New Study: Temp Adjustments Account For 'Nearly All Warming'
 

This peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf

From the study's summary and conclusion:

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their
historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data . Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

The Cato Institute? No bias there. :rolleyes:

Cato does geophysics now?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...g-skeptic.html

"Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]"

Whell sure likes to believe nonsense.

Lookie! Its the time-honored but utterly head-in-the-sand practice of attacking the source of the info without looking that the info itself. In this case, one of the PhD's who co-authored the study is affiliated with Cato. The other co-authors are:

Dr. Craig Idso, B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University. Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, The Geological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.

Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Others who reviewed and agreed with the findings include:

Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Now, if you want to stick to your positions that these folks are somehow "biased", you'd also have to demonstrate that individuals who are on your side of the argument - like Al Gore :rolleyes" - are not biased. Good luck with that.

So, you found a handful of cranks while 90% of real climate scientists say we're warming the planet up. Big woo. :rolleyes:

Dr. Craig Idso: Heartland Institute
Dr. James P. Wallace III ... B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University: Does anyone see anything remotely qualifying him to study climate science?

Don't have time to look up all of these, but I'm pretty sure they are all associated with Big Coal, Big Oil, etc. See my link above, a list of all these orgs that post fraudulent "scientific" studies.

Big woo?

The lefty UCS link? UCS thinks that scientific studies that don't agree with their agenda is "fraudulent"? Sounds about right.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organi...ed-scientists/

Get back to us when it's been peer reviewed by a respectable science journal vs. the Cato Institute, a Koch bros. think tank funded by the petro industry. Clear enough?

Irony alert. You're essentially saying that one paper that hasn't yet been peer-reviewed renders all other studies and papers and the broad consensus of the scientific community fraudulent.

This from the left leaning wackos at NASA and the picture is from 2015.

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/news...N-768px-97.jpg

An iceberg floats in Disko Bay, near Ilulissat, Greenland, on July 24, 2015. The massive Greenland ice sheet is shedding about 300 gigatons of ice a year into the ocean, making it the single largest source of sea level rise from melting ice. Credit: NASA/Saskia Madlener

So it is very simple. Earth is warming, polar caps are melting and the sea is rising. How much more science does one need?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2328/w...ng-ice-sheets/

If you're going to try to put words in someone's mouth, try to do a better job of it.

This is simply one additional data point that suggests that the concept of man made global warming is built on a house of cards.

All lies. After all they fooled us about going to the moon and the holocaust.

So what? Sea levels also rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now. Causation doesn't equal correlation. Sea levels have also been rising for 100 years with no proof that man has caused it, so how does it follow that man can alter it?

In your effort to refute me, you confirmed exactly what I said.:rolleyes:

And the study quotes in the OP say nothing about man made global warming. What it claims is that the adjusted data overstates the degree of global temperature increase.

If warming causes sea levels to rise, wouldn't cooling result in a decrease?

Been there done that!

No new science here.....



''Cato Institute counterfeit U.S. climate change impacts assessment''
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...ts-assessment/

''Cato’s ‘Addendum’ Tries to Undo Federal Climate Report"
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/c...e-report-15143



Barney

Yep, FAKE NEWS! Not surprised whell would post such garbage as fact.

Uh, no. But if it makes you feel better to believe that, you go boy.

A real study was just released that disproves Whell's fantasy:

How much Earth will warm in response to future greenhouse gas emissions may be one of the most fundamental questions in climate science — but it’s also one of the most difficult to answer. And it’s growing more controversial: In recent years, some scientists have suggested that our climate models may actually be predicting too much future warming, and that climate change will be less severe than the projections suggest.

But new research is helping lay these suspicions to rest. A study, out Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, joins a growing body of literature that suggests the models are on track after all. And while that may be worrisome for the planet, it’s good news for the scientists working to understand its future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...imate-science/

That's hilarious. One of the authors of this study is Peter Huybers. He's not an anthropomorphic climate change guy.

"He has advanced the hypothesis that a 41,000 year period of change connected to the Earth's tilt on its axis is dominant during the past 800,000 years, and that every second or third of these cycles produce a major deglaciation event. This deglaciation also appears to trigger changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, perhaps in part coming from radically increased volcanic activity during deglaciation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Huybers

So, it matters not at all that you're driving your SUV or burning your coal fired furnace during the winter. Its all about the Earth's tilt on it's axis, and unless cow farts can correct the tilt, we're in for more scenes of polar bears drifting along the ocean on ice chunks.

Most balanced article I've read in a while. Thanks finn. The key thing for me is that these models are complicated and as we learn more, actual data combined with improved/new theories, their predictive ability will hopefully improve.

However for the last century or so there haven't been coal fired furnaces or SUV's. So your conclusion has nothing to do with your Wiki quote.

My "conclusion" was tongue in cheek.

By the way, as recently as 1945 - which I believe was within the last 100 years - 55% of US households were heated with coal. Also, the SUV has been around for a long time, like the GM Suburban, Jeep Wagoneer, Ford Bronco, etc. Gradually being supplanted by crossovers, but still part of the last century's auto production. So your comment above is puzzling. But I digress....

Don't for the life of me know how that however got there.:o

Should read "For the last ..."

A real world look at global warming.

A flood of problems
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/wor...ot-going-well/

Hey Folks,
I have been absent awhile. I hope I don't offend by joining the party so late.

A couple of facts. For every gallon of liquid gasoline burned, 3 gallons of liquid co2 is produced. It does not matter what car or what mode it is burned. This is simple chemistry.

Fact two, population is as big of a problem as global warming. Even if GW was a complete and total hoax, absolutely no validity to it, population is going to kill us. Current estimates put the earths population at 32 billion in 100 years. Obviously it can never reach this. Orr systems(food water heating etc) and everything we know will crash before this occurs.

So what is going to get us first, GW or overpopulation?

"So what is going to get us first, GW or overpopulation?"

I'm betting on zombies. That's why I'm thinking about getting a .45-70 Henry rifle and/or a 40mm grenade launcher.

Actually, I think Trump will get us killed first.:D

Gallows humor?

Actually, the smile was because I was poking at the right. Poor attempt at humor.

Christine Todd Whitman on the hijacking of EPA.
In one sentence and there is more.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/o...tionfront&_r=0

She sure reveals the lies behind whell's absurd "study", doesn't she? Yet clueless whell persists with his bullshit. Sigh.

Whell, the ship has already sailed. The Northwest Passage is open in the Arctic.

A dam glacier the size of Rhode Island has calved away from the Antartic's largest ice shelf.

And you want to hold up a shiny mirror.

A bit more on SUV's.

Is anybody here familiar with the Simpsons episode where Marge is getting an SUV? This car turns the loving and caring mother into an asshole instantly. One of the best Simpsons episodes, by the way.

After watching the episode I better understood why so many Americans need a 3 tons 350 hp car in order to get to the parking lot of the grocery store. (We have quite a lot of SUV's here as well but the percentage number in the States is breathtaking.)

China looks at plans to ban petrol and diesel cars

Guess the Cato climate analysis has not been translated into Mandarin yet.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41218243

Could ‘swimming pool’ nuclear reactors help clear China’s winter smog?

This is to slowly replace coal for heating, smaller nuclear local reactors rather than large scale ones that can take years to build.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/socie...-chinas-winter

We've given up scientific leadership on climate to anti-science industry hacks. We are going to be left in the dust by countries who've taken a sober assessment of the facts. A sad day for the USA, now a laughingstock on climate, among so many other things where we once led the world.

Let's hope voters wake up for midterm elections. Sadly, far too many get their "news" via FB friends or Fox.

Trump administration releases report finding 'no convincing alternative explanation' for climate change

Oops. Sorry Whell, once again you’ve proven to be a moron. Along with your idiot Dear Leader.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...limate-change/