Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[SV THIRD DAY]

First the French Meteorologist and now this poor guy...
If you speak out against the MMGW Cultist....you risk your Job!

This isn't science folks...Science doesn't quash decent....it welcomes it.

How I was vaporised by the BBC's Green Gestapo, writes QUENTIN LETTS | Daily Mail Online

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Then our friends at noaa have been adjusting historical temperature data for quite some time now. In every case the adjustments have made the current temperatures warmer. Every time. Not once does an adjustment to the historical data (from thermometers) trend temperatures down. One would expenct that some adjustments would trend temperature downward.

What the adjustments did, was bring the adjusted temperature dataset more into alinement with AGW models.

All temperatures are adjusted.

Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.

Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe's favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.

"There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”."



Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data | Climate Etc.

Understanding Time of Observation Bias | Climate Etc.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.

Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you say so.

It's not me saying it...its the UnAltered Data.

I can statistically ADJUST any data set to support my point like the MMGW Cultists have...sorry...the gig is up.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Then our friends at noaa have been adjusting historical temperature data for quite some time now. In every case the adjustments have made the current temperatures warmer. Every time. Not once does an adjustment to the historical data (from thermometers) trend temperatures down. One would expenct that some adjustments would trend temperature downward.

What the adjustments did, was bring the adjusted temperature dataset more into alinement with AGW models.

So no, I have no issues with the temperature sensors in and of themselfs.

Bingo....
The truth is out there....
Are you strong enough to stand against the "Cult of Likability" and admit it?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

All temperatures are adjusted.

ha ha ha....sure....only in favor to support the religion.

Ta Da....rabbit go back in hat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's not me saying it...its the UnAltered Data.

Ah. Good.

Link please, so we can put this all to bed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's not me saying it...its the UnAltered Data.

I can statistically ADJUST any data set to support my point like the MMGW Cultists have...sorry...the gig is up.

Did you read the posts on Curry's blog?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo....
The truth is out there....
Are you strong enough to stand against the "Cult of Likability" and admit it?

I don't watch tv or listen to radio (other then marine). The media offers very bias sensational reporting, where everything is either right or wrong and the next storm, bombing, war is the biggest, baddest, most horrible thing.... until the next one shows up.

I'm an highly introverted, anti-social, reclusive loner. Consensus was never my strong point. Myself, Anyday the sun does not nova, is a good day.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

This isn't science folks...Science doesn't quash [dissent]....it welcomes it.

How I was vaporised by the BBC's Green Gestapo, writes QUENTIN LETTS | Daily Mail Online

Ah yes, the Daily Mail - the trusted authority... on anything to do with the Kardashians or breasts. (or both). So of course it's not science.

Neither was Mr Letts' programme in question; it was just a light piece about the Met office - how it was founded, what it currently does, prevailing attitudes towards it,etc.

The content which allegedly caused offense and got it taken off the downloads was an offhand joke by an english Tory MP - Peter Lilley:

‘They [the Met Office] come before the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change . . . and tell us they need even more money for even bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in future.’

(Any science in that? nope) ... it was clearly a throwaway joke, and having only this info to go by, and like you, not having heard the programme, I could agree that it's overreaction. Sounds like a programme I might have enjoyed. I will try to listen to some of his other programmes.

But you're still right that this isn't science.

I also agree that science welcomes dissent. Then science does its homework, and if the dissent is *****, science kicks it to the curb.

Dissent for dissent's sake, like ummm, all of your posts in this thread, isn't science, either.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

SNIP

I'm an highly introverted, anti-social, reclusive loner.

SNIP

Thought you were describing me first time I read this.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solar variability is about 0.1% - which explains about 10% of climate change.

That's just TSI.

So 10% of climate change from TSI.

How much more from the Svensmark magnetic field strength modulation of cosmic ray influence on cloud nucleation? Even a small change in global cloud cover can have a large effect on global warming/cooling.

How about change in UV which can be several hundred percent and has strong impacts on the atmosphere and ionosphere.

Pity we've wasted so much money into research on CO2 and so little on these other aspects of climate change.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Global temps?
Any science to show it wasn't regional?

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

Take a look at the hundreds of studies which find similar results all over the planet:

CO2 Science

When you've spent enough hours examining all that science, come back and tell us what you mean by "regional"

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you say so.

Is cartoonist John Cook's Skeptical Science site still all you can come up with?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale;1984520...
[B

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles.
[/B]..
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.

Both totally unsupported assertions. Neither paper provides ANY evidence in support of these assertions.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So says "Lord" Monckton. If you like that you will also like his cure for AIDS, MS, Graves Disease, etc..

So says the satellite record.