Two-Year Global Cooling Event?

[Mountain Man]

The evidence is what has created the concern over Global Warming.

Have you looked at the evidence MM - ALL of it, not just spoon fed, cherry picked data from anti-climate change sources?

Do you have the knowledge of mathematics and physics etc to be able to understand its implications?

Can you be objective in your evaluation of the data itself?

I might find it convincing if the "experts" didn't completely flip-flop the data fit their hypothesis instead of flipping their hypothesis to fit the data.

Here's what NASA published in 1999:

screenhunter_281-aug-15-20-10.jpg
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

"In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country."

Here is ostensibly the same data published just 4-years later:

screenhunter_282-aug-15-20-15.jpg

Here are a couple of animations showing just how how dramatic the "adjustments" were:

1998changesannotated.gif
giss1999-2013usadjustments.gif
Source

Then there's this:

Thirteen years of NASA data tampering - in six seconds
gissustampering1999-20132.gif
"The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures - from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930′s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer."
Source

So to answer your question, yes, I can objectively evaluate the data. Can you?

[Tassman]

Yes it is.

Where did you get this erroneous figure from, The Heartland Institute lobby group, as reported in Breitbart?

[Roy]

So to answer your question, yes, I can objectively evaluate the data. Can you?

You're not actually evaluating the data yourself, you're posting copies of some-one else's evaluation of the data.

The wayback machine has 18 copies of NASA's figure D data.

Evaluate them if you can.

[Roy]

* Well, except for the article about pyramids found under the ice. We can ignore that one.

You want us to ignore the hoax article you posted without reading it? No chance.

What about the article supposedly about Viking settlements found under the ice, that on inspection proved to be about Viking settlements found under sand drifts? Should we ignore that too?

[Sparko]

Since when does the number of scientists that believe something make it true?

[Cow Poke]

Since when does the number of scientists that believe something make it true?

That's how we know that gravity is an acceptable principle of physics!

[One Bad Pig]

You're not actually evaluating the data yourself, you're posting copies of some-one else's evaluation of the data.

The wayback machine has 18 copies of NASA's figure D data.

Evaluate them if you can.

Technically, he's evaluating someone else's compilation/presentation of the data. His evaluation is a rather scant one line, but it IS an evaluation.

[Sparko]

That's how we know that gravity is an acceptable principle of physics!

Wait, you mean Taz didn't have to hold down my furniture after all? So why has all of my furniture gotten stuck on the ceiling since he died then?

[Cow Poke]

Wait, you mean Taz didn't have to hold down my furniture after all? So why has all of my furniture gotten stuck on the ceiling since he died then?

Taz didn't die - he went to Heaven, and your furniture is just trying to get closer to him.

[Sparko]

Taz didn't die - he went to Heaven, and your furniture is just trying to get closer to him.

[oxmixmudd]

I might find it convincing if the "experts" didn't completely flip-flop the data fit their hypothesis instead of flipping their hypothesis to fit the data.

Here's what NASA published in 1999:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33550[/ATTACH]
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

"In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country."

Here is ostensibly the same data published just 4-years later:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33551[/ATTACH]

Here are a couple of animations showing just how how dramatic the "adjustments" were:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33552[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]33553[/ATTACH]
Source

Then there's this:

Thirteen years of NASA data tampering - in six seconds
[ATTACH=CONFIG]33558[/ATTACH]
"The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures - from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930′s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer."
Source

So to answer your question, yes, I can objectively evaluate the data. Can you?

This is just ignorance MM. Whether you agree with the reasons for the adjustments or not (and honestly, you are not qualified to assess their validity), the way you've displayed them has to be straight out of a YEC like discussion designed to inflame/support the preconcieved notions of those not capable of a more educated evaluation of what they represent.

First, the graphs have different time frames associated with them. So the real and continued upward trend in measured temperatures Post 1999 pushes the linear average line up regardless of whether you include the adjustments to the data that are being maligned. So the displays are misleading. They do not show the actual differences between the adjusted data and the non-adjusted data from 1999, they show both the adjustments AND the effect of the increasing temperature trend and thus imply ALL of that is related to the adjustments themselves.

Second, this is US temperature data. The US temperature data itself has an interesting anomaly not found in the global data, the southeastern US was effected by a shift in the Atlantic air currents which cooled the eastern US by as much as two degrees F. This shows up as the fairly pronounced dip from 1960 to 1990 or so where the effect of global warming returns the temperatures to the point they were at before that shift. This is a LOCAL phenomena unique to the US data sets. In more recent times the west coast has experienced significant warming overall. The bottom line is the odd dip and rise in the data from 1960 to and perhaps including 1999 which can be seen in both the adjusted and non-adjusted data sets.

southeast anomally.jpg

What CAN be seen absolutely clearly is that the ADJUSTED temperature trend of recent years matches almost perfectly the NON-Adjusted trend of the super high quality U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). In fact, what can ALSO be seen looking at that data is that the adjustments to the various biases found in the older USHCN data haven't quite been enough. Which makes sense since you can only adjust out biases that your research has been able to show with a very high confidence to be present.

http://variable-variability.blogspot...mperature.html

From the above article:

nClimDiv_USCRN-AnnualDeps.jpg

We could look at WHY the adjustments were made. Time of observation bias, siting shifts and so on. But unless you have even an ounce of capacity to be objective and to look at real data and not some biased set of cherry picked data it would be a serious waste of time.


Jim

[Starlight]

Also worth noting that "average US temperature" is a best-guess constructed estimate, not data per se.

A weather station can measure the temperature data at its location. So, we can average out its measurements over the course of a year to see the average temperature at that location for that year. No problem, that is fairly objective data.

But when we come to the subject of "average temperatures over the entire US"... well we don't have a weather station in every square mile of the US, so there are lots of locations in the US where we are not measuring the temperature. So how could we measure the average US temperature? Well we can't really measure it... we could approximate it by various means, and say "it's the average of all places where we happen to have weather stations". But what if we have lots of weather stations in one area and very few in others... we would be biasing the average toward the temperature at particular locations. And what happens over the years if we add more weather stations in different places... then we change our constructed 'average' for those years compared to other years because we are measuring the temperature in different places.

So we can try an add in various mathematical corrections to try and account for these sorts of things, to get our "best estimate of average US temperature". But the average US temperature is not something we directly measure - it is not data that we read directly off the thermometers. It is a somewhat subjective estimate, not an objective observation.

So any description of the calculated US average temperatures as "adjusted temperature data" is itself misleading and false. They are a construct calculated as a 'best estimate' from the actual temperature data observed at various locations, and the methods of calculation can vary and be improved upon over time.