Agency (IEA) CO2 emissions update, thus far actual emissions have most closely followed ScenarioA2 from the SRES. Thus Figure 1 depicts [url=https://skepticalscience.com/ http:/www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-tar.html]the IPCC TAR Scenario A2 temperature projection[/url] based on a simple climate model which was tuned to the seven Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOCGMs).

Over the first decade or two of the 21st Century, the IPCC projected close to 0.2°C surface warming per decade. Thus we were very curious to find out where Easterbrook had obtained the information that led him to assert that the IPCC had predicted a 1°C increase over the first decade of the century (see minute 6 in the video and the lower right panel in Figure 4 below). Easterbrook's depiction of the IPCC projection is quite unlike the report's actual model projections (Figure 2).

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 TAR_projections

Figure 2: From IPCC TAR, historical anthropogenic global mean temperature change and future changes for the six illustrative SRES scenarios using a simple climate model tuned to seven AOGCMs. Also for comparison, following the same method, results are shown for IS92a. The dark blue shading represents the envelope of the full set of thirty-five SRES scenarios using the simple model ensemble mean results. The light blue envelope is based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings. The bars show the range of simple model results in 2100 for the seven AOGCM model tunings.

Source of the Distortion

A Skeptical Science contributor contacted Easterbrook to inquire as to the source of his depiction of the IPCC projections. Easterbrook responded that he had obtained them from the IPCC website, but that the data must have been subsequently altered or removed, because he could no longer find it.

Tom Curtis did some sleuthing to try and find the source of Easterbrook's graphic, and it appears that he has identified it correctly as the HadCM3 temperature simulation in Figure 9.5 (a) G (Figure 3 below).

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 IPCC_TAR_Fig9-5aG

Figure 3: IPCC TAR Figure 9.5 (a) The time evolution of the globally averaged temperature change relative to the years (1961 to 1990) of the DDC simulations (IS92a). G: greenhouse gas only. The observed temperature change (Jones, 1994) is indicated by the black line. (Unit: °C). See Table 9.1 for more information on the individual models used here.

In Figure 4, Tom Curtis has overlaid Easterbrook's depiction of the IPCC temperature projection onto the HadCM3 curve from Figure 3.

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Ipcctarpojectionsclose-overlaya

Figure 4: IPCC TAR Figure 9.5 (a) blown up for the timeframe 2000 to 2020 to illustrate Easterbrook's curve (gray) overlaid on the HadCM3 curve (dark blue). The two curves align almost perfectly from 2000 to 2011.

The fundamental flaw in Easterbrook's graphic is outlined in the caption to Figure 3 above, which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gaschanges only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing (which the IPCC shows in Figure 2 above).

On top of that, Easterbrook has selected a model run which happens to simulate a large temperature spike right around 2011, after which temperatures immediately fall and don't return to their 2011 levels for another 20 years. This anomalous temperature spike is due to the fact that Easterbrook relied on a single model simulation as opposed to the average of a number of simulations.

After some more sleuthing, Tom Curtis discovered that Easterbrook had shown the same IPCC HadCM3 greenhouse gas-only model run at the 2010 Heartland conference, but in that case, he showed the entire curve (see minute 7:35 in this video, and Figure 5 below).

[url=http://www.iceagenow.com/Easterbrook-Projected Cooling.jpg] 2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Easterbrook-Projected%20Cooling

[/url]

Figure 5: Don Easterbrook's global temperature graphic presented during the 2010 Heartland conference.

During the 2012 Heartland conference, Easterbrook elected only to show the HadCM3 greenhouse gas-only forcing simulation data up to 2011, at the peak of its short-term temperature spike, exaggerating the supposed difference between models and data.

Additionally, if you look closely at Figure 5, even in Easterbrook's own distorted IPCC presentation the largest minimum to maximum temperature difference in the first decade of the 21st century, if you exaggerate the change by cherrypicking the endpoints rather than calculating a statistical trend, is only about 0.6°C, not 1°C.

To summarize Easterbrook's distortions of the IPCC TAR temperature projections:

He chose a figure which represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.
He chose a single model run with an anomalous temperature spike in 2011.
He only presented the data from 2000 to 2011, which concealed the fact that the temperature spike in 2011 was a short-term anomaly.
He exaggerated his distorted IPCC temperature rise by a factor of two.

Thus Easterbrook's claim that the IPCC TAR projected a 1°C global surface warming from 2000 to 2010 was not even remotely accurate.

IPCC Beats Easterbrook

However, as we have previously discussed, the average global surface temperature over the first decade of this century has indeed warmed at a dampened rate. There are several reasons for this; for example, aerosol emissions have risen, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events at the end of this timeframe, there has been increased heat storage in the deep oceans, and there was also an extended solar minimum.

Frankly with all of these effects acting in the cooling direction, it's amazing that surface temperatures continued to warm over the past decade, but they did. The average of the NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011 (Figures 1 and 3).

On the other hand, Easterbrook's two temperature projections showed a 0.2°C and 0.5°C cooling over this period, while the IPCC TAR Scenario A2 projection showed a 0.2°C warming (Figure 6).

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Easterbrook_vs_IPCC_2000-2011

Figure 6: Easterbrook's two global temperature projections A (green) and B (blue) vs. the IPCC TAR simple model projection tuned to seven global climate models for emissions scenario A2 (the closest scenario to reality thus far) (red) and observed global surface temperature change (the average of NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4) (black) over the period 2000 through 2011. The IPCC TAR projection and the 1998-2002 average temperature anomaly are baselined to match Easterbrook's projections in 2000.

So while the IPCC TAR projection was too high by about 0.12°C for the reasons discussed above, Easterbrook's projections were too low by 0.28°C and 0.58°C. Despite all of these non-greenhouse gas factors acting in the cooling direction over this timeframe, the IPCC projection was still much closer to reality than Easterbrook's.

Climate Contrarian Distortions of Reality

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this presentation is the degree of misinformation and distortion of reality associated with it. Any climate scientist can immediately tell you that the IPCC projected approximately 0.2°C global surface warming over the first decade of the century - certainly nowhere near 1°C. Yet nobody at Easterbrook's presentation spoke up to correct the glaring mistake, which was central to his entire talk. There were few climatescientists present at the Heartland conference, but the fact that nobody caught or corrected Easterbrook's error speaks volumes about the lack of climate expertise and/or lack of interest in getting the facts right amongst the conference attendees.

As a result, Heartland members are now touting Easterbrook's misinformation to a more mainstream audience, such as by Peter Ferrara at Forbes magazine. While a partisan policy analyst like Ferrara can perhaps be forgiven for deferring to a scientist like Easterbrook on scientific matters, somebody should have caught the error immediately before Ferrara had a chance to disseminate this misinformation.

Additionally, Easterbrook should never have made this error to begin with. The caption of the IPCC figure he used was clear and explicit that it depicted model simulations responding to only the greenhouse gas forcing. Even if the graphic in question depicted responses to the total global radiative forcing, to cherrypick a single model run and ignore the fact that it displays an anomalous spike in 2011 reveals exceptionally poor data analysis on Easterbrook's part.

The fact that such a glaring distortion of reality was presented at the Heartland conference (at least twice) without being corrected and was subsequently disseminated to a much larger audience by Heartland members reveals a distinct lack of true skepticism amongst the Heartland Institute and its conference attendees.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

by Guest Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:32 pm

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

Most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present.

This is Easterbrook’s Fig 4:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Easterbrook_fig41

It’s a graph he’s used before, in various forms, almost certainly copied and altered from the original (click image below to see source: the NOAA web page for Richard Alley’s 2000 paper The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, though DE credits it as “Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997″, misspelling Kurt Cuffey’s name in the process:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Alley2000

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Alley2000

Easterbrook continues:

Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.

This is his Fig 5:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 Easterbrook_fig5

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.
And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version):
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 GRIPtempBox480

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 GRIPtempBox480

I’ve added lines showing the average temperatures for the 1850s (blue) and the last 10 years (red), and the difference between those is a warming of 1.44ºC. I’ve also added the two most recent GISP2 temperature data points (for 1847 and 1855, red crosses). It’s obvious that the GRIP site is warmer than GISP2 (at Summit Camp). The difference is estimated to be 0.9ºC on the annual average (Box, pers comm).
Let’s have ago at reconstructing Easterbrook’s Fig 5, covering the last 10,000 years of GISP2 data. It looks like this (click for bigger version):
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 GISP210k480

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 4 GISP210k480

The GISP2 series — the red line — appears to be identical to Easterbrook’s version. The bottom black line shows his 1855 “present”, and it intersects the red line in the same places as his chart. I’ve added a grey line based on the +1.44ºC quantum calculated from the GRIP temperature data, and two blue crosses, which show the GISP2 site temperatures inferred from adjusted GRIP data for 1855 and 2009.
Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIPdata) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy(based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show. Here’s his conclusion:

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age(Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.
The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.

See also: MT at Only In It For The Gold. My thanks to Richard Alley and Jason Box for their rapid response to my questions.
NOTE: This rebuttal is an edited version of a blog post first published by Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:47 pm

Fact remains that the vast majority of the last 10000 years have been significantly warmer than today!!!

NASA Goddard institute have been caught out fiddling the figures from the 'records' of the last 150 years!

The facts speak for themselves...!!!

by Guest Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:55 pm

The only fact that is evident Tommy, is that you are completely an idiot.

I have easily countered your poor, flawed and disingenuous accusations. With factual evidence and you still are placing your hands over your ears, going.

"la la la la la, I;m not listening"

by Sponsored content