2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.

[Mountain Man]

Not clear. 'What do you mean adjusting the data?

Oh, so you don't bother keeping up with the news. Fair enough. In that case, you're apparently not aware that in 2014, NASA "adjusted" historical temperature data in order eliminate 1934 as the warmest year on record and turn a clear cooling trend over the past several decades into an artificial "warming" trend.

1998changesannotated.gif

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ming-data.html
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...nasa-and-noaa/

Of course this isn't their first time getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar since they pulled same stunt in 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ord-this-year/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

And we know from internal IPCC emails released in 2001 that they've been routinely manipulating data for decades in order to fan the flames of global warming hysteria.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-...-warming-hoax/

It's a bit like shooting an arrow, painting a target around it, and claiming you got a bullseye. It's not science, it's propaganda.

[Juvenal]

Oh, so you don't bother keeping up with the news.

That's Breitbart, Watts, and Goddard you're posting, a veritable three ring circus if ever there was one. Goddard, in particular, qualifies as the village idiot in the idiot village, an embarrassment so extreme Watts kicked him out of WUWT. Looks like you haven't been keeping up with the news:

This, combined with his inability to openly admit to and correct mistakes, is why I booted him from WUWT some years ago, after he refused to admit that his claim about CO2 freezing on the surface of Antarctica couldn’t be possible due to partial pressure of CO2.

"This" is a reference to Goddard's 2014 claims of jiggery-poke in the data.

It's not science, it's propaganda.

Trust a pig to know the smell of its own sty.

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile, I don't remember it ever being this green and lush into JULY in Texas.

And YES, I realize this is local and.... but it's saving me from watering and buying hay.

[Juvenal]

Meanwhile, I don't remember it ever being this green and lush into JULY in Texas.

And YES, I realize this is local and.... but it's saving me from watering and buying hay.

Aren't you in the middle of a move? Did you decide to keep the cows? Where is that thread, anyway?

[Cow Poke]

Aren't you in the middle of a move? Did you decide to keep the cows? Where is that thread, anyway?

Realtor comes Monday to assess the value of the property and help determine a selling price. Interestingly enough, we had been REALLY 'flying under the radar' as far as tax valuation was concerned, and just THIS YEAR (I'm shouting ) they have drastically increased the valuation on my property. Anyway, I have pretty much decided to sell of the bulk of the herd, keep some breeding stock, and start over in the promised land.

To a prospective buyer, however, the whole place looks so green and lush, and I haven't used any irrigation at all this year.

[Roy]

Oh, so you don't bother keeping up with the news. Fair enough. In that case, you're apparently not aware that in 2014, NASA "adjusted" historical temperature data in order eliminate 1934 as the warmest year on record and turn a clear cooling trend over the past several decades into an artificial "warming" trend.

According to this article, it wasn't in 2014 but 2007, it wasn't to eliminate 1934 as the warmest year on record - instead it reinstated 1934 as the warmest year on record - and it didn't create an artificial warming trend since it reduced recent measurements.

Apparently your source has grabbed an old temporary file containing erroneous data, is ignoring the fact that it has been superceded, and is pretending that this file is still being propagated and there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. For some reason you believe him.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

According to this article, it wasn't in 2014 but 2007, it wasn't to eliminate 1934 as the warmest year on record - instead it reinstated 1934 as the warmest year on record - and it didn't create an artificial warming trend since it reduced recent measurements.

Apparently your source has grabbed an old temporary file containing erroneous data, is ignoring the fact that it has been superceded, and is pretending that this file is still being propagated and there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. For some reason you believe him.

Roy

Excellent response!?!?!!?

[shunyadragon]

Oh, so you don't bother keeping up with the news. Fair enough. In that case, you're apparently not aware that in 2014, NASA "adjusted" historical temperature data in order eliminate 1934 as the warmest year on record and turn a clear cooling trend over the past several decades into an artificial "warming" trend.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7827[/ATTACH]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ming-data.html
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...nasa-and-noaa/

Of course this isn't their first time getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar since they pulled same stunt in 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ord-this-year/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

And we know from internal IPCC emails released in 2001 that they've been routinely manipulating data for decades in order to fan the flames of global warming hysteria.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-...-warming-hoax/

It's a bit like shooting an arrow, painting a target around it, and claiming you got a bullseye. It's not science, it's propaganda.

No it is not really good science, it is blue smoke and mirrors, and no it does not change the warming trend.

[TheLurch]

For people interested in why adjustments are made to the temperature record, there's a fairly technical explanation here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/un...perature-data/

Note: Judith Curry is generally considered to disagree with the current scientific consensus, if you're worried about this being some sort of propaganda.

For a non-technical explanation: if you move the station that measures the temperature, or change the time of day that you read the temperature, it throws the results off. Failing to account for this would cause serious problems with the temperature record.

[JonF]

For people interested in why adjustments are made to the temperature record, there's a fairly technical explanation here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/un...perature-data/

Note: Judith Curry is generally considered to disagree with the current scientific consensus, if you're worried about this being some sort of propaganda.

For a non-technical explanation: if you move the station that measures the temperature, or change the time of day that you read the temperature, it throws the results off. Failing to account for this would cause serious problems with the temperature record.

IIRC the problems would not be with the mainstream projections but would introduce inconsistencies in the history of the record for that station. (crudely put).

[shunyadragon]

For people interested in why adjustments are made to the temperature record, there's a fairly technical explanation here:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/un...perature-data/

Note: Judith Curry is generally considered to disagree with the current scientific consensus, if you're worried about this being some sort of propaganda.

For a non-technical explanation: if you move the station that measures the temperature, or change the time of day that you read the temperature, it throws the results off. Failing to account for this would cause serious problems with the temperature record.

It is worth while to post a reference from this source.

Source: http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

© Copyright Original Source

[Leonhard]

Meanwhile, I don't remember it ever being this green and lush into JULY in Texas.

And YES, I realize this is local and.... but it's saving me from watering and buying hay.

Yeah if we allow local weather reports to rule, I'll have to say global warming is real. Its warm and humid in Denmark.

[Leonhard]

Lao Tzu might have a temper I don't agree with, but I agree with his conclusions. Global Warming is happening, CO2 in the atmosphere is the driver. The fluctuations in solar activity can in no way explain the rapid rise in temperature since the fifties.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah if we allow local weather reports to rule, I'll have to say global warming is real. Its warm and humid in Denmark.

Nobody is using local weather reports to rule.

[JonathanL]

Nobody is using local weather reports to rule.

You're one of those people who are incapable of detecting humour and sarcasm in text unless it's spelled out for them, aren't you?