re: NOAA Whistleblower: How world leaders were duped over manipulated AGW data

quote:

---

C'mon and be honest, are those two necessarily mutually exclusive?

---

quote:

---

The verified data shows warming, just less warming than was depicted by the flawed data

---

The reason it WAS exaggerated was to debunk the pause that was happening. The graph only demonstrates the continuing pause.

However, NOAA issued a blockbuster report in time for Paris that claimed there had been warming all along

They lied

quote:

---

As opposed to what???...a flat line?...a downward trend??? WHAT?

---

As opposed to the baseline of course.

quote:

---

As opposed to the baseline of course.

---

Thats just dumb.

The "baseline" extending how far back?.... the end of a cooling phase?....50 years ago??...what?

quote:

---

Thats just dumb.

The "baseline" extending how far back?.... the end of a cooling phase?....50 years ago??...what?

---

No, its called statistics and science.

From NASA:

"The average temperature in 2013 was 14.6 °C (58.3 °F), which is 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1880...

The temperature analysis done by GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements, taking into account station history and urban heat-island effects. Software is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place from 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis. It has been 38 years since the recording of a year of cooler than average temperatures."

So the obviously conclusion is that they use the reliable part of the data that we have (thermometers haven't been around forever you know) and you need an x amount of samples to determine a trend. So this is why you have them using different baselines all greater than two decades in length.

quote:

---

Also, has no one else noticed that the data presented in the OP still show a warming trend?

---

See, this is what concerns me, the ramifications of proving the world is getting warmer are so contrary to our way of life that emotion comes before reason. Some proof that scientists exaggerated what happened can't discount everything after. The Earth is getting warmer, you can't deny it, but we can challenge why. Science shouldn't be political and maybe it's time for some kind of separation of science and state.

Don't get me wrong, I like my 350 HP truck and I like my twin outboards with everything that I am but I'm not going to deny the possibility that we could or should do something about it. We stop denying everything, get China and India onboard, then I'll be onboard, until then I'm going fishing and burning 200 gallons a trip...

quote:

---

Im in the fence with AGW

Can you talk more about these topics. Or point me to sources that do.

---

Surprisingly, there's actually a lot of pretty solid information in this thread (if you can read between the attack posts). Your best tool is actually google. Just be sure to try and find information from both sides of the debate.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are contributing to the overall rise in CO2 concentration. However, I do not think it is significant enough to justify economic burdens such as carbon taxes.

As for the questions I posed, the primary reason that models always predict temperatures higher than satellite data is bad science. The dirty truth of science is that it's still kinda based on the renaissance model of patrons paying for stuff. Scientists, like everyone else, need to make money, and the simple fact of the world is that publicity and headlines lead to more funding. As a result you've had a lot of cherry picking of data (admittedly by both sides) in an effort to prove their respective points. As a note anyone who says the science is settled on any topic is most likely out of their depth.

The second question has more to do with astronomy and how the sun has a cyclical power output (usually a cycle takes ~22 years). Not unexpectedly, when the sun puts out more power we typically see higher temperatures. When solar output approaches a minimum we typically see lower average temperatures. To go back to the first question, most climate models don't include variable solar energy levels. The second part of the question was more of a dick move because CH4 (methane) and H2O (water) actually have a significantly higher greenhouse coefficient than CO2.

The third there's no way to know. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are significantly lower than how much CO2 we've generated, so where's the missing CO2? It's absorbed by the oceans. When CO2 reacts with water it forms carbonic acid, H2CO3. Now the oceans are actually a bit basic, so the carbonic acid reacts with a the bases and typically form calcium carbonate and sinks to the ocean floor. Now the concern is that as more carbonic acid is generated, the pH will drop and the oceans can't absorb as much CO2 and we get a runaway system. In addition, there would be ecological problems associated with oceanic acidification.

It's a tremendously complicated issue, and I wish you the best of luck in your search! In science the best policy is to always question everything (including the stuff I wrote). I'm familiar with a lot of it, but by no means an expert so please feel free to question any of my sources or conclusions.

I am aware of solar cycles and the ocean as a carbon sink.

I was hoping for a few sources that cite the data that supports:

1. temps always being recorded higher than satellite data

2. Temps correlating with solar cycles better than CO2

Whenever I google search these topics I always seem to find a website that has a clear agenda. Its frustrating

But how can you determine that something constitutes an aberrant (not abhorrent ) fluctuation?