Quote:That graph shows the increase in the discrepancy between the real numbers and the adjusted final numbers over time. The reason it goes UP is because the scientists keep adjusting the numbers further and further up away from the actual number recorded to produce the "fact" that the globe is increasing in temperature. Like he said: the difference isn't in the recorded temps, its in the adjustments made afterward.
So your idea is that NOAA makes up these adjustments to "prove" climate change even tho there would be no climate change without the adjustements? And they just post the graph to prove it on their website?
Like, really?
Quote:I posted a graph linked to NOAA's own website. Glad to know you agree that NOAA performs pseudo science.
Post a link to the graph and we can start talking about what it really means.
Allow me to go off topic a bit...I find it amusing/confusing that when scientists say there are things such as black holes, super novas,etc...people believe it. Without seeing or experiencing it. No videos ( well, unless you count Interstellar ) or other "proof" to substantiate these findings. Seriously, gravitational pull that wont let light escape? How'd they figure that one. Friggin scientists. Many believe in UFOs. Life on other planets.
But let them say we are screwing up our planet by toxins released and so on ( Chernobyl was a beauty ) and it isnt having a profound affect on lives and somehow alters our climate? Acid rain. Produced by what man has put into the atmosphere. Does no one believe that it was man made? It didnt alter climate, and environment?
My question is, why the debate? Is it political? Was it because Al Gore ( a Dem ) was a supporter. Is it about money? Money some say goes to research ( a scam ) or money NOT made because of regulations.
Maybe Im wrong, but just seeing Chinas popualtion running around wearing breathing masks, makes me think, we as a people are doing much more than altering climate to a degree.
Whats the harm in reducing emissions, pollutants and other harmful ingredients? Bottom line? The bottom line!
But I digress. Before serious climate change will affect us, our human race will blow each other up anyway. Whew. Time for a beer...time is running out.
Quote:You can see a supernova. Measurements have even been made of neutrinos released from a supernova, as predicted by theory.
You are right about pollution. Toxins in the air and water are a problem. In the US, this has been handled. CO2 is not a pollutant, and is necessary for life on Earth. Neodymium mining for windmill generators and rare earths for solar panels is a large contributor to pollution in China.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution'>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution</a>
You can also measure the age of rock and estimate the age of the universe via observation of expansion. Neither of those stop a whole ton of people from thinking the earth is 10,000 years old.
Quote:You can get the link by right clicking on the figure.
Can you provide a link? I'm on an iPhone and the graph doesn't mean anything out of context.
I did notice this today:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/04/new-research-suggests-global-warming-is-accelerating'>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/04/new-research-suggests-global-warming-is-accelerating</a>
Speaks to any apparent lulls and adjustments. Not sure if they are the adjustments you are referencing tho.
Quote:I think you mean 6000.
They have since adjusted their data points :thumbsup:
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif'>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif</a>
Lol. I'd like to see the graph in context please.
Edit: (which you can't provide because the graph doesn't mean what you erroneously and disingenuously purport it does)
Quote:Another adjustment that increase the warming? By a Warmist? I'm shocked! SHOCKED!!
When you find any adjustment that decreases the warming, let me know.
EDIT: Oops, I misunderstood your question. No, that link is based on a whole new adjustment, not the one I posted.
Ad hominem attacks. Didn't you complain about that before, you loon?
Quote:Don't believe me? Read Marty's link. It says the same thing.
If the people recording the temperatures are gradually changing from afternoon readings to morning readings, it seems entirely reasonable to say that there needs to be an adjustment to account for that. That is one example of the adjustments that have been made to some of the historical temperature records. They're not cooking the books, they're just trying to get a fair and accurate record which is not affected by various changes in location or time of day or any other factor that affects comparability.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/'>http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/</a>
"Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done."
And the article I linked goes on to explain why the adjustments to the historical data were made.
A lot of people just want to yell and scream, THEY'RE COOKING THE BOOKS!!! without ever asking, why did they make these adjustments.
Quote:Allow me to go off topic a bit...I find it amusing/confusing that when scientists say there are things such as black holes, super novas,etc...people believe it. Without seeing or experiencing it. No videos ( well, unless you count Interstellar ) or other "proof" to substantiate these findings. Seriously, gravitational pull that wont let light escape? How'd they figure that one. Friggin scientists. Many believe in UFOs. Life on other planets.
But let them say we are screwing up our planet by toxins released and so on ( Chernobyl was a beauty ) and it isnt having a profound affect on lives and somehow alters our climate? Acid rain. Produced by what man has put into the atmosphere. Does no one believe that it was man made? It didnt alter climate, and environment?
My question is, why the debate? Is it political? Was it because Al Gore ( a Dem ) was a supporter. Is it about money? Money some say goes to research ( a scam ) or money NOT made because of regulations.
Maybe Im wrong, but just seeing Chinas popualtion running around wearing breathing masks, makes me think, we as a people are doing much more than altering climate to a degree.
Whats the harm in reducing emissions, pollutants and other harmful ingredients? Bottom line? The bottom line!
But I digress. Before serious climate change will affect us, our human race will blow each other up anyway. Whew. Time for a beer...time is running out.
I think it's a scientific question that a lot of people fear will have to have a political solution. Hence the politics.
If you tell me gravity can bend light, it's interesting, but it's not a threat to my wallet and the government isn't going to force me into any behavior changes.