Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

My personal opinion of this whole issue, since the 70s is it is a public diversion tactic used to stop activists really going after ground and water polluters. Who's damage is killing more people and animals right now, than any climate issue.

Forensic analysis for all kinds of pollutants are so good, they can literally trace a single piece of manufacturing grain plastic , or small oil spills, or chemical dump / leak .... right back to its source. Which would mean huge fines for companies .

But the climate...... What a great get out of jail free card. Everyone is to blame, so everyone pays.

These rolling diversions and "public debate" is all about making sure the lack of accountability that will end us long before any climate crisis, is never on the front page.

a reply to: thedeadtruth

originally posted by: chevweyed
a reply to: thedeadtruth

This thread made me think of Dr Don Easterbrook's testimony to the Senate Energy Committee. The senators look at his data and they they say they've got other data saying things are getting warmer like crazy, and ask how can his data be so much different. He replies that the data they are looking at has been adjusted, and his data is the raw data before it's been adjusted.

Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

In response to a question from a senator who says he has data suggesting a warming trend, Don Easterbrook replies at 16m57s:

I'm showing you the original data, and what you're looking at is the data that has been tampered with by NOAA and by NASA.

In N.Z. if your want to do a Climate Study..... You get Govt. grant money thrown at you.

If you want one to test the water quality in streams, rivers, lakes , or bore water......forget it.

originally posted by: jrod


We're not talking about nitrogen.

It's accepted in biology that anything in too high of a concentration is toxic. But 405-1500ppm CO2 is not toxic to plants or animals.

p.s. links are not working. Maybe another 97consensus was busted, eh?

a reply to: seasonal

How long before the actual science deniers come in and dispute this? Why does anyone still accept the GW/CC nonsense?? It's all about control, through lies and scare tactics, and, of course, money.

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas then CO2.

Yet no one does any research on how much global warming is caused by methane.

This is because most of the greenhouse emissions from methane are not man made.

Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: seasonal

Even the local weather stations lie daily about what the temperatures are on every app and local news.

This has ramped up dramatically of late, they will claim a certain temperature high and low and it is always higher in the summer than they claim, and colder than they say it is in winter.

This appears to be to control the masses at first glance.

The realization if they tell people it will snow, people will stay home from work , so tell them it will rain and be 5 Celsius, low of 2 and then everyday for days on end it is -5 with high of 2 and snows, the incredibly brainwashed herds believe its raining even while seeing snow.

I saw a weather anchor recently admit they fake the temperatures more and more on demand too affect peoples moods.

Fake news has moved completely into the weather even, and I watch people not even notice as they mindlessly live their lives.

Just about NOTHING LEFT on the planet that is not fake news, and I realize this is the case for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

When did ATS go from Deny Ignorance to Promote Ignorance?

originally posted by: Speedtek
When did ATS go from Deny Ignorance to Promote Ignorance?

Quite a few of the promoters seem to be getting the boot, at least.

I had formulated a response to another thread and it has now vanished... guess I can post about it here (this is not aimed at you but rather seasonal):

..........

If we did not have greenhouse gases, the Earth as a whole would be approximately 255°K - below freezing. That's for today - the Sun is thought to have increased in its output as it has aged. Now, that 255°K would be for the whole of the atmosphere. Pressure determines mass; a good rule of thumb is that 50% of the remaining mass of the atmosphere will be below every 5.6km increase in altitude. Thus, 50% of atmospheric mass is within about 5.6km of the surface, 75% is within about 11.2km, 87.5% is within about 16.8km, and so on. More than 98% of the Earth's atmospheric mass is below about 33.6km.

UAH for example defines 'lower troposphere' to be from near the surface up to about 8km. Temperature falls with altitude above the surface in the troposphere (the lowest 75% of the atmosphere), as anyone who has been on top of a mountain will understand; this lapse rate is about -6.49 °K/km. Given a mean surface temperature of 288°K, you can guess the temperature for 3/4ths of the atmosphere and about how much mass it makes up. Let's do it roughly by taking the start temperatures and saying that's how much a particular section is (this is slightly inaccurate):
00km: 288.00°K @ 0%
01km: 281.51°K @ 11.3% * 288.00°K = 32.54400°K
02km: 275.02°K @ 10.2% * 281.51°K = 28.71402°K
03km: 268.53°K @ 09.3% * 275.02°K = 25.57686°K
04km: 262.04°K @ 08.4% * 268.53°K = 22.55652°K
05km: 255.55°K @ 07.5% * 262.04°K = 19.65300°K
06km: 249.06°K @ 06.7% * 255.55°K = 17.12185°K
07km: 242.57°K @ 06.1% * 249.06°K = 15.19266°K
08km: 236.08°K @ 05.4% * 242.57°K = 13.09878°K
09km: 229.59°K @ 04.8% * 236.08°K = 11.33184°K
10km: 223.10°K @ 04.2% * 229.59°K = 09.64278°K
11km: 216.65°K @ 03.8% * 223.10°K = 08.47780°K
77.7% of atmospheric mass totals to 203.91011°K

From 11km to 20km is the tropopause, where it's roughly the same temperature and where most remaining mass is:
Pause: 216.65°K @ 18.1% * 216.65°K = 39.21365°K
18.1% of atmospheric mass adds 39.21365°K

This leaves about 4.26% of atmospheric mass unaccounted for; the stratosphere is above the troposphere (by some definitions it includes the relatively constant tropopause) and actually goes up in temperature with height, averaging about 250.15°K. It also makes up almost all of the remaining atmospheric mass.
4.2% of atmospheric mass adds 10.5063°K

The total then is 253.63006°K, though it should be 255°K by the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation; probably this discrepancy is the stratospheric portion (warmer 9-11km range in some latitudes) or small errors in rounding from these calculations... but it's pretty close.

Without the greenhouse effect, the entire atmosphere would all be about 255°K. Instead, it varies.

Most greenhouse gases exist in the troposphere; this causes less energy to reach higher altitudes up to the tropopause where it remains virtually the same temperature, then on to the stratosphere where another gas (ozone) raises temperature with height. This is almost the reverse - ozone intercepts inbound UV, while greenhouse gases intercept outbound infrared. Consequently, their effects diminish the further away from their initial point of contact - because less energy is getting through them.

So, how about it - see how the greenhouse effect works now?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: manuelram16

This boils down to money. Seems like it always does.

In one sense yes it does boil down to money.. Its politicians, petrochemical industry and uneducated fools that spout this nonsense..

Wake up we are consuming the planet..

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: manuelram16

This boils down to money. Seems like it always does.

In one sense yes it does boil down to money.. Its politicians, petrochemical industry and uneducated fools that spout this nonsense..

Wake up we are consuming the planet..

isn't that what all life forms do?

would you want the plants to stop consuming CO2?
Swallows to stop consuming mosquitos?

How about you stop consuming everything you consume, from air to water and food. Let's just see how long you last.

a reply to: Greven

Earth isn't a perfect blackbody object, it's a grey body with varying albedo.

a reply to: CurlySue
Oh, another. Persistent anyway.

Yeah, albedo is taken into account - see the fact that the calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law matches well with the calculations derived from measurements above.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda
www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: Greven

I don't think many people disregard the whole greenhouse theory. Unless they mean that a greenhouse technically operates differently.

Keep this in mind;
Water accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Humans influence the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere to a much greater degree than CO2.

Water content varies considerably in the atmosphere, yet never gives rise to catastrophic feedback effects.

If the only effect of CO2 is a very mild warming, with no feedback effects, then no one really cares.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: seasonal

Even the local weather stations lie daily about what the temperatures are on every app and local news.

This has ramped up dramatically of late, they will claim a certain temperature high and low and it is always higher in the summer than they claim, and colder than they say it is in winter.

This appears to be to control the masses at first glance.

The realization if they tell people it will snow, people will stay home from work , so tell them it will rain and be 5 Celsius, low of 2 and then everyday for days on end it is -5 with high of 2 and snows, the incredibly brainwashed herds believe its raining even while seeing snow.

I saw a weather anchor recently admit they fake the temperatures more and more on demand too affect peoples moods.

Fake news has moved completely into the weather even, and I watch people not even notice as they mindlessly live their lives.

Just about NOTHING LEFT on the planet that is not fake news, and I realize this is the case for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Um... you do know that unless its a past or current temp reading they are all guesses?

This...from the actual science treatise paper.

Although global warming from 1979 to 1998 is well supported in all surface and tropospheric temperature data sets, major questions exist regarding the validity of the 1900 to date surface temperature data as officially reported.

thsresearch.files.wordpress.com...

What the paper is stating is that global warming is real and factual, but that the methodology might be drawn into question where it pertains to surface temperature readings. Surface temperature readings are actually quite dynamic, and are not static, but in continual flux...they constantly change from warm to cool, based on ocean currents and winds and weather. I agree that using surface temperature readings is not a viable analysis to base claims of facticity with regard to continual warming. Surface temperatures are more easily mixed and stirred, whereas atmospheric temperatures provide more accurate datasets as the temps remain consistent within each atmospheric layer, consistent that is in returning results of continual warming. Even as natural mechanisms dilute the temps, it still presents consistent warming ongoing.

For surface temperature readings one would think the process to be quite a simple one? Set up a global network of sensors around the surface of the planet, take readings from each one, and derive a global mean temperature, and then place them alongside historical datasets to see the difference, extrapolating dynamic plus or minus data to gain an overall mean temperature graph. What one needs to do is determine a control dataset against which new modern data can be associated. That control set would be the first readings taken back in 1900.

So, starting at 1900, we should be able to draw a line through the axes from which could be extrapolated normal temperature fluxes, and over and under extremes of temperature ranges. If global warming is real, then a line could be drawn that shows a consistent rising curve in warming. This has been done for atmospheric readings, and they do show a continual temperature rise consistent with the addition of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2. The atmosphere is the greater, more accurate indicator of global warming, as the heat is trapped in the various atmospheric layers...and yes, solar radiation is a contributor to atmospheric warming, but that it can be extrapolated from the general readings.

Let us not forget that more CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the albedo (the reflectivity of our planets surface), so instead of reflecting some of the solar radiation back out into space, the heat is simply bounced off the atmosphere back onto the surface. To show a consistent rising of temperature at the surface, would require a greater resolving model, which I think should be quite hard to obtain, as surface temperature is not static, but highly dynamic and contingent upon many other variables, possibly too many to compute for accuracy?

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: seasonal

Why would he lie to get rich?

Isn't he already rich from when he created the internet?

He was a multi-millionaire who became multi-billionaire with the Global Warming hoax, and the "carbon credits" scam.

Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda

a reply to: jrod

Like always, you can never discuss the data being presented. You need to put down your "Global Warming made up bible"... We could also dismiss every link you, or Greven have ever given because it comes from "pro-global warming hoaxers".