[Intrepid]

As reported in the Daily Caller:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

Here the usual suspects, being unable to refute the facts, will attack the source.

[Clownkicker]

More evidence that reactionary tools don't know shit about science:

Change in Hottest US Month Isn't a Conspiracy: Here's Why
By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer | July 02, 2014 05:27pm ET

July 2012 is no longer the hottest month ever recorded in the United States.

In March, the country's heat record returned to the previous winner: July 1936. The switch happened when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) updated the enormous data set it uses to track national, state and regional land temperatures.

But no one noticed the flip-flop until this week, when it was reported by bloggers who are skeptical of how the government determines its temperature data. The discovery has breathed new life into an old conspiracy theory: that NOAA is manipulating temperature records to enhance the dire impact of global warming.

"Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here," blogger Anthony Watts told Fox News last year.

But the accusations of a government agency secretly manipulating its records are simply untrue. Here's why. [Top Ten Conspiracy Theories]

Climate kerfuffle

First, the database update was no secret. NOAA previewed the changes years in advance by publishing descriptions of its methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The government agency also announced the new data set through public statements, and created a tool for users to compare and contrast temperatures from before and after the update. NOAA also makes its data and computer code available for anyone who wants to check the numbers. The new data set is called nClimDiv, and you can find more information about it on NOAA's National Climatic Data Center website.

Second, NOAA never changes the actual temperatures that were so carefully recorded over the decades. But it's no simple task to compare the present with the past. Methods of measuring temperature have changed markedly over the past century. The database tweaks are meant to make the comparisons between modern and obsolete technology more accurate.

In a June 29 blog post, Watts called this practice of adjusting temperatures "unsupportable" and said NOAA offered "no explanation to the public as to why" the July temperatures had changed.

But every scientific group that analyzes long-term climate trends does the same kind of tweaking. It's called standardizing, or homogenizing, the data. Independent climate analysis groups, such as the Berkeley Earth Project, have validated NOAA's approach.

For example, some weather stations once measured temperature in the morning, and others did so at sundown. Evening temperatures are warmer than in the morning, and directly comparing the two might artificially skew any long-term temperature trends. Instead, NOAA has standardized all its stations to morning reporting — a correction that led to widespread cooling of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (more than half a degree Celsius) in older records.
2012 temperature records
[Pin It] Temperature records in 2012.
Credit: Karl Tate, Live Science
View full size image

Other algorithms correct for changes in the number and location of weather stations. And even the thermometers have modernized, from glass to electric systems. The nClimDiv update also included thousands of digitized temperatures, painstakingly added from old paper records, which shifted some older temperature trends. Scientists with the National Climatic Data Center also sifted through old data to fix typos in the records and improve the monthly records for individual states. [The World's 10 Weirdest Weather Events]

Finally, the new data set also includes more high-elevation weather stations, so some regions are now cooler than they used to be, because mountainous regions are generally colder year-round.

Same argument, new data

The new data set is simply the latest in a long line of improvements to the methods NOAA uses to calculate national, state and regional temperature trends. The temperature records have shifted before (to the consternation of climate skeptics) and will likely shift again, as computers get faster and more records become available.

"This is a great example of why data sets are living things," said Derek Arndt, chief of NOAA's Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center. "They can continually be refined and improved, and we can catch things today that we couldn't catch before."

And although the community of global warming skeptics focuses on temperature, the data update also affected precipitation and humidity records — but no one seems to be complaining about that online.

"This is progress," Arndt said. "If this were maybe a little less visible data set, these kinds of improvements would be welcome advances."

Arndt noted that the majority of the record changes are tiny, except for the typos caught by hand. For the two hot Julys, the temperatures recorded in 1936 and 2012 are now so close that it's more accurate to consider the top spot a tie, he said.

"When you consider the uncertainty, they're effectively tied, and if they're not tied, it was a photo finish," Arndt told Live Science.

The old temperatures were 77.6 F (25.3 C) for July 2012 and 77.4 F (25.2 C) for July 1936.

The new, revised record pushes both temperatures down slightly, with July 1936 at 76.80 (24.89 C) and July 2012 just a hair lower at 76.77 F (24.87 C).

2012 also holds the title for the hottest year on record for the United States, and that conclusion hasn't changed with the new update, Arndt said.

The update also did not significantly change overall trends for the rise in national temperature since 1895, when the government first started its tracking. The new data set shows an increase of 1.33 F (0.74 C) per century, compared to 1.30 F (0.72 C) per century in the previous data set.

You clowns really need to read stuff from outside your handlers' control, like maybe SCIENTIFIC sources for a change?

Don't be a tool, stay in school.

[Intrepid]

TL;DR

[Intrepid]

NOAA fiddled the data to get the result they wanted.
Case closed.
There's no need to cut and paste the Encyclopedia Britannica in a futile effort to bolster a lie.

[Clownkicker]

"There's no need to cut and paste the Encyclopedia in a futile effort to bolster a lie."-FuckingHypocrite

You mean, the way you cut-and pasted the Encyclopedia Britannica to initiate a lie in the first place?

Sometime it just takes more facts to debunk a simpleton's lie.
If I hadn't, then you would be here saying how I never had any facts to refute your bullshit.
Then when I give you facts, you do your moron dance and spit and fume and say I gave you too much evidence as you still refuse to accept science over ignorant crap.

It's the reactionary tool way.

[johnforbes]

It is no revelation that Clownhoaxer is bitterly cold in opposing common sense.

[Intrepid]

Loser Lucky used to come in here and bleat about the fallacy of so called "peak oil" too before reality and facts pounded that nonsense up his Marxist ass.

[Intrepid]

If one knew nothing else about global warming except Hussein Obozo asserted to the graduates of the Coast Guard Academy that global warming is the leading security threat facing the United States, you would know its bullshit. Because ANYTHING that comes out of that cocksucker's cock sucker is either a lie or total bullshit.

[RealJustme]

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

You can't argue against factual math but libtards will try.

[Clownkicker]

Let's all review this thread so far:

Insipid-"Here's some propaganda for dimwitted suckers who don't understand what science is or does."

Me-"Here's an intelligent article with facts to explain what really happened and to stymie the dimwitted just for fun."

Insipid-stamping feet-"Waah, I don't like to hear facts. I refuse to read them. My mother couldn't get me to read either. "Encyclopedia" is a big word.That will prove how smart I am."

Me-"Well, idiot, sometimes you need to hear the truth anyway."

johnforbes-"Well, I've got nothin', but you already knew that. I'll just babble something meaningless in a futile attempt to sound clever."

Insipid-"Uh oh, facts. I can't refute facts so I'll just ignore them and divert with Obama fantasies and stupid comments about Lucky which have nothing to do with this topic. That way no one will notice how stupid I am."

RealTool-"Uh oh, facts. I'm going to ignore them, too, and do a spastic victory dance."


So that about wraps up everything the reactionaries have to offer on global warming.

[snakeoil]

http://time.com/3911076/shell-climate-c ... d=tcoshare" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Intrepid]

Loser Lucky conveniently ignores all the agenda driven climate "scientists" who have been revealed to have been falsifying data to insure continued funding. Then there is the ice age these same hysterics predicted should have killed us all ten years ago.
As with everything else, follow the money and you will find the truth.

[Intrepid]

A few years ago they found that the temperature on Mars had risen as well.
How many deadly SUVs on Mars Loser Lucky?

Ever since there has been a climate it has been changing.
You libtard idiots just want to destroy the economy and turn this country into your ideal of a third world shit hole to be administered with the tender mercies of an all powerful central government.
We all know how well that's worked out everywhere else, don't we?

Fuck off and die Loser Lucky. Or move to one of those glorious socialist success stories like Cuba or North Korea.
.

[Clownkicker]

Loser Insipid conveniently ignores that ALL data sets are meaningless until they are interpreted.


"A few years ago they found that the temperature on Mars had risen as well."-Dimwit

Last time I looked, Mars is not Earth. Loser Insipid must have been absent the day they taught that little fact in grade school.
Correlation is not causation, idiot.
It could be a coincidence that the temperatures are moving in a similar direction.
It could be that the temperature movements are linked but not equal in severity, which does nothing to 'debunk' the man-caused warming on Earth. In fact, it could tend to support our understanding of the problem on Earth once the correlation (if any) is interpreted scientifically.
It could be moving similarly for completely unrelated reasons.
SCIENCE, douche bag. You need to interpret the data for them to have any meaning at all.
But no, you see one go up and the other go up and ignorantly believe that proves they are moving together equally and for the same reasons.

Did anyone notice that Loser Insipid didn't address a single explanation in the article I posted?
He can't argue against the fact that first collecting data in the evening and, later, collecting data in the morning need to be reconciled somehow to be compared meaningfully.
He can't argue against the fact that today there are more high-elevation weather stations collecting cooler data that skew the global average downward compared with averages from the past data sets which didn't include the cooler data.
He can't argue against the fact that typos in data sets should be corrected.
In fact, he can't argue against anything at all that NOAA did (with full disclosure for years and with wide-spread agreement from other scientists) concerning their methods of improving the interpretation of the data sets.
When he's backed into a corner, his entire argument boils down to "Fuck off and die" :lol: :lol: :lol: (That's a three-emoticon prize-winner there, Insipid.)

Will Loser Insipid ever talk about the issue he raised or will he continue to spit and sputter and divert about Mars and moving to Cuba and how Lucky humiliated him so thoroughly years ago that he still can't let it go?
Will Loser Insipid ever learn that "climate has always been changing" and "climate is changing in a dramatic way it hasn't done in 400,000 years" are not the same statement?
The first is a bland, meaningless truism and the other should worry you as much as it worries climate scientists.

(With any luck, this scholarly thesis will be summarized by "Cliff Notes" very soon so Loser Insipid can access it at his challenged mental level which can't read the Encyclopedia because it has too many paragraphs and contains too much information for his angry little pea brain to digest.)

[RealJustme]

Last time I looked, Mars is not Earth. Loser Insipid must have been absent the day they taught that little fact in grade school.

Wow, the point went right over the clown's head. Let me make more simple for you clown. There are no people on Mars but yet Mars got warmer, it's climate changed, that's blows your theory that man causes climate changes out of the water.

[Clownkicker]

Wow, the point went right over RealTool's head.
Let me repeat it simply for you, dimwit.

Simply noting that the temperatures are rising on Mars doesn't necessarily have the least connection to temperatures rising on Earth.
Correlation is not causation.
Geez, science must just be just like voodoo to these clowns.


Don't be a tool, stay in school.

[RealJustme]

Simply noting that the temperatures are rising on Mars doesn't necessarily have the least connection to temperatures rising on Earth.
Correlation is not causation.

Who said it did? Try to keep up clown, you're looking pretty silly on this thread.

[Clownkicker]

"Simply noting that the temperatures are rising on Mars doesn't necessarily have the least connection to temperatures rising on Earth. "-Me
"Who said it did?"-RealTool

You did, dimwit.
"There are no people on Mars but yet Mars got warmer, it's climate changed, that's blows your theory that man causes climate changes out of the water."
You just claimed that temperature rise on Mars without people there to cause it proves that people didn't cause temperature rise on Earth.
That's a connection, dimwit. You claimed one is evidence for the other.

[RealJustme]

That's a connection, dimwit. You claimed one is evidence for the other.

No, it's an example of how your theory that man's causes climate change is wrong. Where do you come up with a connection?

[Clownkicker]

Did it ever occur to you that the causes of climate change on another planet might be just the teensiest bit different from the causes of a specific climate change on Earth?

As I said above, dimwit, Mars is not Earth.

Jesus H. Chrisis this clown is ignorant.

[Clownkicker]

Here's something that will blow your mind, RealTool.
The actual cause of rising temperatures on Earth is our shortage of pirates, and I have proof.

Our problem seems to have arisen as we reduced the prevalence of pirates on our oceans.
See this chart which clearly proves the current shortage of pirates is the cause of global temperature rise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aPir ... 8en%29.svg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The complete lack of pirates on Mars undoubtedly led to its atmosphere boiling away when temperatures rose there due to the shortage.
We had better deploy more pirates, and fast, or we could end up like Mars. :shock:

[RealJustme]

Jesus H. Chrisis this clown is ignorant.

:roll:

Uhhh, I'm the one that's ignorant? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clownkicker]

Yes, Tool, you're the one who's ignorant.

I noticed you couldn't find any flaws in my reasoning. :lol:

[johnforbes]

Clownlicker is from Mars.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^Apparently johnforbes couldn't find any flaws in RealTool's reasoning. :lol:

[RealJustme]

Apparently johnforbes couldn't find any flaws in RealTool's reasoning

Neither could you clown.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^See, johnny?

That's what RealTool actually thinks of your intelligence.

And you still carry water for him. :lol:

[elklindo69]

This shit they just dug out of the ground keeps me elected...

[Malcolm]

My, that's a big one....

[johnforbes]

I once knew this gal who was openly bituminous.