climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend"

reply to post by jonnywhite

Who has the most to gain if we decide to accept humans are influencing the climate and action is necessary? And who is most likely to worry about it?

To the first question, I will assert that humans will likely gain quality of life improvements from a cleaner Earth. Have you looked at China lately? Who thinks that's going to just go on and on and be OK? It's common sense that these messes have to be moderated and ultimately corrected. What if the scientific consensus is wrong about AGW and we limit "burning stuff" too much? Hard for me to see the danger of that really, but I've learned to reject corporate values and corporate programming. Most people think my view is way out there.

Remember this one thing; Anything that threatens profits for mega corps will be fought hard and fought dirty.
Link to example

Even Christianity has been morphed into something that is profit friendly. Billy Graham sold out the believers. Follow the big money and what you will see is a world dominated by soulless profit machines and their automatons. The scariest thing to a corporation is a large group of informed Humans.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I have no doubt that global warming is nothing more than another tax to fleece the world ..... if you want to talk about global warming or climate change then consider ALL the factors not just the "human" related factors and then to claim that this is the primary cause without considering all of the evidence....... Then when you make a model predicting certain events would happen but they do not. the only answer is either the model is wrong or the data used in the model has been massaged to get a predetermined conclusion.

reply to post by alienreality


if that were true in the real world .... the idea of global warming would be a thought of the past .......

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

Who has the most to gain if we decide to accept humans are influencing the climate and action is necessary? And who is most likely to worry about it?

To the first question, I will assert that humans will likely gain quality of life improvements from a cleaner Earth. Have you looked at China lately? Who thinks that's going to just go on and on and be OK? It's common sense that these messes have to be moderated and ultimately corrected. What if the scientific consensus is wrong about AGW and we limit "burning stuff" too much? Hard for me to see the danger of that really, but I've learned to reject corporate values and corporate programming. Most people think my view is way out there.

Remember this one thing; Anything that threatens profits for mega corps will be fought hard and fought dirty.
Link to example

Even Christianity has been morphed into something that is profit friendly. Billy Graham sold out the believers. Follow the big money and what you will see is a world dominated by soulless profit machines and their automatons. The scariest thing to a corporation is a large group of informed Humans.

BINGO first one has to reject the corporate collective! I believe this is one of the things that we have to do as people to be free. It is no mistake that government and the corporate world creates barriers to freedom and independence. One reason why we have such a national debt is that the population has been trained and put into a box they can not see. They do not realize that most of their economic production in the form of wages keeps them dependent on that system ...... in particular real estate taxes or personal property taxes; building codes and requirements such as electric, "city" water and sewage; even our education is used to keep us tied into the corporate government grid.....

it is not a mistake that every major financial market is rigged ......

I applaud you for seeing and knowing what most deny ...... truth is surreal sometimes

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


So anyway since you don't want to discuss what I asked you... I'll post some info for you. But before we go there, let's start with the source of your article, Steve Goddard.

Goddard has managed to get himself banned (as himself, if 'himself' is even an actual person to begin with) from even climate skeptic sites such as WUWT. Why? Because his numbers are easily proven wrong and he's obnoxious to anyone that disagrees with him even other skeptics. He used to post quite often for WUWT.

Moreover he is copying a failed attack in New Zealand that recently resolved in court in favor of the scientists but ultimately at the taxpayers expense because the organization that initiated the case when ordered to pay for the scientists court costs, liquidated. I suppose he is relying on the fact that people don't fact check anything anymore (if ever did).

Anywho about 'homogenizing" temperature data... Lanzante et al 2003

ABSTRACT

Historical changes in instrumentation and recording practices have severely compromised the temporal homogeneity
of radiosonde data, a crucial issue for the determination of long-term trends. Methods developed to
deal with these homogeneity problems have been applied to a near–globally distributed network of 87 stations
using monthly temperature data at mandatory pressure levels, covering the period 1948–97. The homogenization
process begins with the identification of artificial discontinuities through visual examination of graphical and
textual materials, including temperature time series, transformations of the temperature data, and independent
indicators of climate variability, as well as ancillary information such as station history metadata. To ameliorate
each problem encountered, a modification was applied in the form of data adjustment or data deletion. A
companion paper (Part II) reports on various analyses, particularly trend related, based on the modified data
resulting from the method presented here.
Application of the procedures to the 87-station network revealed a number of systematic problems. The effects
of the 1957 global 3-h shift of standard observation times (from 0300/1500 to 0000/1200 UTC) are seen at
many stations, especially near the surface and in the stratosphere. Temperatures from Australian and former
Soviet stations have been plagued by numerous serious problems throughout their history. Some stations, especially
Soviet ones up until ;1970, show a tendency for episodic drops in temperature that produce spurious
downward trends. Stations from Africa and neighboring regions are found to be the most problematic; in some
cases even the character of the interannual variability is unreliable. It is also found that temporal variations in
observation time can lead to inhomogeneities as serious as the worst instrument-related problems.

NOAA FAQ (scroll down a tiny bit)

FAQs
Click on each frequently asked question to view its respective answer. Click again to hide.

What are Climate Normals?

In the strictest sense, a "normal" of a particular variable (e.g., temperature) is defined as the 30-year average. For example, the minimum temperature normal in January for a station in Chicago, Illinois, would be computed by taking the average of the 30 January values of monthly-averaged minimum temperatures from 1981 to 2010. Each of the 30 monthly values was in turn derived from averaging the daily observations of minimum temperature for the station. In practice, however, much more goes into NCDC's Climate Normals product than simple 30-year averages. Procedures are put in place to deal with missing and suspect data values. In addition, Climate Normals include quantities other than averages such as degree days, probabilities, standard deviations, etc. Climate Normals are a large suite of data products that provide users with many tools to understand typical climate conditions for thousands of locations across the United States.

Why does NOAA produce Climate Normals?

NOAA's computation of Climate Normals is in accordance with the recommendation of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), of which the United States is a member. While the WMO mandates each member nation to compute 30-year averages of meteorological quantities at least every 30 years (1931 - 1960, 1961 - 1990, 1991 - 2020, etc.), the WMO recommends a decadal update, in part to incorporate newer weather stations. Further, NOAA's NCDC has a responsibility to fulfill the mandate of Congress "... to establish and record the climatic conditions of the United States." This responsibility stems from a provision of the Organic Act of October 1, 1890, which established the Weather Bureau as a civilian agency (15 U.S.C. 311).

What are Climate Normals used for?

Meteorologists and climatologists regularly use Climate Normals for placing recent climate conditions into a historical context. NOAA's Climate Normals are commonly seen on local weather news segments for comparisons with the day's weather conditions. In addition to weather and climate comparisons, Climate Normals are utilized in seemingly countless applications across a variety of sectors. These include regulation of power companies, energy load forecasting, crop selection and planting times, construction planning, building design, and many others.

Were the 1981 - 2010 Climate Normals computed in the same way as previous versions?

No. Several changes and additions have been incorporated into the 1981-2010 Climate Normals. For a detailed overview of these changes and additions, please consult Arguez et al. (2012) for daily and monthly normals and Applequist et al. (2012) for hourly normals.

What qualifies or disqualifies a station to be included in Climate Normals products?

Climate Normals are computed for as many stations operated by the National Weather Service (NWS) as reasonably possible. Some stations do not have sufficient data over the 1981 - 2010 period to be included in the Climate Normals, and this is the primary reason a station may not be included. Climate Normals are computed for stations that are part of the NWS's Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Network. Some additional stations are included that have a Weather Bureau -- Army -- Navy (WBAN) station identification number including the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). Climate Normals are only computed for stations in the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) as well as U.S. territories, commonwealths, compact of free association nations, and one Canadian USCRN station.

fnpmitchreturns
Personally I do not believe that the so called global warming has been proven.

oh it has been proven. But like a good little conspiracy theorist, you will refuse to look at any evidence so you can entrench yourself further into denial. The same way bible thumpers refuse to read anything other than the bible an dictators have book burnings.

[I do not know how any scientist can look at only one source when calculating global climate change.

What singular source would that be?

[The affects of humans are driving our climate is questionable at best.

Then you haven't been looking very hard.

Ever hear of little house on the prairie? Only 1% of the prairie she grew up on remains today. During the past 40 years, close to 20 percent of the Amazon rain forest has been cut down—more than in all the previous 450 years since European colonization began.

There is a mine in Idaho that dwarfs meteor crater.

The Chinese built a dam so large that the shift in the mass amount of water adds a second to the Earth's rotation every year.

So yes, humans effect the planet.

There are other forces which cause climate change too.

Like what.

Here is more evidence that like everything else the US government is lying about the climate change data by "fixing" it. The bottom line in this text from the article sums it up... NOAA changed a 90 year cooling trend into a 90 warming trend........

And this is where deniers show that they have the scientific knowledge of a second grader, because like the bible thumpers, any additional knowledge would mean a slight understanding of the subject they are skeptic about. Just like people in the FDLS are not allowed to talk to outsiders and learn that they belong in a crazy cult.

Then you will find some crackpot blog written by a 13 y.o. and that is proof, while refuting ALL the actual data by thousands of scientists around the world.

And of course the first comment I come across in the goofy article is " “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.”

Which shows that the article is complete bunk and written for skeptics, by skeptics. Because you can't understand years of climate data from all over the world in just one evening in just a graph.

Anybody who believes this bunk needs to go back and study for the SATs.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


You keep talking about "other factors" but have yet to name them. That is like blaming everything on "da man".

nixie_nox


The Chinese built a dam so large that the shift in the mass amount of water adds a second to the Earth's rotation every year.

Could you please cite that source? I would like to read about it, since the Earth's Rotational Period has only slowed down 1.7 milliseconds (that is 0.0017 seconds) in the last 100 years.

I would also like to learn how physics as somehow changed, in that the Earth's rotational velocity was some how slowed down by someone building dam....should be interesting since gravitational forces with other celestial bodies is what normally slows a planet down. That and very large impact events, from very large asteroids (or other planets).

I mean the Earth masses 5.97219×10^24 kg and the equatorial velocity of our spin is 1,674.4 km/h (or 465.1 m/s), so this must be one hell of a dam....to some how actually slow the Earth down by 1 second each year (which is really strange since the mass of the dam would have come from the mass of the Earth....and sit's on the Earth too........).

Or did you mean it's making the Earth wobble more? That would be quite a feat too. Making something as massive as the Earth spinning that fast wobble more on it's axis.......I imagine this dam must extend hundreds of miles into LEO (how does the ISS avoid it?)

reply to post by eriktheawful

Due to the accumulation of water behind Three Gorges Dam the Earth's moment of inertia is changed the same way the moment of inertia of an ice skater is changed when they extend their arms in a spin. The dam results in a net increase in sea level as it were.

It has been calculated that the effect on Earth's rate of rotation would result in increasing the length of a day by 0.06 microseconds. It's a one shot change dependent upon the reservoir being filled to its planned level. Our planet gets a tiny, itsy bitsy bit, wider. Masswise.

An unmeasurable value which is overshadowed by similar but natural events. There is no ongoing rate of change.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Global Warming has NOT been proven. However, there is a "general consensus" that the planet is heating up.

However, in the 1970's, most of the data from the 1950's and 1960's that they say now show a "warming trend" showed a "cooling trend". There were quite a few documentaries in the late 1970's and early 1980's on the impending "Global Cooling" problem.

Now, mysteriously, all that same data seems to have been altered to show a "warming trend", and in an age when you can find the most obscure tv programming online, none of those documentaries can be found, anywhere.

reply to post by babybunnies

There were quite a few documentaries in the late 1970's and early 1980's on the impending "Global Cooling" problem.

Some documentaries and a lot of press but there wasn't much science to back it up. Climatologists knew better. As sampling of scientific work on the topic prior to 1980:
scholar.google.com...

Phage
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Due to the accumulation of water behind Three Gorges Dam the Earth's moment of inertia is changed the same way the moment of inertia of an ice skater is changed when they extend their arms in a spin. The dam results in a net increase in sea level as it were.

It has been calculated that the effect on Earth's rate of rotation would result in increasing the length of a day by 0.06 microseconds. It's a one shot change dependent upon the reservoir being filled to its planned level. Our planet gets a tiny, itsy bitsy bit, wider. Masswise.

An unmeasurable value which is overshadowed by similar but natural events. There is no ongoing rate of change.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 1/23/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Good information and I am sure almost nobody here on ATS recognized the Three Gorges Dam as being a inertia changer me included.

Regards, Iwinder

Iwinder
It has been calculated that the effect on Earth's rate of rotation would result in increasing the length of a day by 0.06 microseconds. It's a one shot change dependent upon the reservoir being filled to its planned level. Our planet gets a tiny, itsy bitsy bit, wider. Masswise.

Sooo....not to split any hairs, but is 0.06 microseconds more, or less than 1 whole second?


In all seriousness, when they are expressing 0.06 microseconds, are they meaning literally 6% of a microsecond second (1/1,000,000)? That means the Chinese are slowing us down 0.000,000,06 seconds a day, or am I way off base here? I'm no math guy by any means and was lost as to what the researchers were intending to get across.

Lipton

Iwinder
It has been calculated that the effect on Earth's rate of rotation would result in increasing the length of a day by 0.06 microseconds. It's a one shot change dependent upon the reservoir being filled to its planned level. Our planet gets a tiny, itsy bitsy bit, wider. Masswise.

Sooo....not to split any hairs, but is 0.06 microseconds more, or less than 1 whole second?

In all seriousness, when they are expressing 0.06 microseconds, are they meaning literally 6% of a microsecond second (1/1,000,000)? That means the Chinese are slowing us down 0.000,000,06 seconds a day, or am I way off base here? I'm no math guy by any means and was lost as to what the researchers were intending to get across.

But if man can change the inertia of the planet no matter how small the change is....over time it would add up if we had more Three Gorges projects and who is to say we won't?

But yeah I get your point and it is improbable but not impossible no?

Regards, Iwinder

gspat
here is the link...

Figured I should throw this in here too...

Are surface temperature records reliable?

GSPAT- I have a quick question, are you a believer or denier? Because your skepticalscience.com had some interesting wording:

Figure 9. Comparison of temperature trends, in degrees C per decade: I think this one graph was pretty interesting

Overall, the satellite measurements show lower trends than surface measurements. This is a bit of a puzzle, because climate models suggest that overall the lower troposphere should be warming about 1.2X faster than the surface (though over land there should be little difference, or the surface should be warming faster). Thus, there are at least three possibilities:

-The surface temperature trends show slightly too much warming.
-The satellite temperature trends show slightly too little warming.
-The prediction of climate models (about amplified warming in the lower troposphere) is incorrect, or there are complicating factors that are being missed.

It should be noted that in the past the discrepancy between surface and satellite temperature trends was much larger. Correcting various errors in the processing of the satellite data has brought them into much closer agreement with the surface data.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

reply to post by Lipton

That means the Chinese are slowing us down 0.000,000,06 seconds a day, or am I way off base here?

A bit.
The water collected behind the dam has made a day 0.00000006 seconds longer. It is not slowing us down that much each day. It is not a rate of change, it is an amount of change. Unlike CO2, it does not accumulate...it is.

Phage
reply to post by Lipton

 

That means the Chinese are slowing us down 0.000,000,06 seconds a day, or am I way off base here?

A bit.
The water collected behind the dam has made a day 0.00000006 seconds longer. It is not slowing us down that much each day. It is not a rate of change, it is an amount of change. Unlike CO2, it does not accumulate...it is.

edit on 1/23/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I also stand corrected, I assumed it was a rate of change so I guess I can sleep tonight knowing I know better.

But yet it amazes me that man can actually change the rate of time we spend here on Earth.

Slapped but learning.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Phage


Thank you for the clarification. I was assuming it was an exponential sort of deceleration, not daily (I suppose I should of worded my question better), but exponential none the less.

Theoretically then all construction that adds mass to the equatorial area, or displaces mass from the extreme pole areas of the planet should be decelerating the planet. For example, when ice packs expand in the winter the globe spins faster and when the ice melts we slow down?

Regardless, it is still impressive that the Chinese 'Terraforming' can impact the globe on a scale greater than some meteor strikes.

Phage
reply to post by Lipton

 

That means the Chinese are slowing us down 0.000,000,06 seconds a day, or am I way off base here?

A bit.
The water collected behind the dam has made a day 0.00000006 seconds longer. It is not slowing us down that much each day. It is not a rate of change, it is an amount of change. Unlike CO2, it does not accumulate...it is.

edit on 1/23/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the link in your other post Phage.

So we have a slow down of 0.06 microseconds, or 0.00000006 or 60 nanoseconds.......and is a single rate change.

Not 1 second per year as the sensational (and rather incorrect) statement made by the poster.

And I'm still not sure what that had to do with climate change.....

Except from what I read about the dam, it helped reduce a lot of CO2 emissions.......

But the down side is that it "flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.3 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides." according to the wiki article on it.

You know, water holds way more heat than air and so is a much better indicator of global warming. See

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

One shouldn't draw conclusions about global warming by air temperatures (and especially not weather) alone. It seems it IS warming but if or how much it is caused by activities of mankind is another story. After all, the climate has changed many, many times in the history of the earth.