And you believe these numbers, given the editing? With the past being pushed down, is it impossible for the present to be pulled up? Why have temperatures not changed across a 40 ppm increase in CO2? Why, as CO2 increases, are the ice caps not removing themselves from their longstanding cycles? Why, if CO2 is the catalyst for warming (and therefore ice melting) have Alaskan glaciers been receding since Washington’s presidency? Why, in NASA’s “coldest year on “““record”””” were glaciers melting at one of the most rapid rates on record?
Yes - the numbers look reasonable to me. Again - be careful not to draw conclusions based on the presumption that if CO2 can cause warming then it is the only mechanism for that, or that local glacial melting necessarily implies global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Regarding one specific aspect of data tampering (not even the outright fabrications of almost 40% of ground “readings”, just tampering to real data), I recall a “correction” being made for the “urban heat index” (UHI). This is done to normalize, over time, the waste heat put off by human buildings. But when the correction was applied, it was done by lowering the temperature of the past.
This is the exact opposite of what should have happened. As urbanization expands, the temperature of the present should have been lowered at those locations to normalize the scope of the effect of buildings. Alternatively, the past could have been raised to create an equivalency with modern heat runoff. But they didn’t. Here’s an exposé on Paraguay specifically, but it’s done everywhere. Particularly in the US.
If you recall, we had a detailed discussion (offline) about the urban corrections back in February, which are fully detailed in Hansen's 2010 paper. The corrections were appropriately applied - the assertion of lowering, rather than raising, the historical data is simply incorrect.
he presumption that if CO2 can cause warming then it is the only mechanism for that, or that local glacial melting necessarily implies global warming.
What about a lack of warming as CO2 grows, which forces any claims of warming and the repercussions thereof to rest entirely on other sources?
If you recall
I don’t, but yesterday’s also a blur, so I’m sure we did talk before.
...the assertion of lowering, rather than raising, the historical data is simply incorrect.
Then how do you explain the lowering of historic data in those charts? Or the charts from Iceland? Australia? The global data graph in the posts prior? Am I wrong in thinking that if a graph is normalized to zero at a point and then normalized to zero at a different point that the relationship between the points does not change–only their placement on the Y-axis?
What about a lack of warming as CO2 grows, which forces any claims of warming and the repercussions thereof to rest entirely on other sources?
I don’t, but yesterday’s also a blur, so I’m sure we did talk before.
Then how do you explain the lowering of historic data in those charts? Or the charts from Iceland? Australia? The global data graph in the posts prior? Am I wrong in thinking that if a graph is normalized to zero at a point and then normalized to zero at a different point that the relationship between the points does not change–only their placement on the Y-axis?
We began reducing sulphate emissions with the passage of the Clean Air Act.
Back to warming as CO2 continues its increase. Feel like dumping more aerosols into the atmosphere to counter the heating? Scientists have proposed that.
he presumption that if CO2 can cause warming then it is the only mechanism for that, or that local glacial melting necessarily implies global warming.
What about a lack of warming as CO2 grows, which forces any claims of warming and the repercussions thereof to rest entirely on other sources?
If you recall
I don’t, but yesterday’s also a blur, so I’m sure we did talk before.
...the assertion of lowering, rather than raising, the historical data is simply incorrect.
Then how do you explain the lowering of historic data in those charts? Or the charts from Iceland? Australia? The global data graph in the posts prior? Am I wrong in thinking that if a graph is normalized to zero at a point and then normalized to zero at a different point that the relationship between the points does not change–only their placement on the Y-axis?
The paper that discusses this issue: Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2010), Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys., 48.
On the normalization question - that depends how it is done. In the simplest linear case that is correct. In all other cases it would change the relative position of points.
Comments
...the current excursion of nearly +1 ?C...
And you believe these numbers, given the editing? With the past being pushed down, is it impossible for the present to be pulled up? Why have temperatures not changed across a 40 ppm increase in CO2? Why, as CO2 increases, are the ice caps not removing themselves from their longstanding cycles? Why, if CO2 is the catalyst for warming (and therefore ice melting) have Alaskan glaciers been receding since Washington’s presidency? Why, in NASA’s “coldest year on “““record”””” were glaciers melting at one of the most rapid rates on record?
Yes - the numbers look reasonable to me. Again - be careful not to draw conclusions based on the presumption that if CO2 can cause warming then it is the only mechanism for that, or that local glacial melting necessarily implies global warming.
Quote:
This is the exact opposite of what should have happened. As urbanization expands, the temperature of the present should have been lowered at those locations to normalize the scope of the effect of buildings. Alternatively, the past could have been raised to create an equivalency with modern heat runoff. But they didn’t. Here’s an exposé on Paraguay specifically, but it’s done everywhere. Particularly in the US.
If you recall, we had a detailed discussion (offline) about the urban corrections back in February, which are fully detailed in Hansen's 2010 paper. The corrections were appropriately applied - the assertion of lowering, rather than raising, the historical data is simply incorrect.
he presumption that if CO2 can cause warming then it is the only mechanism for that, or that local glacial melting necessarily implies global warming.
What about a lack of warming as CO2 grows, which forces any claims of warming and the repercussions thereof to rest entirely on other sources?
I don’t, but yesterday’s also a blur, so I’m sure we did talk before.
Then how do you explain the lowering of historic data in those charts? Or the charts from Iceland? Australia? The global data graph in the posts prior? Am I wrong in thinking that if a graph is normalized to zero at a point and then normalized to zero at a different point that the relationship between the points does not change–only their placement on the Y-axis?
What about a lack of warming as CO2 grows, which forces any claims of warming and the repercussions thereof to rest entirely on other sources?
I don’t, but yesterday’s also a blur, so I’m sure we did talk before.
Then how do you explain the lowering of historic data in those charts? Or the charts from Iceland? Australia? The global data graph in the posts prior? Am I wrong in thinking that if a graph is normalized to zero at a point and then normalized to zero at a different point that the relationship between the points does not change–only their placement on the Y-axis?
Aerosols; primarily sulphates from coal burning.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm
We began reducing sulphate emissions with the passage of the Clean Air Act.
Back to warming as CO2 continues its increase. Feel like dumping more aerosols into the atmosphere to counter the heating? Scientists have proposed that.
he presumption that if CO2 can cause warming then it is the only mechanism for that, or that local glacial melting necessarily implies global warming.
What about a lack of warming as CO2 grows, which forces any claims of warming and the repercussions thereof to rest entirely on other sources?
I don’t, but yesterday’s also a blur, so I’m sure we did talk before.
Then how do you explain the lowering of historic data in those charts? Or the charts from Iceland? Australia? The global data graph in the posts prior? Am I wrong in thinking that if a graph is normalized to zero at a point and then normalized to zero at a different point that the relationship between the points does not change–only their placement on the Y-axis?
The paper that discusses this issue: Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2010), Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys., 48.
On the normalization question - that depends how it is done. In the simplest linear case that is correct. In all other cases it would change the relative position of points.