Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[Sanjac]

Explain the multiverse theory. Hell, explain Steven Hawkins' Imaginary Time.

I don't understand what those questions have to do with falsification of scientific data.

[Sanjac]

If only it was that simple. What is the global average temperature anomaly right now according to raw data?

It's impossible to tell because there is not a single scientific data set, current or historical, that has not been intentionally falsified.

[Parihaka]

Actually, almost all of the skeptical scientists I'm familiar with are lukewarmers.

Same, especially over the microscopic time periods under consideration.

[Parihaka]

It's impossible to tell because there is not a single scientific data set, current or historical, that has not been intentionally falsified.

really. So the RSS and UAH sets as an example?

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't understand what those questions have to do with falsification of scientific data.

Then how do you describe imaginary data? IE Imaginary Time?

[gunnut]

It's impossible to tell because there is not a single scientific data set, current or historical, that has not been intentionally falsified.

That's the point. Science is about the pursuit of truth rather than the TRUTH.

If you want the truth, you can find it in religion.

Science is never 100%. There are always doubts. Scientists were 100% sure dinosaurs were cold blooded and clumsy reptiles. Now they are 100% sure dinosaurs were possibly, maybe, kinda warm blooded and agile. Those who doubted the cold blooded dinosaur theory were not persecuted. Ridiculed, maybe, but not persecuted. Now we see those who doubt man-made global warming climate change theory being persecuted instead of just being ridiculed. Science cannot afford to persecute anyone, not even the most outrageous doubters. We leave the persecution to religion.

[Wooglin]

yup..

[gunnut]

Planet’s heat record shattered — and 2016 likely to be even warmer

By Kurtis Alexander

5 hrs ago

Last year was far and away the hottest the planet has seen since at least 1880 when record-keeping began -- and 2016 is likely to be even warmer, federal scientists said Wednesday.

The historic heat, confirmed by both NASA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, continues an alarming trend that climatologists say is driving shifts in worldwide weather with places like California saddled with less snow, rising seas and potentially more wildfires.

The NOAA data show average global temperature shattered the previous high set in 2014 by 0.29 degrees, a seemingly small bump but significant considering that increases have continued over several decades and show little sign of ceasing.

The planet'€™s average surface temperature --€” 58.62 degrees last year -- is up about 1.8 degrees since the late 19th century, with most of that warming occurring in the past 35 years. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years have been observed since 2001.

Scientists cite greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation as the primary cause of the heat. Last year also got a bump from El Niño, a cyclical warming of the Pacific Ocean that can lead to balmier temperatures elsewhere.

The same drivers are in play this year.

"€œBecause it's starting with a very strong El Niño and will kind of build during the year, 2016 is expected to be an exceptionally warm year and perhaps a record,"€� said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

NASA and NOAA independently track temperatures at thousands of weather stations on land and water, from buoys in tropical seas to field equipment at the Earth'€™s poles, and each analyzes the differences over time.

Both of the agency'€™s data point to a roughly 0.25 degree rise in temperature in each of the past five decades.

In December, world leaders meeting in Paris reached a first-ever agreement to limit the planet's warming temperatures -- to 2.7 degrees, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial levels. The new data show just how difficult that goal is.

"We don'€™t have very far to go to reach 1.5," said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...0Xw?li=BBnbcA1

Scientists have spoken. Global warming is a fact. The debate is ovah!

We now know for certain, 100%, without a doubt, that humans are causing the planet to warm. The facts are beyond contestation.

Science does not allow uncertainties once a fact has been established. It can never be changed. Facts are immutable.

[Wooglin]

ASA and NOAA independently track temperatures at thousands of weather stations on land and water, from buoys in tropical seas to field equipment at the Earth'€™s poles, and each analyzes the differences over time.

Untrue. They use the same raw data and apply adjustments, which now includes the controversial temperature changing "pause buster" adjustments from the paper mentioned a few pages back. In fact, it cannot even be called measurements because it's not. It's temperature estimates. Meanwhile, the billion dollar satellites, which are in fact independent of each other, show 2015 was nowhere near the warmest year ever and still show a temperature peak in 1998.

Both of the agency'€™s data point to a roughly 0.25 degree rise in temperature in each of the past five decades.

Again, untrue. The "data" shows no such thing. The heavily adjusted data (estimates) show it.

[tantalus]

Report on American Physical Society workshop on climate change from 2014.

Transcript included for anyone willing to spend several hours reading it. Otherwise see link for short summary and other relevant articles following the workshop.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/1...limate-change/

Bios of participating scientists.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...eview-bios.pdf

[Monash]

Also of note. From Reuters who btw have no particular 'apple car' to push.

"Coastal flooding along the densely populated Eastern Seaboard of the United States has surged in recent years, a Reuters analysis has found.

During the past four decades, the number of days a year that tidal waters reached or exceeded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration flood thresholds more than tripled in many places, the analysis found. At flood threshold, water can begin to pool on streets. As it rises farther, it can close roads, damage property and overwhelm drainage systems.

Since 2001, water has reached flood levels an average of 20 days or more a year in Annapolis, Maryland; Wilmington, North Carolina; Washington, D.C.; Atlantic City, New Jersey; Sandy Hook, New Jersey; and Charleston, South Carolina. Before 1971, none of those locations averaged more than five days a year. Annapolis had the highest average number of days a year above flood thresholds since 2001, at 34.

The analysis was undertaken as part of a broader examination of rising sea levels Reuters plans to publish later this year.

As many Americans question the causes and even the reality of climate change, increased flooding is already posing a major challenge for local governments in much of the United States.

“Chronic flooding is a problem our coastal managers are dealing with every day,” said Mary Munson, executive director of the Coastal States Organization, a Washington nonprofit representing 35 states and territories. “Flooding causes the quality of life in these communities to decrease along with the property values, while the flood insurance rates go up.”

In Charleston, for example, a six-lane thoroughfare regularly becomes impassable when high tides block rainwater from emptying into the Atlantic Ocean, restricting access for half of the city to three hospitals, four schools and police headquarters. The city, which has more than 120,000 residents, has $200 million in flood-control projects underway.

Laura Cabiness, director of public service for Charleston, said street flooding has always been a problem in the low-lying city. But more recently, she said, “it’s deeper than usual and higher than usual, and the tide has remained higher longer.”

For its analysis, Reuters collected more than 25 million hourly tide-gauge readings from nearly 70 sites on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts and compared them to NOAA flood thresholds.

Reuters then narrowed the analysis to include only the 25 gauges with data spanning at least 50 years. Nineteen gauges were on the Eastern Seaboard, three on the West Coast, and three on the Gulf Coast. Comparing the years prior to 1971 to the years since 2001, the average number of days a year that readings exceeded flood thresholds had increased at all gauges except two: those in St. Petersburg, Florida, and Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

The trend roughly tracks the global rise in sea levels. The oceans have risen an average of 8 inches in the past century, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment. Levels have increased as much as twice that in areas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where the ground is sinking because of subsidence – a process whereby natural geological forces or the extraction of underground water, oil or gas cause the ground to sink.

The most dramatic increases in annual flood-level days occurred at 10 gauges from New York City to the Georgia-South Carolina border, a stretch of coast where subsidence accounts for as much as half the rise in sea level in some locations, according to U.S. Geological Survey studies.

Charles Chesnutt, a coastal engineer with the Institute for Water Resources, a policy and planning arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said the evidence “is very compelling and suggests we ought to be looking more seriously at the problems that are coming at us now.” The Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency on coastal flood control projects.

The Reuters findings are supported by a pair of soon-to-be-published studies from scientists at NOAA and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Reuters adapted its methodologies from those scientists and sought their input.

Old Dominion University researchers Tal Ezer and Larry Atkinson found in their study that the U.S. East Coast is “a hotspot of accelerated flooding,” and that flooding outside of storm events has increased in frequency and duration.

They found that changes in the Gulf Stream may be contributing to increased flooding from rising sea levels. The current off the Atlantic Coast pulls water away from the shore as it flows northeastward from Cape Hatteras. The researchers said that as the climate has warmed, the current has weakened, so it’s not pulling as much water away.

The NOAA study examines flooding at 45 tide stations around the United States. It is expected to be released this summer.

Flood thresholds are indicators, not confirmation, of flooding, but scientists say the tide gauge readings are a reliable measure of increased flooding.

When seas hit the flood threshold in Annapolis, the 306-year-old city that is home to the U.S. Naval Academy, forecasters expect water to start ponding in the historic city dock area. A few inches more, and water begins reaching backyards and the tops of storm drains in some areas.

During high tides on April 30 and May 1, and again on May 16, more than six inches of water swamped restaurants and shops in historic buildings along the city dock. Makeshift flood walls of boards and garbage cans blocked doorways. People removed their shoes and rolled up their pants to wade to work."

[Parihaka]

Weird. Since when has Reuters become a scientific research organisation?

[gunnut]

Also of note. From Reuters who btw have no particular 'apple car' to push.

Really? Let's take a look....

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...icism-coverage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuter...ange_reporting

Notice if one does not report "established climate change science" or expresses "doubt" or "skepticism," one is like a "flat earth society" member reporting on satellites.

I'm sure there's no pressure at all at Reuters to grovel to the climate change mafia.

Nope. No pressure at all. There is no such thing as persecution in science. It's absolutely, 100% neutral.

[Wooglin]

Weird. Since when has Reuters become a scientific research organisation?

Indeed.

Not that "science by headline" is anything new but this takes it to a whole new level. Just skip the inconvenient peer review and publish part and just release directly through the MSM. Considering how utterly broken the peer review system is, particularly in climate science, it makes me wonder just how shitty the study was that they couldn't get it published in an actual journal. All it takes is being on the "right" side usually.

[Sanjac]

Keeping in mind that a "peer review" is just a list of which guys pissed on it.