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."

 

Yes, and neither did I disagree that TOBS adjustments weren't warranted, nor did I claim a conspiracy. The problem I have with TOBS, as I stated before, is that they just add the same average adjustment (that someone calculated based on a small fraction of the sites) to every site. Instead, they should perform the adjustments on a site by site basis where they first determine the magnitude of the effect of the time change at that specific site, and then make the adjustment starting at the date the site changed it's time of observation.


 

The other main problem I have with the adjustments, is that any adjustment that gives what the scientist expects (in this case warming) is given far less scrutiny than one that gives the opposite (cooling). Why don't the adjustments average out to zero? Why is the TOBS adjustment so much bigger than the UHI (urban heat island) adjustment? It's very suspicious that the adjustments just happen to push things in the same direction as the initial theory.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Yes, and neither did I disagree that TOBS adjustments weren't warranted, nor did I claim a conspiracy. The problem I have with TOBS, as I stated before, is that they just add the same average adjustment (that someone calculated based on a small fraction of the sites) to every site. Instead, they should perform the adjustments on a site by site basis where they first determine the magnitude of the effect of the time change at that specific site, and then make the adjustment starting at the date the site changed it's time of observation.


The other main problem I have with the adjustments, is that any adjustment that gives what the scientist expects (in this case warming) is given far less scrutiny than one that gives the opposite (cooling). Why don't the adjustments average out to zero? Why is the TOBS adjustment so much bigger than the UHI (urban heat island) adjustment? It's very suspicious that the adjustments just happen to push things in the same direction as the initial theory.

What's your point? You are talking about minutia. Who cares.

---

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.

 

Very valid points and questions.

 

Regarding the money, it's a few things.  First and foremost you brought up Al Gore.  It's all about the money for him, and if you think otherwise well... what can I say?  It doesn't matter that he is a democrat.  I have no problem with money going to research, but I would hope and expect to get honest results from the research.  It seems that for one reason or another, results from the research are "tweaked" either to support a certain agenda or to ensure further research funds.  Part of that agenda might be to "get back" at the "evil oil companies/industry".

 

Regarding the China thing that you bring up.  That's a whole different discussion.  To me that's more about pollution rather than climate change.  Yes I am all for reducing pollution and yes I am all for looking for better ways to produce "green energy" (I worked for a brief period of time for a solar company, though the goal and products were/are built for different reasons).  I'm not at all against reducing emissions and/or pollutants into the air or into the water system.

 

The bottom line is, I see a difference between global warming climate change and pollution.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Exactly, oface. Real Marty provided the link that explains the graph. Once the context is applied to the graph, I think the overall idea of warming is still valid, or at least not rebutted.


Take into account the fact that these adjustments do not refute the overall trend we are experiencing, and to me it appears to be a red herring.


Wouldn't you agree? I mean, if the graph was even remotely pointing to a reality that shows the earth is not warming at a rate which is unprecedented, then that's one thing.


But the trend remains.

---

Jagibelieve, the adjustments are not politically motivated. Real Marty provided a link that went over the reasons for it.


It's a shame that Al Gore became the spokesman for climate change. But I think that no matter who it would have been, they would have been vilified by those who have an agenda.


For this topic, I'm trying to approach this openly. If there is research and evidence that shows the earth isn't warming, that the oceans aren't warming, that aren't going through serious changes in the climate, in major regions in America and the poles, in open to reconsideration.

---

Hmm...  if the earth is warming, why is it that the sea ice in Antarctica set a new record?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Jagibelieve, the adjustments are not politically motivated. Real Marty provided a link that went over the reasons for it.


It's a shame that Al Gore became the spokesman for climate change. But I think that no matter who it would have been, they would have been vilified by those who have an agenda.


For this topic, I'm trying to approach this openly. If there is research and evidence that shows the earth isn't warming, that the oceans aren't warming, that aren't going through serious changes in the climate, in major regions in America and the poles, in open to reconsideration.

 

Refer to my above post.  This data comes from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (who knew that we had such a government agency to keep track of snow and ice?).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Hmm...  if the earth is warming, why is it that the sea ice in Antarctica set a new record?

Hmm.... If people are starving around the world why am I full?

---

For this topic, I'm trying to approach this openly. If there is research and evidence that shows the earth isn't warming, that the oceans aren't warming, that aren't going through serious changes in the climate, in major regions in America and the poles, in open to reconsideration.

 

The satellite measurements (the only measurements that are actually global) show no warming for 18.5 years. For people graduating high school this year there has been no warming their entire lives.
 Doesn't that alone merit reconsideration?

 

Tropical cyclones are down. Tornadoes are down. We are in the longest period in history without a major (cat 3 or greater) hurricane making landfall in the US ... and counting. You may consider that a "serious change in the climate." If so, bring it on.

 

There is no place that is undergoing "serious" changes in the climate. The only place that might come close to "serious" is the Arctic, and that is a small fraction of the globe. But we don't have meaningful records of the Arctic before satellites, so we can't say that what's happening in the Arctic is unusual.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

What's your point? You are talking about minutia. Who cares.

 

Exactly. This whole thread is about a half a degree.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Exactly. This whole thread is about a half a degree.

That half a degree can generate billions in revenue and make a lot of people in the green industry extremely wealthy.  There's plenty of motivation to fudge numbers.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

That half a degree can generate billions in revenue and make a lot of people in the green industry extremely wealthy.  There's plenty of motivation to fudge numbers.

 

When the greenies stop riding halfway around the world to conferences in exotic locations and start teleconferencing to cut down 'carbon pollution,' I'll start taking them seriously.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

When the greenies stop riding halfway around the world to conferences in exotic locations and start teleconferencing to cut down 'carbon pollution,' I'll start taking them seriously.

 

Their hypocrisy is completely fine.  What they do doesn't matter nearly as much as what they say others should.  It's their intentions that matter.  If Al Gore needs to take a caravan of cars to go from one side of a courtyard to the other after flying in by private jet for an event, that's okay because he says the right things.  What he does is irrelevant.  He cares.  That's what matters.  Of course, please don't bother looking at where he's making his money selling carbon credits for other good environmentalists to purchase so they can feel good about all of their jet setting and hypocrisy too. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Hmm.... If people are starving around the world why am I full?

 

Way to bow out of a discussion when you have been proven wrong.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Way to bow out of a discussion when you have been proven wrong.

Hey man, I was agreeing with your premise of this "single thing is happening therefore absolutely nothing is happening in other areas". 

---

You are defending something that at the very least was lazy writing from a gentleman that has no problem with writing and wording things in great detail, but yeah you are flexible.


Give me a break.

 

You're normally one of the first to admit they're wrong or misunderstood something, so it's a bit surprising because I read it the same way as Malabar intended it to be read. 

---

You're normally one of the first to admit they're wrong or misunderstood something, so it's a bit surprising because I read it the same way as Malabar intended it to be read. 

 

I know, I usually am.  But I think, based on the fact that he put too in quotiations marks, made me read it that he thought "too" could not be used as "also".

 

But he did clarify, so I kinda let it go and didn't push back on it. 

---

Hmm...  if the earth is warming, why is it that the sea ice in Antarctica set a new record?

 

OK, well that's good news!  But...  From the article you cited:

 

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.

 

The satellite measurements (the only measurements that are actually global) show no warming for 18.5 years. For people graduating high school this year there has been no warming their entire lives.
 Doesn't that alone merit reconsideration?

 

Tropical cyclones are down. Tornadoes are down. We are in the longest period in history without a major (cat 3 or greater) hurricane making landfall in the US ... and counting. You may consider that a "serious change in the climate." If so, bring it on.

 

There is no place that is undergoing "serious" changes in the climate. The only place that might come close to "serious" is the Arctic, and that is a small fraction of the globe. But we don't have meaningful records of the Arctic before satellites, so we can't say that what's happening in the Arctic is unusual.

 

OK, again, that's good news...  No warming for 18.5 years...  Yes, it absolutely merits consideration.  

 

What about California, in and all the droughts.  I think I remember even Atlanta going through some major droughts with lakes and water reseviores drying up.  Isn't that something to be concerned about?

---

Lol

Seriously dude. Responses such as this reek of immaturity. You could try actually debating his statements

---

When the greenies stop riding halfway around the world to conferences in exotic locations and start teleconferencing to cut down 'carbon pollution,' I'll start taking them seriously.

Reminds me of Ben and Jerrys releasing a new flavor to raise awareness for climate change yet they are a huge contributor to CO2 emissions

---