Scientists have more data to back their findings: The Earth is getting warmer

[Binary_Bark]

A group of international scientists led by a climate expert from USC has upgraded an open-source global database tracking the Earth’s temperatures since 1 A.D. that further confirms the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in recent geologic history.

The database by the PAGES 2k Consortium relies on proxy data such as tree rings, corals, glacier ice, marine sediment and other such data to track shifts in temperature.

Julien Emile-Geay, an associate professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, said he and other climate scientists with the international consortium have updated the organization’s original 2013 database to include more and higher-quality records from around the world. It now has nearly 692 records, up from the original 501.

The increasing amount of data, and the quality control applied by the 98 authors led to a more accurate database, Emile-Geay said.

Version 2 of the database from PAGES 2k was announced on July 11 in Scientific Data, a Nature journal. Emile-Geay was the corresponding author for the paper announcing the upgraded data.

PAGES, or Past Global Changes, was launched in 1991 as a project intended to improve scientific research and understanding of climate change by studying the past. In 2006, the PAGES 2k Network was started to compile and analyze global data for the past 2,000 years. The database involves contributions from nearly 100 scientists from 22 countries.

Scientists have found that the average global temperature on Earth has increase about 1.4 degrees Farenheit (0.8 Celsius) per year since 1880.

Adding records to the PAGES 2k database improves the database’s accuracy and narrows the margin of error for tracking global temperature changes, said Emile-Geay, an expert in climate modelling. The database is open source so that both scientists and citizens can study it.

Read More At: http://news.usc.edu/124797/scientis...k-their-findings-the-earth-is-getting-warmer/

 

[Arthur]

Meanwhile a peer-reviewed study just published has found that climate data pushed by certain scientists at NASA, NOAA, and the UK's Met Office - and widely cited to push the AGW agenda - substantially differs from the original raw data to such a significant extent that it cannot be trusted.

This faking and fudging of data is scandalous.

Two climate scientists and a statistician explain it all in this summary report, with pictures for those who like them:

Abridged Research Report: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding.

 

[The Trutherizer]

Meanwhile a peer-reviewed study just published has found that climate data pushed by certain scientists at NASA, NOAA, and the UK's Met Office - and widely cited to push the AGW agenda - substantially differs from the original raw data to such a significant extent that it cannot be trusted.

Both the Authors and the ones listed as "agreeing with the report" have unflattering histories with this whole thing. And I'm not sorry to say that I'm with the establishment on this.

Wallace is an 'economist' - And economist (not an ecologist or an meteorologist)
Aleo only has a honorary PhD in meteorology, is on retainer for the Heartland Institute (you can look that up for a better idea of the type of people we are dealing with here), and oh... he is a partner or a company registered in the Cayman Islands.
Idso has a degree and a doctorate in Geography, and Agronomy (study of food farming basically). Has also done work for the Heartland Institute (and really... do yourself a favor and look them up.

From where I'm standing the establishment has a lot more credibility in this matter.

 

[MrGray]

The problem with these datasets is that they are open to interpretation and you rarely see the unadulterated raw data. If you followed the whole "climate gate" saga you will see how much data was arbitrarily removed, adjusted en masse or simply generated out of thin air because it "didn't fit". I'm not arguing pro or con, just pointing out that there is a huge trust issue with these datasets following past revelations of how they can be manipulated.

 

[Arthur]

Both the Authors and the ones listed as "agreeing with the report" have unflattering histories with this whole thing. And I'm not sorry to say that I'm with the establishment on this.

Wallace is an 'economist' - And economist (not an ecologist or an meteorologist)
Aleo only has a honorary PhD in meteorology, is on retainer for the Heartland Institute (you can look that up for a better idea of the type of people we are dealing with here), and oh... he is a partner or a company registered in the Cayman Islands.
Idso has a degree and a doctorate in Geography, and Agronomy (study of food farming basically). Has also done work for the Heartland Institute (and really... do yourself a favor and look them up.

From where I'm standing the establishment has a lot more credibility in this matter.

OK. So your quibble is not with the data but with the people. Got it.

PS. A patent clerk might just have something significant to say about physics.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The problem with these datasets is that they are open to interpretation and you rarely see the unadulterated raw data. If you followed the whole "climate gate" saga you will see how much data was arbitrarily removed, adjusted en masse or simply generated out of thin air because it "didn't fit". I'm not arguing pro or con, just pointing out that there is a huge trust issue with these datasets following past revelations of how they can be manipulated.

As is data used for any kind of scientific inquiry. Non-experts looking at raw data makes zero sense.

There are good reasons why data needs to be adjusted to make it useful.

Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine -
A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to

"Climategate" was a typical denialist manufactroversy.

By 2011, nine separate investigations by the British government and multiple independent ethics committees had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated.

 

[RanzB]

Meanwhile a peer-reviewed study just published has found that climate data pushed by certain scientists at NASA, NOAA, and the UK's Met Office - and widely cited to push the AGW agenda - substantially differs from the original raw data to such a significant extent that it cannot be trusted..

They published this in a peer-reviewed journal?

Both the Authors and the ones listed as "agreeing with the report" have unflattering histories with this whole thing.

Yeah, if you told these people to go to a butcher for stock market tips or a software engineer for advice on how to treat cancer they'd look at you funny. But funnily enough an economist's word is good enough for their agenda.

 

[Arthur]

Whichever way you try to spin it, there's no getting away from the simple fact that the historical climate data used to build the case for AGW has been massaged and adjusted to the point where it bears little relation to the facts.

The Wallace et al paper referenced above quotes the relevant reports verbatim and then cites the actual data. It also transparently applies the interpretative methodologies to the actual data and convincingly shows that the only possible explanation for the variance is that the pro-AGW reports intentionally and cynically misrepresent the facts in order to paint a misleading and ultimately fraudulent picture.

And the more people try to deny that the greater their shame when the whole shibboleth of AGW finally comes tumbling down.

The emperor has no clothes. AGW is kaalgat.

 

[RanzB]

They published this in a peer-reviewed journal?

/waffle

Got it.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

They published this in a peer-reviewed journal?



Yeah, if you told these people to go to a butcher for stock market tips or a software engineer for advice on how to treat cancer they'd look at you funny. But funnily enough an economist's word is good enough for their agenda.

Don't be silly. Peer-reviewed journal/Random Wordpress site - it's all the same.

But hey, what do you know, these are same clowns that keep doing the same thing, again and again, despite constantly being debunked.

And no surprise, it's the exact same thing, again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming

The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

The Endangerment Finding concluded that the scientific research clearly shows that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare via climate change impacts, and therefore according to the US Supreme Court, the EPA must regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Conservatives who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo and oppose all climate policies have urged the Trump administration to go after the Endangerment Finding.

Both papers are rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion – that the science underpinning Endangerment Finding is somehow wrong – and work backwards trying to support it. In this paper, the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been validated time and time again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding.

Brandolini's Law is apt:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullschit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

 

[Lord Farquart]

2000 on the scale of earth's age is like 1.36e-7, or something to that effect. Plotting what we know about earth's rise in temperature over the last 2000 years on what we know about its cycles over the last millions of years is meaningless. We know that earth is still recovering from the last ice age and temperatures are steadily rising, and will fall again after the peak. Yes, we might be helping it along, but we will not stop the rise, even if we try. Live with it and move away from coastal cities.

(No citation. Comment based on what I have read over the last few years.)

 

[ISP cash cow]

PS. A patent clerk might just have something significant to say about physics.

that patent clerk you refer to, was actually a physicist already and just had a job as a patent clerk

 

[Arthur]

Glad you picked up the reference.

 

[konfab]

Most records in the PAGES 2k dataset are from the past 2,000 years. The scientists said records from this period provide a comprehensive, high-resolution view of a climate system that resembles those of today.

Just as a niggling point, 2000 years is barely even a scratch on what you can call "recent geologic history". If you went back 2000 years, you would find that the geology of just about all areas of the world (barring volcanos) is exactly the same.

“It comes down to this: We know the human burning of fossil fuel is very rapidly warming the planet, and we know that the longer we wait, the harsher the consequences and the more costly it is to prevent them,” Emile-Geay said. “What is the point of endlessly delaying action?”

I bet every academic who says this still gladly goes on their cushy international conferences that requires the very industry they are trying to destroy.