7 ms·
Of course, no mention that this is based on the ground-station temperature record which is continually being "revised" so that the past is cooler and cooler. I
by jayess 12y ago
Of course, no mention that this is based on the ground-station temperature record which is continually being "revised" so that the past is cooler and cooler. I believe the raw station records have now been "revised" three times so that the original data is becoming meaningless. The satellite record does not show that 2014 was the warmest.
- JshWright 12y agoI'd be interested in seeing that data, if you happen to know where I could find it.
- jayess 12y agoI believe it's available here, but they don't make clear the revision details: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
- jayess 12y agoNo surprise I'm being downvoted, but here's the satellite temperature record: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015 http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015 [Edit: why would people downvote a link to the satellite temperature record?]
- graycat 12y agoWhy? Like Galileo, you are a heretic, fighting the orthodoxy, willing to contradict the true religion! Pope Laureate Guru will send out his acolytes to deliver his inquisition and excommunication! That's why!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- beat 12y agoSo here's a question... why is the older data being revised? The way it's phrased, and it may not have been your intent, is a deliberate conspiracy to make the changes look greater than they actually are. This touches on the inexplicable assumption driving much of the anti-warming crowd... the idea of a massive conspiracy of scientists worldwide to lie about climate change, fake data, and supress evidence to the contrary. Those making that assumption never really address why such a conspiracy exists.
- jayess 12y agoWell, you tell me. Why would the manually produced, subsequently "adjusted" thermometer data be trumpeted so that everyone is announcing that 2014 was the hottest ever, when the satellite record shows no such thing? What would you do if your livelihood depended on towing the company line? I've looked at the data local to me for the stations that are rural and have had no development. The raw data shows no warming. The adjusted data suddenly shows warming. My view is that it's just odd to emphasize the error-proned data over the more reliable data for dramatic effect. That's not science. And when governments and media just pick it up and run with it, it weirds me out.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- beat 12y agoDoes every climate scientist's livelihood depend on repeating a lie that they know to be a lie? Do you think that little of professional scientists? People don't go into hard science to get rich. They do it because they're obsessed with the truth. And career advancement, such as it is, happens not from "towing the company line", but rather from breakthroughs that directly challenge the conventional wisdom. That's how science works in social terms. So you have the rewards exactly backwards. If the facts are truly against climate change, then scientists who use the facts to question climate change would be rewarded for it, not punished!
- cholantesh 12y agoThe salaries afforded to lobbyists and spin doctors in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, on the other hand...
- programmarchy 12y agoPerpetual crisis is an effective way for government to expand their power. "Global" warming, being a global phenomenon, is particularly useful for expanding global government, which has been an obsession for oligarchs for thousands of years. Plato wrote about the "noble lie" in The Republic.